Supplement to the Treatise on Marriage

In this Supplement we shall speak: 1° on the impediment of impotence; 2° on the conjugal debt; 3° on fetuses to be baptized.

Since in some Seminaries questions of this sort are explained to deacons alone, but in others in their own place to all candidates of theology, we have judged it right to discuss them briefly in a Supplement, which can be inserted in this volume or removed from it, at the discretion of the Rectors of Seminaries.

1. 1° Impotence is indeed a natural impediment of marriage; but it belongs to the Church, insofar as she is the interpreter of natural law, to define wherein that impediment consists. Now impotence, insofar as it is a canonical impediment of marriage, is not impotence for begetting or sterility, but impotence for coition, or for having copula of itself apt for the generation of offspring. Hence for valid marriage the power of begetting is not required, but it suffices that there be the power of coiting in such a way that the man can pour forth seed within the vagina of the woman², and the virile seed can be mixed with the female ovule.

¹ Decretals of Gregory IX, book IV, title XI, De frigidis et maleficiatis et de impotentia coeundi; the Canonists on this title; St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 58, a. 1-2; Sanchez, book VII, disp. 92-114; St. Alphonsus, book VI, n. 1095-1105; Lehmkuhl, n. 743-747; Bull. P., n. 864-891, ed. 3, 1900; Gasparri, De Matrimonio, n. 510-536; Eschbach, Disputationes Physiologico-Theologicae, Rome, 1901, disp. 11; id., De novo quodam sterilitatis conceptu, Rome, 1903; Antonelli, De conceptu impotentiae, Rome, 1900; id., Pro conceptu impotentiae, Rome, 1901; id., Medicina pastoralis, Ratisbon, 1905, vol. II, n. 42-293; Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, p. 162-169; American Ecclesiastical Review, Dec. 1902, p. 609; Jan. 1903, p. 57, etc.; Surbled, La Morale dans ses rapports avec la Medecine, 6th ed. 1900, vol. II, p. 113 sq.

² Indeed, according to some, such as Capellmann (p. 164), Ballerini P., n. 873, and others, impotence does not exist when the man can emit seed at the mouth of the vagina, so that the seed can be drawn into the vagina and uterus.

Indeed, marriage was established primarily for the procreation of offspring, but secondarily as a remedy for concupiscence; and therefore it is judged valid whenever this secondary end is obtained, even if the primary end by accident cannot be attained. Now whenever virile seed can be poured forth within the vagina of the woman, concupiscence is quieted, even if by accident conception cannot take place.

Hence the sterile contract validly, provided they can have copula with each other in the sense explained; but eunuchs who lack both testicles contract invalidly, because, even when they can penetrate the natural vessel of the woman, they cannot pour forth seed¹.

¹ Thus Sixtus V, Motu proprio Quod frequenter, June 27, 1587.

2. 2° Impotence is: (a) natural, when it arises from the very constitution of the body; accidental, when it comes from an extrinsic cause, e.g., from disease or wound; (b) antecedent, when it precedes marriage; subsequent, if it occurs after marriage already contracted; (c) perpetual, if it cannot be removed by licit human means, nor means gravely dangerous; temporary, if it can be healed by licit human means and not otherwise gravely dangerous; (d) absolute, which exists in relation to any person whatever; relative, which exists only with such a determined person, e.g., because of defect of proportion between the sexual organs.

3. 1° Principle: Antecedent and perpetual impotence invalidates marriage as regards all, if it is absolute; but if it is relative, with respect to that person with whom true copula is impossible.

(A) It is explained: (a) antecedent, for if it follows upon a marriage already validly contracted, it does not dissolve it.

(b) Perpetual, for if it can be removed, it does not render someone incapable of copula except for a time; but such a one can validly transfer the right over his own body, to be exercised as soon as the impotence has ceased. - Hence, if after marriage impotence of this sort is detected, much more probably there is an obligation of removing it, if this can be done without danger of life or of grave illness; for, since the right over one's own body has been handed over in order to generation, everything must be furnished which is morally possible lest the other party be defrauded of his or her right. But if the impediment cannot be removed without danger of life or of grave illness, there is no obligation of incurring such danger, because law does not oblige with so great an inconvenience¹.

¹ Today danger of this sort is often lacking, on account of the wondrous advances of surgical art.

4. (B) It is proved. The essence of the matrimonial contract consists in the handing over of the right over one's own body in order to acts of themselves apt for the generation of offspring, as is clear from the very definition of marriage; but one who labors under perpetual impotence for coition cannot give to another the right to copula, of which he is wholly incapable. - From this it follows that this impediment is of the law of nature and therefore indispensable; but if the impediment "is doubtful, whether by a doubt of law or a doubt of fact, marriage is not to be impeded" (Code, c. 1068, § 2).

5. 2° Corollaries. Therefore the following labor under impotence: (A) Men (a) lacking both testicles, because they cannot emit seed; (b) whose testicles are so crushed that they cannot perform their function; but if the testicles are hidden, it belongs to physicians in the particular case to discern whether they can produce seed or not; (c) whose virile member cannot be erected² (which defect the ancients called frigidity); or is so deformed that seed cannot be introduced into the vagina of the woman³; today this defect is easily remedied; (d) more probably those who have undergone vasectomy, namely by which the canal through which seed is carried to the virile member has been cut⁴; (e) those who always emit seed before they can penetrate the natural vessel; this defect, however, can for the most part be healed. - But phimosis, or excessive extension of the foreskin, which impedes the ejaculation of seed, can easily be corrected, and therefore is not an impediment.

² Cf. Eschbach, op. cit., p. 146-149; Antonelli, vol. II, n. 220 sq.

³ This especially occurs when the urethral canal is open in the middle of the penis, or in the lower or upper part; this defect they call epispadias and hypospadias; on which see Capellmann, p. 163-164.

⁴ But this operation is illicit, unless for saving the whole body (below, n. 8); therefore it does not seem licit for rendering evil men sterile, since there are other means for protecting society against the multiplication of the evil. - Vermeersch (De Castitate, n. 73, 84) thinks this operation does not certainly invalidate marriage.

(B) Women (a) lacking vulva or vagina, because they are wholly incapable of copula; (b) more probably having vulva or vagina so closed or narrow that it cannot sufficiently be opened without danger of death or of grave illness⁵. - But vaginismus, by force of which the woman, from a lighter contact of the man, suffers atrocious pain, is not an impediment, because by its nature it is not incurable.

⁵ In this case conception can indeed take place by accident, because seed poured forth at the lips of the vagina is sometimes drawn into the uterus; but, since copula does not take place in the due vessel, not a few say that impotence still subsists; but others, much more probably, think that it ceases by that very fact, as soon as it is proved that conception has taken place: for then the two spouses are truly one flesh, and the marriage can be called consummated. Cf. Eschbach, p. 152; Berardi, n. 5158; Ball. P., n. 1269-1270 (873-874 ed. 3). - Moreover if a woman, laboring under perpetual impotence, undergoes a dangerous operation by which she is rendered potent, she can either pass to other nuptials, or contract again with her prior husband; the latter solution is wholly to be urged.

6. 3° Disputed question. Here, however, it is asked whether a woman whose uterus and ovaries are absent or have been excised¹ must be held truly impotent. (A) The reason for doubting is that, on the one hand, this woman remains apt for copula, since the vagina is left intact; but on the other hand, copula does not seem of itself apt for generation, since ova, absolutely necessary for conception, are wholly lacking. Hence theologians have gone into various opinions: some say this woman is truly impotent, because ovaries in a woman are required for conception no less than testicles in a man². - But others hold that she is indeed sterile, but not impotent: for that which is required and suffices for the essence of marriage is the power of coiting, not of begetting; but this exists, provided the vagina remains intact; if conception becomes impossible, that is related by accident, insofar as ova are lacking, just as they are absent in old women, who indeed are sterile, but not for that reason impotent³.

¹ Today that operation which is called Porro is performed without great danger, from the physician who first successfully performed it.

² Antonelli vigorously defends this opinion, op. cit.

³ Thus Eschbach, op. cit., p. 197-204; Berardi, Casus Conscientiae, year 1892, p. 22 sq., where he illustrates the matter thus by comparison: "An old woman of eighty or ninety years is certainly unfit for generation; and nevertheless her marriage is valid. But what difference is there? An old woman is a vine whose roots are dried up; a woman without ovaries is a vine whose roots have been cut off. Both without fruit, both incapable of generation. Therefore if the marriage of the first is valid, the marriage of the second also ought to be valid."

7. (B) On this matter the Holy Office, in two particular cases, responded thus. On February 3, 1887, to the question: "Whether a woman, rendered sterile by defect of both ovaries having been excised, can and may be permitted to enter marriage or not?"; the response was: "The matter having been maturely and long considered, the marriage of the woman concerning whom in the case is not to be impeded." - But on July 30, 1890, to the question: "Whether woman N. N., to whom by surgical operation the two ovaries and uterus have been removed, can be admitted to contracting marriage?"; the response was: "Marriage is not to be impeded." - Although these decrees do not have the force of a general law, a prudent confessor will follow them in practice, whenever it is not certainly established concerning the perfect and absolute excision of the uterus and ovaries¹: for no one ought to be deprived of the natural right of marrying, unless it is canonically established that he or she is bound by some impediment. But if, by the judgment of physicians, the absolute excision were established, recourse would have to be had to the Sacred Congregations.

