Contraception and Onanism

Against the primary and essential end of marriage spouses can sin in two ways: a. by imperfect sodomy; b. by onanism.

71. On sodomy. Imperfect sodomy is committed when the man penetrates the preposterous vessel of the woman, whether he inseminates in it or outside it.

1. Sodomy committed between spouses is a grave sin, both because it is opposed to the natural end of the conjugal act and of virile semen, and because it is opposed to conjugal fidelity, which requires that spouses not use the body otherwise than in a mode apt for generation; nor can spouses remit this fidelity to one another.

Therefore if sodomitical intercourse occurs by mutual consent, it is a most grave sin on each side; if it occurs with the wife dissenting, certainly the man sins most gravely by a sin against nature; but it is asked whether the wife can ever permit this and cooperate with the sin of the man.

2. Positive cooperation with sodomy is never licit. Nevertheless, from a most grave cause a wife can licitly suffer the sodomitical intercourse of the man under this twofold condition: a. that she tries to impede this intercourse and permits it only then when she cannot impede it without danger of a most grave evil; b. that she does not consent to the venereal delectation then arising.

Note. In this matter one must altogether insist on the principle: apart from those things which are against the end of nature, there do not occur actions between spouses, however disordered and filthy they may be, which can certainly be accused of grave sin. Wherefore, sodomitical affection being excluded, this twofold action is not to be called gravely culpable: a. to begin intercourse in the preposterous vessel with the intention of consummating it in the natural vessel; b. to touch the preposterous vessel of the wife with the genitals, provided effusion of semen is guarded against.

72. On onanism. Onanism is called intercourse completed in such a way that generation cannot follow from the semen poured forth.

This can occur in two ways: a. if the man, after intercourse has been begun in the natural vessel, withdraws himself before insemination and pours forth semen outside the vessel; b. if by the help of an instrument he impedes the semen from reaching the vessel of the woman and scatters it.

a. Medical doctors by the name of onanism also designate the sin of softness or solitary pollution; but theologians distinguish the sin of pollution from the sin of onanism, and by the name of onanism signify only the effusion of semen outside the female vessel which is joined with intercourse. Sometimes onanism is also called Malthusianism from the Englishman Malthus, who sought means of impeding the excessive multiplication of human beings.

b. The sin of onanism received its name from Onan, who, as Sacred Scripture testifies, "entering to the wife of his brother, poured forth semen on the earth, lest children be born in the name of his brother."¹ The same sin had already been perpetrated before Onan by his brother Her.

c. The former mode of committing onanism was once the only one, wherefore by older authors onanism is customarily defined as: the breaking off of intercourse already begun, so that semen is poured forth outside the vessel and thus generation is impeded. But in recent times certain preservative or preventive means have been invented, by which it is brought about that semen does not reach the vessel of the woman, or, if it has reached it, that it is killed there.²

d. The reasons on account of which today spouses frequently come together in an onanistic manner are chiefly these: a. lest they generate children whom they either cannot or do not wish to nourish; b. lest, with the patrimony divided among many, the nobility of the family suffer detriment; c. for satisfying libido and at the same time for escaping the inconveniences of pregnancy, childbirth, and education.

¹ Gen. 38, 9.

² Cf. Seved Ribbing, Die sexuelle Hygiene (Leipzig: Hobbing, 1898), p. 102 f.; G. Adolf, Die Gefahren der kunstlichen Sterilitat (Leipzig: Kruger, 1899); Antonelli I, n. 458 ff.; Nardi, De Sanctitate matrimonii vindicata contra onanismum^3 (Rome: Desclee, 1907).

73. Its malice. 1. Onanism committed by mutual consent of spouses is a grave sin on each side, both because it is opposed to the primary end of marriage, and because it is opposed to conjugal fidelity, and finally because it is opposed not only to the health of the spouses but especially to the good of human society. Therefore in Sacred Scripture it is called a detestable thing,¹ and the Holy See declares it prohibited by natural law² and intrinsically evil.³ Where it is committed by the man alone without the consent of the wife, he certainly sins gravely, nor is the wife bound to render the debt to a man who completes intercourse onanistically: for she obligated herself only to the use of marriage which of itself is apt for generation. But it is asked whether the wife can permit this mode of coming together and cooperate with the sin of the man.

From onanism must be distinguished the interruption of intercourse which occurs from fortuitous necessity, e.g. to avoid scandal which a person unexpectedly arriving would suffer. But if, after intercourse has been interrupted, semen were poured forth, the effusion would be free from fault: for since intercourse is interrupted from another end, the effusion occurs beyond intention, and therefore must be equated with involuntary pollution.

2. To break off intercourse already begun before semen is poured forth, without proximate danger of pouring it forth outside the wife's vagina, a. is a grave sin if either party is unwilling, because it is against the right which the other party has to completed intercourse; b. is not a sin if both consent, provided there is a reasonable cause for acting in this way and danger of pouring forth semen is excluded, because intercourse of this kind is like an immodest touch, which is licit between spouses.

Today it not rarely occurs that men, from true or vain fear lest the wife will die if she conceives again, break off intercourse already begun before the effusion of semen. Although they must be exhorted to abstain from this kind of thing because of the danger of pollution, nevertheless, if they assert that pollution follows only rarely, this cannot be prohibited to them.

Note. a. The more this lamentable and detestable practice, such as the prohibition of offspring, gains strength even in Germany, not only in families of the rich but also in families of laborers and the poor, the more the necessity appears, both in the examination of betrothed persons and in the confessional, of openly declaring that the prohibition of offspring never in any case becomes licit, and that abstinence is the only licit means of preventing offspring. Nor should it be said that continence, especially for younger spouses, is morally impossible on account of proximate danger of sinning. For Christian spouses who must abstain from the use of marriage, not from egoistic motives but only from truly just causes, either for a time or perpetually, have in prayer and other exercises of piety the means of obtaining from God the gift of continence, who will not suffer anyone to be tempted beyond what he is able.⁴

b. In most cases the fault of frustrated generation is in the man, more rarely in the woman, except that women are more indulgent toward men abusing marriage and by their complaints about fear of illness and of death itself, about the inconveniences of pregnancy and education, and by their moroseness in rendering the debt, give the man an occasion of abusing marriage. Wherefore women must be treated in different ways according to the diversity of circumstances. Some must be taught concerning the obligation of obeying; innocent women must be consoled and taught how they ought to conduct themselves toward onanist husbands, lest they themselves also commit sin; the fainthearted must be lifted up and admonished to trust in God and not too readily to believe physicians exaggerating the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth, and that they themselves can impede many sins of the husband and in this way contribute to his eternal salvation. But women who complain concerning the inconveniences and difficulties of pregnancy, childbirth, nourishment, and education should remember that these are consequences of original sin: I will multiply your toils and your conceptions; in pain you shall bring forth children,⁵ and therefore are to be borne in a spirit of humility and penance.

¹ Gen. 38, 9-10.

² Holy Office, 21 May 1851.

³ Holy Office, 19 Apr. 1853.

⁴ 1 Cor. 10, 13.

⁵ Gen. 3, 16.

74. On the cooperation of the wife with onanistic intercourse. 1. It is clear that formal cooperation, by which namely the wife consents to onanism, is gravely illicit. And indeed the wife sins gravely even then when, by her complaints concerning the pains of childbirth, concerning numerous offspring, etc., with foresight of the sin to be committed, she gives the husband an occasion for onanistic intercourse.

2. Material cooperation with the first mode of onanism is licit from a moderately grave cause.¹ It is not necessary that this cause be plainly grave, because the wife does not cooperate with a thing already evil from the beginning; nevertheless this is required, that she prudently admonish the husband to complete the act rightly: for from charity she is bound to impede the sin of the man. But she ought to admonish the husband cautiously and prudently, lest, if perhaps he were in good faith, afterward he sin formally. Nevertheless, she is not bound to admonish on each occasion if no fruit is hoped for; and if she cannot admonish without grave inconvenience, e.g. without fear of indignation, discord, adultery, etc., she can omit the admonition.

a. That the positive, material cooperation of the wife with the onanistic intercourse of the husband is not intrinsically evil and therefore is not illicit in itself is admitted by all today: for immediately she cooperates with licit intercourse and only mediately with the illicit effusion of semen. Nor is this cooperation argued to be illicit from the fact that cooperation with sodomitical intercourse is illicit. Certainly onanistic intercourse cannot be compared with sodomitical intercourse: for onanistic intercourse, licit at the beginning on each side, begins to become evil on the part of the man when the man withdraws himself, while the woman has herself merely passively. On the contrary, sodomitical intercourse at any instant is intrinsically evil on each side, and therefore is never licit on either side.

b. If women accuse themselves because they rejoiced about the onanistic practice of the husband, they must not immediately be accused of mortal sin: for often they rejoice not about sin but about an altogether licit thing, namely either about the pleasure of intercourse or about the effects of the sin, as about preservation from the troubles of pregnancy and childbirth.

c. But the wife can give consent to the pleasure arising from intercourse, because she herself, in rendering the debt to an onanist husband, does a licit thing. Sometimes, as experience testifies, offspring is conceived even from onanistic intercourse of the first mode. Now if it were probable that conception could follow even from onanistic intercourse, or at least if the wife judged it probable that she had received the semen, she would have the right of exciting herself to complete pleasure.

d. A sufficient cause which renders cooperation with the onanism of the man licit for the wife would be this: a. fear of inconvenience, as of quarrels, disputes, etc.; b. fear lest the husband commit adulteries; c. if otherwise she would have to abstain from the use of marriage for a long time with her own inconvenience; d. if she would be impeded from exercises of piety and from the use of the sacraments; e. if, with domestic peace disturbed, cohabitation would be rendered troublesome.

3. Material cooperation with the second mode of onanism can be permitted only from fear of a most grave evil, and consent to delectation must be excluded; for in this case the wife cooperates proximately with a thing wholly illicit, but in the former case she cooperates with an act which is licit apart from the pouring forth of semen. Therefore in the former case, in which intercourse is rightly begun, the wife can render the debt and have herself simply passively toward the breaking off of intercourse; but in the latter case it is not licit for her to have herself passively, but she is bound, by resisting positively according to her strength, to impede the act sinful in itself; and only from a most grave cause can she permit what she cannot impede.

a. The wife not only can, but also is bound to render intercourse to an onanist husband in the former case: for since the husband seeks a thing to which he has a right, the wife cannot deny it, although she knows that he will abuse it. Nevertheless, because the one rendering cooperates with the sin of the husband, she cannot render it without a just cause.²

b. From a moderately grave cause, the wife in the former case licitly seeks the debt from an onanist husband. For since the act which she seeks is not evil in itself and the husband, if he wishes, can furnish it without sin, nothing stands in the way of the petition except the precept by which from charity she is bound to impede the sin of the husband. But since charity does not obligate with grave inconvenience, she licitly seeks it whenever it is grave for her to lack the conjugal act.

¹ This is confirmed by several responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, the last of which is from 8 June 1842.

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 947.

75. Means of avoiding onanism. a. The crime of onanism today spreads widely and is propagated more widely day by day especially for this reason, that spouses wish to enjoy the pleasure of marriage without undergoing the burden of nourishing numerous offspring. For avoiding onanism, wives especially must be admonished to induce husbands by blandishments, prayers, and exhortations either to complete the act rightly or to abstinence.

Motives by which spouses can be deterred from the crime of onanism: a. onanism is a cause of adulteries: for since spouses, especially women, are not satiated by imperfect acts of this kind, they seek illicit pleasures; b. it destroys conjugal peace and concord; c. it causes the joys of father and mother to withdraw from families, into whose place succeed remorse of conscience and fears lest God punish so horrible a crime and snatch away from the living the only offspring; d. onanism is the cause on account of which a family in which only one or another offspring is procreated soon perishes; e. finally, it brings pains of body and manifold detriment of health, especially in women.¹

b. Since no licit means of impeding generation exists, the confessor can advise spouses who wish to prevent further generation of offspring, cautiously and prudently however, that at the time at which conception more easily occurs, namely three or four days before and fifteen days after menstruation has begun, they should contain themselves, but at another time, at which conception rarely occurs, they may use marriage.

c. That this mode of acting is licit is clear not only from the nature of the matter, since nothing is done which is against the end of marriage, but is also established from the declaration of the Holy See.² But the reason on account of which this practice should be suggested only cautiously and prudently is twofold: both because it can give spouses an occasion at any time either of denying the debt or of committing onanism, and because this means is not certain: for experience establishes that conception sometimes has place even at this time.³

¹ Eschbach, p. 569 ff.; Stohr, Handbuch der Pastoralmedizin (Freiburg: Herder, 1900), p. 497 ff.

² The Sacred Penitentiary, 16 June 1880, responded: spouses using marriage in the aforesaid way are not to be disturbed, and the confessor can suggest, cautiously however, the opinion in question to those spouses whom he has tried in vain to lead away from the detestable crime of onanism by another reason.

³ Cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedizin^2, p. 70 f.; Capellmann, Die fakultative Sterilitat (Aachen: Barth, 1889).

76. As regards the manner of treating penitents given to onanism, from several responses of the Holy See¹ these things must be noted:

a. The confessor is bound prudently and discreetly to question penitents when a founded suspicion is present that they are altogether silent concerning onanism to which they are addicted. But he can question by inquiring whether there is something which troubles the conscience concerning the sanctity of marriage, the generation of offspring. But if the penitent denies it, for the most part he can abstain from further questioning.

In those regions in which the vice of onanism spreads widely, the confessor can almost always reasonably suppose that the penitent deliberately conceals that sin. Nevertheless, let him abstain from special questions: whether they have poured forth semen outside the vessel; whether they have impeded generation by withdrawing themselves, etc.

b. When the confessor, either from spontaneous confession or from prudent questioning, has known that the penitent is an onanist, of himself he is bound to admonish him concerning the gravity of this sin, to reprove him with paternal charity, and to impart absolution to him only when it is established by sufficient signs that he sorrows concerning the past and has the resolution of no longer acting onanistically.

c. Nevertheless, if he discovers that the onanist penitent is in good faith, but that admonition will have no fruit, according to the general rule concerning admonishing those who sin in good faith, he can omit the admonition or speak in such a way that he does not disturb the good faith of the penitent.²

Although invincible ignorance enduring for a long time cannot be admitted as regards secondary precepts of the natural law, nevertheless if those precepts are joined with circumstances apparently excusing, especially in those who are untrained in moral matters, ignorance will have to be admitted, as if the husband knows that the wife cannot bear children without danger of life, or that he cannot nourish children.

¹ Holy Office, 21 May 1851; Penitentiary, 14 Dec. 1876; 10 Mar. 1886.

² Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri VI, n. 247; Genicot II, n. 551.

