Article I. On Onanistic Intercourse and Similar Violations of Nature

257. - Complete pleasure sought by spouses in such a manner that they at the same time positively impede generation, or in such a manner that "for the sake of lust the propagation of offspring is opposed ¹," that is, the onanistic use of marriage, is intrinsically and gravely evil.

¹ St. Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscentia, chapter 15, no. 17 (M. 44, 423).

By the words "for the sake of lust," we do not assert that the exclusion of offspring itself is commanded by lust, since childbirth itself can be morally impossible; but even then, onanists, merely for the enjoyment of carnal pleasure, abuse marriage when they are invited by divine Providence to noble and fruitful continence. Lust, therefore, designates the intention with which they have intercourse, not necessarily that with which they oppose generation.

258. Arguments. 1. The theological argument. Sacred Scripture itself ² declares detestable the fraud by which Onan, lest a son bearing his brother's name rather than a son bearing his own name obtain the primacy of the tribe of Judah, indeed approached the widow of that brother according to the law of the levirate, but spilled his seed upon the ground. And, from the context of the discourse, his brother Er himself seems to have been condemned to death by God for some similar abuse of marriage ³. Nevertheless, we do not wish to press this passage too much, since it is not so clearly established from the text itself whether God struck Onan for the conjugal crime itself or for the fraud mixed with it.

² Genesis 38:9-10.

³ Thus Hummelauer, on this passage.

But Catholic tradition, proceeding from the Holy Fathers themselves ⁴, which the unanimous opinion of theologians and the ordinary magisterium of the Church so attest that there was no need of any formal condemnation of the contrary error, plainly proves the matter.

⁴ Cf., for example, St. Jerome, Epistle 22 to Eustochium, no. 13 (M. 22, 40).

2. The argument of reason. In the onanistic use of marriage, both spouses or either one, carried away by venereal passion, exercise carnal commerce in that manner which deprives the act of its relation to the species and refers it to the spouses alone.

But this use, as such, violates the essential order of man in himself, both as he is an individual person and as he is a part of the human race.

Therefore this use is intrinsically and gravely evil.

It violates man as he is an individual person: for spouses are carried away by passion to act thus against reason, while the essential order of man in himself demands that reason dominate sense.

It violates man as he is a part of the human race and, as such, essentially subordinated to the species. For spouses exercise as an individual and in their own name an act which in its primary rationale is an act of the species, to be exercised by spouses representing the human species and acting for it.

That is, the human race, as it is a moral person, provides for its perpetuity through conjugal intercourse. Onanists positively exclude this perpetuity by the manner in which they unite.

To the consequence. That act is intrinsically and gravely evil. It is intrinsically evil: for, when the notion of onanistic intercourse has been perceived, the malice appears. It is gravely evil because it substantially violates the essential order. But man must attain his end by observing his essential relations.

This rationale is free from every consideration of the importance which that moral uprightness has for private or common good. Indeed, provident God Himself, while imposing the order to be observed, is the guardian and protector of the common good. But we must not weigh what utility or detriment individual acts bring, so that from this we may determine the guilt to be grave or light. Mortal sin, as is demonstrated in the treatise on sin, is formally an act substantially against the order imposed by divine law, but is not formally an act against the common good.

It seems worthwhile for us to speak a little more distinctly or explicitly concerning that specific respect which we have shown to be required in the conjugal act and violated by the onanist.

The venereal appetite, in the first instance, is perceived to be directed toward the common operation of both spouses, which was instituted by God, the author of nature, for the due multiplication of the human race.

It is possible to act against this order, which belongs to the whole faculty, in two ways: either by breaking the relation of the appetite or faculty to the common operation itself, which happens when the appetite is satisfied outside intercourse; or by breaking the relation of the completed operation to the end of nature, when this end is directly impeded.

Now, according to the different manner in which it is exercised ⁵, the onanistic use of marriage breaks either one or both relations.

⁵ Cf. the introduction, no. 45.

The man who withdraws himself or puts on a condom violates the relation to the operation. For then he either interrupts intercourse, or, from the very beginning, deprives intercourse of the essential element of seminal emission, so that in either case pleasure is obtained outside intercourse.