¹ According to Bucceroni (Institut. theol. mor., vol. II, n. 994), His Eminence Parrocchi, secretary of the Holy Office, declared that the aforesaid responses regard only cases in which, by the judgment of experts, it was not altogether established concerning the perfect and absolute excision or absence of the uterus and ovaries.

8. Notes for practice. Here, however, it is fitting to advert to two things: (A) Excision of the uterus and ovaries is not licit except from a very grave cause. (a) This certainly exists when otherwise the life of the woman cannot be preserved; for, according to St. Thomas², since some member is part of the whole body, it must be disposed of according as it is expedient for the whole; therefore if some member is corruptive of the whole body, it is licit to cut off the putrid member for the health of the whole body.

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 65, a. 1.

(b) According to Lehmkuhl (n. 856), this is also licit when danger of death, although not so immediate and certain, but nevertheless actually existing, is notably lessened by this operation; e.g., if, in a Caesarean operation, the danger becomes much less, granted that the uterus is extirpated; or if from an ulcerated uterus or one otherwise badly affected a grave danger of life is justly feared.

9. (c) Can the same thing be said when, from the very narrowness of the woman, without any disease, childbirth is foreseen to be very dangerous both for the woman herself and for the offspring? Most authors deny³, because it is not licit to cut off a member except for saving the whole body; but this would be done proximately in the case for preventing conception.

³ Lehmkuhl, n. 856; Capellmann, p. 27; Eschbach, p. 370-373.

(d) Finally it is certain that it is a very grave sin to permit this excision for this end only, that sterility be induced, and copula be able to be had without fear of offspring to be conceived.

10. (B) A woman who has undergone this operation cannot licitly contract marriage unless she makes the man whom she intends to marry more certain concerning this matter; for, since the primary end of marriage is the generation of offspring, she would deceive the spouse in a grave matter if, knowing very well that she is wholly unfit for generation, she manifested nothing to him concerning a matter of such moment.

11. 4° On the manner of acting as regards the impotent. (A) When it is certain that the impotence is antecedent and perpetual, regularly the spouses must be admonished that they separate as regards bed; otherwise they are exposed to danger of sinning against chastity. - It is said regularly, because often it is expedient to leave them in good faith, until the nullity of the marriage is declared by the ecclesiastical judge; for if they are imprudently admonished concerning the obligation of this separation, material sins which they previously committed now become formal. This is especially true when it is not expedient to declare the nullity of the marriage, whether because of scandal, or because of civil law, which does not admit such an impediment; then they can be permitted to live as brother and sister, provided such cohabitation is not an occasion of sinning¹.

¹ Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council, Dec. 15, 1877, apud Gasparri, n. 535.

But if no scandal or other grave inconvenience is feared, it is expedient that the matter be referred to the Bishop, so that by a twofold judicial sentence the nullity of the marriage may be pronounced²: then the party who does not labor under impotence can enter other nuptials; the other must remain unmarried, unless the impotence is only relative.

² The order to be followed is described in the Constitution Dei Miseratione of Benedict XIV, and in the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, Aug. 22, 1840; and also in the Instruction of the Holy Office for making the process concerning the impotence of the man, and the non-following consummation of marriage; these documents you will find apud Gasparri, vol. II, p. 538-555; but it is set forth at length apud Bassibey, Le Mariage devant les tribunaux ecclesiast., Paris, 1899; Smith, Marriage Process, Part III-IV; C. Sagnori, Exemplar actorum forensium quibus inquirendum est de matrimonii nullitate ex capite impotentiae, Rome, 1903; more briefly apud Peries, Code de Procedure canonique dans les Causes matrimoniales, Paris, 1894.

12. (B) If impotence is only doubtful, it is not licit to contract marriage unless, the matter having been canonically investigated, the doubt has been practically removed; but, with marriage already contracted, the spouses can attempt copula as long as hope remains of accomplishing it, even if by accident seed were poured forth outside the vessel; but when every hope has vanished, one must proceed as above. - By canonical law they can attempt copula in this way for three years; but today recourse is rather had to the Holy See for dispensation from a ratified and non-consummated marriage.

13. (C) Since it is often difficult to prove that impotence is antecedent and perpetual, the easier way for dissolving the bond is namely by seeking a dispensation concerning a ratified and non-consummated marriage. In order that this be granted, the non-consummation of the marriage must be proved; this is demonstrated according to the norm of the Bull Dei miseratione, issued by Benedict XIV, Nov. 29, 1741: (a) by the sworn testimony of the spouses; (b) by testimony of the seventh hand, i.e., by the testimony of seven witnesses both on the part of the man and on the part of the woman, who, under the faith of oath, depose that the spouses are worthy of trust, and moreover whether they have heard that the marriage was consummated or not; (c) by inspection of the bodies performed by physicians or surgeons; as regards the man, the physicians examine by decent means whether he is impotent or not; as regards the woman, midwives, first to be instructed by at least two physicians, investigate whether signs of virginity are present, especially whether the hymen is intact or not¹. All these things having been done, if it is morally certain that the marriage was not consummated, the Supreme Pontiff is accustomed to dispense in it.

¹ Cf. Instruction of the Holy Office, 1858; and Sept. 1890, apud Acta S. Sedis, XXVI, p. 37-41; Bassibey, op. cit., book III, n. 230-474; Smith, Part III-IV.

14. Hermaphrodites are called those who are judged to participate in both sexes, so that they can at will carry out the office of one or the other sex. Today it is certainly established that such do not exist, if we believe the judgment of experts.

² Cf. Eschbach, p. 53-54; Surbled, op. cit., p. 148-155.

But there are men who, besides the complete organs of one sex, have something from the organs of the other; others who are incompletely endowed with the organs of both sexes, so that they are impotent; and finally others concerning whose sex there is doubt, especially as long as they are not pubescent. These things being posited:

(a) Hermaphrodites in whom one sex prevails are to be adjudged to this sex, nor can they carry out the functions of the other: these can marry, since nothing proves them to be impotent.

(b) Those who in tender years are thought to be of the female sex, and afterward are proved to belong to the other sex, must assume male clothing; but before they are admitted to marriage, prudence demands that the judgment of physicians be sought concerning their potency.

(c) Finally those who remain neutral, so that neither sex prevails in them, are to be kept from entering marriage, as being impotent.

15. St. Paul sets forth the Christian doctrine on the conjugal debt thus²: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and likewise also the wife to the husband. The woman does not have power over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband does not have power over his own body, but the woman. Do not defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that you may be free for prayer; and return again to the same thing, lest Satan tempt you because of your incontinence." - Therefore we shall speak 1° on the liceity; 2° on the obligation of the conjugal debt.

¹ St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 49 and 64; Billuart, disp. IV, art. 2-4; Sanchez, book IX; Lacroix, n. 287-400; St. Alphonsus, n. 900-954; Lehmkuhl, n. 833-850; Ball. P., n. 385-416, ed. 3; Aertnys, n. 480-515; Genicot, n. 543-554; Noldin, De Sexto, n. 60-94; Capellmann, p. 136-161; Eschbach, p. 105-120.

² I Cor. VII, 3-5.

Division:

On the liceity of conjugal copula.

On licit and illicit things between spouses.

On conjugal onanism.

16. 1° On the liceity of conjugal copula by reason of the end. That marital copula is in itself an honorable, laudable, and therefore meritorious work has already been proved elsewhere. But here it is asked what end the spouses ought to intend in order that such an act be licit.

(a) It is certain that the conjugal act is licit when it is exercised for the ends on account of which marriage was instituted by God, namely for the generation of offspring, - as a remedy for concupiscence, - or for satisfying the consort legitimately asking; for then the pleasure which the spouses enjoy is ordered to a superior end intended by God Himself.

(b) It is likewise certain that the same act is licit whenever it is performed for any honest end whatever, e.g., for fostering conjugal love, for the health of the body; for an act good of itself, elicited for an honest end, cannot be evil; moreover any honest end ultimately tends toward the ends intended by God in the very institution of marriage.

17. (c) It is also certainly established that that act is illicit, at least venially, when it is so exercised for pleasure alone that all honest ends are positively excluded: for then there is present a perversion of the order of nature, while one wishes to enjoy venereal delight against the order intended by God, by positively excluding every end by which such an act can be rendered honorable. The sin is grave if means are employed for preventing generation, as is said below, n. 40; venial, if means of this sort are not employed.

(d) But if the conjugal act is indeed exercised for pleasure, yet in such a way that honest ends are not excluded, nor even virtually included, certainly mortal sin is not committed; indeed, according to some¹, there is no venial fault, because it is licit to seek delight good in itself, without its being positively referred to an honest end, provided this end is not excluded. Nevertheless, according to the common opinion², it is a venial sin to exercise the conjugal act for pleasure alone, not referring it virtually to some honest end; for since delight is a means to an end, and is annexed to the operation so that we may elicit the act more easily and better, it is a disorder to stop in delight as in an end, and in no way refer it to an honest end. - In this sense this ninth proposition was deservedly condemned by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679: "The conjugal work exercised for pleasure alone is entirely free from all fault and venial defect."³ - But in practice most spouses either virtually refer this act to an honest end, or think themselves guilty of no fault, provided they have copula rightly, and they can be left in good faith⁴.

¹ Thus especially Ball. P., n. 323-361, ed. 3, with the authors cited there.

² Cf. Vindiciae Alphons., p. 822-840.

³ Apud Denzinger, n. 1026; cf. Viva, Thes. damnat., in this place.

⁴ If someone wishes to instruct penitents concerning right intention and moderation in the conjugal debt, let him refer them to St. Francis de Sales, Introduction a la Vie devote, Part III, chap. 38-39.

