Article IV. On the Absence of Harm to Be Averted

Intercourse can be prohibited by reason of harm that would follow from it, and this under grave or under light obligation according as grave or light harm is feared. A grave cause excuses from grave harm; a just cause excuses from light harm.

Harms can arise especially from certain circumstances in which the wife chiefly can be situated; therefore take these more determinate points:

I. During the time of menstruation, according to many, intercourse is in itself venially unlawful because of indecency; yet according to others, since this indecency is physical rather than moral, it does not suffice to constitute sin. Nevertheless by accident it is prohibited under venial sin, because the woman's organs, which at the time of menstruation are in a certain congestion, are irritated more by intercourse, whence congestions of the uterus can arise. But the harm commonly is not of such a kind that intercourse is prohibited under grave obligation. Moreover, intercourse during the time of menstruation is to be dissuaded, because on account of indecency it can harm mutual esteem; make exception if, according to the judgment of a physician, that time seems more suitable for the fecundation of a woman hitherto sterile. Moreover, spouses are accustomed to be turned away from intercourse during the time of menstruation by natural nausea.

Note. During the time of extraordinary flow some harm easily threatens from intercourse.¹ But if, according to the advice of a physician, it is certain or probable that grave injury will follow for the wife, intercourse in itself is prohibited under grave obligation; nevertheless it would be lawful on account of the danger of incontinence. If only light harm is feared, intercourse is practically lawful, because the said flow is perpetual or prolonged, so that the husband is excused by inconvenience, to which the danger of incontinence will often be added (St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 32, q. unica, art. 2, sol. 2; St. Alphonsus VI, 925).

¹ Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, t. II, n. 375; Capellmann-Bergmann, Pastoral-Medizin, p. 345.

II. During the time of pregnancy, intercourse is commonly lawful. The danger of abortion can indeed sometimes be present, namely in the first period or even in the first months after conception. But first, at the beginning there is no certainty about conception. Then, danger is rather to be feared from the fact that intercourse is performed too often or vehemently. Finally, danger perhaps to be feared from compression of bodies can be removed by a change of position.¹ But as to the fact that, pregnancy standing, a new conception does not follow and therefore semen is frustrated of the end of generation, this must be ascribed to something which has occurred by the working of nature, and not to the act, since the act of itself is ordered to generation (St. Alphonsus VI, 924).²

¹ Capellmann-Bergmann, op. cit., p. 317.

² Capellmann-Bergmann judge that, according to the opinion of St. Alphonsus, intercourse during the time of pregnancy is in itself venially unlawful, and therefore that an honorable cause is required which excuses from fault. But the Holy Doctor requires an honorable cause only insofar as intercourse ought to be ordered to an honorable end (cf. VI, 924, compared with n. 813, to which St. Alphonsus refers).

III. During the time of puerperium or purgation, grave harm is to be feared for the woman in the first days after birth, indeed according to Capellmann-Bergmann¹ for two weeks. Moreover, in itself it is to be advised that intercourse be abstained from until the woman's organs have been fully restored, namely for about six weeks.

¹ Op. cit., p. 316.

IV. During the time of lactation, intercourse is lawful. A new conception will indeed diminish the secretion of milk; but besides the fact that a new conception at that time is little probable, provision can be made for the child in another way¹ (St. Alphonsus VI, 911).

¹ Capellmann-Bergmann, op. cit., p. 317.

V. During the time of illness, intercourse is lawful as follows:

1. If the illness is not contagious, lying together is permitted, provided the illness is light and does not affect the woman's genitals. If it is grave and joined with great pain or great fevers, likewise if the woman's genitals are diseased, intercourse is prohibited under grave obligation, since there is grave danger that the illness will become much worse.¹ Nevertheless a grave cause, for example the danger of incontinence, excuses, although even then the sick person can deny the debt (cf. St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 64, a. 1; St. Alphonsus VI, 909, 950).

Note. If an imminent danger of death will follow from intercourse, which is sometimes to be feared if the woman suffers from cardiac disease, the use of marriage is altogether forbidden; for there would be, as it were, homicide. If a physician declares that the wife will be brought into very grave danger from childbirth, a grave cause, such as the danger of incontinence, renders intercourse lawful, because it does not introduce a proximate danger of death that will follow. There is added the fact that conception is doubtful, and that physicians not so rarely exaggerate the danger.

2. If the illness is contagious, one must speak thus:

a. If it is syphilis, or the French disease, as it is called, intercourse is gravely unlawful, in view of the horrible consequences of that disease and the moral certainty of infecting the partner. Nevertheless even in this case, on account of a grave cause, intercourse seems to be permitted, though it is not to be imposed upon the other party, provided the partner is warned of the contagion (St. Alphonsus VI, 909). They say besides that ointments have been discovered by which contagion is averted, and indeed certainly if the member is anointed before or immediately after intercourse, less certainly if it is anointed within the space of one or another hour after infection.² If these things are confirmed by experience, one who uses those ointments in time must be judged more mildly. Finally, under the moral aspect another venereal infection, namely gonorrhea, is almost equated with syphilis, at least in the wife.³

b. If there is question of another contagious illness, one must see what the nature of the illness is, and how great the danger of infection is.⁴

Note. In the preceding points we have supposed that from intercourse had during the time of illness there does not threaten harm to offspring already conceived. But if this has place, for example if an illness communicated to a pregnant wife through intercourse would also infect offspring already conceived, intercourse remains unlawful. But as to the fact that offspring to be conceived will be born diseased, for example affected by consumption, or will even die before birth, that is not a reason why one must abstain longer from intercourse. For what St. Thomas says about the offspring of lepers holds: "It is better for him to be thus than not to be at all" (Supplement, q. 64, a. 1, ad 4; St. Alphonsus VI, 951).

¹ Capellmann-Bergmann, op. cit., p. 326 sq.

² Vermeersch, De castitate, n. 48.

³ Cf. Capellmann-Bergmann, op. cit., p. 321.

⁴ Phthisis does not infect the partner through intercourse, but it can infect her in another way, for example through kisses, sputum, etc.; in addition it is hereditary, that is, it communicates to offspring a disposition toward phthisis. But since this can be permitted, phthisis in itself is not a reason why one ought to abstain from intercourse. More frequent intercourse, however, can greatly harm those suffering from phthisis.

VI. After a meal or bath, commonly no harm worthy of note is to be feared from intercourse¹ (St. Alphonsus VI, 910).

¹ Capellmann-Bergmann, op. cit., p. 329.

VII. During sacred time, that is, feast days and days of fasting, intercourse is not prohibited. On those days, as being dedicated to divine worship or penance, to abstain from asking for intercourse is a counsel, unless, however, a danger of incontinence is present (St. Alphonsus VI, 923; cf. Roman Ritual, at the end of the Mass for bridegroom and bride).¹ Nor is intercourse prohibited on the day of communion to be received or having been received, although it can be a counsel on that day to abstain from intercourse, just as from many other delights. These things, however, should be left to the devotion of individuals.

¹ St. Thomas is stricter (Supplement, q. 64, a. 5).