The spouse who, by obstructing the uterus, or destroying spermatozoa, or expelling the semen, renders intercourse artificially sterile violates the relation to the end.

Spouses who, as not rarely happens today, mix the arts in order to obtain a double security from offspring violate both relations.

259. - By our manner of demonstration, various evasions of those abusing marriage are foreclosed: that the use of marriage is permitted to the sterile; that the same use can be limited to those days when there is no or only slight hope of offspring.

For as long as the use of marriage itself is completed in a natural manner, no substantial violation of order is committed; but pleasure is sought from an act which is performed according to reason. For spouses need not be positively solicitous concerning the efficacy of the act for human generation, either because of the order of reason or because of the common good. Not because of the order of reason, since the conjugal act can be reasonable without a positive intention of generating ⁶; not because of the common good, for which provident God has made sufficient provision without this solicitude. Provided that men have intercourse according to the laws of nature, God has so arranged matters that men are born in sufficient number, just as sufficiently many also depart from among the living without the necessity of suicide. But what moral difference there is between omissions of a more suitable manner or time and actions contrary to the end of the institution of marriage, we saw above, no. 238.

⁶ Cf. no. 224.

This also can be added. As long as no other choice besides natural intercourse or continence is allowed, the common good is always served, whether through the use itself, which strengthens the union of the spouses and of itself brings the hope of offspring, or through abstinence itself, which strengthens the soul and renders the mind ready for higher pursuits.

260. - Nevertheless, various reasons which are more extrinsic or are drawn from harmful consequences are usefully alleged, so that they may dispose the mind to grasp the intrinsic rationale more easily and firmly, and may more efficaciously call men away from those wicked counsels.

Accordingly, approximately the following can be proposed.

1. Obvious common sense itself perceives the matter to be evil and grave. Wherefore, anthropologists observe that by intercourse of this kind, because conscience disapproves it, the mutual esteem and love of the spouses are by no means fostered. And since the good of the species is at issue, it is sufficiently manifest that a crime in this matter will be punished by provident God with a most efficacious sanction.

2. But if you consider the innumerable excesses to which the very vehemence of passion, when its reins have been broken, leads; how much it has already harmed the good both of the private household and of the state; how much lamentable increase it has given to "egoistic" pursuits; how widely this disease has already been disseminated or threatens imminent invasion; in what manner the academies themselves and all who are zealous for the fatherland now call with all their desires and efforts for more fruitful marriages: can you doubt that so great a vice is prohibited under grave guilt? From the very harm which it brings to the health and happiness of the spouses, this vice is proved to be abhorrent to nature.

In a word, it can be said that the dignity of marriage is at stake unless this abuse is restrained.

3. But if spouses offer the difficulty of continence as an excuse, let its nobility and merit be extolled. Can they say that to be impassable for themselves which so many men must endure throughout their whole life or choose voluntarily? If they insist that they were not called to continence and that the conjugal state was chosen by them for the conjugal work, it can be answered that many, after a similar choice, have been driven as if by physical necessity to preserve continence, and they can confidently ask and expect from God the grace of continence. Does the moral law bind the conscience less imperiously than physical necessity binds the body? What of the fact that they themselves were often the architects of all their own trouble and difficulty through the imprudent manner in which they chose a spouse?

Nevertheless, that the answer may sound gentler, it can be added that they are not prohibited from imperfect acts (of which mention will be made later); and that there are many spouses who are content with these; also that days less favorable to fertilization can be chosen for the complete act (cf. no. 10).

4. Finally, let them be refuted by the grave words of St. Augustine, or by others similar to them: "Those who do this (oppose the propagation of offspring), although they are called spouses, are not spouses, nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but they extend an honorable name as a covering over their shamefulness ⁷.

⁷ To render this in French words: "Under cover of marriage, an agreement is made for debauchery between two."

"Certainly, if both are such, they are not spouses; and if they were such from the beginning, they came together not by wedlock but rather by debauchery. But if both are not such, I dare to say that either she is in a certain manner her husband's prostitute, or he is his wife's adulterer" (De nuptiis et concupiscentia, chapter 15, no. 17, M. 44, 423. 421).