(e) But if delight is intended secondarily and moderately together with another honest end, there is no sin, even venial, because delight is sought in an ordered way as a means to something good.

18. Corollaries: (a) Spouses sin gravely who exercise copula with an adulterous affection, i.e., thinking of another person as present and desiring to have copula with that person; for then they affectively commit adultery. But if they think of another person, and of that person's beauty, so that they may excite themselves for the conjugal act, without any depraved desire, they do not sin; nevertheless this is dangerous, since the will is easily carried toward the object thought of.

(b) The conjugal act is licit for the sterile, for whom there is no hope of begetting offspring; for, besides the generation of offspring, there are other honest ends, e.g., quieting of concupiscence, by which copula can be rendered honorable. - Nor do those sin even venially who use marriage as a remedy for concupiscence: for this is one of the ends on account of which marriage was instituted; moreover one who wishes to avoid incontinence, by that very fact intends to preserve conjugal chastity.

19. (c) Spouses who, because of poverty or another honest end, internally desire that offspring not be conceived from copula, do not sin, provided they use no illegitimate means for impeding generation.

(d) The conjugal act is licit even if it is foreseen that perhaps the woman is going to suffer abortion or give birth to dead offspring; for such an effect occurs by accident, and therefore can be permitted for an honest end, e.g., the quieting of concupiscence. But the offspring conceived, even if it be deprived of supernatural beatitude, can enjoy a certain natural happiness, as is explained in the Treatise on God the Creator, n. 205.

20. 2° On the liceity of the conjugal act by reason of circumstances. (A) Things to be noted beforehand. (a) That copula be done legitimately, three things are generally required and suffice: penetration of the due vessel, or vagina; effusion of seed within the vagina; and retention of the seed by the woman, so that it can be drawn into the uterus and, at the opportune time, fecundate one of the ova which descend from the ovaries. - The general principle is that those sin gravely who knowingly and willingly do not observe these three things substantially in exercising copula; for then they act against the primary end of marriage.

21. Nevertheless, since today it is established that conception can take place without penetration of the vagina - provided that virile seed is poured forth at the lips of the female organ - the man who, because of some defect, cannot accomplish copula more perfectly can perform it in this imperfect manner, even if by accident part of the seed is lost; for, provided there is hope of begetting offspring, spouses can attempt coitus in the better manner in which it can be done.

(b) When these three things have been substantially observed, disorder concerning the accidentals of copula does not exceed venial sin, provided nevertheless that from the disordered circumstances there does not follow grave scandal or some other spiritual or temporal harm. The reason is that, these things being observed, generation can take place and the primary end of marriage be obtained.

22. (B) On the position of copula. (a) The natural position is that the man be above and the woman beneath, since this mode is generally more apt for the infusion of seed. Nevertheless no position, even unnatural (sitting, standing¹, or with the woman above, etc.), of itself impedes generation, since seed can ascend into the uterus by attraction; hence change of the natural position does not exceed venial sin, provided the danger of pouring forth all the seed outside the vessel is excluded; even if a not small part of the seed is dispersed by accident, it is not mortal sin, because the smallest part of seed suffices for fecundation.

¹ According to experts of the medical art, to exercise copula sitting and especially standing can induce certain diseases. Cf. Vigouroux, Tr. de Medecine, vol. IV, p. 65. Hence on this head spouses are to be kept from a position of this sort.

(b) If a change of the natural position is made for a legitimate cause, e.g., because of danger of abortion during the time of pregnancy, or because of difficulty of coming together otherwise, there is no sin, even venial.

Hence in practice spouses must not be questioned concerning the position which they employ in exercising the conjugal act, since this is not necessary for the integrity of confession. If they inquire concerning it, let it be answered that the natural position is to be observed insofar as it can be done. If they accuse themselves of an unnatural position, let it be asked only whether they so act in order to impede generation.

23. (C) On place. (a) Modesty and charity demand that the use of marriage can take place only in a secret place, lest scandal be furnished to others. Therefore those sin gravely who have copula before others, especially younger persons, who can suffer scandal from it. Therefore parents must take care lest children sleeping in the same bedroom acquire knowledge of the marital matter.

(b) In a sacred place the use of marriage is prohibited under penalty of sacrilege, outside a case of necessity, which today will hardly ever occur.

24. (D) On time. (a) By today's discipline the conjugal act is strictly prohibited on no feast days. It is nevertheless more advisable to abstain from asking the debt on feast days, or days of fasting, and on the night preceding Holy Communion; nevertheless it is to be rendered to one legitimately asking, especially if in the other consort danger of incontinence could be feared. Hence those who have had copula in an honorable manner must not be kept from Communion.

(b) During the time of the ordinary menstrual flow, copula is not illicit of itself¹, since conception can then take place, and indeed more easily than at another time². But women, when they suffer the flow, naturally abhor every marital congress; moreover not without danger to health do they render the conjugal debt; the man himself can contract some disease (urethritis), if the blood which remains in the vagina is in some way vitiated³; hence it is more advisable at that time to abstain from copula. - During the time of an extraordinary flow, which endures for a longer time, copula is licit, provided the disease under which the woman labors and which causes the flow is not much aggravated by it: concerning this the physician will judge. But the man who cares for the health of his wife will abstain in these circumstances from frequent copula, so that that disease may more easily decrease and be cured.

¹ Under the Old Law it was prohibited, and indeed under penalty of death (Levit., XV, 19-20; XX, 18); perhaps because in warm regions that flow is wont to be more copious, and the part of the blood which remains in the organs is easily corrupted, and can induce very bad diseases in the man coiting.

² Hence the sterile can be admonished to have copula at the time of menstruation, if at other times they have not conceived.

³ Vigouroux, op. cit., p. 64. - It is in no way to be feared that, through copula had at that time, leprosy is contracted or monsters are generated: for this is a fable long since exploded.

25. (c) During the time of pregnancy, copula is not of itself illicit although generation can no longer take place, because there can be other ends for rendering it honorable. But by accident it can be illicit because of danger of abortion. Now that danger in healthy wives is not probable, if copula is had moderately; but unrestrained and often repeated copula can easily induce abortion, especially in the first⁴ and last times of pregnancy, and under this respect it is more or less illicit according to the gravity of the danger which it brings.

⁴ The state of beginning pregnancy is not easily recognized; nevertheless, if the spouses suspect pregnancy, moderation in copula must be recommended to them.

26. (d) During the time of puerperal purgation, which follows childbirth, copula is illicit not indeed because of itself, but because of the harm which threatens the wife¹, and therefore gravely or lightly, according as the harm brought is grave or not. Now, according to Capellmann (p. 154), generally during the first two weeks after childbirth grave harm can be brought, and light harm during the four following weeks; but account must also be taken of the condition of each person in particular. When the harm which is feared is light, a reasonable cause excuses from every sin.

¹ "Childbed brings many things with it which at any other time would have to be called morbid, although here they are physiological... The things which happen at this time in the organs of generation, the changes and injuries produced by pregnancy, already of themselves dispose to various diseases: to flows of blood, inflammations, aberrant positions of the uterus." (Capellmann, p. 154).

27. (e) During the time of lactation, copula is licit; for the danger of infecting the milk, and therefore of harming the offspring, concerning which older authors speak, does not exist in any way. If a new conception occurs (which rarely happens during the time of lactation), the milk indeed is lessened and soon ceases, but is not corrupted; and the offspring can be nourished by artificial lactation. Hence spouses are not bound to abstain from copula during the whole time of lactation.

28. (f) During the time of illness of either spouse, the use of marriage is illicit when grave danger of life or health can prudently be feared from it; but if the danger is neither proximate nor certain, a grave reason excuses: concerning this a physician is to be consulted.

1. When there is question of syphilitic or venereal disease, copula is gravely illicit, because of the morally certain danger of infecting the consort and the offspring²; this danger is so grave and dreadful that, although the older theologians speak more mildly concerning it, moderns with Capellmann (p. 159) deservedly say: "In this matter I judge that not even the danger of incontinence is an honesting cause."

² Concerning this Capellmann writes, p. 159: "Infants are syphilitic like the parents, at least for the most part, even when the syphilis of the parents lies hidden; abortion will be very frequent, or an immature infant is brought forth, or the very infants born mature perish most miserably in the first months of life. Hundreds of infants in this way, and often not even baptized, pay for the sins of the parents." How dreadful syphilis is, authors on medical matters describe, e.g., H. Vigouroux, Traite de Medecine Pratique, vol. IV, p. 202-304; Duclaux, L'Hygiene sociale, Paris, 1902, p. 224-266; Surbled, op. cit., p. 76-99; Stall, What a Young Man ought to know, ch. IV-VI.

2. In contagious diseases which can induce death in a short time, copula is not licit, since no one is master of his own life; in others, where such danger is only remote, e.g., in phthisis, it is licit for a grave cause.

3. In non-contagious diseases, copula is illicit if they are joined with fever and great pain, since these ordinarily are much aggravated through copula, and in certain cases danger of death is present. Almost the same must be said of chronic illnesses by which the organs of generation in women are affected; for although they are judged light at the beginning, through the use of copula they are often aggravated, so that afterward they are not easily healed. Hence, if the physician judges that one must abstain from copula for some time, it is fitting to obey his commands. - But if the diseases are lighter and not greatly debilitating, they do not easily become worse through copula; and therefore they do not prohibit the use of marriage.

