Part II. On the Illicit Acts of Spouses

The following must especially be noted:

I. Pollution, which in spouses in a certain way takes on the character of adultery, insofar as it involves the use of one's own body and thereby injures both the partner's right over it and the sanctity of the sacrament, which confirms the rights and duties of spouses.

II. Acts committed with a third party constitute adultery (n. 35), or take on its character, as was explained (n. 71).

III. Artificial fecundation, which consists in this: that a physician receives in a small vessel semen emitted by a man solitarily or onanistically, and with the help of a small tube infuses it into the genital organs of the woman. That this manner of acting is gravely evil is clear from the fact that fecundation is obtained by means of, or after there has first been, pollution or the sin of onanism. There is added the declaration of the Holy Office of March 24, 1897.¹ Otherwise, with sufficient probability, one must speak of artificial fecundation improperly so called, which consists in this: that the physician draws out with the help of a small tube semen infused into the female vessel through intercourse, and then inserts it more deeply into the female organ. For on the one hand intercourse is rightly performed and is assisted by art so that it may attain its end, namely fecundation; on the other hand it is not evident that the semen, through the physician's act which is completed by a further insertion of the semen into the female organ, is deprived by its ordination of its end, or that, during the action, it had been formally deprived of the said ordination.

¹ To the doubt, "Whether artificial fecundation of a woman can be employed," it answered: "It is not lawful."

Corollary. Likewise, for a grave cause it seems lawful to draw out semen from the husband's epididymis and infuse it into the wife's vagina. I said for a grave cause, because the natural order requires that offspring be procreated through intercourse. But it is unlawful to take in this way the semen of another man, even if the husband and the wife of the said man consent, because in a procreation of this sort, as proceeding from persons not bound by the bond of marriage, the education of the offspring would not be sufficiently provided for (n. 33).¹

107. IV. Intercourse in the wife's undue vessel is called imperfect sodomy if it is in the preposterous vessel (n. 57), and irrumation if it is in the mouth (n. 57); these sins seem not to differ from one another (n. 57).

Question. Whether imperfect sodomy or irrumation is had if intercourse is begun in the undue vessel with the intention of completing it in the due vessel. Many deny this, and consequently judge that in the case not even grave sin is had. But St. Alphonsus, with others, affirms it, because the intention of consummating intercourse in the due vessel does not prevent a perverse commingling, of which we spoke in n. 57, from being had as begun, although not to be consummated (VI, 935). I said, however, in the undue vessel, because the matter must be resolved otherwise if the man merely rubbed the male member on the surface of the preposterous vessel or of the closed mouth, because commingling is not had (n. 57); nevertheless an affection toward sodomy improperly so called, or toward irrumation, can be joined to it. Lying together on a part of the spouse's body distinct from the anus and the mouth belongs to pollution.

¹ Cf. Vermeersch, De castitate, n. 241.

V. Onanism,¹ which must be treated more fully.

¹ Forstmann-Ausems, Het Neomalthusianismus.

1. Notion and division. Onanism¹ is twofold: natural and artificial. Natural onanism consists in this: that intercourse, rightly begun, is broken off without a legitimate reason in such a way that the semen is poured out outside the vessel. I said without a legitimate reason; for because of a grave reason intercourse can be broken off, even if the pouring out of the semen outside the vessel follows from this, for example so that scandal may be avoided, or because intercourse cannot be continued on account of pain; in circumstances of this sort the loss of semen can be permitted (St. Alphonsus VI, 918). Artificial, or modern, onanism² is situated in the use of a preservative means or instrument by which it is brought about that the semen does not touch the vagina. It is called the English cloak, and is a thin membrane with which the male member is clothed, and by which the semen is caught and withdrawn after intercourse. The following are commonly referred to onanism: 1. the use either of an occlusive pessary, that is, an instrument which is introduced into the vagina near the mouth of the uterus, so that the ascent of the semen from the vagina to the uterus is impeded, or of a sponge, which likewise is introduced into the vagina as far as the opening of the uterus; 2. the use of a certain powder, which before intercourse is blown into the vagina and substantially corrupts the semen; 3. the use of a medicine which moistens the mouth of the uterus and so tightens and closes it that the semen cannot enter the uterus; 4. the use of a siphon or irrigator by which the semen after intercourse is washed out of the vagina.