Cf. also what was said above, no. 209.

261. - Besides those who, unconcerned with doctrine, allege only various pretexts or special reasons for exercising onanistic arts either outside or within marriage, we can gather into two classes those who dare even theoretically to deny and attack the unshaken principles of the right use of marriage.

Some profess that they are solicitous not concerning the number of men but concerning their quality. Let those who are vigorous in body, intellect, and character beget as many children as they can; but for the others let means of sterility be at hand, and indeed at a cheap price, so that thus they may enjoy conjugal pleasure without social harm. Thus, for example, Forel ⁸, who does not wish to be confused with the neo-Malthusians, whom he regards as harmful to the common good.

⁸ La Questione sessuale. Cf. pp. 355, 356, 438, 471 of the Italian version.

Among those who openly defend neo-Malthusian tenets, the secretary of the Malthusian League in England ⁹, Dr. C. G. Drysdale, thus described neo-Malthusianism before the National Birth-Rate Commission on 24 October 1913:

⁹ In other regions also, for example in Holland, a league of this kind has been established.

"Neo-Malthusianism is an ethical doctrine, based on the principle of Malthus that poverty, disease, and premature death can only be eliminated by control of reproduction, combined with a recognition of the evils inseparable from prolonged abstention from marriage. It therefore advocates nearly universal early marriage together with a selective limitation of offspring to those children to whom the parents can give a satisfactory heredity and environment so that they may become desirable members of the community. It further maintains that a universal knowledge of hygienic contraceptive devices among adult men and women would in all probability automatically lead to such a selection through enlightened self-interest, and thus to the elimination of destitution and all the more serious social evils and to the elevation of the race ¹⁰" (The Declining Birth-Rate, p. 89).

¹⁰ That is, in Latin: "Neo-Malthusianism is an ethical doctrine, founded upon the principle by which Malthus asserted that poverty, disease, and premature death cannot be eliminated except by the restriction of generation. It joins that principle with the recognition of the evils which cannot be separated from prolonged abstention from marriage. Wherefore, it commends almost universal early marriage and at the same time a discriminate limitation of offspring, so that only those may be born for whom parents can procure a natural temperament and the external conditions of life, whence they may become desirable members of the community. Moreover, it contends that the general dissemination among adult men and women of hygienic means for avoiding conception would, in all probability, automatically and of itself, with the aid of an enlightened sense of their own utility, bring it about that this selection of offspring take place, and that thus destitution and the worst social misfortunes be suppressed, and the human race ascend to a better state."

Thus both classes are solicitous concerning a better, more perfect human race, and differ little from one another, since both favor the selection of offspring.

But they are deceived by common errors, which we note briefly as follows.

1. They err by that false and fatal principle, "the means are rendered honorable by the end," so that they omit or deny the moral consideration of the means.

2. They are deceived by a marvelous "utopia," when they appeal to men's own utility in order to obtain actions useful to the common good, as if those utilities did not often conflict with one another in the present state.

3. Wherefore Forel himself objects against the neo-Malthusian school that in America and New Zealand, the offspring of better men are becoming ever rarer, while the Chinese and Negroes are multiplying more and more; and that, in place of a more select human race, they are preparing one more barbarous and idiotic ¹¹. And Dr. Drysdale himself confesses that in most regions, if Batavia is excepted, the effects of the doctrine have been unfavorable (anti-eugenic); he imputes this outcome to cultivated men, who themselves practiced what should have been inculcated upon the poorer and more wretched, and thus candidly confesses that "altruism," as they call it, advances little from "egoism." That he may escape the evidence of the facts, Forel denies that this selection which he favors can be hoped for before many centuries. Wherefore they are refuted from their own mouth.

¹¹ La questione sessuale, p. 471.

This objection is heard not rarely: it is better to feed and educate a few children well than to neglect numerous offspring.

To this difficulty it is answered that the question concerns not the number of children but the uprightness of conjugal morals. What the adversaries vainly expect from wise egoism, we demonstrate can much better be hoped for from incorrupt morals. Where pure morals exist, let a moderate cultivation of the mind be added: as many children will be born as will be advantageous to the state. Although it can also be doubted whether fewer children are better educated, unless you wish to regard as better that softer education by which families decline so rapidly.