77. Artificial fecundation is called that by which virile semen is injected into the uterus of the woman apart from perfect intercourse. Now artificial fecundation must be said to be illicit.¹

a. Spallanzani, a priest of Modena and professor of physiology in the University of Pavia, was the first to teach that fecundation can be done in an artificial mode; he had introduced male semen into the female organs in animals with successful outcome. Physicians have tried the same thing and with the same outcome in human beings, and day by day they perfect it when spouses desire offspring, the wife indeed being capable of conception, but the husband incapable of rightly performing intercourse.

b. Since it is not licit for a woman to receive semen except that of her own husband, in the fecundation concerning whose liceity the question is asked, it is supposed that the semen of the proper husband is introduced into the uterus of the wife; this is customarily done in two ways.

a. The first mode consists in this, that the man has intercourse with his spouse, but when insemination is imminent withdraws himself and pours forth semen in some vessel, which afterward the physician gathers by the help of an instrument and injects into the uterus. This mode is illicit, because onanism or effusion of semen outside the female vessel has place.

b. The second mode consists in this, that the man, apart from intercourse, pours forth semen in some vessel, which afterward the physician gathers by the help of an instrument and introduces into the uterus of the wife. This mode is illicit, because fecundation is obtained only through an illicit means, namely through voluntary pollution.

c. Nevertheless the wife, for avoiding truly grave inconveniences, could admit artificial fecundation, because she herself does not cooperate actively in the evil action, but has herself merely passively and permissively in receiving the semen of her husband.

d. There is a twofold mode of fecundation which can be called artificial, but is licit. The first consists in this, that the man places an instrument in the female vessel, either so that the vagina may be dilated, or so that the uterus may be placed in its natural position; this being done, they have intercourse in the accustomed manner. This mode is licit, since nature is only assisted in performing intercourse. The other consists in this, that the man has intercourse in the usual manner and pours forth semen within the vagina, which afterward the physician draws by the help of an instrument and injects into the fundus of the uterus. This mode also is licit, because natural intercourse is had; this being posited, by the help of an instrument the defect of nature is supplied.

Whether by illicit artificial fecundation marriage is consummated if offspring follows from it, Sanchez affirms,² who judges that marriage is consummated whenever semen is received within the natural vessel of the woman, by whatever art this occurs. Gasparri denies it,³ and rightly indeed: for marriage is not consummated except by intercourse, to which marriage is ordered by nature; but this is intercourse which occurs with penetration of the female vessel and effusion of semen in the same. Wherefore marriage is not judged to be consummated even when the husband applies semen to the mouth of the vagina, although offspring is born from it.

¹ The Holy Office, to the question "Whether artificial fecundation of a woman can be employed," responded on 25 Mar. 1897: It is not licit. Cf. Eschbach, Disputationes physiol. theolog.^2, p. 70 ff.; Berardi, Praxis confessariorum^3, I, n. 1009 ff.; Antonelli I, n. 115 ff.

² L. 7, disp. 99, n. 37.

³ II, n. 1302.

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."

Contraception.—Contraception in all its forms (onanism, condonism, vaginal irrigation, spermatocide) is a grave crime.

(a) It is an Injury to God.—Marriage was instituted by God to propagate the human race (Gen., i. 27, 28) and to bless homes with children (Ps., cxxvi, cxxvii), and He has made it a sacred institution and a Sacrament. Contraception defeats the ends of marriage and degrades it to the level of a mere instrument of carnal gratification. The hatred of God for this sin appears in general from the horror with which Scripture speaks of unnatural lust, and in particular from the case of Onan, whose sin is called detestable and whom God slew in punishment (Gen., xxxviii. 10).

(b) It is an Injury to Society.—The perpetuation of the human race is endangered as soon as marriage is abused as to its natural end. Hence, after the crime of homicide which destroys human life already in existence, contraception seems to rank next in enormity, since it prevents human life from coming into existence. This vice spreads moral degeneracy and decay from the home itself, and is rightly called race-suicide, since it depopulates and destroys the nation by the act of its own people.

(c) It is an Injury to the Family.—The happiness and success of the home depend chiefly on the respect which its members have one for the other and on the cultivation of the sturdy virtues that strengthen character. The husband and wife who practise onanism or other similar carnal vices cannot have the mutual respect they should have; the wife is deprived of the treasure of her modesty and is treated as a prostitute rather than as an honored wife and mother, and the husband is brutalized by the removal of the natural restraint to his sex passion. Such self-indulgent persons will either selfishly neglect the one or two children they may have, or will spoil them for life by the luxury and laziness in which they are reared.

(d) It is an Injury to the Individual.—As concerns the body, there is a perversion of the sex act from its definite use and specific end, and hence contraception has been described as “reciprocal masturbation.” As regards the soul, its higher goods of will and intellect are subordinated by the contraceptionist to the delight of passion, the lower impulses are greatly strengthened and self-control made more and more difficult, and the spiritual objectives that should prompt a rational creature are sacrificed for the passing gratification that moves the beasts.

123. Spouses sin if before or after or in the very use they do something by which generation is impeded, because they act directly against the end of marriage.

Hence, first, the wife sins gravely by reason of the depraved intention of impeding generation, who in the act of coitus diverts her mind to other things, lest she be excited to semination, or who immediately after copulation rises or urinates. It is said by reason of the depraved intention, etc.; for the semination of the woman is not in reality necessary for generation, but only very useful for it; and since the womb in a short time draws in the semen and is very tightly closed, those various attempts to cast out the semen by rising, urinating, etc., are in reality vain and ineffectual. Hence also all agree that there is no need for the wife after copulation to remain long unmoved and lying on her back. L. l. VI. n. 954.; Debreyne, 2 p. ch. 2. art. 2. Sect. 2.

Second, spouses sin if by mutual consent the husband after begun copulation withdraws himself before semination and pours forth semen outside the vessel, in order to impede generation. This sin is called onanism, from Onan, who committed such a sin, Gen. 38. 9. 10., and it is true and properly so-called pollution, containing the special malice as it were of adultery. Cf. here n. 69. Outside marriage, however, after copulation has begun, to withdraw oneself and to pour forth semen outside the vessel has, besides the malice of consummated pollution, also the malice of begun fornication, or at least of fornication in affection. Cf. here n. 44. 103.

124. Note. "The conjugal act is lawfully interrupted, even if pollution will follow by the stirring of nature, provided there is a just cause for interrupting it, for example, if from its continuation there threatens danger of disease, or death from an enemy, or someone else intervenes." Busembaum, L. 6. n. 954.

125. Can a woman lawfully render the debt to a husband using marriage onanistically?

Resp. Diana has these words: "I say, therefore, that the man and the woman indeed sin mortally if it is done with her consent; but if she does not consent, I think that she can lawfully ask and render the debt from her husband, even if at the end of copulation he pours forth semen outside the vessel. And the reason is that, as often as I ask an act from someone which he can perform well or badly, I do not sin, nor do I provide the cause of sin; for the other acts badly by his own malice, although he could act rightly. But this whole thing proceeds in our case." Tr. 6. de Matrimon. R. 181. Cf. also ibid. R. 184. It is confirmed from various decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary and of the Holy Office: G. t. 2. n. 927. and following; Enchir. Morale 1058. 1066.

126. Is some grave extrinsic cause required, so that a woman may lawfully render the debt to an onanist husband?

Resp. Several affirm, relying chiefly on declarations of the Sacred Congregation. They list these grave causes: first, if death, blows, or grave acts of savagery are feared; second, if there is a reason to fear that the husband will have a concubine either at home or outside the home; third, if the woman knows certainly that the husband, angered by refusal, will utter blasphemies against God and religion, injuries against the confessor and priests in general, scandalous words before servants or children; fourth, a fortiori the fear of divorce, or separation, or infamy, or grave scandal. But these theologians wisely warn that it is by no means necessary that the woman repel the husband until she has experienced the acts of savagery, troubles, or other inconveniences mentioned; for then, by rendering or offering the debt, she would often not avert an evil already existing, and besides she is not bound to undergo it in order to impede the sin of her husband; it is enough, therefore, that she reasonably fear it.

But a grave extrinsic cause does not seem necessary. For, first, the responses of the Sacred Congregation do not evince the necessity of this cause, since they declare only that the woman is to be excused who renders the debt to an onanist husband from a grave cause. But they pronounce nothing concerning her who renders it without that grave extrinsic reason. Second, it is proved from the authority of St. Alphonsus, who says that a wife not only can, but even is bound more probably to render the debt to an onanist husband, without a grave reason. "The reason," he says, "is that when the fault holds itself on the part of the person asking, since he has a right to copulation, the other cannot deny the debt without injustice, if she cannot by warning him turn him away from such fault; and then it is clear that the one rendering does not even materially cooperate in that one's sin, since she does not cooperate in the semination outside the vessel, but only in the begun copulation, which of itself is altogether lawful to each." L. l. 6. n. 947. Third, the same is proved from the authority of other most grave theologians; thus Sanchez, Tamburini, Sporer, Pontas apud St. Alphonsus l. c., and D. Bouvier in the Supplement to Tr. de Matr., think, to whom can be added the very learned Struggl, de Matr. n. 83. third. Fourth, because if the woman dissents from the action of the man withdrawing himself, she is engaged in nothing except a lawful action; and precisely insofar as in that act she uses marriage, she uses her own right. For she does nothing except what, with marriage posited, she can lawfully do. She ought not to be deprived of her own right because of the malice of the husband; for the man approaching her and penetrating the vessel does not sin, but only by withdrawing himself and pouring forth semen outside the vessel, in which action the woman in no way participates and cooperates, but it is uniquely from the malice of the man. Nor is anyone bound, even by reason of charity, to yield his right, when this is not without notable inconvenience, so that another may avoid a sin which depends uniquely on his own malice. It is said that she in no way participates and cooperates; for in reality the woman only permits the sin of the man, by not denying the debt to him. The permission of sin is certainly one thing, properly speaking cooperation is another. The sin of the man is indeed not in the legitimately begun copulation, but in the cessation from it and withdrawal, with which the woman in no way cooperates. Fifth, lastly, if a grave cause is desired, it is certainly not necessary that there be a grave extrinsic cause, but an intrinsic cause suffices; for it is of itself grave for a woman who has married in order to exercise the work of marriage to abstain for a long time, and thus to be deprived of her right in an altogether grave matter. Moreover, in practice, grave extrinsic causes also are almost always had; for example, a founded fear of gravely displeasing the husband and of lacking peace in married life, etc. Gury, Cas. Cf. here n. 136. 2. n. 1106.

127. Is warning on the part of the woman necessarily required, so that she may lawfully render the debt to an onanist husband?

Resp. In the case this warning can and ought to be done only for a twofold cause: first, so that the man may be aware of the woman's dissent, lest the man become more emboldened in his perverse way of acting; and for this reason a formal warning by words is not necessarily to be made, if the husband is otherwise morally aware of the dissent of the wife, for example by the sincere displeasure and repugnance which she shows in that action. Second, the cause is that the man be drawn back from sin, by reason of charity, by which in that case the wife is bound toward the husband; and certainly for this reason a warning is to be made if it is prudently judged that it will be profitable. But if it is certainly judged that it will in no way be profitable, but rather harmful, such a warning is indeed to be omitted, because one wishing then to impede one sin would be in the cause that others also would be perpetrated, such as blasphemies against God, injuries against the confessor, against the sacraments, etc. L. l. 6. n. 944.

128. Is a woman bound to render the debt to a husband using marriage onanistically?

Resp. Negatively, at least speaking of itself and by reason of justice. The reason is that by the contract of marriage the wife did not bind herself except to the use of marriage which is of itself apt for generation. The same St. Alphonsus, who in the cited place teaches as more probable that a woman can and is bound to render the debt, nevertheless adds that she can probably and is bound to deny the debt, if she can do so without grave inconvenience. Therefore, given the probability of each opinion, the woman can, but is not bound to, render the debt. But it is said, speaking of itself and by reason of justice, because if this would be an occasion for the husband of indignation, dissension, and other more grave sins, with the grave inconvenience of the wife excluded, then by reason of charity she is bound to render the debt. L. l. 6. nn. 947. 944. Moreover the wife would also be bound to render the debt if the man, warned, promises that he will complete the act and at least sometimes completes it; for in doubt a certain right cannot be denied because of abuse. Sporer, de Matr. 513.

129. Can a wife ask the debt from an onanist husband?

Resp. Affirmatively, if there is a grave cause. The reason is that she has a right to copulation, and a sufficient reason of cooperation, or rather of permission of another's sin, is present. But the grave cause is from St. Alphonsus, l. 6. n. 947: "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 it is a sufficiently grave inconvenience for her or not to contain herself." And with scruple excluded, it is certainly a grave inconvenience for a married woman, who has married for this end, that she might exercise the work of marriage, to abstain for a long time and, in the state of marriage, to lead a continent life. And, as is clear, a grave cause is always regularly present, either extrinsic or at least intrinsic. Moreover, the theologians reported in the preceding response, n. 126, universally affirm that it is lawful for a wife both to render and to ask, because, as they say, when a woman renders or asks, she gives work to a lawful thing, nor ought she herself to be deprived of her own right because of the malice of the man. L. l. c.

130. Does a wife sin by giving internal consent to pleasure, when she can permit the conjugal act to an onanist husband?

Resp. Negatively, provided she does not give assent to the sin of the man. The reason is that, since she by no means sins by permitting an act of this kind, neither does she sin by admitting the pleasure arising from it, although she foreknows that the man will not complete the copulation; for that act is in itself honorable and lawful for the woman, and it does not stand through her that it is not completed in the due manner. G. v. 2. n. 926.

131. Does a wife sin if, after the onanist husband has withdrawn from the imperfect copulation, she excites herself to complete the act, or, already aroused, delights in the subsequent pollution?

Resp. Affirmatively; for that act is true pollution, since, when the husband has withdrawn, it is no longer referable to intercourse as the complement of marital copulation; for the husband has departed, the copulation being imperfect. L. l. 6. n. 909.; Tamburini, Expl. Decal. l. 7. c. 3. n. 19.; Struggl, de matr. n. 91.

There are more recent authors who, when the conjugal act is not completed because the man withdraws himself, permit the woman afterward to complete it by semination, if she had not done so before in the very act of copulation. The reason is that an act legitimately begun can be brought to its due end. But this reason proves the contrary. For if the man did not seminate, that act of the woman can no longer be brought to the due end, and has the true notion of pollution.

132. Does a wife sin if at the very beginning of copulation, or in its continuation, she excites herself so that she may seminate, when she knows that an onanist husband will by no means complete the copulation, and delights in it?

Resp. 1. If that excitation and semination arise naturally immediately after the beginning of copulation or in the very continuation of conjugal copulation, she does not sin in any way, since indeed the woman gives work to a lawful thing by beginning copulation with her husband and continuing it.

If semination naturally follows because nature has been excited, this is not then illicit of itself; and therefore even in the semination itself the woman gives work to a lawful thing, since that whole act is of itself orderable and referable to the perfecting of conjugal intercourse and to generation. But if that act remains without its natural and necessary complement, this is not from the fault of the wife, but exclusively of the husband, who in that case ought to consummate the copulation, and although he could do so, himself does not will it. Hence it does not seem that the woman is bound by a positive effort to impede semination, and, when it has followed naturally, not to delight in it; for this would render marriage very burdensome to her and make her subject to many anxieties, since she would be in perpetual and very grave danger of sinning.

2. The difficulty seems greater if the woman would not be naturally excited, but, lest she be deprived of that pleasure which it would be most hard for her constantly to lack, she of herself by effort would excite herself all the way to semination. Nevertheless, not even in this case does the woman seem to sin gravely, since she gives work to a thing which of itself is not illicit and contrary to generation, and she has a most grave reason for doing this, if, because of a great inclination toward that thing, she would have to be deprived of that pleasure, which would make marriage burdensome for her. The whole turpitude in that matter is from without, from the malice of the husband not completing the thing, as we have already observed in the first point.