29. (g) Copula, after much drinking of intoxicating liquors, is not licit, because offspring conceived in drunkenness is in danger lest it be born foolish or deaf-mute or liable to drunkenness. After a copious meal the use of marriage is not free from danger, and even today's physicians assert that "not rarely those passing from table to copula are struck by sudden death"; nevertheless the danger for healthy men is not proximate. In antiquity it was held that copula after a bath or bloodletting was dangerous and therefore illicit; but this is denied by moderns.

30. Besides copula itself there are other acts more or less connected with it, concerning whose liceity one must inquire. Now there are three principles from which the morality of these acts can be judged: (a) whatever is truly useful for the generation of offspring is absolutely licit; (b) whatever is done besides, but not against, generation does not exceed venial sin; (c) whatever works against conception is mortal. This must be explained a little more fully.

31. 1° Whatever is useful for the generation of offspring is absolutely licit. (A) Imperfect venereal acts, whether mutual or solitary, such as looks, touches, embraces, kisses, conversations, etc., are licit for spouses when they wish to accomplish copula, insofar as they conduce to performing the conjugal act more perfectly and easily. For when the end is licit, by that very fact the means naturally ordered to the end are licit; now all those acts are ordered to copula and are as it were its beginning. - Nevertheless spouses ought not to linger too long in acts of this sort, lest perhaps pollution follow before copula; for if they intended effusion of seed outside marital copula, they would sin gravely, since they would seek complete venereal delight against the order of nature. But if sometimes pollution follows besides intention while they occupy themselves with these previous acts, there is no sin.

32. (B) Hence, if the man has emitted seed before the woman emits seed¹ (which not rarely occurs, since many women are colder than men), she can by touches or another mode excite herself to emission; for although the seed of the wife is not necessary for generation, it completes the conjugal act and quiets concupiscence; and if women, after irritation of the organs which arises from copula, were held to restrain nature, they would often be exposed to danger of sinning gravely. Moreover seminal emission of this sort contributes something so that the virile seed may more easily and more certainly ascend into the uterus and be joined with the ovule, and therefore favors conception.

¹ Here there is not question of true seed, which in women is nothing but the ovum; but of the vulvo-vaginal secretion which is emitted with pleasure.

Some think that this is also licit for the woman when the man, an onanist, withdraws himself before emission²; for since, as we suppose, she legitimately began the conjugal act, she can complete the same: otherwise, the genital organs remain irritated. But it is more commonly taught that this is not licit³; for since the man has not emitted seed within the vagina, conception cannot take place, and emission on the part of the woman would be pollution.

² Capellmann, p. 143-144.

³ Lehmkuhl, n. 858; Noldin, n. 65.

33. 2° Whatever is done besides, but not against, the generation of offspring, does not exceed venial sin. For venereal delight is licit for spouses when it is referred to some honest end, as was said above (n. 16); but if it is taken on account of itself, it is only venially illicit, provided danger of pollution is absent and nothing is performed against the chief end of marriage; for the disorder which is found in such acts is accidental and light. Hence:

(A) Mutual imperfect acts (touches, kisses, embraces, etc.), even when they are not ordered to copula, nor rendered honorable by any honest end, but are exercised for pleasure alone, are only venially illicit¹, provided proximate danger of pollution is absent, even if sometimes pollution should follow by accident: for then it is neither foreseen nor willed. Indeed, acts of this sort are altogether licit if they are rendered honorable by some honest end, e.g., for fostering mutual love, etc.

¹ Nevertheless those acts which are very obscene are commonly excepted, e.g., to put the genitals into the mouth of the woman, to penetrate the posterior vessel, to lick the genitals, etc. But these acts are gravely illicit, not precisely because obscene, but because for the most part they induce grave danger of pollution; hence, if in fact in certain persons such a danger did not exist, sodomitical affection having been excluded, they would not be gravely sinful. Nevertheless spouses are to be deterred from these, lest, the sense of conjugal modesty having been lost, they fall into worse things.

(B) Solitary imperfect acts, e.g., base touches exercised on one's own body, are indeed venial sins because they are done for pleasure alone; but not mortal, if they are performed without proximate danger of pollution. But those who so indulge themselves at a time when marital copula cannot be had easily expose themselves to the danger of proceeding further; not so if in those circumstances in which legitimate copula can be exercised, since, danger occurring, they can ask the debt.

34. 3° Whatever is against the generation of offspring is gravely illicit, since it is opposed to the primary end intended by God in the institution of marriage. Hence:

(A) Voluntary pollution outside conjugal copula, and whatever can induce proximate danger of pollution, are no less illicit in the married than in the unmarried; indeed they are graver, because besides chastity, the right of the other consort is injured; for, as St. Paul says², "the woman does not have power over her own body, but the man; and likewise also the man does not have power over his own body, but the woman." Hence also copula with a strange person is adultery, including two mortal sins, one against chastity, the other against justice; and if adultery is had between two married persons, there are three sins, one against chastity and two against justice, because the rights of two are injured. This indeed is true even if the other spouse cedes from his or her right; for here there is question of the right which arises from the very unity of marriage, as it has been established by God under the New Law, and therefore it cannot be alienated by the private authority of the spouses.

² I Cor., VII, 5.

Even in the wife pollution is a grave sin; for although it is not the effusion of prolific seed, but only the secretion of some humor useful for generation, but not necessary, nevertheless it is joined with complete venereal delight, and therefore ultimately is referred to generation; therefore to induce it, without any order to conjugal copula, is a grave disorder, since it is done against the order intended by nature.

35. (B) Sodomitic copula had between spouses is also a grave sin, i.e., penetration of the posterior vessel with effusion of seed in the same; for it is a grave disorder against nature, since it renders conception impossible; and also against conjugal fidelity, which forbids spouses to use the body of the consort except in a mode apt for generation; it also induces very bad diseases in the woman¹.

¹ See these described apud Surbled, op. cit., vol. II, p. 58-63.

Nevertheless to begin copula in the posterior vessel with the intention of consummating it in the vagina; or to touch the posterior vessel with the genitals, provided the effusion of seed is forestalled, and every sodomitical affection is excluded, are probably not mortal sins: because the former act is done as a preparation for copula in the due vessel, but the latter is only a touch between spouses not prohibited under grave obligation. Nevertheless they are to be exhorted to abstain from these things, as being indecent, and lest perhaps they soon commit sodomy itself.

An act by which spouses come together after the manner of animals, yet so that copula takes place in the due vessel, must be distinguished from the sin of sodomy; in which case some say that they came together in a posterior manner or from behind. Then the confessor ought to ask whether generation was possible in this mode or not; if they answer that it was possible, it is inferred that the act was not sodomitical, but only disordered in position; and this sin indeed does not exceed venial sin.

36. Here it is asked whether a wife can cooperate with sodomitical copula. The Sacred Penitentiary, April 3, 1916², responded thus: "But if the husband should wish to commit with her the crime of the Sodomites, since this sodomitical coitus is an act against nature on the part of each spouse thus coiting, and it is gravely evil by the judgment of all Doctors: hence, for no cause at all, not even to avoid death, can the wife licitly comply with her immodest husband in this matter." Therefore the opinion of those who, before this decree, thought that the woman could suffer that concubitus in order to avoid death cannot be admitted; but the common doctrine must be held, namely that that cooperation, even passive, is a sin against nature.

² Apud Marc, Institutiones Morales, 16th ed., 1920, n. 2116.

(C) Onanistic copula is also gravely prohibited; it must be treated specially because of its frequency and depraved consequences.

37. Corollaries. (A) On artificial fecundation. This occurs when virile seed cannot naturally be retained in the female organs; then, by the aid of a syringe, it is introduced into the uterus itself, often with a happy outcome, i.e., with conception of offspring. This can be done especially in a twofold mode: (a) legitimate copula having first been had between spouses, the seed received in the vagina is drawn out by the aid of a syringe and injected into the uterus; (b) the man pours forth seed by solitary or onanistic pollution, which by syringe is introduced into the organs of the woman. Now the former mode is not illicit, provided fecundation cannot take place naturally, because it is employed only for aiding nature; but the latter is gravely illicit, because the means employed, namely directly voluntary pollution, is something evil in itself. Hence the Holy Office, March 24, 1897, when this doubt was proposed: "Whether artificial fecundation of a woman can be employed?", responded: "It is not licit."¹

¹ Apud Acta S. Sedis, XXIX, p. 704.

38. (B) On the internal sins of spouses. (a) It is a grave sin to wish for copula with a strange person, or to rejoice concerning copula had or to be had with that person: for this is nothing else than internally to consent to adultery.

(b) Venereal delight concerning copula had or to be had with one's own spouse, or the desire of it, the proximate danger of pollution nevertheless being excluded, is not a sin: because it is joy or desire concerning a licit thing. Hence, if one spouse is absent, a vivid thought of this sort is very dangerous, since on the one hand it induces danger of pollution, and on the other this danger cannot be averted through marital copula. In every case spouses are to be exhorted to abstain from these delights, since for the most part they are sought for pleasure alone.

(c) Delight or desire concerning acts between spouses venially illicit is a light sin; concerning things prohibited under grave obligation it is a grave sin; for delight and desire put on the morality of the object sought.

39. 1° Notion of onanism. Onanism properly so called, or conjugal onanism, is copula so performed that, although the effusion of human seed is present, the conception of offspring is rendered impossible. This is effected in various modes: (a) on the part of the man, if, copula having begun in the due vessel, he withdraws before emission and pours forth seed outside the vessel²; or covers the virile member with some thin covering (in French capotte anglaise, in English French coat, commonly condom) within which the emitted seed is retained; (b) on the part of the woman, when she uses a sponge, or an occlusive covering, by which the entrance of virile seed into the uterus is blocked; or an irrigator, by which seed received in the vagina is washed out; or chemical substances by which the seed is killed.