262. - From the proof made, the following several points pertaining to practice are gathered.

1. The wife sins gravely in intention who wishes by an inefficacious means (a vain remedy, restraining her own emission, rising to urinate) to render intercourse sterile. Nor can she obey a husband commanding such things unless she first warns him of his error.

2. She also sins gravely who, directly or indirectly, through complaints concerning numerous offspring, etc., draws her husband to the onanistic use of marriage or confirms him in it. And since every formal cooperation is to be gravely condemned, she must retract her counsels.

3. The wife cannot permit the man to place a pessary in her, or to approach with the male member covered, or to abuse her body so that he may emit semen in a place other than the proper one. She can yield only to overpowering force, almost as an unmarried woman who is assaulted.

This much alone differs: she is judged to be more often in a necessary occasion, because most grave inconveniences are to be avoided or because her own rights are to be protected. Wherefore, with the proximate danger of consent excluded, she does not seem to be obliged to leave the bedchamber out of fear of abuse or to remove from her husband the opportunity of abusing his strength.

But it will be sufficient for the confessor to teach her that this abuse can in no way be permitted. Concerning the manner and degree of resistance to be opposed, it will regularly be better for him voluntarily to add nothing, lest he render the condition of the wife, which is already difficult of itself, still more impeded.

263. - This severity, which we also demonstrated in our pamphlet Un grave péril moral ¹², is excellently confirmed by two recent responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, of 3 April and 3 June 1916, which we transcribe in this place.

¹² Cf. Nouvelle Revue Théologique, 1919.

Response of 3 April 1916. - Whether a woman can lawfully cooperate with an action of a husband who, in order to indulge pleasure, wishes to commit the crime of Onan or of the Sodomites, and threatens her with death or grave vexations unless she complies?

Response. a) If the husband should wish to commit the crime of Onan in the use of marriage, namely, by pouring out the semen outside the vessel after intercourse has begun, and should threaten the wife with either death or grave vexations unless she accommodates herself to his perverse will - the wife, according to the opinion of approved theologians, can lawfully, in this case, have intercourse thus with her husband: since on her part she gives her effort to a lawful thing and action, but permits the sin of the husband for a grave cause which excuses her; since the charity by which she would impede that sin does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

b) But if the husband should wish to commit with her the crime of the Sodomites, since this sodomitical intercourse is an act against nature on the part of each spouse thus having intercourse, and is gravely evil in the judgment of all the doctors: hence for plainly no cause, not even for avoiding death, can the wife lawfully comply in this matter with her impure husband. And the Sacred Penitentiary marvels greatly that the contrary opinion, with dishonor to human nature, could have remained in the minds of certain priests (as is reported).

Response of 3 June. - I. Whether a woman, in the case in which the man wishes to use an instrument for exercising onanism, is bound to positive resistance?

II. If negatively, whether reasons equally grave as for natural onanism (without an instrument) suffice to render passive resistance on the part of the woman honorable, or whether most grave reasons are instead altogether necessary?

III. Whether, in order that this whole matter may be developed and taught by a safer path, a man using such instruments should truly be equated with an oppressor; to whom, consequently, the woman should offer that resistance which a virgin should offer to an assailant?

Response to the first: Affirmative.

To the second: Provided for in the first.

To the third: Affirmative ¹³.

¹³ These responses first appeared in the work Institutiones Alphonsianae of Cl. Marc (1917), vol. 2, nos. 2116 and 2117. On this occasion, Nederlandsche Katholieke Stemmen, 1917, opportunely warns that by these responses the assertion of Rev. Fr. Prummer, O.P., is at the same time disapproved, by which he wished to distinguish here the case in which the man merely withdraws himself and the case in which the man uses a covering.

264. - A wife who, after intercourse has been completed, washes the vagina in order to expel the semen and thus impede fertilization is to be said to be gravely guilty of onanism.

Wherefore, it is also unlawful for spouses deliberately to choose that hour for intercourse at which the wife is accustomed to wash the vagina.