133. Note. What was said in the preceding questions about the wife having an onanist husband, who withdraws himself after copulation has begun and pours out semen, seems likewise to be said about the wife having a husband who, immediately before copulation, in order to impede generation, pollutes himself alone, and then immediately has copulation. This can be more easily admitted under this aspect, namely that notwithstanding the preceding pollution, he can still pour forth semen in that copulation which he undertakes, since almost immediately semen is reproduced in the testicles, or some part of the semen remains. For experience establishes that men can pollute themselves once, and again, and a third time successively, with a very brief interval of time interposed. Longet, loc. cit. p. 125.

134. Can a woman who has procured sterility in herself by medicated potions or by another way afterward continue in asking and rendering the debt?

Resp. If she has become merely sterile, although she sinned gravely by deliberately causing this, because by deliberate work semen is impeded from its natural end of generation, which is against nature, nevertheless she can still both render and ask the debt, like all other naturally sterile women, because that act is of the same nature whether sterility has proceeded from nature itself or from art. But if she has been rendered impotent, it seems evident that she cannot do anything except exercise only those imperfect acts which in the case of impotence are permitted to spouses. The reason is that perfect copulation on the part of the man, when this is physiologically impossible on the part of the woman, is essentially against generation, and has the true nature of pollution, whose malice is in the vain effusion of semen from the nature of the act itself.

If this were lawful because the act by its nature is not against generation, it would certainly be lawful also for a man, when he performs copulation, to use a preservative so that the semen may not pass beyond the vagina and penetrate the uterus, in order to impede generation; it would be lawful for the woman to use an astringent substance, lest sperm pass from the vagina to the uterus. For whether generation is impeded in this or that way, in a transitory or permanent manner, is it not always to impede generation positively? is not that act always from its own nature against generation?

Nevertheless there are modern authors who affirm this, because, with marriage now standing, spouses have a right to that act. But this would truly have to be proved, since that act is against generation and has the true nature of pollution on the part of the man. But, they insist, that act is not pollution, because the malice of pollution is in complete pleasure sought outside copulation. But the intrinsic malice of the act of pollution can in no way be taken from pleasure, since pleasure is not intrinsically evil of itself, but from the intrinsic end of that act, which is generation, and to which it is opposed; whence the act is against nature.

The same is the question, as is clear, if not the woman but the man, after a validly contracted marriage, becomes impotent: whether he can have copulation with his wife. Here also there are two opinions.

Laymann affirms, L. 5. tr. 10. part. 4. cap. 11. n. 3., saying: "If after a contracted marriage someone has become a eunuch, he is not prohibited from exercising imperfect copulation with the emission of semen that is not true, as Toletus teaches, lib. 7. cap. 16. num. 4., Sanchez, lib. 7. disp. 102. n. 7. Because although such persons cannot contract marriage, nevertheless, once it is contracted, to use it is lawful for them, insofar as this can be done." But this is the practical difficulty: whether it is lawful for them to use it insofar as this can be done. Certainly it is lawful for them to use it if the act remains incomplete on the part of the man and the woman, because nothing is done against generation; but not when the act is now positively opposed to generation and consequently pollution is had on the part of the woman. If such an act of a man whose two testicles have been perfectly amputated after the validly entered marriage is lawful, then it must be said that it is not an act against nature, or against generation. And if it is not against the good of offspring, why could such a man not then, after the death of his wife, contract another valid marriage?

Sanchez, however, l. c. n. 6. 7., reports two opinions. The first denies. For "it seems then that copulation is not lawful, because the woman emits true semen, and this is frustrated of its due end of generation, with male semen lacking." The second, to which the same Sanchez adheres, affirms, "because that man uses his own right, applying himself to the conjugal act which marriage permits." But the whole question precisely concerns this right: whether it is present, since also in this other case that whole act is positively against generation, and on the part of the woman that act assumes the nature of pollution.

It is urged by modern doctors that in a woman there is not pollution, but only complete venereal delectation. But if this doctrine is admitted, it is certainly not apparent how there can be grave sin in a married woman from that complete delectation. For simple venereal delectation is not gravely illicit for spouses. And as the modern doctors themselves say, and rightly, from the common doctrine: "grave sin in spouses is only that which is voluntary pollution, whether solitary, or the crime of onanism and sodomy.... All other actions in themselves, or considered in their nature, are lawful for spouses, and become sins if they are exercised for pleasure alone, or with foreseen danger of pollution, without a just cause." Besides, they add: "incomplete venereal delectation does not differ in species from complete." And their reason is that "the circumstance of pollution does not change the species of the sin." And consequently they deduce: "if women accuse themselves either of venereal delectation or of immodest touches, they are not to be interrogated further as to whether they have been polluted." But consequently it is also deduced that in a married woman there is never grave sin in a venereal matter, the thing considered in itself, or according to its nature, in relation to a woman joined in marriage. But this conclusion does not seem to cohere with the repeated responses of the Sacred Penitentiary. Cf. following numbers 135. 136. 153.

160. "What is to be done with the wives of onanists, who indeed would not wish to offend God, but also would not wish to beget children?

Resp. Not a few wives are found who are caught in these perplexities, who indeed abhor mortal sin, because they would not wish to incur eternal damnation, but who are also deterred from begetting children. In practice it is required: 1. that they cooperate with the sin of the husband by no positive act, neither by words, nor signs, nor complaints about a more numerous offspring, etc.; 2. that they have displeasure, even external, concerning the sin committed by the spouse. But these things standing, wives are not to be disturbed with respect to onanism, although they experience notable trouble and repugnance in relation to generation; for repugnance because of the pains of childbirth, and fear of death perhaps to follow from childbirth, is natural. Nor are married women to be reproached because they desire not to have more children, since such a desire contains nothing evil, provided they neither cooperate with the sin of the husband nor take complacence in it. Wives of fearful conscience, who fear lest by an internal affection they delight in the wicked action of the husband, so that they may not beget children, are also to be restrained; because, since they for the most part abhor grave sin, they are not judged to adhere to complacences of this kind; and therefore they are to be absolved without difficulty." G. Cas. n. 1114. Cf. what was said above, n. 123 and following; Bouvier, Supplem. ad tr. de Matr. c. 1. art. 2. at the end; Sanchez, de M. l. 9. d. 8. n. 10.

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.

The Encyclical brands in the first place the base selfishness and the audacious lie of many who dare to call the

child “the disagreeable burden of matrimony”;¹ it brands the “criminal abuse”² of those who avoid children by frustrating the marriage act, whether they wish to gratify their passions without the consequent burden, or whether they excuse themselves on the ground of two concurrent impossibilities: that they cannot on the one hand remain continent, nor on the other have children. This last impossibility is claimed to exist either because of personal difficulties, or the condition of the mother, or family circumstances.

¹ P. 37.

² The same work.

He rejects them all at one sweep by reminding us:¹ No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Conjugal relations debased in this way are nothing more than “a form of debauchery which the world has come to look upon as regular and permissible.”²

¹ P. 38.

² Paul Bureau, L’Indiscipline des moeurs.

He does this in three ways: 1. By a proof from natural reason. It is a violation of nature to deliberately deflect from its natural end an act which belongs to the rational order to which we are subject. Now the marital act belongs to that superior order to which we are all subject. And its natural purpose is procreation. Hence any artifice which deprives the conjugal act of this its destiny is necessarily and always a violation of nature. 2. By Holy Scripture. According to the interpretation which is accepted in the Church, God struck Onan dead because he was guilty of this sin. 3. He proves it from the teaching of the Church, where he states that an uninterrupted traditional Christian teaching reprobates these practices, and where he solemnly confirms this teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.

Before formally answering so grave a question it seems proper to quote the words of the Sovereign Pontiff himself.

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God had entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of Divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.¹ Next, let us remember that the Pope, either alone or in union with the College of the Bishops, is the teaching Church, whose infallibility is guaranteed by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church speaks through the Pope, not as through her messenger, but as through her head and teacher. This mission of teaching and of defending the integrity of morals to which the Holy Father appeals here, is in himself. Infallible, in matters of faith and morals, is the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church treasured in the ordinary magisterium of the Bishops united to the See of Peter. Infallible is the solemn proclamation of a doctrine regarding faith or morals which the supreme Pastor, speaking as such to the universal Church, obliges it to hold. To what conclusion do these considerations lead us? We must conclude that the Holy Father, who, in this Encyclical, from the start, declares that he is addressing himself to the entire Church and even to the whole world: (a) States that on this question of conjugal onanism, there exists a Christian doctrine which has been transmitted from the beginning and which has been always faithfully kept, and hence is already infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium; (b) Takes occasion from the departure from this doctrine on the part of some to promulgate it solemnly for all; and since he does this as teacher of the universal Church, conscious of his mission to teach, and as a sign of his Divine mission, he thereby obliges all to hold this doctrine. It is,

as he explicitly states, the Catholic Church which speaks by his mouth. In the presence of such language on the part of the supreme Pastor,² we cannot doubt that we are confronted with one of those cases, which are not infrequent, where the Pope teaches infallibly a truth already defined and believed by the Church. This is the reason why the Sovereign Pontiff can also declare himself an infallible interpreter of the primitive Church.³

¹ P. 38.

² The phrase in which the Holy Father declares that the Catholic Church speaks through his mouth on this subject, “is extremely solemn and impressive.” Dr. John Ryan, Ecclesiastical Review, 1931, p. 265, “The Moral Teaching of the Encyclical.”

³ We admit, however, that there are some very estimable priests who hesitate to recognize this as an infallible declaration ex cathedra distinct from the equally infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. On the other hand, a professor of theology, after a personal study of the passage, said to us: “If that is not an infallible definition, I do not know what terms the Pope could use in order to make one.” The manner in which the Belgian Bishops in their Pastoral on the Encyclical represent the role assumed by the Vicar of Jesus Christ in this memorable document, serves only to confirm our conviction. See Z. H. Paus, Pius XI, Wereld-brief “Casti Connubii” en het Belgisch Episcopaat (Vastenbrief 1931) over het Christelijk Huwelijk, p. 53.

These three: (a) Every use of marriage in the exercise of which the act is artificially deprived of its natural power of procreating life, is a violation of the law of God; (b) It is a violation of the natural law; (c) It is a grave sin.

That all preventive measures whose purpose is to make future marital intercourse sterile, whether temporarily or permanently, are also intrinsically wrong, and are also grievously sinful. More than once before, the Holy See had expressed itself rather clearly on this subject. On April 19, 1853, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, without going into details, declared that such an abuse of marriage is intrinsically evil. Then the Sacred Penitentiary, November 13, 1901, approved the action of a priest who refused to follow the direction of a confessor who was otherwise well-qualified and who had been professor of moral theology in a seminary, where the confessor had held that in order to avoid an excessive number of children or excessive fatigue on the part of the wife, a husband might vitiate the conjugal act, provided he had in view only the allaying of concupiscence. The Sacred Penitentiary declared that a penitent who refused to give up such a practice could not be absolved, as it amounted to onanism pure and simple.

They are the prelates of the Anglican Church, who numbering 307 in congress at Lambeth Palace in London, by a majority of 193 to 67, declared, in nebulous terms it is true and not without some signs of shame, that in certain cases where procreation was forbidden, another voice than that of continence might be followed.¹ The count indicates that many refused to vote. Since in its report the Commission of the Conference acknowledged the tradition to which the Pope appeals, but observed that the tradition lacked the confirmation of a conciliar definition, we think it probable that the Holy Father intended by a solemn declaration to fill what might falsely be regarded as a lacuna.

¹ See our article: La Conférence de Lambeth et la Morale du Mariage, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Dec., 1930.

Far from it. Coming to a very important practical conclusion, he immediately adds:¹ We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions, and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the Faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the Faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit” (St. Matth. xv, 14). This grave warning is in itself an obligatory standard for those to whom it is addressed, that is, confessors and those

who have care of souls. In fact, the Holy Father gives it in virtue of his supreme authority and as universal Pastor. He, therefore, warns those who hear confessions and who have the care of souls: (a) not to leave the Faithful who are entrusted to them in error regarding this grave law of God; (b) to preserve themselves from false opinions in this matter; (c) to connive in no way in false opinions on this subject. Consequently, he threatens with a severe account to be rendered to God: (a) those among them who should lead the Faithful into error; (b) those who might confirm them in their error, either by formal approval or deliberate silence. Former declarations of the Holy See define in a very useful way the attitudes on the part of confessors which are condemned in this passage of the Encyclical, and the duty of all confessors to avoid all connivance and even to undeceive penitents who have fallen into error on a point of such grave moral and social consequence. A priest of the diocese of Angers, in a query to the Sacred Penitentiary, described three classes of confessors. (1) Those of the first class, believing that ignorance even if it be vincible excuses from grave sin, and being persuaded that to call attention to the abuse of marriage would only increase the guilt of the parties and even perhaps keep them away from the Sacraments, conclude that it is licit and even advisable to favor this error on the part of penitents, by not disturbing it, or even by adroitly insinuating it, provided that can be done without lying. Consequently, they not only ask no questions on the subject, but even when the question of the gravity of the guilt of onanism is put to them, they evade it by skillful parrying, or they ask the penitent what he himself thinks of it. And when the latter declares that in view of the rights of marriage or of some other consideration “he can't see so much harm in it,” these confessors are glad to leave him in this good faith. (2) Others, although they hold the same views as those of the still do not conceal the truth if they are asked about it; first class, but when the penitent confines himself to simply confessing the sin of onanism, they take care not to lay an emphasis on this accusation, but, having heard the confession, they content themselves with arousing the penitent to contrition in a general way, and they absolve him on his affirmation that he detests all sin. (3) A third class of confessors are of opinion that it is extremely rare that vincible ignorance can go so far as to render subjectively venial a sin which is objectively grave, and that such error can in any event not last very long—the character of the sin itself as being contrary to nature, the environment in which the question is constantly being discussed, prevent that. Hence, whether the avowal of this sin has been spontaneous, or whether it has been brought out by prudent questioning, these confessors chide the penitent who has

been guilty of this sin, just as they would for any other grave sin, to the extent that his interest seems to require it, and they absolve him only when they have elicited from him sufficient signs of repentance and of a firm purpose of amendment for the future. Following this exposition, three questions were submitted to the Sacred Penitentiary: 1. Is it allowed to favor the good faith spoken of in the first instance? Is it allowed to produce it? 2. Do the confessors of the second class fulfil the duties of their state? 3. Are the confessors of the third class open to the reproach of disturbing themselves and their penitents more than is reasonable; or is their practice rather to be regarded as absolutely right? The Sacred Penitentiary answered the first two questions in the negative. To the third, it replied: “Assuming that, as regards the questions sometimes to be asked of married persons about their use of marriage, these confessors confine themselves within the limits indicated by the Roman Ritual and by approved authorities, their practice is beyond all reproach.” Ten years later, in 1886, a French Bishop addressed himself to the Sacred Penitentiary. After bewailing the spread of the evil which is now committed no longer for fear of having too many children, but for fear of having any, an evil which has depleted the country and the sanctuary, and has alarmed sociologists and moralists alike, the Bishop refers to the disagreement which exists among confessors on the need of questioning penitents, in modest and reserved language, upon this matter. In support of the position of those confessors who think that they are not allowed to remain mute, he cites the words of Benedict XIV in his Bull “Apostolica Constitutio”: “By such silence the penitent is either kept in ignorance of crimes which he ought to know about, or he is confirmed in the evil practice, not without scandal to others who think that anything is lawful for themselves when they see that it is practised with impunity by persons who are frequenting the Sacraments.” Then, proceeding to his questions, the Bishop asks: 1. When a confessor has reason to suspect that the penitent, who says not a word of birth control, is addicted to this criminal practice, may the confessor omit to question him prudently and discreetly because he foresees that by doing so he will disturb the good faith of some persons and cause many to avoid the Sacraments? Is not the confessor rather bound to question the penitent in a prudent and discreet manner? 2. When a confessor knows, either from spontaneous confession or as a result of prudent questioning, that the penitent is given to birth control, is he bound to warn him of the gravity of this sin as of other mortal sins, and (as the Roman Ritual puts it) to chide him with paternal charity, and to give him absolution only when from sufficient indications he shall judge that he repents of the past and has the purpose of never practising onanism any more? “In view of the fact,” thus spoke the Sacred Penitentiary, “that the abominable vice of which there is question in the case proposed, has become widespread, the Sacred Penitentiary has deemed it its

duty to reply to the questions asked as follows: To the first question usually, in the negative to the first part, in the affirmative to the second. To the second question: in the affirmative, according to the teaching of approved authorities.” These replies tell us clearly enough that questions should not be asked without reason, but only when there is ground for suspicion that the crime is being dissimulated or concealed; that the fear of disturbing good faith or of driving away from the Sacraments should not regularly stop a confessor from questioning; that when a penitent is known to be guilty, he must be informed of the gravity of the sin. Certainly, as a professor of theology remarked not long ago, we cannot, by lightly giving absolutions, put the sacramental seal upon immorality. It goes without saying that the questioning must always be done in correct language, rather reserved, but clear and leaving no room for misunderstanding or evasion.²

¹ P. 39.