109. 2. Morality. a. Onanism, both natural and artificial, is intrinsically and gravely evil, nor can it ever for any reason become lawful.

It is intrinsically evil, because it involves a use of the semen which lacks ordination to the natural end of semen, that is, to the good of the species (n. 19).

It is gravely evil, because it involves a use of semen which is neither apt for generation nor ordered to the education of the one to be generated; these privations are grave (n. 28).

Nor can it ever for any reason become lawful. For this could not happen unless there were an intermediate end to which the good of the human species is subordinated, so that it would be lawful to pursue that intermediate end while neglecting the good of the species. But such an intermediate end does not exist, since the good of the human species is immediately ordered to the ultimate end, which is God (n. 29). There are added the responses of the Holy Office, which declare onanism to be "forbidden by natural law" (May 21, 1851) and "intrinsically evil" (April 19, 1853). Add the very grave evils which threaten both spouses and offspring and society from onanism.³ Furthermore, onanism is unlawful even in a case in which, in appearance, it benefits some society, namely because in some region only weak and miserable offspring is usually born. For first, evils are not to be done so that good things may come about. Then, for offspring it is always better to be thus than not to be (n. 97).

Moreover, it is clear that not only the onanistic husband sins gravely, but also the wife who desires, approves, or advises the husband's manner of acting, or who in another way, for example by complaining about more numerous offspring, brings it about that the husband commits onanism.

b. Likewise all those manners of acting which we said are referred to onanism (n. 108) are gravely evil, because all of them, by directly bringing it about that the emitted semen cannot attain its end, directly impede the good of the species (n. 44). There is added the fact that the use of a pessary or sponge seems to bring it about that intercourse is not apt for generation, as we shall soon explain more fully (n. 110).

¹ Physicians more often designate by the name onanism what theologians call masturbation.

² Artificial onanism is often called Neo-Malthusianism; that is, Malthus, an Englishman by nation, in the book Essay on the Principles of Population, in order to diminish the number of offspring, advised that the liberty of nuptials be restricted. The Neo-Malthusians, however, went further and devised means for frustrating fecundation.

³ "The spouses themselves often suffer many evils from this; for just as children are a common good and a common bond by which spouses are more firmly and closely joined, so conversely those who lack offspring much more easily disagree and separate from each other. 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, onanists are not rarely punished by the premature death of one or another child whom they had begotten; hence parents of an only child are often pressed by anxieties and fears lest perhaps this child be taken from the living and the family name be blotted out. - Furthermore marital intercourse which, when legitimately performed, is a remedy for concupiscence, does not soothe it but inflames it when it is completed onanistically; especially the woman is not completely delighted, nor does she rest unless the womb is irrigated with male semen tempering its ardor. - Hence physicians also proclaim with one voice that onanists are liable to many diseases, which arise especially from the excitation of the nerves; for the commotion which lying together causes is not soothed except by the natural effusion and reception of male sperm.

"Offspring also not rarely suffer some detriment from the onanism of the parents, which the Council of Poitiers (1868) describes thus: It happens very often that that child is educated too indulgently, or by God's command ends life briefly, or, having become worse with age, destitute of the sweet love and protection of brothers and sisters, loving himself, not obeying his parents, proud, ungrateful, without affection, afflicts his family with ignominy and sorrow.