But, with all fraud set aside, must the wife omit the customary washing because intercourse took place a little beforehand? In our opinion, she does not seem obliged to do so. The thing is performed for another utility. Besides, when there is a regular use of marriage, that solicitude concerning the fruit of individual acts of intercourse is not to be employed which would oblige her to postpone the washing. We shall permit the same thing even more easily if the wife has already conceived; although not even then can washing with the intention of removing the semen be permitted.

We would answer more severely if intercourse were rare, especially because no reason of health demands that the wife wash the vagina at this hour rather than another.

In order that we may judge rightly concerning the interval to be interposed, the following points are to be assumed from recent physiological experiments.

In individual emissions, spermatozoa are contained in an immense number which they estimate at 250,000,000 to 260,000,000. And if the man has perfectly penetrated the vagina, already in the act of intercourse itself many spermatozoa enter the uterus. Yet we know that fertilization can be completed by one spermatozoon which enters the female ovum.

Moreover, such is the movement of spermatozoa that they traverse one centimeter within ten minutes (sixtieth parts of an hour). But the beginning of the vagina is distant from the opening of the uterus by 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 centimeters; but by 10 to 15 centimeters from the fallopian tubes, where fertilization is accustomed to take place, unless it occurs in the ovaries themselves ¹⁴. After half an hour or one hour, so many spermatozoa have been received into the uterus that the hope of fertilization has become such as no better can morally be expected. For the fluid with which the vagina is moistened impedes the movement of the spermatozoa, while the moistened uterus excites their motive power. Therefore, the spermatozoa which remain in the vagina can scarcely contribute to fertilization.

¹⁴ When all things proceed very well, fertilization takes place already an hour and a half after intercourse.

If matters stand thus, since we know from elsewhere that it is not grave of itself to waste part of the emitted semen, provided that another sufficient part is preserved, it seems to be concluded that already after an hour the vagina can be washed without notable harm to fertilization, and that this is lawful for any cause. Those who more severely demand an interval of six hours tacitly suppose that no part of the semen, even if there is a reasonable cause, can be voluntarily lost.

265. - 5. When the man abuses marriage by mere withdrawal, the act is exercised entirely lawfully until he has withdrawn himself. Wherefore, on the authority of the Sacred Penitentiary itself, "since in the proposed case the woman indeed does nothing against nature on her part, and gives her effort to a lawful thing, while the whole disorder of the act proceeds from the malice of the man," she can render the debt. [Responses of 1 February 1823 and 3 April 1916 ¹⁵.]

¹⁵ The cited responses of the Sacred Penitentiary suppose that a grave, indeed a most grave, cause is present; but this mention is to be attributed to the special circumstances of the proposed case, "nor is it to be concluded that, in the absence of this grave inconvenience, it is not lawful for the wife to render the debt" (Ballerini, Opus theologicum morale, vol. 6, treatise 10, nos. 245, 246).

266. - It is asked whether a grave cause is required for the wife to render the debt to a husband requesting thus, or whether she is simply excused.

There are those who demand a grave cause, because the wife cannot, without a grave cause, cooperate mediately in the sin of the husband ¹⁶. Others deny that a special cause is required, because the wife gives her effort only to a lawful thing ¹⁷. This indeed pleases St. Alphonsus himself, since he judges it more probable that the wife, in these circumstances, not only can but must render the debt ¹⁸. We judge this excessive, since the request of a husband who wishes to interrupt intercourse is irrational; indeed, if he is unwilling to use marriage otherwise, it is injurious to the unwilling wife. Leaving this aside, therefore, let us consider the matter more closely.

¹⁶ Thus formerly certain older authors, and now Rev. Dr. Smet, De sponsalibus et matrimonio, no. 146.

¹⁷ Thus, after several older authors, Ballerini, Opus theologicum, vol. 6, treatise 10, no. 244.

¹⁸ Book 6, no. 947.