² On the manner of questioning, a helpful article will be found in L’Ami du Clergé, Le devoir des confesseurs, pp. 185-187 (1931).

The Holy Father makes no pronouncement for particular exceptional cases. The general practice must be to undeceive the Faithful when they are in error on this matter; and one may never positively confirm them in error, even by silence which would be interpreted as approval. But, in the absence of scandal and of any positive confirmation, a genuine good faith may, in our opinion, be left to spouses who are embarrassed by a humanly inextricable situation. See, for example, the excellent Instructio pro confessaris de usu et abusu matrimonii written at Eichstatt Seminary, 1931.

Because there are cases of so-called good faith which are such only in appearance. For example a Catholic who, though he knew the teaching of the Encyclical, preferred to follow his own judgment on the plea that the severity of that teaching was extreme, could not be considered to be in good faith.

On the contrary it evidences a just moderation. (a) It excuses the party who suffers rather than commits sin, when for a perfectly weighty reason he tolerates on the part of his partner a perversion of the right order, which he himself does not intend, and fulfils his duty of charity by striving to induce the other party to return to right conduct.¹ (b) It mentions the other secondary ends of the conjugal union: mutual affection to be fostered, the allaying of concupiscence;—two ends which render the use of marriage lawful under circumstances in which, considering either the persons or the time, sterility seems either certain or very probable, provided always that the act takes place in the regular way.²

¹ P. 39.

² Ibid.

Among well-intentioned Anglicans there are several authorities who are of opinion that the vocation to the married life imposes on the parties the duty to give children to their country and to the Church, if they can.¹ This is, however, a false position. The possession of a right may be conceived without the obligation to use it. No doubt, in the institution of marriage, God wished to provide for the propagation of the human race. But this end is sufficiently attained without every couple being obliged to have children.

¹ This thesis is advanced notably by H. L. Goudge, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, in his monograph, “The Question of Contraceptives” (London, League of National Life, 1931).

As the Holy Father has no intention of coming down to details of practical morality, we must evidently have recourse to approved authorities and to former declarations of the Holy See. According to this teaching, there is question of cooperation in an act which was begun in the right way, and which the other party alone interrupts in such a way as to violate nature.

We are therefore, for our part, unable to agree with the passage in which Reverend John Ryan of Washington, in his notes on the moral teaching of the Encyclical, insinuates that the Encyclical may extend the field of permissible material cooperation in the face of the common opinion now existing on the subject.¹ The distinctions which the moralists make are founded on a certain principle and are confirmed by the replies of the Sacred Penitentiary of April 3 and June 3, 1916.²

¹ “The Moral Teaching of the Encyclical,” Ecclesiastical Review (1931), p. 266.

² Cf. Vermeersch, De Castitate, n. 253.

Now the mode of sinning by excess against nature very frequent in modern times is onanism.¹ It is copulation in the female canal sought in that mode by which generation is positively impeded and cannot follow from the effusion of semen; this can be done in various modes described above.² It is mortal sin, as directly contrary to the primary end of marriage and opposed to conjugal fidelity, a mere abuse of the genital organs against the order instituted by God, by which they pervert a most noble thing into the basest act of a passion of ignominy. For it lacks order to the natural end of semen and to the good of the species. Hence the malice is intrinsic to the act, to such an extent that no cause, however urgent, can render it honorable.

¹ That practice is often called neo-Malthusianism. For economic reasons Malthus (1798) had proposed the limitation of conception, but by licit means, namely by abstaining from the conjugal act. Now, however, neo-Malthusians promote illicit means.

² Question IV, article 4, nn. 1 and 2. Yet none is altogether certain. For the preservative garment, condom or pseudo-vagina, can be torn; the occlusive pessary can be badly adapted or, during copulation, moved from its place; simple withdrawal or washing of the female canal do not always impede some sperm from being ejaculated before withdrawal, or already passing into the uterus before washing; a chemical substance sprinkled through the whole female genital canal before copulation does not always have perfect efficacy.

This is the doctrine of the Church, which shines forth from proposition 49 condemned by Innocent XI and from the many and repeated declarations of the Holy Office (May 20, 1851; April 19, 1853; March 26, 1897; November 23, 1922) and of the Sacred Penitentiary (twelve times from November 15, 1816 to June 3, 1916), most recently from the encyclical Casti Connubii, in which Pius XI did not hesitate to declare that this is the very Christian doctrine handed down from the beginning and always: "Since therefore certain persons, manifestly departing from Christian doctrine handed down from the very beginning and never interrupted, have lately judged that another doctrine concerning this manner of acting should be solemnly preached, the Catholic Church, to whom God himself has committed the teaching and defense of integrity and honesty of morals, placed in the midst of this ruin of morals, in order to preserve the chastity of the nuptial covenant immune from this base stain, in sign of her divine legation, lifts up her voice aloud through our mouth and promulgates anew: any use whatever of marriage in the exercise of which, by the industry of men, it is deprived of its natural power of procreating life, infringes the law of God and of nature, and those who have committed such a thing are stained with the blot of grave fault." Here three things are affirmed: the use of marriage which by industry is deprived of its power of generating, 1. is against divine law; 2. is against the law of nature; and 3. is grave sin.

II. Hence concerning onanism the following conclusions are established:

1. The onanist man cannot be absolved unless he repents and resolves; likewise the woman formally cooperating or consenting, or who tries to expel semen by washings. Indeed, he who uses a preservative means is bound to destroy it as an occasion of sin before absolution; this per se and regularly must be urged by the confessor.

2. The wife does not sin if for a moderately grave cause she renders the debt to an onanist husband withdrawing himself before insemination, or even seeks it from him; but the cause is grave if otherwise she incurs grave evils, for example dissensions in marriage, blows, adultery of the husband, her own incontinence or long abstinence from the use of marriage,³ and so forth. The reason is that the action begins in the due mode, in such a way that of itself it is apt for generation; but if it is terminated unduly, the whole guilt stands on the part of the man, and on the part of the woman there is only material and mediate cooperation, which can be offered to the sin of another because of a grave motive. For this, says Pius XI, is to suffer sin rather than to perpetrate it. This is to be understood provided the wife does not consent to the mode itself of acting against nature, but detests it and bears herself merely passively toward it; otherwise there would be formal cooperation. Nevertheless she could actively cooperate, by exciting herself immediately before copulation and during it, and rejoice in pleasure, even perfect, as long as the action is done in the due mode; likewise she may rejoice in the good effect of such copulation, for example in preservation from the troubles and labors of pregnancy or childbirth, although this is dangerous.⁴

³ Hence she can seek copulation from the man withdrawing himself, and only sometimes, namely once or another time, is she bound to abstain by reason of charity; not more often, because this would already be a grave inconvenience, while charity nevertheless does not oblige with grave inconvenience for avoiding merely passive scandal.

⁴ The same holds theoretically for the man, when before insemination the woman withdraws herself; but in practice ordinarily there is not a grave sufficient reason on the part of the man, because he can rather easily impede the withdrawal of the woman, even by physical force.

Yet even then, because of charity, the woman is bound to warn the man and show her own repugnance, and this not once or another time but often, not however inopportunely but opportunely. Indeed, if she can, she should deter the man from this crime by blandishments, prayers, and other testimonies of affection (Sacred Penitentiary, November 15, 1816), even by denial of the debt if she thus hopes to procure the amendment of the husband.

3. But the wife cannot render the debt to an onanist husband employing a preservative instrument, whether he himself puts on a covering or imposes an occlusive covering upon the wife, because it is immediate participation in an intrinsically evil action. For then there is not present copulation of itself apt for generation. Namely, such congress admitted on each side is vitiated from the beginning and intrinsically evil; whence cooperation, even merely passive, is altogether illicit. Therefore the wife is bound positively to resist according to her strength, for example by moving herself or by using her hands, and she cannot yield except to prevailing force, after the manner of an oppressed woman, in which case, from such a most grave cause, as to that which she cannot impede, she can bear herself merely permissively, provided she excludes every consent to pleasure (Sacred Penitentiary, April 16, 1853 and June 3, 1916; Provincial Council of Mechlin, n. 84).

4. Likewise the wife would sin gravely if she induced the man to onanism either directly or indirectly, for example by producing insistent complaints concerning more numerous offspring, concerning the pains of childbirth, concerning the inconveniences of gestation, and so forth.

5. When the wife uses an occlusive pessary or other means impeding generation, the man must by marital authority prohibit it and remove her from these things; indeed, if it can be done, he must take away and destroy the means and instruments. But if nothing profits and grave inconveniences are to be feared, some judge that the man can even seek the debt and perfect copulation, provided he bears himself merely materially and passively as to the impediment of generation. Now:

a. It would certainly be illicit if the wife used a pseudo-vagina, because then from the beginning the act would be intrinsically evil.

b. On the contrary, it is probably licit if, with the husband contradicting, she uses anticonceptional powder or a medicine by which semen is killed, at least if it is done after the act, or if by washing of the female canal she tries to expel it; because then both the act and the genital organ of the woman remain substantially the same. For the act itself is done well and semen is deposited in the due vessel, but the vice is not from the mode of acting, but exists independently from the act and is posterior to it and is to be attributed to the wife alone.

c. But if she uses a sponge or occlusive pessary, whether the same reasoning is valid, we ourselves would not dare to decide, but let the wiser see.⁵ The matter is not so clear, whether in the case the copulation itself is vitiated from the beginning, although from the beginning and during copulation there is present an impediment to conception from occlusion of the uterus; because the mouth of the uterus is not an organ which, like the virile member, has a part in copulation, but copulation is perfected in the due mode if semen is deposited in the natural female genital canal. In the case this happens, although the action of nature to be continued after copulation is impeded, but by the woman. Hence in practice, until the Church pronounces, the husband will be able to be absolved, provided he is prepared to stand by the mandates of the Holy See.

⁵ Father Vermeersch in the first edition of his work affirmed this, but afterwards retracted himself (compare Periodica de re canonica, 1925, f. II; and Th. M., t. IV, 69). The act now seems to him evil from the beginning, because the female genital canal is already substantially vitiated: for this is essentially a canal leading to the uterus; but since in the case it is occluded, it also ceases to be a canal. Hence a woman who has a naturally occluded female genital canal is impotent. The argument, saving better judgment, does not seem certain. For natural occlusion is one thing, merely artificial occlusion another; an organ occluded by reason of its structure is one thing, an organ aptly constructed but occluded because of an accidental impediment placed upon it from outside, which leaves the female genital canal perfectly integral, is another. It is also useful to note that in this mode only the passage of semen into the uterus and thus to the ovum is impeded. Now if the uterus has been removed, or the oviduct interrupted, and passage to the ovum has already been made impossible, nevertheless the conjugal act remains licit; likewise during pregnancy, while passage into the uterus is impeded because it is closed.

Nor does it stand in the way: if it is illicit for the woman to cooperate with the man using a preservative instrument, by equal right it must be illicit for the man to cooperate with the woman who uses a similar instrument. For although the rights are equal, nevertheless the parts of the man and the woman in the conjugal act are not the same, but are greater in the man; and therefore the man will be able more easily to cooperate with the wife than she with the man.

III. Corollaries. 1. From the principles enunciated one can respond to the question whether the wife could cooperate in sodomitical copulation, which is also opposed to the natural end of copulation and to conjugal fidelity demanding that spouses use the body only in a mode apt for generation; for neither has right over the body of the other against nature. Now, one must respond as for artificial onanism: to such copulation, as intrinsically evil and vitiated from the beginning, it is never licit to cooperate positively or actively, nor even merely passively; but it is necessary that the wife try to impede the sodomitical concubitus of the man by resisting positively as much as she can, for example by movement and by hands, and if, unwilling, she nevertheless is compelled to yield to prevailing force, that she never consent to the venereal pleasure perhaps arising from it. For if to cooperate in artificial onanism is never licit, a fortiori this is valid concerning the sodomitical mode, which is more perverse (compare Sacred Penitentiary, April 3, 1916).

2. From onanism and sodomy improperly so called there must be distinguished the act by which spouses come together in the manner of animals, yet in such a way that copulation is done in the female genital canal. In this case some say that they came together backwards or from behind. Then the confessor must ask whether in this mode generation was possible; if they respond that it was possible, it is inferred that the act was not against nature but only inordinate in position, beside nature; this sin does not exceed venial. Of his own accord the confessor should never have speech concerning the position to be had in copulation.

3. From onanism differs altogether the practice of having copulation only in the time of agenesis, during which time conception in no way or more rarely, namely, occurs; whence by this practice generation is made little probable. For such a manner of acting of itself is not sinful, since spouses can contain themselves as long as they wish, and otherwise do nothing against the end of marriage in the time in which they come together (Sacred Penitentiary, June 16, 1889), provided this is done from a right intention or just motive and with due circumstances preserved. Nevertheless, the bishops of Belgium rightly warn: "lest, however, the time of agenesis be proposed to the spouses as if through it generation were certainly avoided."⁶

⁶ The time of agenesis was formerly established by the physician Capellmann and others thus: from ten or fourteen days after the beginning up to three or four days before the new menstruation; for they thought ovulation, and accordingly fertility, to coincide with menstruation, so that during the month the woman would be:

4. Nor must onanism be confused with the interruption of copulation. For this can be licit because of a grave reason, for example to avoid scandal when a person unexpectedly arrives, because of a spasm arisen in the calves, because of a sudden infirmity. Then copulation is broken off not now so that semen may be poured out externally, but for another end, whence the effusion of semen occurring beyond the intention is equated with involuntary pollution. If grave reason is lacking, this, speaking per se, is not mortal, provided the spouses consent in this and there is no danger of inseminating outside the vessel; for that intromission of the female vessel is then judged after the manner of an impudicious touch, which is permitted between spouses or at least is not mortal, with danger of pollution set aside. We have said:

a. if both consent, for if one withdraws without the consent of the other, he or she certainly sins gravely against the obligation of rendering the debt, as will be more evident from the following article;

b. speaking per se, for often it is mortal because the danger is frequently present from such withdrawal of pouring out semen, unless the spouses have experienced the opposite, in which case, nevertheless, ordinarily they cannot be excused from venial sin;

c. if there is no danger of pollution; whence the husband sins gravely who, without just cause, restrains insemination after the wife has experienced complete pleasure or is proximately prepared for it, because thus he is the cause that the action of the wife is deprived of its end and is mere pollution.