¹ Besides the authors already cited, cf. Nardi, De Onanismo, apud Appendices to Billuart, p. 549 sq.; Ami du Clerge, XX, 1898, p. 1073 sq., 1105 sq.; XXI, 1899, p. 328-331; Surbled, op. cit., I, p. 181-204.

² This was the crime of Onan (hence the word onanism), who, "going in to the wife of his brother, poured forth seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in the name of his brother" (Gen., XXXVIII, 9). Yet it must be noted that there Onan is especially reprehended because, against the law, he was unwilling to raise up children for his deceased brother. - Onanism is also called Malthusianism from Malthus, who in the work Essay on the Principles of Population, 1878, proposed means of impeding the excessive multiplication of men; yet he himself does not advocate illicit means, but rather voluntary continence as soon as a sufficient number of children has been procreated. - In the broad sense, among physicians, onanism also designates solitary pollution committed.

40. 2° The malice and depraved consequences of onanism. (A) Onanism voluntarily committed is a grave sin against nature. For copula of itself is ordered so that the human species can be propagated, and therefore spouses, while they legitimately occupy themselves with the matrimonial work, are helpers of God and cooperators in the procreation of a most noble creature, which is destined for divine adoption; but onanists, by using illegitimate means for preventing conception, frustrate nature; they abuse the organs given to them against the order intended by God; they become guilty of a certain sacrilege, while they change a most noble thing into a most base act of ignominy of passion, and convert the immaculate marriage bed into a brothel; moreover they show themselves cruel while, for the sake of a most shameful pleasure, they positively refuse to concur with God in procreating infants¹, who could have been citizens of the heavenly fatherland. - Therefore deservedly the Holy Office, May 21, 1851, condemned the following proposition²: "It is probable that that use of marriage (onanism) is not prohibited by natural law."

¹ This also the Pagans recognized; hence Martial the poet said concerning pollution (Epigram., book IX, 42): "Believe that nature herself says of things: That which you lose with your fingers, Ponticus, is a man!"

² Apud Ami du Clerge, XX, p. 1077; there you will find other responses of the Holy See on this matter.

41. (B) Ruinous consequences follow from onanism. (a) The spouses themselves often suffer many evils from it; for just as children are the common good and common bond by which spouses are joined more firmly and closely, so on the other hand those who lack offspring much more easily disagree and separate from one another. - Nor should it be said that one or another child suffices for attaining this end; for the more numerous the offspring, the firmer the union of the spouses; moreover not rarely are onanists punished by the premature death of one or another child whom they had begotten; hence often parents of an only child are pressed by anxieties and fears, lest perhaps this child be taken from the living and the name of the family be blotted out. - Besides, marital copula which, legitimately performed, is a remedy for concupiscence, does not quiet it but inflames it when it is performed onanistically; especially the woman is not completely delighted, nor does she rest unless the uterus is irrigated by virile seed tempering its heat. - Hence also physicians cry out with one voice that onanists are liable to many diseases³, which arise especially from excitation of the nerves; for the disturbance which intercourse causes is not quieted except by the natural effusion and reception of virile sperm.

³ Apud Eschbach, p. 573-574; cf. Surbled, op. cit., vol. I, book II, ch. 11-12.

42. (b) Offspring also not rarely suffers some detriment from the onanism of the parents, which the Council of Puy⁴ describes thus, 1868: "Very often it happens that that son, brought up too indulgently, either by God's command shortly ends his life, or, having become worse with age, deprived of the sweet love and protection of brothers and sisters, loving himself, not obeying his parents, proud, ungrateful, without affection, afflicts his family with disgrace and grief."

⁴ Chap. VI, n. 8, apud Collect. Lacens., vol. IV, p. 830.

43. (c) Nor does onanism harm society less. Indeed, the principal strength and protection of society is placed in the number and virile education of citizens; but onanism, by impeding generation, lessens the number of citizens, so that nations once flourishing gradually decline; it likewise stands in the way of the virile education of boys: for where there is an only son, he is generally brought up more indulgently, is devoted to pleasure rather than to duty, and often becomes wholly useless to the fatherland. - Nor must it be feared that men will multiply beyond measure; for today there are many regions still uncultivated, and new means are discovered by which fields already cultivated can bring forth more abundant fruits; hence trust is to be placed in Him who said: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth"¹; for He Himself will provide.

¹ Gen., I, 28.

44. 3° On the cooperation of the wife with onanistic copula. (A) If the cooperation is formal, so that the wife truly consents to it or rejoices in it, or a fortiori herself uses means for preventing conception, she certainly sins gravely. The same must be said if morally and efficaciously she cooperates with this crime, by complaining about numerous offspring, about the pains of childbirth, and at the same time foreseeing that by these complaints the man is induced to onanistic congress.

If the wife rejoices not in the sin itself, but in the pleasure which is experienced in copula of this sort before the man withdraws himself, or in the effects of this sin, e.g., in preservation from the troubles and labors of pregnancy or childbirth, by that very fact she is not guilty of mortal fault; for, strictly speaking, she can rejoice concerning these, provided she detests that sin and seriously tries to impede it. Nevertheless, since it is greatly to be feared lest complacency concerning the effects pass into complacency concerning the sin itself, it is to be advised to her that she quickly turn her mind away from that joy, and before God protest that she does not approve such abuse.

45. (B) If the cooperation is material, i.e., if the wife suffers or permits onanistic copula, without approving it in any way, a distinction must be made: (a) when onanism is performed by the withdrawal of the man alone, the cooperation of the woman is permitted from a grave cause, e.g., for avoiding quarrels, or the adultery of the husband, or her own incontinence; indeed the wife can ask the debt from an onanistic man, because of a grave reason, e.g., because it is grave for her to abstain so long from the use of marriage. For there is question of an act which in itself is licit, and which the man can furnish in a licit mode, if he wishes; and, even if it is foreseen that he will sin from his own malice, this can be permitted, provided there is sufficient reason. Hence in this case the wife can consent to the pleasure arising from this copula, since she herself completes the conjugal act in a legitimate mode.

Nevertheless by prayers, blandishments, admonitions, signs of displeasure, or other means she ought to induce the man to have copula in a legitimate mode; to this she is held, not indeed on each single occasion, but at an opportune time, both by the obligation of fraternal correction, and lest otherwise she seem to consent¹.

¹ "Nevertheless let the petitioner admonish a wife of this sort, that she not cease prudently to warn her husband that he desist from this turpitude." (Sacred Penitentiary, Nov. 5, 1816).

46. (b) But when onanism is performed condomistically, i.e., with the instrument commonly called a condom, within which the virile seed is retained, regularly not even the material cooperation of the wife is licit; for such congress is intrinsically evil already from the beginning, since it renders conception impossible: and to cooperate with it is a grave sin. Therefore the wife ought positively to resist with all her strength. For the man in this case is deservedly equated with an oppressor, and therefore the woman ought to oppose that resistance which a virgin opposes to an invader, as the Sacred Penitentiary declared, June 3, 1916². Nevertheless, just as a woman oppressed by a man is not bound to resist him even to death: then she does not permit, but only suffers the abuse of marriage, every affection toward evil delight having been excluded.

² Apud Marc, n. 2117.

This doctrine is confirmed by the response of the Holy Office, April 6, 1853: "1° Whether the imperfect use of marriage, whether it be done onanistically or condomistically, according as in the case, is licit? - Negatively; for it is intrinsically evil. 2° Whether a wife, knowing, in condomistic congress can passively offer herself? - Negatively; for she would give assistance to a thing intrinsically illicit."¹

¹ Apud Ami du Clerge, loc. cit., p. 1077.

47. 4° On certain acts approaching onanism. (A) If marital copula is interrupted because of some necessity, e.g., to avoid scandal which would be suffered by a person fortuitously arriving, there is no sin, even if seed is poured forth outside the vagina; for this is done besides intention, to avoid a greater moral evil, and therefore is no more culpable than involuntary pollution.

48. (B) If two spouses, exercising the conjugal act, by mutual consent break off copula before emission, without there being danger of pouring forth seed outside the vessel, strictly speaking they probably do not sin gravely, especially if there is a grave reason for acting thus, e.g., to avoid very dangerous childbirth, or lest offspring be excessively multiplied; for copula in this case is only an immodest touch which, between spouses, danger of pollution being excluded, is not gravely illicit. Nevertheless ordinarily spouses are to be kept from such a manner of acting; for often there is present danger of pouring forth seed outside the vessel; and moreover those who act in this way are commonly led by pleasure alone, and easily fall into onanism².

² You will find this question set forth more fully apud N. Rev. Theol., XXXII, 1900, p. 579-635; Collat. Brug., VI, 1901, p. 466-478.

Hence if the man began copula with the intention of emitting seed within the vessel, but, because of weariness or weakness or spasm or another reason of this sort, foresees that effusion of seed very probably will not follow even if copula is prolonged further, he can cease from copula, even if the wife has already emitted seed; for no one is held to the impossible.