It has a twofold respect: cooperation in the sin of the husband and fraternal correction. Under the rationale of cooperation, no special cause is required for the wife to be able to render the debt to the man. For, as St. Alphonsus very well observes, "she does not even cooperate materially in his sin, since she does not cooperate in emission outside the vessel, but only in the intercourse begun, which of itself is certainly altogether lawful." Nor by her refusal does she impede anything other than the external act of the sin which the husband has already committed by his depraved intention. Moreover, intercourse is owed to the wife. By cooperating, she obtains at least an imperfect rendering of the thing owed to her. Besides, a grave cause for rendering will scarcely ever be absent. And even if the wife should wish to request the debt from an onanistic husband (who withdraws himself), no cause need be added to that which of itself benefits the wife: for this cause is that it is grave for a wife who desires intercourse to be deprived of it. It is the same as if you were to impose perpetual or prolonged fasting upon a hungry person. Wherefore, St. Alphonsus himself ¹⁹ denies that the wife must for this reason abstain from her right of requesting more than once or twice. She requests a thing to which she has a right; the husband sins only because of the evil will, the habit of which he otherwise bears.

¹⁹ Ibid.

But the respect of fraternal correction is another. For it can happen that, because of a refusal made by the wife, the husband is led to use marriage rightly. Then, if the hope is not too remote, or if it is not grave for the wife to abstain from intercourse, charity will oblige the wife to procure the amendment of her husband in this manner.

Nevertheless, as men are affected by self-love, the supplication of the wife and her sadness, joined with a resignation which in no way offends the self-love of the husband, will generally be more efficacious.

267. - But lest she appear to consent to the sin, she must "turn the man away from this crime by warnings and entreaties, repeated several times according to the hope of fruit (it is not necessary that she do this on every occasion) ²⁰." And if the man declares that he requests for the sake of abuse, she cannot render unless she professes that she consents only to lawful copulation. (Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1094.)

²⁰ St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 947.

But after the man has withdrawn himself, if she herself has not yet experienced satiating pleasure, it will not be lawful for her to procure it for herself. For neither physically nor morally can this pleasure be a part of one perfect copulation ²¹. But since she abstains with difficulty, she will generally have to be left in good faith. Above all, silence must be maintained concerning the consent which she cannot easily give to pleasure once it has arisen. (Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1095.)

²¹ Berardi, Praxis, etc., I, 993, permits this completion because an act lawfully begun can be brought to its due end. "But one must plainly assent to Lehmkuhl" (Noldin, De sexto, etc., no. 70). Cf. also Aertnys, vol. 2, no. 497, III, question 2. Capellmann, Medicina pastoralis, ed. 15, now omits the more benign opinion of the 9th edition.

But the wife has the right to deny the debt to a man whose evil will is known to her. Indeed, she can separate herself from his bed.

Finally, simple complacency concerning the effects of onanism (freedom from childbirth, etc.) is not indeed unlawful of itself, but it is not entertained without danger.

But as long as intercourse lasts, consent to it as such and to its pleasure is not prohibited.

268. - If the wife herself should wish to use a pessary or to expel the semen after intercourse, the man, by reason of the authority which he possesses, must forbid this to her. But if he accomplishes nothing and grave inconveniences are to be feared, he himself seems able to request the debt for a just cause. The act itself is performed well; the vice is subsequent to it and is to be attributed to the wife alone; indeed, immediately after the act it can perhaps of itself still be corrected.

Finally, this culpable wife is to be equated with one who, against the will of her husband, has had her oviduct tied.

269. - One who has poured out semen within an improper vessel of the wife (suppose, the anus) is commonly charged with imperfect sodomy. Nevertheless, we judge that this is to be evaluated from the affection by which he is led; and unless the wife supplies, as it were, the place of the male sought, we do not see why that crime should be called by the name of sodomy. Now it can happen that, while preserving an altogether normal appetite, someone sins by this sin merely because he is prevented from lawful intercourse by a physical impediment or fear of offspring. Generally, however, he will suffer from sexual paresthesia.

However the matter may stand, this sin, distinct from sodomy and from onanistic intercourse, and to which the circumstance of an injury done to the wife and of the violated sanctity of marriage also adds a species, will be sufficiently accused in this manner: "I had intercourse with my wife outside the natural vessel." For it does not seem relevant to the species in what part of the body (even if only between the thighs) the abominable thing was done.