5. On the contrary, that cannot be admitted which some have said: that spouses who do not wish to multiply offspring can, for fostering mutual love, calming concupiscence, or compensating for the use of marriage, exercise the beginning of copulation, even through intromission into the female genital canal, in the manner of an imperfect act which they do not wish to bring to consummation; and indeed licitly, even if pollution arises from it not only rarely but even frequently, provided they do not consent to it.

Against this:

a. an imperfect touch, if the primary end, the generation of offspring, is positively excluded, is venial sin, even if there is no danger of pollution from it;

b. but if the act is prolonged for a long time or even frequently repeated, so that there is proximate danger of pollution, it will be gravely evil, because it is to place a cause per se and gravely influencing pollution. And if it were licit, spouses could practice material onanism with impunity; for such a practice is equivalent to onanism, from which it differs by explicit intention alone, since in the formal onanist pollution is voluntary in itself, but here only voluntary in a proximate cause. And therefore each is equally prohibited under grave sin.

6. Women sin gravely in intention who by an inefficacious reason, by a vain remedy, by restraining distillation, by rising to urinate, have wished to render copulation sterile. Nor can they obey a husband ordering such things unless first they have warned him concerning his error.

But if they voluntarily employ a means by which received semen is expelled or killed, they are guilty of an exterior gravely sinful act; hence women regularly ought not irrigate the female genital canal immediately, but only some hours after copulation.⁷

⁷ Father Vermeersch, who in the first edition of his work De Castitate, n. 264, more severely required six hours, recently judges more benignly and holds washing after an hour licit. For "in individual effusions, nemaspermata are contained in an immense number, which they estimate at 250,000,000 to 260,000,000. If the man has perfectly effected intromission into the female genital canal, already in the very act of copulation many nemaspermata enter the uterus. But their motion is such that they traverse a hundredth part of a meter in ten moments. The beginning of the female genital canal is distant from the mouth of the uterus by 2 1/2 to 3 centimeters; but 10 centimeters from the Fallopian tubes ... where fertilization usually occurs.... When all things proceed optimally, fertilization already has place after an hour and a half from copulation done" (Th. M., IV, n. 7). From this he concludes: "Washing of the female canal after an hour from copulation cannot in itself be called illicit, since then it no longer morally impedes generation," for "so many nemaspermata have been received in the uterus that such hope of fertilization has been made as morally no better can be expected" (ad n. 71).

Therefore under no pretext can it be done earlier: of cleanliness, or custom, or influx of blood with itching, or white flux, or inflammation of the female canal, or health; which causes, moreover, are not proportionate. Indeed generally washing of the female canal is rather harmful to health.⁸ Nevertheless washing immediately after copulation would be licit if it were a means here and now necessary for averting infection or a contagious disease, which certainly rarely occurs.

⁸ Thus Dr. Schockaert, "Les dangers de l'avortement et du neo-malthusianisme pour l'organe feminin," in Revue medicale de Louvain, 1932.

IV. Besides the inordination against nature intrinsic to onanism, several other evil consequences also are apt to follow from it, as Tanquerey notes (Supplement to the treatise on Marriage, n. 41-43):

"a. The spouses themselves often suffer many evils from it; for just as children are a common good and common bond by which spouses are joined more firmly and closely, so on the contrary those who lack offspring dissent much more easily and are separated from one another. Nor should it be said that to attain this end one or another child suffices; for the more numerous the offspring, the firmer the union of the spouses. Otherwise, not rarely are onanists punished by the premature death of one or another child whom they had begotten; hence often the parents of an only child are pressed by anxieties and fears lest perhaps this child be taken from the living and the family name be wiped out. Besides, marital copulation which, legitimately performed, is a remedy of concupiscence, does not calm it but inflames it when it is perfected onanistically; especially the woman is not completely delighted and does not rest unless the uterus is irrigated by virile semen tempering her ardor. Hence also physicians cry out with one voice that onanists are subject to many diseases, which arise especially from excitation of the nerves;⁹ for the commotion which concubitus causes is not calmed except by the natural effusion and reception of virile sperm.

⁹ Or even the woman from defective application of the various practices. Compare Eschbach, o. c., p. 573-574; Surbled, t. I, l. 2, ch. 11-12; Dr. Schockaert, in the cited article.

"b. The offspring also not rarely suffers some detriment from the onanism of parents, which the Council of Poitiers (1868) describes thus: it happens very often that that child is educated more indulgently, or at God's command briefly finishes life, or, having become worse with age, deprived of the sweet love and support of brothers and sisters, loving himself, not obeying parents, proud, ungrateful, without affection, afflicts his family with disgrace and grief.

"c. Nor does onanism harm society less. For if the chief strength and protection of society is situated in the number and virile education of citizens; now onanism, by impeding generation, diminishes the number of citizens, so that nations once flourishing gradually fail. Likewise it hinders the virile education of children: for where there is an only child, generally he is educated more indulgently, is devoted to pleasure rather than duty, and often becomes altogether useless to the fatherland."

V. Warning for confessors. Concerning onanism, the faithful are also to be questioned and warned in confession. Concerning this, see the Sacred Penitentiary, March 10, 1886; and the Instruction of the bishops of Belgium, 1909;¹⁰ and the Provincial Council of Mechlin, n. 84-86. Indeed the Supreme Pontiff himself in the encyclical Casti Connubii does not hesitate to write: "Therefore priests who give their labor to hearing confessions, and others who have care of souls, by our supreme authority and care for the salvation of all souls, we admonish, lest they allow the faithful committed to them to err concerning this most grave law of God, and much more, that they keep themselves immune from opinions of this kind and in no way connive at them. But if any confessor or pastor of souls, may God avert it, has either himself led the faithful entrusted to him into these errors, or at least confirmed them in these either by approving or by deceitfully keeping silent, let him know that he will have to render a severe account to God the supreme judge concerning betrayal of his office, and let him judge that the words of Christ are said to him, Matt. XV, 14: They are blind, and leaders of the blind; but if the blind gives guidance to the blind, both fall into the pit."

¹⁰ As a commentary upon this instruction one can have the little work of the author A. Knoch, L'Onanisme conjugal et le tribunal de la Penitence, Liege, 1910. Besides, these can usefully be compared: Instructio pro confessariis de usu et abusu matrimonii, Eichstaett, Seminary 1931; Ami du Clerge, 1931; Creusen, "L'Onanisme conjugal," in N. R. Th., 1932.

For it concerns a most grave evil, spread everywhere and very harmful to the common good, concerning which good faith now can scarcely exist, whose practice among the good and pious will easily be harmful to others because of scandal, and which because of the silence of confessors will be judged able to be permitted or tolerated. With these things considered, the confessor:

1. Unless by positive judgment it appears that the penitent is immune from that vice, should regularly question unknown married persons at least by a general question: whether all things in marriage are rightly ordered, whether nothing concerning this troubles the conscience.

2. If an onanist is detected, he can never positively permit the vice, and regularly he must warn, not only if good faith is absent or there is probable hope of fruit, but also when these are lacking; indeed, the Sacred Penitentiary warns, March 10, 1886, "if he foresees that several are to be disturbed from good faith, and many will abandon the sacraments": both generally, because if confessors generally were silent, they would harm the common good, and in the particular case if it is feared that the silence of the confessor may be divulged, or the example be a scandal to the faithful. "For in this matter," says the Provincial Council of Mechlin, n. 85, "it is better to use severity than to indulge laxity."

3. Only extraordinarily, in a rare case, if these inconveniences and the danger of scandal and of excessive abuse are absent, he will be able to leave the penitent in good faith, which can more easily exist in the wife while she is in grave illness, or leaves the whole matter to the husband.

4. But if the spouse, considering the mode by which the vice is committed, can legitimately begin copulation well or admit it when begun, he will instruct that spouse concerning this faculty, so that he or she may henceforth avoid formal sins.

5. Let him also provide remedies against the vice:

a. let him show the gravity of the sin, which is directly opposed to the primary end of the conjugal act and of marriage, and the grave obligation of abandoning it;

b. let him explain the harmful effects in offspring born, and in the parents, who weaken the nervous system;

700. Malice. Conjugal onanism, in whatever manner it is freely performed, is always a mortal sin.

Thus right reason teaches; thus the Church has declared. Right reason dictates that onanism is true pollution and directly conflicts both with the good of offspring and with the good of fidelity. For the Creator has prescribed a determinate use for each thing and for each human power. If man acts contrary to that prescribed manner, he acts contrary to the will of God and therefore sins more or less according to the greater or lesser gravity of the matter. Thus, for example, animals according to the intention of the Creator ought to serve man; if he abuses animals by unreasonably tormenting or torturing them, he commits a venial sin, since that abuse is not so grave. Food and drink ought to serve for the nourishment of man; if man abuses food and drink, for example, by trampling bread underfoot, he sins venially. Similarly, the generative faculty was given to man so that he may use it according to the intention of the Creator, that is, for fitting generation. If man abuses this faculty, he sins, and indeed gravely, since that abuse is very grave. The Angelic Doctor writes to the point:⁴¹⁰ "It is evident that every emission of semen in such a manner that generation cannot follow is against the good of man; and if this is done from intention, it must be a sin. I say, however, a manner from which generation cannot follow of itself, as every emission of semen without the natural commingling of male and female: for which reason sins of this kind are said to be against nature. But if generation cannot follow from the emission of semen accidentally, it is not on this account against nature or a sin, as if it should happen that a woman is sterile.... Nor, nevertheless, ought it to be reckoned a venial sin if someone procures the emission of semen outside the due end of generation and education, on account of the fact that it is either a venial sin or no sin if someone uses some part of his body for another use than that to which it is ordered according to nature, as if someone, for example, walks upon his hands or works with his feet at something to be worked with the hands; because through disordered uses of this kind the good of man is not much impeded. But the disordered emission of semen conflicts with the good of nature, which is the conservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide, by which human nature already existing in act is destroyed, this kind of sin seems to hold the second place, by which the generation of human nature is impeded."

The malice of onanism can moreover be perceived from its evil effects. For the bodily health of each spouse is accustomed to be gravely harmed by it, offspring is not generated, families and states are depopulated, and the reins are loosened to lust of every kind.⁴¹¹

Finally, the malice of onanism is evident from declarations of the Church. Thus, on May 21, 1851, the Holy Office declared the proposition, "For honorable reasons spouses may lawfully use matrimony in the manner in which Onan used it," to be "scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural right of matrimony." - To the question, however, "Whether the imperfect use of matrimony, whether performed onanistically or condomistically, as in the case, is licit?" it responded on April 19, 1853: "Negatively, for it is intrinsically evil." - The Sacred Penitentiary responded on November 13, 1901: "A penitent who is unwilling to abstain from a manner of acting of this kind, which is onanism pure and simple, cannot be absolved."

⁴¹⁰ St. Thomas, Contra Gent., l. 3, c. 122.

⁴¹¹ Georges Surbled writes in the very well-known book La morale dans ses rapports avec la médecine et l'hygiène (I, 182): "Unfortunately no one can deny the extreme frequency of onanism, which makes it a veritable social scourge, the mark of the shameful blight of modern marriage. This sad habit is known among all ranks of society in the cities and is already beginning to spread in the most remote countryside.... The dire balance sheet of onanism from the purely medical point of view has not yet been entirely established, but one day it will be known: it is formidable." - All physicians agree with Surbled. Thus, for example, Löwenfeld writes (Die psych. Zwangserscheinungen, 467): "According to Freud, interrupted intercourse figures chiefly among the causes of anxiety neuroses." Cf. also Familler, Pastorale Psychiatrie, p. 37.

703. The only truly efficacious means against onanism are either virtuous continence or firm confidence in God. Certainly it happens that the generation of offspring is morally almost impossible for spouses, for example, if numerous offspring are already present and sufficient means are lacking; if the health of either spouse is weak, or indeed is seriously endangered by a new generation. In these or similar cases, spouses, relying upon divine assistance, ought either to preserve continence by mutual consent or to give themselves to the conjugal act, placing their hope in God, who will certainly give sufficient graces for bearing all the burdens of the conjugal state.

Many physical means for preventing conception are circulated, but all are either illicit or not certainly efficacious.

The physician Capellmann recommends a certain means which indeed is not entirely efficacious, but sometimes produces good effects. Namely, spouses ought to abstain from intercourse during the first fifteen days after menstruation and again during the four days before a new menstruation. At another time, which is called the time of agenesis, they can complete intercourse without there being a great probability of conception. The Sacred Penitentiary declared concerning this matter on June 16, 1880: "Spouses using matrimony in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and a confessor can cautiously suggest this opinion to those spouses whom he has tried in vain by another means to draw away from the detestable crime of onanism."

S. Th., II-II, q. 154, a. 11-12.

954. Excess or abuse in the use of marriage can be:

a) by reason of the end, as if it is done exclusively for delight;

b) by reason of an undue circumstance, for example position, if the act is done in another mode besides that which nature indicates;

c) especially by reason of a mode contrary to nature, if it is done in such a way that generation itself is thereby impeded, for example in a sodomitical mode, in an unnatural vessel and an undue organ, namely, in the posterior vessel or in the mouth.

Now the mode of sinning by excess contrary to nature which in present times is very frequent is Onanism, so called from the deed of Onan narrated in Gen. XXXVIII, 9.

1. That practice is often called Neo-Malthusianism. On account of economic reasons Malthus (1798) had proposed the limitation of conception, but by licit means, namely, by abstaining from the conjugal act. Now, however, Neo-Malthusians promote illicit means.

It is vaginal copula sought in that mode by which generation is positively impeded and cannot follow from the effusion of seed; whether because the man withdraws himself before the sowing of seed and pours forth the seed outside the vagina, or because he himself or the woman employs an instrument or other means by which the seed is impeded from passing to the uterus.

It can be done in various modes:

1° On the part of the man: a) if he begins copula in the vagina but withdraws himself before the sowing of seed and pours forth the seed outside the vagina; b) if he clothes the virile member or only its glans with some thin covering or cloak (condom, capote anglaise) within which the seed is retained.

1. It is so called because it had Doctor Condom as inventor.

2° On the part of the woman: a) if, during copula, she uses an occlusive pessary (sterilet), i.e., a certain thing introduced into the deepest part of the vagina for closing the mouth of the uterus lest the seed pass into it, for example a metal clasp, sponge, cotton, linen threads, etc.; or a pseudo-vagina, i.e., a thin membrane disposed within the whole vagina, into which the seed is emitted; b) if, after copula has been completed, she makes a vaginal washing, by which, with the aid of a syringe or irrigator, the seed is expelled by water or an antiseptic substance; or if, immediately before or after copula, she performs an injection of a chemical substance (for example anticonceptional powder) or of an acid liquid, by which the seed is killed.