"Nor does onanism harm society less. Since, indeed, the chief strength and protection of society is situated in the number and manly education of citizens, onanism, by impeding generation, diminishes the number of citizens, so that nations once flourishing gradually decline. It likewise stands in the way of the manly education of boys: for where there is an only son, generally he is educated too indulgently, is devoted to pleasure rather than to duty, and often becomes wholly useless to his fatherland" (Tanquerey, Supplementum ad tractatum de Matrimonio, nn. 41-43; cf. Eschbach, Disputationes physiologico-theologicae, p. 569; Forstmann-Ausems, Het Neomalthusianismus).

Question 1. Whether a man can complete intercourse: 1. if the wife uses an occlusive pessary or sponge and refuses to remove it; 2. if the wife has used a powder which, blown into the vagina, substantially corrupts the semen, and refuses to abstain from it; 3. if the wife has tightened the mouth of the uterus by medicines and refuses to remove them.

Response. The man is certainly bound to forbid the things mentioned and to oppose them as far as can be done. But if he has lost his oil and labor, one must speak thus:

To I. It seems that it must be denied, because for right intercourse there is required an effusion of semen into a vagina which is not substantially vitiated. But the vagina, which is a fleshy member with an opening as far as the uterus, or like a canal proceeding as far as the uterus, seems, although it remains physically intact, to be substantially vitiated, morally speaking, through occlusion. What has been said generally is confirmed by the fact that from declarations of the S.C.C.¹ it seems one must deduce that a naturally occluded vagina is substantially vitiated. I acknowledge, however, that this confirmation cannot be urged with certainty, because in our case there is question of an artificial occlusion, which leaves the vagina physically intact.²

To II. With sufficient probability it is affirmed, because the vagina is not substantially vitiated by the powder introduced, but only accidentally, almost as the vagina of a woman who can receive semen but cannot retain it (n. 86).

To III. It is to be affirmed, because the vagina itself is not vitiated by the said medicine. The fact that the mouth of the uterus is tightened does not prevent intercourse from being considered apt in itself, as is clear from the fact that intercourse is lawful for pregnant women, who have the mouth of the uterus closed (n. 90).

¹ The responses of the said S.C.C. in the Salernitana, March 21, 1863; in the Verulana, January 24 and June 22, 1871; and in the Monasteriensis, December 16, 1899, declare null the marriage of a woman who lacked a uterus and had a short vagina closed near the uterus. Now the lack of a uterus and the shortness of the vagina do not stand in the way of potency (n. 86); therefore it remains that the occlusion of the vagina stands in the way.

² So also, with his opinion changed, teaches Vermeersch (Periodica de re canonica et morali, 1926, p. 65). The Bishops of Germany speak thus: "If the husband knows that the wife herself wishes to frustrate conception by the use of instruments or means inserted into the female vessel, he must very decisively hold her back from this, and, if possible, remove and destroy any instruments. If he does not succeed in this, or if despite his best will he has not been able to prevent the use of chemical preparations, one will not be able to require of him that he always practice abstinence. Rather, the conjugal act will be permitted to him for a grave cause whenever it is grave for him to lack the conjugal act, or if he himself were in danger of incontinence. But the presupposition is that he seeks the conjugal act moderately and in an ordered manner, and intends to complete it rightly; that he does not consent to the woman, and that he not merely warns her away from her criminal conduct, but seeks to hold her back from it as well as possible" (Instructio pro confessariis de usu et abusu matrimonii, § 5). From these things Vermeersch (loc. cit.) deduces that the said Bishops adhere to the more benign opinion. But regarding these things the Zeitschrift fuer katholische Theologie notes: "Must the Instruction necessarily be interpreted in this sense? In the first sentence of § 5 there is question of the use of instruments or means, chemical means; whether, therefore, it is a mechanical closure or only a chemical means, the husband must demand its removal. But in the second sentence, where for a grave cause intercourse is still permitted to the man if the woman does not obey, there is no longer question of instruments, a pessary, but only of chemical means which leave the vagina in natural connection with the uterus" (1927, p. 311).

Question 2. What can or must the wife of an onanistic husband do?