49. (C) The practice of having copula only at those times at which conception rarely occurs differs altogether from onanism. Namely, according to the laws of physiology, generation of offspring happens much more easily three or four days before and fourteen days after the beginning of menstruation; while it occurs only rarely from the fifteenth day to the few days which precede the recurrence of the menses; therefore if copula is had only at this time, which is called the time of agenesis, conception is indeed possible, but not very probable. Moreover, such a manner of acting is not sinful, since spouses can contain themselves as long as they wish, and moreover they do nothing against the end of marriage at the time when they come together. Deservedly therefore the Sacred Penitentiary, June 16, 1889, responded¹: "Spouses using marriage in the aforesaid mode are not to be disturbed, and the confessor can insinuate the opinion concerning which there is question, cautiously nevertheless, to those spouses whom he has tried in vain to lead away in another way from the detestable crime of onanism."

¹ Apud Bucceroni, Enchirid., n. 913.

50. (D) Wives who, while they exercise the conjugal act, try to avoid emission, and because of this turn the mind to other things or procure sensible pain for themselves, objectively do not sin, because feminine distillation is not necessary for generation; but sometimes they sin subjectively, because they do it for the end of impeding conception; hence they are to be admonished that all efforts of this sort are altogether useless. - The same must be said of those who, immediately after copula, rise or urinate; for thus conception is not impeded, because the uterus soon draws the seed and, once it has been received, is immediately closed; but the very intention of expelling seed is a mortal sin.

51. (E) If, because of an organic defect, the wife cannot retain virile seed, nevertheless she licitly exercises copula, because she does nothing against the order of nature, and if the seed is cast out, this cannot be imputed to her. But every act by which the received seed is voluntarily expelled or killed is a grave sin. Hence women ought not to irrigate the vagina immediately, but only several hours after copula (according to certain experts of the medical art, ten or twelve)².

² Surbled, op. cit., vol. I, p. 202.

52. 5° On the manner of acting of confessors as regards onanists. (A) According to the Sacred Penitentiary, March 10, 1886³, since this unspeakable vice is widely prevalent, confessors ought to try to uproot it; for accomplishing this: (a) when there is founded suspicion that penitents who are wholly silent about onanism are addicted to this crime, the confessor is regularly held prudently and discreetly to question them, asking, e.g., whether they have sinned against the sanctity of marriage, - or whether there is anything which bites the conscience concerning the use of marriage. If they answer negatively, generally it is not expedient to proceed further. - Therefore those are not to be approved who abstain from every interrogation in this matter, lest they disturb some from good faith.

³ Apud Ami du Clerge, loc. cit., p. 1078-1079.

53. (b) When the confessor, whether from spontaneous confession or from prudent interrogation, knows that the penitent is an onanist, regularly he is held to admonish him concerning the gravity of this sin, just as concerning other mortal sins, and to rebuke him with paternal charity, and to impart absolution to him only then, when it is established from sufficient signs that the same person grieves concerning the past and has a purpose of no longer acting onanistically. - If he has fallen back several times into the same sin, without amendment, let the rules handed down above concerning recidivists, in the Treatise on Penance, be applied.

Nevertheless if the onanist is in good faith, and no good fruit seems able to be hoped for from admonition, the admonition can be omitted until he is better disposed; meanwhile the confessor should gradually prepare him to accept and follow the rules of Christian ethics concerning this matter.

54. (B) The Holy Office, March 30, 1889, wrote to a certain French Archbishop¹: "That you never cease with all care and zeal to extirpate, or certainly to restrain, a pestilence of this sort so calamitous, and to refute the pernicious and immodest doctrines which concerning this matter are circulated by many, especially by cultivators of the medical art. - Therefore in whatever better and more prudent manner you judge can be done, you will take care that the faithful be efficaciously taught that heavenly blessings certainly await the parents of more numerous offspring, and at the same time you will give effort that confessors know the norms handed down on this matter by approved Doctors and especially the decisions issued several times by the Holy See." - Wherefore, - (a) those about to marry are to be admonished that the primary office incumbent upon them is the procreation of children, and that the greatest crime of conjugal life is to impede the conception of offspring. (b) Spouses are to be persuaded that, as regards children to be procreated, they trust in God, who cares for all things, the birds of heaven, the lilies and the grass of the field, and a fortiori men: "Therefore do not be anxious, saying: What shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or with what shall we be clothed?... For your Father knows that you need all these things. Seek therefore first the kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added to you."² (c) Since the chief cause of onanism is unrestrained libido, to the married and unmarried are to be recommended those natural and supernatural means by which pleasure can be tamed, such as hard and diligent labor; moderate chastisements of the body; temperance in food and drink; avoidance of occasions which excite libido; vigilance of mind and heart, by at once driving out slippery thoughts and depraved desires; assiduous prayer; frequent thought of the last things: for brief is whatever delights here, eternal what torments!

¹ Apud Ami du Clerge, XX, 1898, p. 1079.

² Matt., VI, 31-33.

55. 1° Spouses from justice are held of themselves under grave obligation to render the debt mutually to one another, whenever one party asks seriously and legitimately, whether expressly or tacitly.

It is proved: For by force of the matrimonial contract a strict right over the body of the other is acquired in order to acts of themselves apt for generation; but to the strict right of one there responds a strict obligation on the part of the other; and since there is question of a grave matter, namely of the generation of offspring, of avoiding incontinence, and of preserving peace between spouses, such an obligation is of itself grave. - Hence deservedly St. Paul says¹: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and likewise also the wife to the husband."

¹ I Cor., VII, 3.

56. It is explained: (A) This obligation is grave of itself, but by accident can be light from various circumstances; if the debt is denied only rarely, e.g., if to one asking often it is denied only once in a month; if it is deferred for a brief time; if the other asks only weakly, not insistently, and easily acquiesces to the one denying; provided nevertheless that in these circumstances danger of pollution is absent. - But in practice wives who make themselves difficult and morose in rendering the debt sin mortally, since thus they expose their husbands to danger of incontinence and adultery. Men also sin gravely who, whether for avoiding offspring or from malevolence, rarely know their wives, even if these do not ask expressly, but only interpretatively. Indeed, even once to deny the debt to one asking seriously and legitimately, when this brings danger of incontinence or grave trouble to the other, is not free from mortal fault.

57. Hence also it is not licit for spouses to render themselves incapable of copula by excessive labors, vigils, austerities, or a fortiori by pollutions, adulteries, or other illicit acts. - Nor is it licit for one, without necessity or the consent of the other, to be absent for a notable time: for this is equivalent to denial of the debt.

Certain women, already burdened with offspring or of more advanced age, sometimes think that by denying the debt they do not sin gravely; if this is not done often, and the man is not exposed to danger of sinning, nor any fruit is hoped for from admonition, they can be left in good faith; but they must be admonished not by acting thus to expose the man to danger of incontinence.

Spouses are excused from rendering the debt within the first two months from the celebrated nuptials, certainly indeed if they are thinking of entering religion; probably even if they do not have this in mind. But that privilege ceases, even within the two months, as soon as the marriage has been consummated. Besides, most do not use that privilege because they are ignorant of it.

58. (B) In order that someone be held to render the debt, the other must ask legitimately; for if this one has lost the right of exacting the debt, the obligation of rendering ceases. Now either spouse loses the right of exacting:

(a) Through formal, certain, consummated, not permitted, and not condoned adultery; for then the innocent spouse has the right of departing from the adulterer.

(b) Through affinity or some other impediment contracted after the nuptials by force of which it is prohibited to ask the debt; for then the other party can indeed, but strictly is not held to, render the debt¹, although often it is better to furnish it, for avoiding incontinence. - Nevertheless a woman oppressed by a blood-relative of the husband does not lose the right of asking, because a penalty is not incurred without fault. - Moreover, when the lost right has been restored by dispensation, the obligation of rendering the debt revives on the other side, unless it was lost through adultery: for then it is not restored unless the condonation of the innocent party accedes.

¹ Yet some think that she is held, because the other party, although acting illicitly, preserves his right in relation to the consort: but in practice, since the obligation is doubtful, it cannot be urged.

(c) Through the loss of reason; namely if one of the spouses becomes insane or drunk, the other is not held to render the debt; for one who lacks the use of reason does not ask in a reasonable and human mode. Nevertheless it is licit in this case to render the debt, especially if the insane or drunk person is in danger of incontinence; indeed, according to some, this is truly prescribed, if the danger is proximate; but since this obligation is not established, it must not be urged. - But when the insane or drunk person has recovered the use of reason, he or she can now enjoy his or her right.

59. (d) By asking the debt in an illicit mode, e.g., in an onanistic or sodomitical mode, or in such circumstances in which scandal can be furnished; for no one can exact an illicit act. - Nevertheless if the act is illicit not in itself, or in the mode in which it is performed, but by reason of the one asking, because, e.g., he or she is bound by a vow of chastity, or acts for pleasure alone, many with Sanchez say more probably that the other spouse can and ought to render the debt; for although the one asking acts illicitly, he or she has not lost the right over the body of the other. Hence in practice it is more advisable in this case to render the debt.

60. (e) By asking the debt in an immoderate mode, so that from it the other spouse prudently fears grave harm to self or to offspring. Here there is question of harm or inconvenience which is not annexed to the matrimonial condition. Therefore the ordinary inconveniences of pregnancy or childbirth do not excuse from rendering the debt, nor some debilitation of health, nor moderate pains even long-lasting, such as headaches, etc., because all these are annexed to marriage itself.