2. Nevertheless no mode is altogether certain. For the preservative covering (condom or pseudo-vagina) can be torn; the occlusive pessary can be badly adapted or, during copula, moved from its place; simple withdrawal or vaginal washing does not always prevent some sperm from being ejaculated before withdrawal or from already having passed into the uterus before washing; a chemical substance sprinkled through the whole vagina before copula does not always have perfect efficacy.

955. Principle. Onanism and every other mode of performing copula by which it is deprived of its natural order to generation is intrinsically against nature and therefore essentially and gravely evil. - This is certain from the constant and formal doctrine of Christian tradition and of the Church.

It is a mortal sin, as directly contrary to the primary end of matrimony and matrimonial copula, and opposed to conjugal fidelity, a mere abuse of the genital organs against the order instituted by God and nature, by which they pervert a most noble thing into the most base act of a passion of ignominy: for it lacks the due order to its natural end and to the good of the species. Hence malice is intrinsic to the act, so that it cannot be made honorable by any cause, however urgent.

It is proved:

1° By natural reason: to turn an act deliberately away from the end for which it is naturally destined is to act against nature and is intrinsically evil. But every conjugal act is naturally destined to the procreation of the human race. Therefore to turn it away from this end is against nature and intrinsically evil. And this gravely, because it is against the natural order of human nature itself and directly against the common good itself of the human race.

2° From the doctrine of the Church, which is clear from proposition 49 condemned by Innocent XI and from many and repeated declarations of the Holy Office (May 20, 1851; Apr. 19, 1853; Mar. 26, 1897; Nov. 23, 1922) and of the Sacred Penitentiary (twelve times from Nov. 15, 1816, to June 3, 1916), and most recently from the encyclical Casti Connubii, in which Pius XI did not hesitate to declare that such is the very Christian doctrine handed down from the beginning and always: "Since therefore certain ones, manifestly receding from the Christian doctrine handed down already from the beginning and never interrupted, have recently judged that another doctrine concerning this mode of acting must be solemnly preached, the Catholic Church, to which God himself has committed the teaching and defending of integrity and honesty of morals, placed in the midst of this ruin of morals, that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial covenant immune from this foul stain, in sign of her divine legation, lifts high her voice through our mouth and again promulgates: any use of matrimony whatsoever in the exercise of which, through the design of men, it is deprived of its natural power of procreating life, violates the law of God and of nature; and those who have committed any such thing are stained with the blemish of grave guilt." Here three things are affirmed: the use of matrimony which by design is deprived of its power of generating is 1) against divine law; 2) against the law of nature; and 3) a grave sin.

Hence concerning Onanism the following conclusions are established:

1° An onanistic man cannot be absolved unless he repents and resolves; likewise a woman formally cooperating or consenting, or one who tries to expel the seed by washings. Indeed, one who uses a preservative means is bound to destroy it as an occasion of sin before absolution; and this is per se and regularly to be urged by the confessor.

2° A wife does not sin if, for a moderately grave cause, she renders the debt to an onanistic man withdrawing himself before the sowing of seed, or even seeks it from him. But a grave cause, as is clear from the responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, exists if otherwise she would incur grave evils, for example dissensions in marriage, blows, adultery of the husband, her own incontinence, or prolonged abstinence from the use of marriage, etc. The reason is that the action begins in the due mode, so that of itself it is apt for generation; but if it is unduly terminated, the whole guilt is held to be on the part of the man, and on the part of the woman there is only material and mediate cooperation, which on account of a grave motive can be furnished to the sin of another. For this is, as Pius XI says, to suffer sin rather than to commit it. This is to be understood provided the wife does not consent to that mode of acting against nature, but detests it and bears herself merely passively toward it; otherwise it would be formal cooperation. Nevertheless she could actively cooperate, immediately before copula and during it by exciting herself, and rejoice in the pleasure (even perfect pleasure), as long as the action is done in the due mode; likewise she may rejoice in the good effect of such copula, for example in preservation from the troubles and labors of pregnancy or childbirth, although this is dangerous.

1. Therefore she can seek copula from a man withdrawing himself, and only sometimes, namely once or another time, is she bound to abstain by reason of charity; not more often, because then it would already be a grave inconvenience, while charity does not oblige with grave inconvenience for avoiding merely passive scandal.

2. The same holds theoretically for a man, when before the sowing of seed the woman withdraws herself; but in practice there ordinarily is not a grave sufficient reason on the part of the man, because he can rather easily impede the withdrawal of the woman, even by physical force.

But even then the woman is bound because of charity to warn the man and show her own repugnance, and this not once or another time only, but rather often; yet not inopportunely, but opportunely. Indeed, if she can, she must deter the man from this crime by endearments, prayers, and other testimonies of affection (S. Pen., Nov. 15, 1816), even by denial of the debt if she thus hopes to procure the amendment of the husband.

3° But a wife cannot voluntarily cooperate and render the debt to an onanistic man employing a preservative instrument, whether he himself puts on a covering or imposes an occlusive covering upon the wife, because this is immediate participation in an intrinsically evil action, and therefore truly is to commit sin; for then there is no copula of itself apt for generation. Such congress, namely, admitted on each side, is vitiated from the beginning and intrinsically evil; whence voluntary cooperation, even merely material and passive, is altogether illicit. And therefore the wife is bound to resist positively according to her powers (for example by moving herself or using her hands), and she cannot yield except to prevailing force, after the likeness of an oppressed woman; in which case, from such a most grave cause, as to that which she cannot impede, she can bear herself merely permissively, provided she excludes every consent to delight (S. Pen., Apr. 19, 1853, and June 3, 1916; Prov. Counc. of Mechlin, n. 84).

4° Likewise a wife would sin gravely if she induced the man to onanism, whether directly or indirectly, for example by producing insistent complaints concerning more numerous offspring, concerning the pains of childbirth, concerning the inconveniences of gestation, etc.

5° When a wife uses an occlusive pessary or other means impeding generation, the husband ought by marital authority to prohibit it and remove her from those things; indeed, if it can be done, to take away and destroy the means and instruments. But if nothing is accomplished and grave inconveniences are to be feared, certain authors judge that the husband can even seek the debt and complete copula, provided he bears himself merely materially and passively as regards the impediment of generation. Now:

a) It would certainly be illicit if the wife used a pseudo-vagina, because then the act would be intrinsically evil from the beginning.

b) On the contrary, it is probably licit if, with the man contradicting her, she uses anticonceptional powder or a medicine by which the seed is killed, at least if it is done after the act, or if by vaginal washing she tries to expel it; because then both the act and the genital organ of the woman remain substantially the same: for the act itself is done well and the seed is deposited in the due vessel, but the vice is not from the mode of acting, but exists independently from the act and is posterior to it and is to be attributed to the wife alone.

c) But if the wife uses a sponge or an occlusive pessary, whether the same reason holds, we ourselves would not dare to settle, but let wiser men see to it. The matter is not so clear, whether in the case the copula itself is vitiated from the beginning, although from the beginning and during copula there is present an impediment of conception from the closing of the uterus; because the mouth of the uterus is not an organ which, like the penis, has a part in copula, but the latter is completed in the due mode if the seed is deposited in the natural vagina. This happens in the case, although the action of nature, to be continued after copula, is impeded, but by the woman. Hence in practice, until the Church pronounces, the husband can be absolved, provided he is prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See.

Nor is it an objection: if it is illicit for the woman to cooperate with a man using a preservative instrument, by equal right it must also be illicit for the man to cooperate with a woman who uses a similar instrument. For it can be doubted whether the instrument, as regards copula, is altogether similar. And although the rights are equal, nevertheless the parts of the man and of the woman in the conjugal act are not the same, but greater parts belong to the man; and therefore the man will be able to cooperate with the sin of the wife more easily than she with the sin of the man.

1. Fr. Vermeersch affirmed this in the first edition of his work De Castitate, but afterward retracted himself (cf. Periodica de re canonica, 1925, fasc. II, and Th. M., vol. IV, 69). The act now seems to him evil from the beginning, because the vagina is already substantially vitiated: for this is essentially a canal leading to the uterus; but since in the case it is closed, it also ceases to be a canal. Hence a woman who has a naturally closed vagina is impotent. - The argument, saving a better judgment, does not seem certain. For natural closing is one thing, merely artificial closing another; an organ closed because of its structure is one thing, an organ suitably constructed but closed on account of an accidental impediment placed from without is another, which leaves the vagina perfectly whole. It is also helpful to note that by this mode only the passage of the seed into the uterus and thus to the ovum is impeded. Now if the uterus has been removed or the oviduct interrupted, and the passage to the ovule has already been made impossible, the conjugal act nevertheless remains licit; likewise, during pregnancy, when passage into the uterus is impeded because it is closed.

956. Corollaries. - 1. From the principles stated, response can be made to the question: whether a wife can cooperate with sodomitical copula? This also is opposed to the natural end of copula and to conjugal fidelity, which requires that spouses not use the body except in a mode apt for generation; for neither has a right over the body of the other against nature. Now, one must answer as for artificial onanism: with such copula, as being intrinsically evil and vitiated from the beginning, it is never licit to cooperate positively or actively, nor even to cooperate merely passively; but the wife must try, by resisting positively as much as she can (for example by movement and with her hands), to impede the sodomitical intercourse of the man; and if unwillingly nevertheless she is compelled to yield to prevailing force, she must never consent to venereal delight perhaps arising from it. For if it is never licit for her to cooperate with artificial onanism, a fortiori this holds concerning the sodomitical mode, which is more perverse (cf. S. Pen., Apr. 3, 1916).

2. From onanism and sodomy improperly so called there must be distinguished the act by which spouses come together after the manner of animals, yet in such a way that copula is done in the vagina; in this case some say that they have come together backwards or from behind. Then the confessor ought to ask whether in this mode generation was possible; if they answer that it was possible, it is inferred that the act was not against nature but only disordered in position, beside nature; and this sin does not exceed venial sin. The confessor should never of his own accord have discourse concerning the position to be had in copula.

3. From onanism there differs altogether the practice of having copula only in the time of agenesis, during which time conception in no way or more rarely occurs; whence by this practice generation becomes little probable. For such a manner of acting is not of itself sinful, since spouses can contain themselves as long as they wish, and besides they do nothing against the end of matrimony at the time when they come together (S. Pen., June 16, 1880), provided this is done from a right intention or a just motive and with the due circumstances observed. Nevertheless the bishops of Belgium deservedly warn: "that the time of agenesis should not, however, be proposed to spouses themselves as if by it generation would certainly be avoided."

1. The time of agenesis formerly was established thus by the physician Capellmann and others: from ten or fourteen days after the menstruation begun up to three or four days before the new menstruation; for they thought that ovulation and therefore fertility coincided with menstruation, so that during the month the woman would be:

But it was discovered that menstruation does not coincide with ovulation, although it is a connected phenomenon; rather it has place between two ovulations. Thus Dr. Siegel established that a woman is fertile from day 5 to 20 after menstruation has occurred, sterile from day 1 to 4, and from 21 to 28. But now, according to the most recent experiments of Dr. Knaus, a woman would be fertile from day 11 to 17 after menstruation has occurred, sterile from day 1 to 10 and from day 18 to 28. According to Dr. Ogino, a woman would be fertile from day 12 to 19 before the following menstruation (exceptionally to day 24), but sterile for 11 days before the following menstruation and for 9 days (exceptionally only for 4) after menstruation has occurred. This can be proposed schematically thus:

Concerning these things it must be noted:

Onanism consists in this, that the man, after intercourse has been begun, withdraws himself before emission and pours out the semen outside, in order to impede generation. It takes its name from Onan, the second son of the patriarch Judah, who after his brother Her had died, according to custom, was compelled to take his widow Tamar, so that he might raise up seed for his brother. Moreover Onan, as is had in Gen. xxxviii, 9 and 10: "Entering to the wife of his brother, he poured out the seed upon the earth, lest children be born in the name of his brother. And therefore the Lord struck him, because he did a detestable thing."

I say. Voluntary onanism is always a mortal sin, as something grave against nature; and therefore it can never be licit for spouses. The reason is both because it is repugnant to the primary end of Marriage and of itself tends toward the extinction of society, and because it was strictly prohibited by the supreme Legislator and Author of nature, as is drawn from the text of Genesis just related. Besides, when there was a question concerning the theological note of this proposition: "For honorable reasons it is licit for spouses to use marriage in that mode in which Onan used it," response was made by the S. Penitentiary on the day 21 May 1851, that the said "proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural law of Marriage."

I said voluntary onanism; for a wife can be excused from sin if for a grave cause she renders the debt to an onanist husband, provided internally she does not consent to his sin, and externally shows her repugnance by serious admonitions or other signs of displeasure. The reason is that she is engaged in a licit thing and uses her right, of which she cannot be deprived on account of the malice of the man; nor does she properly cooperate with the sin of another, since she has herself only passively, and the intrinsically evil action consists only in the act of the man then withdrawing against the order of nature. This same thing was declared on the day 8 June 1842 by the S. Penitentiary in the following words:

"Since the whole disorder of the act proceeds from the malice of the man, who, instead of consummating, withdraws himself and pours out outside the vessel; therefore if the woman after due admonitions accomplishes nothing, and the man insists by threatening blows or death, she herself will be able, as approved theologians teach, simply to permit it without sin, and this from a grave cause which excuses her; since charity, by which she is bound to impede that, does not oblige with so great an inconvenience."

But in no way can a woman acquiesce to an onanist husband who would wish to use an instrument called "male protector," because intercourse of this kind would not only be completed, but also begun, against the law of nature. - Cf. Lehmkuhl, vol. 5, n. 858. To a man using such instruments the woman must oppose that resistance which a virgin opposes to an invader. It is most difficult in these frauds against nature to have or find good faith as companion of the act; for the matter is so alien to nature itself; surely the case will be rare in which bad faith is lacking.

You Will Resolve. 1°. The woman sins gravely who induces the man to abuse marriage, even indirectly or tacitly, for example, by complaining about the number of offspring, about the labors of childbirth or of the education of children, or by repeatedly saying that she will die in the next childbirth, etc.

2°. Likewise the woman sins gravely by internally consenting to the detestable action of the man, even if externally she shows repugnance. Yet if she admits an inefficacious complacency not concerning the evil work in itself, but only concerning the effect that follows, say concerning immunity from the inconveniences of gestation or from the dangers of childbirth, of itself she does not sin, although complacency of this kind sometimes does not lack danger. But one must altogether beware lest, by manifestation of it made to the man, she render him more spirited for sinning more freely and more often.

3°. The wife is bound, at least ordinarily, to warn the onanist man concerning the obligation of acting rightly, and, insofar as it is in her, to turn him away from the perverse manner of acting. Nor does it suffice that she has warned him once, but sometimes she must repeat the admonitions, unless she is certain that a new admonition will profit nothing. Nevertheless then also she must make her repugnance manifest in some way.

4°. It will also be the office of the wife to move the husband by blandishments, various signs of love, prayers, and exhortations to completing the act rightly or abstaining from it altogether, because experience establishes that very many onanist men, allured by their wives, have betaken themselves to a better fruit. Today especially wives can more easily induce onanist husbands to abstain, since this abstinence, as will be said at once, ought not to be long-lasting.