Response. She is bound from piety to admonish the husband to perform intercourse rightly, if there is hope of fruit and the admonition can be made without danger of grave inconvenience, for example of grave discord.¹ Yet in these cases, "toward the woman herself one must incline to severity rather than to laxity, lest it come to this, that with men rejected from the Sacraments, women indulging in onanism may be admitted everywhere by a subtle distinction."² With these things premised, one must speak thus:

I. If the husband is about to commit natural onanism, the wife:

1. Is not bound to render the debt. Some indeed judge that the wife is bound to this, because the husband asks the debt by right; but it is not sufficiently evident that the wife is bound to grant intercourse, that is, a mutual act, which she foresees is going to be deprived by the husband of an essential and due element.

2. She can render the debt, at least for a grave cause. The reason is that the wife on her part gives cooperation to a lawful thing, namely to intercourse insofar as it is rightly begun, not insofar as it is broken off; on the other hand, she is not bound, with grave inconvenience, to impede the sin of the husband. There are added the responses of the Sacred Penitentiary.³ Indeed, in practice perhaps not even a grave cause is required; this is drawn from the fact that the wife, with regard to the right of the husband, is with equal probability bound to render it (St. Alphonsus VI, 947).

3. She can ask the debt for a grave cause, because she asks, as is supposed, for right intercourse, nor is she bound to impede the sin of the husband with grave inconvenience. That a grave cause is required is deduced from the fact that, when the husband is not urging his right, she cooperates with the sin of the husband, which from piety she is bound to forestall (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). The wife has a grave cause "if she herself were in danger of incontinence; or if otherwise she would have to be deprived of her right of asking more than once or twice, with perpetual scruple whether there is a sufficiently grave inconvenience for her, or whether then she could contain herself" (St. Alphonsus VI, 947).

II. If the husband, with an English cloak employed, is going to have intercourse, the wife can neither ask nor render the debt, but is bound to resist as a woman who is oppressed. Therefore only for a most grave cause, namely for fear of death or of an evil equivalent to it, would it be lawful for her not to resist the oppressor. The reason is that in the case the act is totally vitiated from the beginning. So also the responses of the Holy Office⁴ and of the Sacred Penitentiary.⁵

Corollary. As often as the wife lawfully asks or renders the debt, she also lawfully excites herself and consents to the pleasure annexed to her act.

¹ Sacred Penitentiary, November 15, 1816; February 1, 1823.

² Instruction of the Bishops of Belgium, June 2, 1909.

³ The Sacred Penitentiary, on November 15, 1816, responded: "Approved and serious moral theologians agree in this, that ... it is lawful for a wife to render the debt, namely to a man asking onanistically, if from her denial she is going to be badly treated by the man and can fear grave inconvenience to herself from it; for in this case, they say, the wife is not judged to cooperate formally in the sin of her husband, but only to permit it for a just and reasonable cause. Nevertheless let the petitioner admonish a wife of this sort that she not cease prudently to admonish her husband to desist from this shamefulness." Likewise the same Sacred Penitentiary, on February 1, 1823, to the question, "Bertha has a husband whom by constant experience she knows to be an onanist. In vain she has tried all means to withdraw him from so unspeakable a crime; indeed very grave or at least grave evils now probably threaten her, so that either she must incur these evils or flee from the house of her husband unless she sometimes permits the abuse of marriage," responded, I say, to the said question: "Since in the proposed case the woman on her part does nothing against nature and gives cooperation to a lawful thing, while the whole disorder of the act proceeds from the malice of the husband, who instead of consummating withdraws himself and pours out outside the vessel, therefore if the woman, after due admonitions, accomplishes nothing, while the husband insists by threatening beatings or death or other most grave evils, she herself will be able, as approved theologians teach, to behave permissively without sin, since in these circumstances she simply permits the sin of the husband, and does so from a grave cause which excuses her, because charity, by which she is bound to impede it, does not oblige with so great an inconvenience." Finally, on April 3, 1916, the Sacred Penitentiary declared: "If the husband in the use of marriage wishes to commit the crime of Onan, namely by pouring out the semen outside the vessel after intercourse has been begun, and likewise threatens the wife with death or grave molestations 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 she on her part gives cooperation to a lawful thing and action, while she permits the sin of the husband from a grave cause which excuses her; because charity by which she would be bound to impede it does not oblige with so great an inconvenience."