270. - The confessor will question and admonish penitents concerning these matters according to the general principles. Nevertheless, the following things are to be noted particularly.

1. Since controversy concerning these arts is heated, so that even newspapers not rarely discuss this argument, good faith can scarcely exist in penitents, nor at least persevere for long.

2. Those who, while frequenting the sacraments, err in this matter easily become harmful to others through their words and imprudent counsels; and because of a slight indication, they judge that the matter is permitted or at least tolerated by the confessor.

3. It is a question of a most grave evil which, for the sake of the common good, must be fought everywhere.

With these things considered:

1. The confessor will ask spouses unknown to him by a general question whether all things stand well in the marriage or whether they are troubled by any scruple. Nevertheless, he will not do this if there is a positive indication that this vice is not to be suspected in the penitent.

2. Those whom he discovers to be onanists, he will regularly admonish concerning their crime.

3. If the wife, with attention to the manner in which the excess is committed, can admit intercourse well begun, as we said above, he will instruct her concerning her faculty, lest she begin or continue to perpetrate formal sins.

4. In some rare case in which good faith is joined with extraordinary circumstances, and the danger of scandal together with the danger of excessive abuse has ceased, he will suppress the fault in silence.

Good faith will be more readily present in a wife who, having denied assent, thinks that she can cast all the guilt upon the man and does not distinguish among the manners in which the abuse is committed; or also in grave illness. Nor then are excessive abuses to be feared of themselves.

The responses of the Holy See are consonant with these rules; with attention to the manner in which the unspeakable vice has prevailed, they urge the obligation of questioning more severely than about the middle of the nineteenth century. In the year 1886, the Sacred Penitentiary gave this response:

"Doubt I. When there is a founded suspicion that a penitent who is entirely silent concerning onanism is addicted to this crime ²², may the confessor abstain from prudent and discreet questioning because he foresees that several persons will be disturbed from good faith and that many will desert the sacraments? Or is the confessor rather bound prudently and discreetly to question?

²² Noldin deservedly observes this: "In those regions in which the vice of onanism rages widely, the confessor can almost always reasonably suppose that the penitent deliberately conceals that sin. Nevertheless, let him abstain from special questions: whether they poured out the semen outside the vessel; whether they impeded generation by withdrawing themselves, etc." De sexto praecepto et usu coniugii, no. 76. And Palmieri also acknowledges that the probability of the vice acquires force from its wide propagation, and adds: "It is difficult to suppose good faith in those addicted to this vice; but if perhaps it is present, prudent questioning will do no harm" (note to vol. 6, no. 247).

"II. Is the confessor who, either from a spontaneous confession or from prudent questioning, knows that the penitent is an onanist bound to admonish him concerning the gravity of this sin and of other mortal sins, to rebuke him with paternal charity, as the Roman Ritual says, and to impart absolution to him only when it is established by sufficient signs that he is sorry for the past and has the resolution of no longer acting onanistically?

"Response to I. Regularly, negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.

"To II. Affirmative, according to the doctrine of approved authors."

The efficacious instructions given by the bishops of Belgium in the year 1909 are consonant. (Cf., for example, Nouvelle Revue théologique, vol. 41 [1909], p. 616 ff.) And approved authors hand down things consonant with these. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1907; Noldin, De sexto praecepto et usu matrimonii; De Smet, De sponsalibus et matrimonio, nos. 145, 146.

Nor is the evasion of some valid who allege that "only the good of the penitent is to be cared for by the confessor." For he exercises the office of fraternal correction, not formally as confessor, but as a neighbor to whom an excellent occasion is available from confession. Wherefore, the ordinary rules of fraternal correction come into use, which command that we consult the common good first.

This must indeed be guarded against altogether, lest the very silence of the confessor be regarded as a certain tacit connivance, which today would easily be scandalous ²³. But by prudent and general questioning the confessor neither disturbs good faith of itself nor can now reasonably seem to connive at anything.

²³ A rumor concerning an indulgence by which some approved man conceded something is immediately spread; and what was permitted because of particular circumstances is reported as lawful of itself. We ourselves thus knew, in the year 1915, of an abuse made of counsel which a Catholic physician had given to a sick person.