5°. Various means are nowadays applied for impeding the generation of offspring, such as an envelope into which the man emits semen, or a sponge, or an occlusive pessary, or washing, or infusion of a killing liquid, or any other method exercised either before the act, or in the act, or after the act toward that most evil end. All these put on the character and most grave malice of Onanism; for they are repugnant to the very primary end of marriage, and are against nature. Onanism or voluntary sterility thus induced is surely always grave sin: generally speaking, it has arisen from a materialistic and pagan conception of life; therefore the doctrine of the Christian faith must be opposed to it: our life is a way to the fatherland, and the time of probation must be passed in observing the very laws of God. The joys and burdens of Marriage must be borne holily, and confidence in Divine Providence must be increased. Numerousness of offspring is a sign of divine blessing; the curse of God is upon those violating his law. Let mothers trust in God, to whose glory new offspring is born. - Cf. Instruction des Eveques de Belgique sur l'Onanisme. Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 41, p. 616.

Question 1. What must be said concerning those who, so that no offspring may be born to them, abstain from the use of marriage for some days in each month?

Resp. As regards the truth of the matter, it must be said that today it is admitted, but not without exceptions, and consequently not with absolute certitude, that the time apt for conception is that which immediately precedes or follows the menstrual flow, when, namely, it appears both that a mature ovum is present and that whatever is necessary for the formation and nutrition of the fetus has been prepared by nature. Wherefore physiologists say, and practice often confirms it, that ordinarily no offspring arises if spouses have intercourse only during those fourteen or fifteen days which are more distant from the menstrual flow.

But as regards liceity, it certainly does not appear why limited abstinence of this kind from marital intercourse is to be condemned. For if it is licit to abstain altogether, why will it not be licit to abstain for fifteen days in each month? - Nor should you say that the sin consists in the end which is intended, namely the lack of offspring; for it is answered that to wish to lack offspring is not evil in itself and of itself, but only then, when this desire is expressed by a positive manner of acting by which offspring is either impeded from being conceived, or once conceived is destroyed. Besides, concerning this question every doubt has been removed by a recent response of the S. Penitentiary, which has itself thus: "Spouses using marriage in the aforesaid mode are not to be disturbed, and a confessor can insinuate the opinion concerning which there is question, yet cautiously, to those spouses whom by another reason he has vainly attempted to lead away from the detestable crime of onanism." - Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 13, pp. 458 and seq. - Baller. note (a), p. 917. - Capellmann, p. 89.

Question 2. Is a spouse bound to render the debt to a co-party who is infected with a horrible disease?

Resp. If he fears that grave harm will arise to himself from it, he is not bound; but if no harm or almost no harm will arise, of itself he is bound. The reason for the first: because the infected party does not have the right. For his power over the body of the other is not as to those things which are for the preservation of the individual, but as to those things which are ordained to the generative power. And therefore "the man is bound to render the debt to the wife in those things which pertain to the generation of offspring, with nevertheless first the safety of the person preserved." The reason for the second: because no cause excusing of itself appears. Nevertheless, although in the first case of great harm he is not bound to render, surely it would be licit to do this from conjugal love and it would often be an excellent work of charity. Indeed, even if "weak offspring is generated, it is better thus to be than not to be at all," as St. Thomas says, Supp. in Sum. Theol. Q. 64, a. 1, ad. 4. In this matter any prudent man will hand himself over to be healed by the hands of an honorable physician. Nor then is much to be feared for the offspring. For as Osler says, Practice of Medicine, p. 238: Happily it happens in by far the greater number of cases that, when the applied treatment has been perfected, the offspring comes forth immune. - Cf. Nouv. Rev. Theol., v. 45, p. 611. - Wernz, v. 4, n. 256.

Warning. Extremes are to be avoided concerning the mode in which a confessor ought to conduct himself toward spouses altogether silent concerning the use of marriage. For just as it would be erroneous to assert that the confessor must never interrogate concerning this matter, so also to assert that he must always do so. Wherefore if there is a serious foundation, which indeed ought to be clear from the circumstances, that the penitent indulges in onanism and nevertheless confesses nothing, interrogations should be made, but altogether prudently and cautiously. And since, among us, this plague does not have roots so deep and universal as elsewhere, perhaps it will be better to be deficient than to abound in making questions.

Behold the golden words of the Supreme Pontiff, certainly worthy to be weighed:

"To pervert, both privately and publicly, that conformation of morals which the Church brought forth and polished, and to call human society back, with every trace of Christian wisdom and honesty gradually deleted in it, to the miserable institutions of the pagans: this is what today they will, what too many strive for, and would that it were without effect. But domestic society is proposed to the principal darts of the wicked; since it contains the beginnings and as it were seeds of the common society of men, they see that that conversion which they strive for, or rather corruption of the human community, will necessarily follow if once they have corrupted domestic institutions. Therefore, by sanctioning the law concerning divorces, they tear away the stability of wedlock; by compelling youth to be instructed by public discipline, which for the most part is most alien to Religion, in a matter of the greatest weight, they cut away the sinews of paternal power; and, by proclaiming the shameful art of obtaining pleasure and defrauding nature, they impiously dry up the very fountain of the human race, and they defile the sanctity of the marriage-bed with most impure morals." - Letter of Benedict XV given to Rev. Fr. Matthew Crawley Boevey, 27 April 1915.

The two genera of sexual vice are the “natural” and the “unnatural.” Natural vice is procreative (or “integral,” “natural,” “unitive”) sexual intercourse outside of the bonds of marriage, principally deriving its immorality from the risk to potential children proceeding from the act by the absence of the protection of a stable household such as is provided in principle by marriage. Unnatural vice is essentially infertile sexual activity, whether inside of marriage or not, deriving its immorality from a corruption of the right end of the sexual faculty in the very use of that same faculty, which is a direct affront to the Creator Who designed that faculty for the weighty purposes of keeping the human race in existence and bringing souls to Himself.³⁵ Using the sexual faculty’s associated external organs in a way that makes use of the pleasures which are designed to incentivize and complete natural sexual union but either does not dispose gametes (sex cells, viz. sperm and ova) for procreative union according to the natural design of the body (i.e. sodomitic acts, autoeroticism) or actively impedes the well-functioning of gametes in view of preventing procreative union (contraception) is unnatural vice. ³⁵ See ST II-II q. 154, a. 11; it is true some conceptive sexual relations are arguably categorized by St. Thomas as “unnatural,” but these are unnatural in a secondary way, viz., as to mode rather than as to end, and they are not as grave as sins against the end. It is unfortunate that St. Thomas was as ambiguous as he was about what he was exactly referring to. See ST II-II q. 154, a. 11; a. 12, ad. 4. I propose later on in this work that IVF is unnatural vice by way of “excess,” that is, by conceiving outside the natural order. Of course, there is no treatment of such things by St. Thomas.

Of course, there are many objections to the claim that these latter acts are “unnatural” by appealing to false analogies – “using a straw,” “walking on one’s hands,” “spitting,” “running on a treadmill” – which presume to show that many acts which seem unnatural are morally unproblematic and so the claim that unnatural sexual vice is true vice is indefensible.^{36 36} St. Thomas actually addresses the example of walking on one’s hands in SCG III, ch. 122: “Nor, in fact, should it be deemed a slight sin for a man to arrange for the emission of semen apart from the proper purpose of generating and bringing up children, on the argument that it is either a slight sin, or none at all, for a person to use a part of the body for a different use than that to which it is directed by nature (say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) because man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species.”

These sorts of arguments also fail to make proper distinctions about how diverse faculties actually work. For example, the digestive faculty is an “inward facing” faculty – it takes matter (food) and uses it to do something to oneself (deliver nutrients). To “pervert” or fundamentally undermine the digestive faculty would not mean using indigestible food, or even to purge oneself of digestible food; rather, it would mean somehow hijacking the digestive system as such to do something other than pass nutrition into the cells of the body. The use of the digestive faculty’s organs which are by their nature directed to a certain end by making them act upon something which is not and cannot be conducive to its natural end of delivering nutrients to the body. For example, to create a kind of “human battery” which somehow saps away the nutrients and calories prepared for the body’s use by the act of digestion accomplished by the digestive organs insofar as they are exclusively designed to deliver nutrients to the body. (Of course, this would quickly end in one’s death if not reversed.) Breathing is much the same – if one’s lungs could somehow be rewired to filter the air in a room rather than oxygenate one’s bloodstream, we would see the perversion of the faculty of breathing. The faculty of communication is “outward facing,” as it terminates in something other than oneself, namely, another person’s mind. The sexual faculty is also an “outward facing” faculty. Its object is “another,” first being its procreative pair as a primary agent (man acting upon woman) and second its procreative pair as a secondary causes (sperm acting upon ovum). Third, there is the final terminus itself, namely, the child which results from the union of gametes. The terminus being “another human” is what makes the sexual faculty’s intentionality “outward facing” even in the woman, whose principal act is a direct function of the vegetal soul (rather than the animal soul, as with the man).³⁷ More will be said momentarily about the importance of “secondary causes” in the sexual faculty’s structure. The point is that making proper distinctions about what is actually occurring in “abnormal” uses of various faculties is critical to having a clear way to explain what is at issue. ³⁷ The “vegetal soul” is the “part” or “dimension” of a human being’s soul which is “plant-like” – its powers are augmentation (growth), nutrition, and reproduction (the production of gametes and their fundamental disposition for procreative union). The “animal soul” is the part of a human being’s soul which is “animal-like” – its powers include especially sensation and locomotion. The man’s sexual act is principally animal in that it requires movement and sensation in a way that the woman’s principal sexual act (ovulation and reception of male gametes) does not, as it is fundamentally involuntary and passive, though of course normal sexual acts involve the use of the rational soul (the free choice to engage in the act), and sensation and motion on the part of the woman. The point is that the most fundamental structure of human reproduction does not include these as necessities.

Without an exhaustive “debunking” of objections based on false analogies about “perverting” or “opposing nature,” we can say such analogies always at least miss the core of the argument, over and above what has been said about the structure of faculties: the matter being disposed for the infusion of a rational soul meant to benefit the earth and ultimately to worship God forever in Heaven (rather than maintaining one’s own equilibrium or good pleasure) is not rightly subjected to the direct control of a mere individual human being the way bodily motion or other such things are,³⁸ and the order of human generation and its act are essentially and primarily related to the aforementioned weighty purposes, which purposes are thwarted by subverting that order by using wrong matter (i.e. homosexual acts, autoeroticism, etc.) or by actively impeding generation (contraception).³⁹ This is an affront more or less directly against the Creator Who designed the order of human generation to work in a certain way through particular organs and acts, which order is being opposed by the practitioner of unnatural vice. Mere human beings are not set over the matter into which God wishes to infuse a rational soul insofar as that matter is part of an unfolding process which God designed for Himself to use; the matter regards what is equal to man (another human being) and what is above man (the creative power of God); sex cells are not like a normal plant or animal in this sense.^{40 38} We have a special kind of authority or discretion over faculties and powers which directly affect ourselves because of our own natural knowledge and love for our own being and good. So long as we respect the principal of totality (the good of the whole) and avoid indecency and scandal, we enjoy great freedom – i.e., to walk on our hands. ³⁹ There is no shortage of ways to misunderstand the point. What must be grasped is that Christian moral science fundamentally concerns order rather than consequences. God put an order into human generation’s act and its secondary causes, which order must be respected. To disrespect the design of the Creator, especially in such a serious matter, is to offend Him as its architect. Beyond this, it is relatively easy to see the social contagion of unnatural vice together with its catastrophic social effects. For a historical study on general laxity in sexual morals and the resulting tendency towards civilizational collapse, see J.D. Unwin’s monumental study documenting this phenomenon, Sex and Culture (1934). ⁴⁰ The older theory of “delayed ensoulment” in which a “second conception” occurs (viz., the infusion of the rational soul into pre-human matter resulting from the “first conception”) is a helpful foil; here, to kill the pre-human matter is treated as the sin of abortion on account of that which God will do to that matter, that is, give it a rational soul, even if the juridical consequences might have differed at times. The killing takes away this matter from God, Who designed the process of human generation. It would perhaps be appropriate to call the killing of conceived pre-human matter “supercontraception.” (Note that John Paul II leaves space for the “delayed ensoulment” position, even though this opinion is presently out of favor. See Evangelium Vitae, §60.)

The average presentation that is made in parochial environments for natural family planning (“NFP”) leaves many people wondering whether and how it differs from contraception. To summarize, NFP involves monitoring the fertility cycles of the woman, usually in view of using the infertile periods for relations which will not result in children or are at least minimally likely to. (NFP can also be used in order to specify the most fertile periods of the woman in view of maximizing the chance of conception, which use does not concern us here – the term “NFP” in this book means “continence during fertile times combined with conjugal acts during infertile times in view of avoiding conception.”) The rigorist objection raised against the use of NFP is that it amounts to contraception, insofar as it uses and presumes upon infertility as a condition for the marital act. The typical rigorist supposes that one forms an intention against having children, then acts in the course of using marriage to guarantee this, with the interior disposition summarized by the statement, “I would not use marriage if it would result in conception,” and thereby sins against the nature of the marriage act and therefore against God just the same as “normal contraception.” It is also sometimes said that a “contraceptive mentality” animates this practice.⁴¹ The argument appears strong – the same result is obtained as with artificial contraception, and the same condition is set down, namely, that there is no reasonable possibility of conception. The couple appears to “use” the infertile period of the woman as a contraceptive means. What difference is there between NFP and artificial contraception which does not reduce to “physicalist” morals? ⁴¹ This phrase lends itself to many meanings, such that it is not particularly useful for precise moral discourse.

The familiar rejoinder is twofold: first, that merely abstaining from sexual activity when there is fertility is not a sin, and second, that NFP trains the couple in virtue and communication. Both of these statements are (mostly) true, but they largely miss the point. The first argument does not address the reality that the commission of the sexual act during infertile periods specifically depending upon the infertility of the woman is not merely abstaining from sexual activity during fertile periods, it is to do something. In other words, the default state of an individual person is not conjugal activity; to use marriage requires a positive choice. Therefore, this particular choice of a conjugal act must find a justification for itself within the context of trying to avoid conception in the same act, and, if we are to save Catholic moral theology, this justification must somehow avoid collapsing into a justification of artificial contraception. The second argument does not respond to the central objection at all but merely gives a probable good consequence of the discipline. Unfortunately, one does not often find much discussion beyond these two points in the popular literature. There is a marked failure to grapple with the objection seriously, when in fact this point confuses an enormous amount of people.

St. Thomas definitively rejects natural relations which happen to be naturally infertile from the category of unnatural vice:

It is evident from this that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to the good for man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin. Now, I am speaking of a way from which, in itself, generation could not result: such would be any emission of semen apart from the natural union of male and female. For which reason, sins of this type are called contrary to nature. But, if by accident generation cannot result from the emission of semen, then this is not a reason for it being against nature, or a sin; as for instance, if the woman happens to be sterile.^{42 42} Summa Contra Gentiles (hereafter SCG), III, 122, 5: “Ex quo patet quod contra bonum hominis est omnis emissio seminis tali modo quod generatio sequi non possit. Et si ex proposito hoc agatur, oportet esse peccatum. Dico autem modum ex quo generatio sequi non potest secundum se: sicut omnis emissio seminis sine naturali coniunctione maris et feminae; propter quod huiusmodi peccata contra naturam dicuntur. Si autem per accidens generatio ex emissione seminis sequi non possit, non propter hoc est contra naturam, nec peccatum: sicut si contingat mulierem sterilem esse.” Note that “accident” here is referring to the nature of a thing itself as distinct from its essential characteristics; it is not about one’s knowledge of infertility, but rather the condition of infertility inhering in what is designed to be fertile.