⁴ May 21, 1851; April 19, 1853.

⁵ The Sacred Penitentiary, on June 3, 1916, rescripted these things:

1. Whether a woman, in a case in which the husband wishes to use an instrument for exercising onanism, is bound to positive resistance?

2. If negatively, whether reasons equally grave as for natural onanism, without an instrument, suffice to make passive resistance honorable on the part of the woman, or rather whether most grave reasons are altogether necessary?

3. Whether, so that this whole matter may be developed and taught by a safer path, a man using such instruments ought truly to be equated with an oppressor, to whom therefore the woman ought to oppose that resistance which a virgin must oppose to an invader.

The response was:

To the first: Affirmatively.

To the second: Provision has been made in the first.

To the third: Affirmatively.

3. Remedies against onanism.¹

a. First of all, let it be indicated that onanism is a most grave sin, since it is opposed to the primary end of marriage and of the conjugal act.

b. Let the effects of onanism be prudently explained, effects which not so rarely are punished by God in the offspring born, and which besides easily harm health, especially by weakening the nervous system (n. 109).

c. If the reason for onanism is difficulty in feeding and educating more numerous offspring, confidence in God should be stirred up. Moreover, appeal should be made to a fact confirmed by daily experience: that numerous families, generally speaking, are happier than others; for in them the natural energies of the members are splendidly exercised; in them a greater union and manly love reign.

d. If death from a new childbirth is feared, it can generally be said that the danger is easily exaggerated by some physicians; besides, the medical art has so advanced that the danger can now commonly be averted.

e. Finally, those things can prudently be suggested which we are going to say in n. 117 about a time less apt for fecundation.

¹ Cf. Instruction of the Bishops of Belgium, June 2, 1909; Ned. Kath. Stemmen, 1909, p. 356.

4. The manner of treating onanists,¹ although it ought to be done according to the general rules, is usually assigned specially on account of the importance of the matter - for there is question of a crime very harmful and spreading most widely.

a. With regard to the interrogation to be made, the confessor should regularly ask penitents prudently,² if there is a founded suspicion that they are addicted to onanism; for example, by asking whether anything troubles their conscience regarding marriage, or even more clearly, whether regarding the number of children they submit themselves to the divine Will.

b. With regard to the admonition to be made, observe these things:

alpha. The confessor, as is clear, can never positively permit onanism.

beta. One who is doubtful already lacks good faith; hence one who asks the confessor should be taught the gravity of the sin.

gamma. When good faith occurs, the penitent should be admonished according to the common rules of admonition; that is, he should be instructed if there is hope of fruit, or if from silence the common good can suffer detriment. He should be left in good faith if hope of fruit is absent and the common good is not exposed to danger by silence. The common good is exposed to danger if it is feared that the silence of the confessor will become widely known.

Nevertheless, note that good faith rarely occurs, both because the vice is repugnant to the natural inclination of completing intercourse, and because the faithful are forewarned against that vice both by books and newspapers, both by sermons and instructions. Sometimes, however, especially if the wife is ill or grave danger is feared from a new childbirth, it can happen that the penitent, more easily indeed the wife, is in good faith.

c. With regard to the remedies against onanism to be impressed upon the penitent, cf. what was said under 3, n. 112.

¹ Cf. Instruction of the Bishops of Belgium, June 2, 1909; N. K. Stemmen, 1909, p. 359.