But grave danger of life or health excuses, which from the judgment of a prudent physician is to be feared; thus in the case of contagious disease or not, when grave harm threatens, as was said above, n. 28: likewise if the woman cannot give birth without danger of death, but not if in a first childbirth she suffered danger or extraordinary pains (for in a first childbirth the labors are greater than in the following ones). Hence also if the man asks the debt too often, e.g., twice or three times on the same night, there is no obligation of rendering, since copula repeated so often harms both, and commonly even more the man than the wife. Besides, spouses of weak or infirm constitution cannot, without grave harm, exercise copula daily; hence let them consult a prudent physician concerning this matter and follow his counsel.

Likewise grave harm threatening offspring already conceived excuses, e.g., danger of abortion. If there is question of offspring to be conceived, the fear that it may be born infirm or dead, or live in poverty, does not excuse; for it is better for it to labor under these infirmities, or even to die infected with original sin, than not to be.

If the man culpably has no care for the offspring, and the burden of feeding herself and the offspring falls upon the wife, she is not held to render the debt to him, even if he were living in danger of incontinence, unless at last he comes to his senses and promises to have care for the family; for she is not held to be as a servant addicted to the mere will of the man.

But if, without fault of the man, the wife and numerous offspring labor under the greatest poverty, and no other children can be fed, according to some, danger of incontinence being excluded, the debt can be denied. But such danger will hardly be absent; hence rather trust must be placed in Divine Providence, which, while it imparts fecundity, is also wont to provide food. Nevertheless to these spouses it can be discreetly advised that they come together only in the time of agenesis (above n. 64).

61. (C) In order that someone be held to render the debt, it is not necessary that the other party ask explicitly; it suffices that he or she implicitly or interpretatively signify his or her will. For often wives, because of innate modesty, do not dare to ask expressly, but express their desire by interpretative signs; if the husband notices these, he is held to render the debt.

62. 2° Neither spouse of himself or herself is held to ask the debt; but by accident, from charity, each can be held, but especially the man. - The reason for the former is that no one is held to use his or her own right. The reason for the latter is that the man can judge that the consort is exposed to danger of incontinence and, because of modesty, does not dare to ask: then charity demands that he himself ask the debt, lest she fall into sin; likewise, in certain circumstances, this is necessary for fostering mutual love, or for averting jealousy and disagreements.

Division:

¹ Besides the theologians who discuss baptism, cf. Cangiamilla, Sacra Embryologia; Capellmann, op. cit., p. 104-119; Eschbach, op. cit., p. 287-378; Antonelli, Medicina Pastor., vol. II, n. 10-41; Barry, Medico-Christian Embryology, Louisville, 1846; Surbled, vol. II, p. 266-279.

On aborted fetuses.

On children in danger in the mother's uterus.

On the Caesarean operation.

On abortion and craniotomy.

63. I. On aborted fetuses. Since today it is morally certain that the human fetus is informed by a rational soul already from the beginning of conception, and since moreover baptism is necessary for salvation for all, even infants, all aborted fetuses, even the smallest, are to be baptized, unless they are already dead.

1° When aborted fetuses seem fully formed, they are to be baptized absolutely, provided even the very slightest movement is apprehended in them; because such movement is a sufficient sign of life. - But if they seem without movement, and nevertheless are not corrupted or putrid, let them be baptized without delay under condition: if you are living... For life can exist without apparent movement, and putrefaction alone is a certain sign of death, so that infants who exteriorly were judged to be dead, after several attempts, were finally apprehended to be living.

64. 2° Aborted fetuses, even if not yet fully formed, in whom vital movement is apprehended, are to be baptized absolutely; but those who appear without movement, yet are distinguished from a mole or fleshy mass¹, are to be baptized under condition: if you are living. The reason for the former is that, where vital movement is present in a human fetus, there is a rational soul; the reason for the latter is that where it is lacking, it is doubtful whether the fetus is still living.

¹ To understand this, it must be known that aborted ova which are emitted sometimes lack a fetus or embryo, which has already perished, and therefore are only a fleshy mole. Moreover, after the first month from conception, the embryo does not exceed the length of one centimeter and is bent in the ovum, not extended, so that some attention is necessary for recognizing it.

3° When immature fetuses are emitted, they are still wrapped in the secundines, i.e., especially in two membranes or little skins, the former of which is called amnios, the other chorion. But it is disputed whether baptism conferred on an infant wrapped in the secundines is valid or not; some affirm, because these wrappings are judged to be part of the infant's body; others deny, because these do not belong to its body, but are like garments by which it is covered. - Hence in practice, when an embryo enclosed in the secundines is emitted, immediately, lest it perish, let it be baptized under condition: if you are capable; then, the wrappings having been broken or cut, let it again be washed under condition: if you are not baptized².

² This can be done thus, according to Capellmann, p. 115, note 2: let the fetus be immersed in warm water (lest it be killed by cold water); with thumb and index finger of each hand let some fold of the covering be grasped and broken, so that the matter of the ovum may flow out and the baptismal water directly wash the fetus; and at the same time let the form be pronounced.

65. 4° Monsters, or deformed fetuses which bear before themselves the appearance of a beast rather than a human, if it is established that they were born from a woman, are to be baptized absolutely, provided they certainly live; conditionally, if it is doubted whether they still live.

It is indeed said in the Roman Ritual³: "A monster which does not bear before itself the human appearance ought not to be baptized"; but this was written at a time when monsters were thought able to arise from the intercourse of a woman with beasts. But today it is discovered that the matter is not so, but that monsters arise from this, that the form of the human fetus, while it is still soft and flexible, can be so deformed and changed, from some vehement imagination or terror of the mother, that it assumes the form of a beast. Hence monsters of this sort, if they certainly live, ought to be baptized absolutely.

³ On the Sacrament of Baptism, n. 19.

66. If infants have two heads or two distinct breasts, it is presumed that there are as many distinct men, and each is to be baptized separately; unless danger of death threatens: for then the heads of both are to be washed at the same time, saying: I baptize you... If it is doubted whether there are two persons, because the two heads or breasts are not distinct, let one first be baptized absolutely, and the other under condition.

67. II. On infants in danger in the maternal uterus. Although many older theologians doubted concerning the validity of baptism conferred on infants in the uterus, nevertheless today it is commonly taught that such baptism is valid. (a) Wherefore, if danger of death threatens, the infant in the uterus will have to be baptized under condition: "if you are capable"¹; and if afterward it is born alive, it is to be rebaptized under condition: "if you are not baptized." The reason is that some doubt remains concerning the validity of baptism of this sort, until the Church has rendered judgment on this matter². Besides, before an infant is baptized in the uterus, whether by syringe, or sponge, or hand, care must be taken that the secundines be broken, so that the water touches the very body of the infant.

¹ The Ritual indeed teaches the contrary, n. 16: "No one enclosed in the mother's uterus ought to be baptized"; but this was written when such baptism was falsely thought to be invalid.

² Moreover the Sacred Congregation of the Council responded thus not only July 12, 1794, but also March 16, 1897, apud Eschbach, p. 335-336.

(b) If the infant has emitted the head and danger of death threatens, let it be baptized on the head, nor afterward, if it escapes alive, will it have to be baptized again; because then the baptism is certainly valid, according to the Roman Ritual, n. 16. But if it has emitted another member, which indicates vital movement, let it be baptized conditionally on that member; and then, if having been born it lives, let it again be baptized under condition. Thus the Ritual, loc. cit.

68. III. On the Caesarean operation. This operation consists in this, that the membranes which cover the uterus and the uterus itself are cut, so that from it may be brought forth the infant who cannot be brought to the light by the natural way; it is called Caesarean, because by this method Julius was born, and on that account called Caesar (from the word caesus); physicians call the same thing hysterotomy.

(A) When this operation is done on a living mother, if she is robust and the physician skilled, and moreover antiseptics and other means very well known to surgeons are employed, generally both the mother and the infant are saved¹; nevertheless some danger of death remains for each. - This being posited, it is asked whether the mother is held to suffer Caesarean section, so that her offspring can receive baptism. (a) First, all confess that she is not held if the infant can be baptized in the uterus; for even if there is hope of saving the life of the mother and of the child, this is not so certain that therefore the mother is strictly held to undergo a dangerous operation; hence such an obligation is not to be urged.

¹ Eschbach demonstrates this, p. 340-344, by the testimony of physicians. - Another operation, which is called symphysiotomy, consists in the cutting of the symphysis of the pubic bones, by which the opening of the pelvis is made broader, so that the offspring can more easily pass through it; this is not free from danger, but, if in a particular case it is judged safer by a prudent physician than Caesarean section, nothing prevents its being permitted.

(b) But if the infant cannot be baptized in the uterus and Caesarean section is the only means of procuring the salvation of the infant (which today at least rarely happens), not a few teach that the mother is held to permit the operation, provided she is sufficiently robust, the physician skilled, and precautions can be employed which remove probable danger of death; for, by the law of charity, we ought to prefer the salvation of our neighbor to our own temporal good. But many say that there is no strict obligation of undergoing this, for, that we may be held to expose life for the salvation of our neighbor, it is necessary that there be certain hope of saving him; but in the case such certainty is not present, since, notwithstanding the aforesaid precautions, some danger of death remains not only for the mother, but also for her offspring. - Hence in practice the Caesarean operation can be advised, but not strictly urged².

² Sometimes the danger for the mother and her offspring can also be removed by acceleration of childbirth, which can be done without grave danger for the infant after seven months have already elapsed after conception. Concerning its liceity the Holy Office on May 4, 1898 wrote back: "Acceleration of childbirth is not illicit of itself, provided it is performed from just causes and at that time and in those modes, by which from ordinary contingencies the lives of the mother and fetus are cared for." (Acta S. Sedis, XXX, p. 704).