The fundamental order of the sexual faculties of the man and the woman are preserved in the material order in the case of infertility, they are simply inhibited on account of a defect in the functioning of the sexual faculty itself, in this case, of the woman. It is the system itself which constitutes the sexual faculty whence the defect comes which renders the woman infertile. To make use of the sexual faculty when it is thus defective is not a deliberate frustration of the sexual faculty’s end, like contraception; the latter introduces something alien to the sexual faculty in order to subvert its end in an otherwise natural and voluntary sexual act⁴³ (such as an “intrauterine device” or “IUD”) or removes something from the sexual faculty by force in order to subvert its end (such as a hysterectomy done for the sake of sterility). Otherwise, even to pay the debt in the case of a spouse who is known to be habitually sterile would constitute a grave sin against nature, which is untrue on St. Thomas’ account of the duty to pay the debt. ⁴³ Non-abortifacient retroactive contraception can be justified when the act was not voluntary or was in and of itself illicit – one is certainly not bound to will the natural consequences (viz., resulting procreation) of what is immoral in itself according to its species (i.e. adultery) – but in so contracepting one must also at least implicitly repudiate the act itself. A voluntary natural act of adultery is actually made more evil by the use of retroactive contraception if the evil act itself is not repented of, as one consents both to the adultery and to the perversion of its act. In fact, one is bound to use contraceptive means to expel seed from such a union, just as one is bound to repent of the act.

The core of the difference between NFP and contraception regards the role of secondary causes with their own proper finality towards fructification or attainment of the naturally indicated end, namely, procreation. The point reduces to the distinction between the intentional occasion of failure and the prevention of success. This distinction is subtle and easily missed.

Secondary causes (gametes) set in motion by the principal agents (the man and the woman) are not the same as the principal agent itself.⁴⁴ Gametes (sperm and egg) have their own causative power ordered towards the end of procreation and thus have a kind of “natural intention” or inclination. This inclination is worked toward by exterior dispositions flowing from the nature of the male and female reproductive systems, including locomotion (self-movement) on the part of the sperm. Due to the design of nature, subsequent to natural completed sexual union, gametes are “supposed to” meet and cause procreation by principles belonging to their own constitution as cells, and to do so is their “responsibility” so to speak, which responsibility is not to be usurped by any other cause. This is because in fact the sexual faculty is designed to work by means of the disposition of gametes for meeting their procreative pair by the natural union of man and woman through the exterior reproductive organs. Therefore, the only responsibility that a man or a woman has with respect to gametes insofar as gametes are causative of procreation is to dispose gametes to causing procreation by such natural bodily union, and to usurp the role of the gametes themselves in finding their procreative pair is itself to do something unnatural by excess, such as with IVF or other artificial insemination procedures.⁴⁵ What this ultimately means is that if the gametes do not meet and cause procreation after natural union, it is not primarily the case that the man or the woman failed to cause procreation, it is primarily the case that the gametes failed to cause procreation. The question is then whether the man or woman did something to interfere with the well-functioning of the gametes or the processes which affect their reproductive disposition, somehow impeding their natural intentionality toward each other. Interference with the well-functioning of gametes or the process by which they are disposed for reproductive union in view of restricting or eliminating the possibility of conception is contraception properly speaking.^{46 44} The “principal cause” or “primary cause” is the being which reproduces its like, in this case a human. ⁴⁵ It is probably advantageous to speak of IVF and similar procedures as “unnatural vice by excess” and non-procreative acts as “unnatural vice by defect.” ⁴⁶ This would include the use of chemical agents which directly impede gametes (like spermicide), and it would also extend to the use of chemical agents that reduce ovulation (“the pill”) specifically in order to prevent conception. Inducing functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (excessive stress or exercise interrupting menstruation) to prevent conception would also seem to come under this category, albeit without introducing a foreign substance into the body; the point is that the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian system is supposed to work a certain way, namely, producing regular menstruation, according to its nature in relation to the whole person, which well-functioning is being interrupted in view of preventing conception. Even though it is natural “as a reaction,” the stress is the kind of thing which should not be there, just like blood should be in the extremities but if shock is induced then it is natural that blood gathers in the torso. Such inflictions upon oneself can only be justified under the principle of totality, to which the inhibition of the proper functioning of a faculty in its very use would never correspond. (Of course, the pill and extraordinary amounts of exercise could theoretically licitly be used for other reasons without the desired effect of infertility, which risky and harmful behavior calls for its own justification through the principle of totality but would not be contraceptive strictly speaking except materially. To be formally contraceptive, the will must specifically incline to interrupting the well-functioning of the reproductive system in order that gametes are prevented from meeting their reproductive pair in a freely chosen sexual act. Accidentally obtaining such a state would become formally contraceptive when a woman has the will “to have achieved this state in order to avoid conception in conjugal acts” – merely delighting in the lack of fertility in a given act on account of the abnormal state of her body, while likely immoral in many or even nearly all cases due to a lack of generosity in procreation and an excess of desire for carnal union and even lack of love for one’s own health, is not itself contraceptive strictly speaking – it is only toeing the line.)

This intermediate step in the chain of causation in the procreative use of the sexual faculty is absolutely critical to understand. It bears repeating: the sperm and the egg fail to cause procreation when they do not meet or otherwise do not unite to form a new individual life when the principal agents (the man and the woman) engage in the exterior act which nature ordains for the procreative disposition of gametes (conjugal union). The man and the woman only fail to procreate by way of extending to them what is properly said of the gametes. If something is added or removed which is part of the natural system in which gametes are disposed for union (the entire reproductive system) so that they fail to unite, the gametes are prevented from procreating; if the gametes are simply foreseen not to unite because of infertility, and that infertile condition is chosen intentionally to accompany the act yet without the will to cause infertility by an intervention if needed to procure it, the gametes are merely intentionally occasioned to fail to procreate.

This intentional occasioning of failure could be due either to an intrinsic problem with the gametes themselves (viz., unhealthy sperm or eggs which cannot cause procreation due to that condition), or more frequently some disposition of the reproductive system (usually in the woman) towards not facilitating procreative union of gametes. With NFP we are concerned with the condition characterized by the lack of a fertile egg having been released from an ovary within a certain timeframe which would allow for natural union of that egg with a sperm cell. This condition of “periodic natural infertility” is one which would not allow for the gametes to reach their natural end of procreative pairing following a normal use of the sexual faculty (viz., a conjugal act). To engage in conjugal acts during known periodic natural infertility so that the meeting of gametes will not occur is merely to occasion the failure of procreation rather than to prevent it.⁴⁷ To add something to the reproductive system, or to remove something from the reproductive system, either of the man or the woman, so that conception will not occur is to prevent conception, not merely to occasion its failure.^{48 47} Habitual infertility can also be such a condition, but it is not the main concern with respect to NFP. ⁴⁸ Beyond an actual intention to create infertility by a positive intervention in the present (i.e. the normal case of using a birth control pill), the key question is whether an intervention into the reproductive system to prevent conception is virtually intended, whether by having previously created habitual infertility and continuing indirectly (or mindlessly) to will its efficacy in preventing conception, or a willingness to cause infertility by a temporary or permanent intervention in the reproductive system if it was actually necessary in order to prevent conception (as opposed to there being presently a condition making procreation unlikely or impossible, such as illness, age, or periodic natural infertility); this is to say, if one would contracept if needed to prevent pregnancy, then one’s sexual act is contraceptive by a conditional (and normally virtual) intention and comes under the same kind of moral judgment. This is the most appropriate use of the phrase “contraceptive mentality” from a casuistic point of view. The will for naturally occurring processes to cause infertility, whether cyclical (ovulation, etc.) or permanent (menopause), is equivalent to willing the woman’s health, up to the point where one is too desirous of sexual activity done on account of that infertility but it will not be contraceptive absent a willingness to intervene positively if necessary to precent conception (virtual intention). Desiring injury or sickness that causes infertility, yet without actually intervening to cause injury or sickness, is indeed a perverse will insofar as one wants injury or sickness and insofar as the infertility caused by it is willed out of immoderate desire for conjugal acts which would be done on account of that infertility, but if there is no will to make a positive intervention by causing injury or sickness (actually or virtually) then there is not contraception properly speaking.

In other words, contraception is a means or a method which is applied to the man or the woman⁴⁹ to make a conjugal act infertile. Simply using marriage when it will be infertile when such infertility is insisted upon as a condition for the act is not a means applied to make a conjugal act infertile; this would amount to saying that the act was used upon itself – an absurdity. ⁴⁹ Or, one might say it is a means applied to the gametes of the man or the woman, even if applied through affecting an organ of the man or the woman.

Caius, a confessor, asks what he must do in the following case. Titia, the wife of Titius, whom Caius knew well as parishioners, approached confession. After the confession was completed, Titia asked whether marital intercourse was lawful without the husband duly completing the act. When Caius denied it, Titia replied that her husband affirmed it, and indeed often acted thus on a physician’s advice because of the weak powers of his wife, who was less capable of bearing and nursing a child. Caius was then silent, but the difficulty increased when Titius soon approached confession and nevertheless said not a word about the matter badly conducted with his wife. Hence it is asked:

1. Is it established that onanism is a sin, and what kind?

2. What advice must be given to wives anxious about onanism committed by their husbands?

3. Must penitents established in good faith be warned about things badly done by them?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Is it certain that onanism is a sin and what sort?

From the way in which Holy Scripture mentions it (Gen. xxxviii. 9), from the teaching of the Church, and because it is a gross perversion of nature, it is certain that onanism is a grave sin.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 363.

2. What advice is to be given to wives anxious about onanism committed by their husbands?

They are to be admonished to do what lies in their power so that their husbands complete the act in the proper manner, and if they do not succeed, let them not approve the manner, and let them lawfully cooperate only materially in the sins of their husbands.²

2 Ibid., 363.

3. Are penitents to be admonished who in good faith do what is wrong?

They must be admonished if what they do is a cause of public scandal, or if their good faith is not perfect and they are doubtful about the matter. They must be admonished also if in all likelihood they would obey the admonition. If the admonition would be productive of more harm than good it should not be given.³

3 Ibid., 223.

4. To the case. Although good faith regarding the licitness of onanism is not altogether impossible even among Catholics, yet it can scarcely endure for a long time. For bishops and priests, and even upright laymen, are accustomed to condemn that crime in clear words and writings. When therefore Titius comes to confess, yet he says nothing about onanism, Caius should interrogate him with general words whether he has anything that torments his conscience, or something similar. If Titius denies it, it seems that Caius may be able to acquiesce and grant absolution. For the penitent is to be believed whether speaking for himself or against himself. Nor is Caius permitted to reveal what he heard from Titia’s confession. But if Titia again makes mention of the matter brings it up, Caius must say openly that the matter is altogether unlawful, Titia should do what she can to correct the husband, and if nothing succeeds, she may be able to offer material cooperation to the act which she is unable to hinder. As for the dangers to health or even life, which physicians sometimes exaggerate let Titia entrust herself to God.¹

1 Bucceroni, TheoL Moral., vol. ii, n. 824; Génicot, vol. ii, n. 551.

ABOUT a dozen years ago the National Council of Public Morals with official recognition established the National Birth-Rate Commission. Since then the Commission has issued several Reports, and a Special Commission was appointed to study the ethical side of the question. This Special Commission has now issued its Report under the title of The Ethics of Birth Control. This Report professes to adopt the Christian standpoint with regard to human life and its responsibilities. But for all that it is not able to announce any definite conclusions as to the morality or immorality of birth control. The subject, it says, needs much further investigation from the medical, economic, and religious point of view. In the meantime, no one can escape the personal responsibility of forming his own judgement on the question.

Four members of the Special Commission declared it to be their opinion that the use of contraceptives is a frustration of God’s design in Nature and cannot be justified in any circumstances, but this opinion was rejected by the majority of the Special Commission, and in a leading article on the subject, The Times newspaper endorsed the rejection. In support of this rejection it is said that civilization itself has been the story of man’s control over Nature, and that rigid application of the principle advocated by the four members would entail the condemnation of all medical treatment. Medicine tries to arrest natural processes; it is an interference with Nature, an action against Nature.

Nevertheless, the principle adopted by the four members is a fundamental principle of Christian ethics, and if it is properly understood it does not involve the absurd consequences attributed to it. I will try briefly to show this.

Everybody knows that the reign of law is universal. We live in an ordered world. The physical and animal world are governed by necessary laws. The same causes are always followed by the same effects, and nothing else is possible. According to Christian teaching, the whole world inferior to man was created for man’s use and benefit. In the beginning the Creator told man to rule and subdue the earth and everything that it contains. Man can subdue and control the physical world by learning to understand its laws, and in doing this for his own benefit he not only does nothing morally wrong, but he is fulfilling the intention of his Creator. When the doctor, then, destroys the germs of tubercular disease, he not only does nothing morally wrong, he performs an action which in the highest degree is a moral action. He acts against Nature, contrary to Nature, in that he interferes with a natural process which threatens human life, but it is morally right for him to do that.

The reign of law extends to the sphere of human conduct. Certain actions are in accordance with moral law, others are contrary to it. Those actions which are in accordance with moral law are called right, ordinate, lawful; those that are contrary to it are called wrong, inordinate, unlawful. By considering an action in itself and in all its circumstances we can generally see quite clearly whether it is in accordance with moral law and right, or whether, on the contrary, it is against the moral law and wrong. It is clearly right for children to love, respect, and obey their parents, to render to every man what is his due, to wish well to all men, to practise temperance. It is clearly wrong for children to show disrespect to parents, to do unjust injury to others, to show hatred to one’s fellow-man, to give way to intemperance in eating and drinking. We can discern the rule or law of temperance by considering the object of eating and drinking, the purpose which those actions should serve. Eating and drinking are for the sake of supporting life. The body derives heat and energy from food and drink, and bodily waste is repaired thereby. The end of eating and drinking indicates the rule which ought to govern those actions. We should eat and drink what supports life. We should abstain from what injures or destroys life. We should eat and drink that quantity which is suitable for the end in view. If we eat or drink more or less than what conduces to our support we infringe the law of temperance, we act against the moral law, we are bound to preserve our life and to take the necessary means to do so.

We are bound to do what is right and abstain from what is wrong because our Creator and Lord wishes and commands it. He is the Author of the moral law, and because he is good and holy he cannot possibly be indifferent as to whether it is observed or not by his rational creatures. Man is not only a rational creature, he is also endowed with moral freedom. He can recognize the moral law, but, unlike the lower creation, he is not necessitated to obey it. He has the physical power of obeying it if he chooses to do so, but he has also the physical power to refuse obedience to it if he chooses. He can violate the law of temperance if he likes, but he will do so at his peril and to his ruin. What has been said about eating and drinking may be applied to the procreation of children. The means to that end are laid down by Nature and by the Author of Nature. In making use of the means the end furnishes the rule, and it must always be kept in sight so that nothing contrary to it may be done. If we forget the rule of temperance and follow appetite and pleasure in eating and drinking, we are sure to go astray. We shall eat and drink too much, we shall act inordinately, and we shall frustrate God’s design in Nature. Not less evidently and surely will they who use contraceptives act inordinately, violate the moral law, and frustrate God’s design in Nature. We heartily agree, then, with the four members of the Special Commission. They defended a great and important principle of the moral law.