² Cf. Holy Office, May 21, 1851; Sacred Penitentiary, March 10, 1886, to the question: "When there is a founded suspicion that a penitent who is wholly silent about onanism is addicted to this crime, is it lawful for the confessor to abstain from prudent and discreet interrogation, because he foresees that many will be disturbed out of good faith and many will abandon the Sacraments? Or rather is the confessor bound to ask prudently and discreetly?" It responded: "Considering that the unspeakable vice of which there is question in the case has spread widely, ... regularly, negatively to the first part, affirmatively to the second."

VI. Incomplete intercourse.

1. With regard to it, it is first asked whether intercourse of this sort is of itself apt for generation, in other words, whether conception follows from it of itself or only accidentally. If it is not of itself apt for generation, it is intrinsically evil; indeed, those who cannot perform intercourse more perfectly labor under impotence. Now the said intercourse, in our opinion, is of itself apt for generation. This is first deduced from the fact that intercourse which, as to its substance, follows the manner indicated by nature ought to be judged of itself apt for generation. But incomplete intercourse, as to its substance, seems to follow the manner indicated by nature. For it involves some penetration of the vagina; moreover, a more perfect or less perfect penetration does not seem to differ except according to more and less, or they are judged substantially similar to each other. Then - what we have already noted - if the contrary opinion is admitted, those who cannot have intercourse more perfectly would be impotent; and no theologian up to now has taught this. Therefore it suffices for an act of itself apt for generation that one infuse semen into a vagina which is not substantially vitiated.¹ Nevertheless:

2. Incomplete intercourse, although of itself apt for generation, nevertheless is of itself unlawful. This seems first to be deduced from the declaration of the Holy Office dated November 23, 1923. The Holy Office, to the questions II: "Whether a confessor is to be censured who, after all remedies for turning a penitent abusing marriage away from this evil have been tried in vain, teaches him to exercise incomplete intercourse in order to forestall mortal sins. III: Whether a confessor is to be censured who, in the circumstances under II, advises incomplete intercourse already otherwise known to the penitent, or, when the penitent asks whether this manner is lawful, answers simply that it is lawful, without any restriction or explanation"; to these questions the Sacred Congregation responded: "To II and III, affirmatively." Now this declaration is not well understood if you admit that incomplete intercourse is of itself lawful. There is added the authority of theologians; for, as far as I know, no author declares the said intercourse immune from every fault. There is added a twofold reason. First, intercourse ought to be done in the manner which nature itself teaches. But the figure and form, construction and dimensions, which the Author of nature gave to the genital apparatus both of the man and of the woman, demonstrate that intercourse is consonant with nature only when the man has introduced the member so deeply into the wife's vagina that the glans or summit of the member, together with the opening through which sperm is ejaculated, reaches the bottom of the vagina, to the neck of the uterus, and is carried wholly before the orifice of the uterus, into which the ejaculated semen can immediately enter.² Then, true disorder is to choose a manner of having intercourse which renders notably less probable the attainment of the end to which the use of semen must be ordered under grave obligation. Nevertheless, since the act remains of itself apt for generation, it is not evident that there is a grave disorder or a substantial inversion of order.

3. Incomplete intercourse is excused by impossibility of having intercourse more perfectly, grave pain if intercourse is had more perfectly, and so forth; but not by more numerous offspring, since this inconvenience is intrinsic to perfect intercourse. Hence the Holy Office on November 23, 1923 rightly responded negatively to the question: "Whether it can be tolerated that confessors of their own accord teach the practice of incomplete intercourse and advise it indiscriminately to all penitents who fear lest more numerous offspring be born."

¹ According to Dr. Batenburg (Brief aan Dr. Ausems), incomplete intercourse is not of itself apt for generation: first, because semen infused at the entrance of the vagina, on account of the upper walls of the vagina, which in intercourse of this sort remain closed or rather joined to each other, can scarcely ascend; then, because the vaginal fluid, in which case the neospermata are enveloped, easily and quickly corrupts them. From this, he says, conception follows much more often from complete intercourse than from incomplete intercourse. But even if the assertions were proved, nevertheless they would not prevent the act, according to what was set forth above, from being substantially placed; and once this is admitted, it must be said that the end is more often not obtained accidentally only, not of itself.

