II. On Separate Incomplete Acts

279. - Imperfect venereal acts exercised upon his or her own body by either spouse, if they induce of themselves and for that spouse a grave danger of pollution, are for that reason prohibited under grave guilt. For the effect of pollution is imputed to one acting in such a manner. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1073, and others generally.

280. - With the grave danger of pollution excluded, some solitary imperfect acts are simply honorable, while others at least cannot be gravely blamed in spouses.

For, as we saw above (nos. 11-17), a lesser exercise can be necessary or useful for obtaining the heat which is necessary for true intercourse, at least in the man, or which, in the wife, is a part of normal intercourse. Therefore, these acts contain of themselves the utility of preparation for the perfect act, which is honorable and praiseworthy.

Wherefore, if they are formally referred to intercourse, for example, when the spouse is present with whom the other wishes to unite, these acts are entirely honorable; if they are not referred to intercourse of this kind, or indeed, insofar as, for example, the other spouse is absent, cannot be referred sufficiently proximately to intercourse, then it is disordered in some manner for a spouse to seek separately for himself the pleasure which pertains to a common work. Nevertheless, they do not oppose the essential order of the present marriage; indeed, they preserve some utility (sought inopportunely) of fostering the venereal appetite, which, in the matrimonial state, is a good of itself. Wherefore, with Sanchez ¹ and most modern authors, we judge that only venial malice is present in these acts. opinion also prohibit to spouses mutual acts which are not referred to intercourse or, when intercourse is impeded, cannot be referred to it. Cf. Sanchez, disputation 44, nos. 11, 12, 15.

¹ De matrimonio, disputation 44, no. 16. Observe that several who are alleged for the stricter

Vasquez ², however, responds more severely, unless they should be done with the intention of uniting with the spouse who is expected to arrive soon, in which case he excuses the acts from every guilt. St. Alphonsus ³ regards the stricter opinion as more probable and pronounces that it is to be counseled in practice, both because a spouse cannot use his own body, which he has handed over to the other, except by disposing himself toward intercourse, while intercourse cannot be had; and because lingering touches are proximately connected with the danger of pollution. But the patrons of the former opinion reply that these acts by their nature dispose toward intercourse, and that it is not required that individual acts dispose toward a definite intercourse, but it suffices that they nourish the appetite by the perfect use of marriage; and they exclude those touches which bring a proximate or grave danger of pollution. Wherefore, Bucceroni (vol. 4, no. 1082) judges that the probability of the more benign opinion is demonstrated by the very arguments of the stricter opinion. Rev. Dr. De Smet ⁴ gravely reproves acts which cannot have a positive order toward intercourse, as when they are performed, for example, while the spouse will be absent for a long time. Nevertheless, he permits the confessor whose intrinsic improbability of the more benign opinion has not been perceived to use it.

² I-II, question 74, article 8, D. 113, no. 4.

³ Book 6, no. 936.

⁴ De sponsalibus, no. 213, 2°.

The same author, consistently enough ⁵, evaluates carnal pleasure itself concerning intercourse had with the wife in the same manner as other imperfect acts, and consequently, in the same circumstances, reproves it gravely, as does St. Alphonsus himself. But this consequence militates against the stricter opinion. That a spouse cannot enjoy thought concerning an absent spouse any more than a widower can enjoy thought concerning his deceased wife: this seems excessive severity, full of scruples and dangerous to morals. One who permits nothing sometimes excites toward everything.

⁵ Yet this difference exists between the two kinds of acts: external imperfect acts are of themselves to be performed in a mutual relation, while interior pleasure necessarily remains the proper act of each individual.

281. - Perfect or imperfect external acts exercised with other persons add to the malice of lust the malice of complete or incomplete adultery, as will be explained below.

282. - Interior acts must be judged from their object. Wherefore, morose pleasure (strictly understood) concerning intercourse had or to be had, desire for future intercourse, and complacency in past intercourse are indeed venial of themselves. Sensual pleasure, with pollution excluded, will at least not be grave. Cf. what was just said in no. 280.

But if they concern illicit objects, the interior acts will be gravely or lightly illicit according as the object is such. Concerning these acts, cf. St. Thomas, De Malo, question 15, article 2.

283. - Corollary. This seems to follow from what has been said. Libidinous looks, readings, and conversations are to be blamed gravely in themselves for spouses only when they either foster adulterous desires or induce a grave danger of pollution.

It also follows from this that "books which professedly treat, narrate, or teach lascivious or obscene matters," and which as such are prohibited by the law itself ⁶ and proscribed under grave guilt, can be understood differently, when there is question of reading, for spouses and for those who are not spouses. For the principle is that books which are of themselves (and therefore less universally) a proximate occasion of grave sin for readers are universally prohibited under grave guilt. Therefore, books which are not such of themselves for spouses are not positively prohibited to them under grave guilt. Cf. our booklet De prohibitione et censura librorum, nos. 54 and 57.

⁶ Canon 1399, 9°, q. 2.

284. - Concerning copulation and pollution, considered in themselves, the opinion of the doctors is indeed in agreement. But concerning the incomplete venereal acts of spouses, whether mutual or non-mutual, some speak more severely than others; and, with intrinsic consideration omitted, not a few so combine the opinions of several authors that their conclusions can scarcely be joined to one another by a strict nexus of consequence.

Because of the authority of the Holy Doctor, it is useful here briefly to recount the assertions of St. Alphonsus.

He condemns as mortal lust against nature copulation begun in an improper vessel or in the mouth, although it is completed in the due vessel ⁷; he judges that mutual acts which induce a grave danger of pollution are not excused from grave guilt by a grave cause, unless they were modest signs of love ⁸; he considers shameful touches which a spouse exercises upon himself or herself while the other is absent more probably grave ⁹. Wherefore, pleasures concerning past intercourse which cannot be repeated in the present are not excused from mortal sin if the pleasure "is had not only with a commotion of the spirits but also with titillation or venereal pleasure ¹⁰."

⁷ Theologia moralis, book 6, nos. 915 and 935.

⁸ Nos. 923-934.

⁹ No. 936.

¹⁰ No. 937.

We have endeavored so to defer to authority that nevertheless we have approved or reproved nothing except according to intrinsic reasons.