69. (B) But when a pregnant mother has died, there is present a grave obligation, from charity, of performing Caesarean section, whenever it is probable that the fetus has not perished, so that the offspring can be baptized and perhaps its life preserved. This obligation falls first upon physicians and surgeons; but if these are lacking, also upon others who can furnish this without danger to the infant. But it is not licit for a priest, not indeed because such an operation of itself is repugnant to priestly honor, since there is question of a soul to be saved by a legitimate means; but because of the danger of scandal which many would suffer from it; for it is a lesser evil that an infant die without baptism than that scandal be given to many adults. Hence in this sense the Holy See responded several times¹, especially December 13, 1899. But the priest ought prudently to take care with all his strength that the operation be performed by others, especially by a physician². - That the life of the infant in the uterus of the dead mother may more easily be preserved, when Caesarean section is not performed at once, the uterus is to be covered with cloths, so that it may retain heat; but it is useless to keep the mouth of the mother open, since this does not in the least help the respiration of the infant.

¹ Thus the Holy Office, Feb. 15, 1780 and Dec. 13, 1899, apud Acta S. Sedis, XXXII, p. 502-503.

² In some States no one except a physician can licitly perform such an operation.

70. Corollaries. (A) If the confessor, from the confession of a sick girl, knows that she is illegitimately pregnant, no one knowing it, he ought to admonish her that nothing is to be done which could injure the life of the infant. But if she is in proximate danger of death, he ought to induce her to disclose the matter to a discreet person, so that, after her death, the Caesarean operation can be done and the infant baptized. This the girl can furnish: (a) by writing letters, in which she declares that she wills that after death the uterus be opened and the offspring baptized; these letters, signed and closed, she will hand to a trustworthy person, to be opened only after death: for thus she will provide, insofar as can be done, for her reputation and for the salvation of the offspring; (b) if she cannot write, let her manifest the matter by living voice to a wholly discreet person, who will reveal the fact only after her death. - If nevertheless she is in good faith, and it is prudently feared that she may not acquiesce, the confessor can be silent.

71. (B) Since the eternal salvation of many infants depends on the way in which physicians and midwives put into execution the aforesaid rules concerning fetuses to be baptized, it is the office of the pastor to instruct them diligently both on the necessity and on the manner of baptizing aborted fetuses and infants in danger, whether in the mother's uterus or after birth; for thus he will perform an excellent work of charity, and will assign to the heavenly fatherland not a few of those little ones concerning whom Christ was accustomed to say: "Suffer the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God."¹

¹ Mark, X, 14.

72. IV. On abortion and craniotomy². It is known that voluntary destruction of the fetus flourished among the Pagans; but the Christian religion, zealous for human life and the salvation of infants, strictly prohibited it as true homicide. Yet in our days not a few physicians have attempted to make honorable abortion and embryotomy or craniotomy (i.e., the destruction of a living fetus)³, at least in the case in which the life of the mother otherwise cannot be saved. Now as regards abortion, the violent ejection of an immature fetus, at the time when it cannot live outside the uterus, must be distinguished from acceleration of childbirth, which takes place when the fetus, already conceived for seven months, can live outside the uterus. - These things being posited, we set forth the responses of the Congregations on this matter:

² Eschbach, op. cit., pp. 273-286; 381-476; Surbled, op. cit., vol. II, p. 184-258; Dissez, Craniotomy from the theological point of view.

³ Embryotomy etymologically means the cutting of the embryo, craniotomy the cutting of the skull or head.

73. (A) On craniotomy. In the year 1884, on May 28, the Holy Office recalled for examination the doubt proposed by Cardinal Caverot: "Whether it can safely be taught in Catholic schools that the surgical operation which they call craniotomy is licit, namely when, it being omitted, the mother and son would perish, but on the contrary, it being admitted, the mother would be saved, the infant perishing"; it judged that it must be answered: that it cannot safely be taught⁴. But when there was dispute concerning the sense and extension of this decree, especially in the Catholic Faculty of Lille, the Archbishop of Cambrai proposed new doubts concerning certain surgical operations akin to craniotomy; after three years, the Holy Office, on August 14, 1889, confirmed the first response, and declared that it cannot safely be taught that "any surgical operation directly killing the fetus or the pregnant mother" is licit⁵.

⁴ Apud Eschbach, op. cit., p. 461-462; Acta S. Sedis, XVII, p. 556.

⁵ Eschbach, p. 464-467; Acta S. Sedis, XXII, p. 748.

74. (B) On abortion of the immature fetus. Since procurement of abortion differs from craniotomy, some thought, even after the aforesaid decrees, that abortion was licit for saving the mother.

Therefore a new case was proposed to the Holy See: "Titius, a physician, when he was called to a pregnant woman lying gravely ill, everywhere observed that there was no other cause underlying the lethal disease except the pregnancy itself, that is, the presence of the fetus in the uterus. Therefore there was one way at hand for him, that he might save the mother from certain and imminent death, namely of procuring abortion or ejection of the fetus. He was accustomed to enter upon this way, having employed means and operations nevertheless not indeed tending of themselves and immediately to this, that they should kill the fetus in the maternal womb, but only that it should be brought to light alive, if it could be done, although it would soon die, as being still altogether immature." Now the Holy Office, on July 24, 1895, decreed that this could not be done¹.

¹ Eschbach, p. 468-469.

75. (C) On acceleration of childbirth. Wherefore nothing remained except to inquire concerning acceleration of childbirth; therefore the following doubts were proposed by the Bishop of Sinaloa (Sinaloa, in the Mexican region): "1. Will acceleration of childbirth be licit whenever from the narrowness of the woman the exit of the fetus at its natural time would become impossible? - 2. And if the narrowness of the woman is such that not even premature childbirth is judged possible, will it be licit to provoke abortion or to perform the Caesarean operation at its own time? - 3. Is laparotomy (i.e., section of the abdomen) licit when there is question of extra-uterine pregnancy, or of ectopic conceptions?"

Moreover the Holy Office on May 4, 1898 responded: "To 1. Acceleration of childbirth is not illicit of itself, provided it is performed from just causes and at that time and in those modes by which, from ordinary contingencies, care is taken for the life of the mother and fetus. - To 2. As regards the first part, negatively... But as regards the second, nothing prevents the woman concerning whom there is question from being subjected to the Caesarean operation at its own time. - To 3. Necessity compelling, laparotomy is licit for extracting ectopic conceptions from the womb of the mother, provided that for the lives of both fetus and mother, insofar as can be done, serious and opportune provision is made."²

² Eschbach, p. 470-471; Acta S. Sedis, XXX, p. 704.

The Holy Office again confirmed this response on March 5, 1902, renewing the prior decrees³.

³ Ami du Clerge, XXIV, 1902, p. 478.

76. From the aforesaid decrees it is permitted to infer a threefold rule: (A) It is not licit directly to procure immature abortion⁴ or to perform craniotomy; for each action is directly killing of an innocent. Therefore the following sin gravely: (a) pregnant girls who procure abortion lest they lose reputation or suffer some other grave evil; or women who, fearing lest they are pregnant, take potions or employ other means in order to induce abortion; (b) physicians who directly procure abortion, even for saving the mother; for evils are not to be done that goods may come¹; moreover there are other suitable means for helping the mother, namely acceleration of childbirth and the Caesarean operation, which today, especially in great cities, where skilled surgeons are found, is performed easily and safely².

⁴ This indeed is true even if it were admitted that the fetus, although living, is not yet informed by a rational soul; for by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679, this proposition 34 was condemned (apud Denzinger, n. 1051): "It is licit to procure abortion before animation of the fetus, lest a girl found pregnant be killed or defamed." - The excommunication imposed against those procuring abortion is set forth in the Treatise on Censures.

¹ Nor can it be said that the fetus is an unjust aggressor; for, as Cangiamilla already said in his time, the infant is not an unjust invader, but compelled by nature, whose author is God; indeed compelled by the mother herself, as D. Huber says. Cf. Eschbach, op. cit., p. 424.

² Hence today many physicians, even non-Catholics, reject immature abortion and craniotomy as something scientifically antiquated: "To kill the fetus, under pretext of favoring delivery, is to misunderstand the certain resources of modern obstetrical surgery; it is to be behind the times." Thus Dr. Guerinoprez, apud Eschbach, op. cit., p. 389.

77. (B) It is licit indirectly to procure abortion from a proportionately grave cause; e.g., if the mother labors under a lethal disease which cannot be cured unless a remedy is furnished from which abortion will follow by accident; provided these conditions concur: (a) that the disease be truly lethal; (b) that the remedy be directly employed for curing the disease, not for expelling the fetus; (c) that in the best way possible provision be made for the baptism and salvation of the animated fetus.

(C) It is licit directly to procure acceleration of childbirth, when it is foreseen that the infant can live, provided there is a grave cause; for by such a manner of acting the life of the infant is not taken away, but only exposed to danger; and this indeed is licit whenever it is required for averting a greater danger of the infant itself or of death.

78. Note for practice. Since in some Schools of physicians it is taught that craniotomy is licit and expedient for saving the life of the mother, certain surgeons in good faith perform it when from various circumstances the Caesarean operation seems less opportune; in which case, as regards the past, they are indeed excused from sin, but they are prudently to be instructed as regards the future, according to the rules handed down in the Treatise on Penance.

Printed by the Society of St. John the Evangelist, Desclee & Co. - Tournai (Belgium).