² Taskin, apud Ned. Kath. Stemmen, 1923, p. 198 sq.

VII. Deposition of semen outside the vagina - that is, at the exterior part of the vulva, or, after the vulva has been penetrated, at the mouth of the vagina - is not of itself apt for generation, and therefore must be called true pollution. For, first, ch. 6, tit. 15, de frigidis et maleficiatis, declares that an impediment of impotence is had if the man cannot penetrate the woman's vagina. Then, an act which in no way follows the manner indicated by nature cannot be judged of itself apt for generation. But the act of which there is question in no way follows the manner indicated by nature, since it excludes every penetration of the vagina. Hence those who cannot have intercourse more perfectly are impotent; and those who deliberately have intercourse in this way sin gravely. This, however, does not prevent those who have tried in vain to penetrate the vagina, as long as there is some hope of penetrating, from being able to try it again (St. Alphonsus VI, 954, dub. 2).

VIII. An act committed after intercourse. I speak of vaginal washings,¹ which indeed are commonly done for various reasons, for example so that conception may be impeded, or so that cleanliness or health may be cared for. Now:

1. Vaginal washings cannot be done with the intention that conception be impeded; for this is the same as directly expelling the semen and therefore directly impeding the good of the species (n. 44). Nor are they lawful so that cleanliness may be cared for, if the intended cleanliness is obtained precisely through the expulsion of the semen: both because evils are not to be done so that good things may come about, and because the said privation of cleanliness is intrinsic to intercourse. Nor are they permitted so that cleanliness may be cared for in the case in which cleanliness is not obtained precisely through expulsion of the semen, because the good effect does not correspond to the evil effect.

2. Outside the aforesaid cases, one must speak thus:

a. Vaginal washings can be done at the time when the semen remaining in the vagina can be considered corrupted, that is, two hours after intercourse. Namely, it is already rather commonly admitted by experts that all spermatozoa remaining in the vagina after intercourse are, at least by that time, corrupted by the reacting vaginal secretions.²

b. For a grave cause, washings can be done before the time indicated under 1, even immediately after intercourse. This must be said in view of the principles which regard an act with a double effect. The case would occur, for example, if a woman were forced to admit intercourse by a man infected with syphilis or another contagious disease, and the washing were a means of driving away the danger of infection. In that case there would be an action with a double effect following equally immediately: one effect would be the driving away or sterilization of bacilli, that is, of spirochetes producing infection; the other, the driving away or sterilization of semen.³ Yet take care to note that a grave cause is also required when the danger of losing all the semen has ceased, that is, four or five minutes after intercourse;⁴ for even the loss of part of the semen seems grave in itself, except with sufficient probability in the case in which the partial loss of semen happens on the occasion of an act of itself ordered to generation (n. 83). Besides, the things said about a grave cause which would permit a washing are almost merely theoretical. For a grave cause must commonly be sought from a motive of health. Now vaginal washings regularly harm health, far from favoring it;⁵ nor do they avert the infection of which mention was made above.⁶ There is added the fact that washings, in the case in which they are useful, must be done by an expert.⁷

¹ Cf. Ned. Kath. Stemmen, 1922, p. 43; R. K. Artsenblad, June 1927.

² Van Bouwdijk-Bastiaanse, however, judges that living spermatozoa are commonly still found in the vagina after three hours.

³ N. K. Stemmen, loc. cit.

⁴ As is evident from the latest experiments, immediately after coitus spermatozoa already begin to enter the neck or cervix of the uterus. They have been found four or five minutes afterward. Now neither in the neck of the uterus, and much less in the uterus itself, can they be reached by that irrigation which women can perform by themselves without a physician (N. K. Stemmen, loc. cit.).

⁵ R. K. Artsenblad, 1927, pp. 133-147.

⁶ R. K. Artsenblad, 1927, pp. 147-153.

⁷ R. K. Artsenblad, loc. cit.

IX. Doubts and Responses.

1. Spouses lawfully abstain from intercourse at the time when fecundation is judged easier, and perform it at another time.¹ Now conception is less probable: according to some, from the fifteenth day after menstruation has begun until a few days (three or four) before it; according to others, only during the time which immediately follows the cessation of the menses, while the week preceding the menses would be more favorable to fecundation; according to others, during the week which follows and the week which precedes the menses. And so this matter is so uncertain that it has scarcely any practical value.²

2. The wife does not sin by rising or urinating immediately after intercourse, because, once intercourse has ended, the vaginal walls immediately adhere to one another, so that the semen is not expelled. She would sin, however, if she acted in this way with the intention that the semen be expelled (St. Alphonsus VI, 954).

3. Spouses who in the act of intercourse restrain semination do not sin, provided that each consents and neither is exposed to danger of pollution. The reason is that that penetration of the female vessel is then reputed an incomplete mutual act, or even an essential part of perfect intercourse; married persons have a right to these things. I said provided that each consents, because each has a right to the semination of the partner. I said provided that neither is exposed to danger of pollution. But since that danger is easily present, in practice this cannot be permitted except to those who know by experience that the danger of pollution is absent (St. Alphonsus VI, 918; n. 101).

4. The husband sins gravely who without a just cause restrains semination after the wife has seminated or is prepared to seminate. The reason is "because then he himself is the cause that the semen of the wife is wasted" (St. Alphonsus VI, 918), that is, deprived of its end. The wife, however, who does not consent to the husband's manner of acting, can seminate, since from begun intercourse, that is, from penetration of the vagina, she seems to receive a right to semination. - A wife who restrains semination after the husband has seminated does not sin gravely, except in the case in which the husband does not consent. For since the semination of the wife is not necessary for generation, she, by restraining semination, is not the cause that the husband's semen is wasted, that is, deprived of its end.

5. The wife can excite herself to semination immediately after intercourse rightly had, because in this case the wife's semination, which is the complement of intercourse, is sufficiently united with the act of the husband (St. Alphonsus VI, 919). The same, for the same reason, must be said about the wife's semination immediately before intercourse.

¹ Sacred Penitentiary, June 16, 1880.

² Cf. Capellmann-Bergmann, Pastoralmedizin, p. 289 sq.; Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis, I, n. 114.

Question. Whether the wife can also seminate immediately before and immediately after intercourse to be performed or already performed onanistically.

Response I. If there is question of intercourse to be had or already had onanistically, but in the natural manner, the wife lawfully excites herself immediately before the intercourse to be had. For on the one hand, morally speaking, it is of itself the same thing to seminate immediately before as during the penetration itself; on the other hand, it must be attributed to the husband, as we suppose, that the wife's semination will be frustrated of its end. Otherwise one must speak of excitation immediately after intercourse has been performed, because in this case the wife herself frustrates her semination of its end. Nor should you say that the wife, by force of the intercourse had, has received a right to semination; for she cannot receive a right to a semination whose frustration she herself will be the cause of. Now if she seminated after intercourse had been broken off, she herself would frustrate the semination. Yet it will often be preferable to leave the wife in good faith.

Response II. If there is question of intercourse to be had or already had onanistically and in the artificial manner, the wife can in no way seminate, because such intercourse is totally vitiated from the beginning (n. 111).

Corollary. From what has been set forth there follows that, with respect to things lawful and unlawful for spouses, these rules are rightly established by theologians:

1. What is according to the end of marriage is lawful, such as intercourse and accessory acts, whether mutual or solitary, referred to that intercourse now to be had.

2. What is against the primary end of marriage is gravely evil, such as pollution and its grave danger admitted without a sufficient cause, etc.

3. What is apart from the end is either lightly prohibited, such as an unnatural position, or in itself not prohibited in any way, such as mutual acts, and solitary acts, as others add, not referred to intercourse now to be had.