Cooperation With Contraception

Cooperatio Uxoris ad Onanismum vel Contraceptionem.—(a) Cooperatio formalis graviter illicita est, quum includat approbationem ipsius peccati. Unde graviter peccat uxor quae suis quaeremoniis de molestiis graviditatis virum cogit ad congressum onanisticum, vel quae nec interdum conatur eum avertere ab iniquo consilio onanistice congrediendi, vel quae active adjuvat abruptionem copulae, vel quae interne gaudet de ipso peccato (1513).

(b) Cooperatio materialis ad onanismum ex gravi causa (e.g., ex metu fundato rixarum, molestae cohabitationis, adulterii viri) licet; nam actio mulieris, scil. copulam habere naturalem, honesta est, atque causa sufficiens adest permittendi abusum factum a comparte (1515 sqq.). Imo uxor debitum petere potest a suo viro onanistico, si secus diu abstinere cogeretur ab omni usu conjugii cum periculo incontinentiae, quia caritas erga virum non obligat ad abstinentiam cum tanto incommodo.

(c) Cooperatio mere materialis ad contraceptionem, non videtur possibilis; nam copula contraceptiva est intrinsece et ab initio mala (1517, 1527). Unde uxori nec petere debitum licet, nec passive se habere. Sed qualibet vice tenetur positive pro viribus resistere. Sin autem gravissima causa sit actum permittendi, ut puta periculum mortis, eam tantum resistentiam opponere debet ad quam obligatur virgo oppressa (2497), consensu ut patet denegato (See Irish Ecclesiastical Record, June, 1940, pp. 634 ff., and March, 1948, pp. 244 ff.)

44. 3° On the cooperation of the wife with onanistic copula. (A) If the cooperation is formal, so that the wife truly consents to it or rejoices in it, or a fortiori herself uses means for preventing conception, she certainly sins gravely. The same must be said if morally and efficaciously she cooperates with this crime, by complaining about numerous offspring, about the pains of childbirth, and at the same time foreseeing that by these complaints the man is induced to onanistic congress.

If the wife rejoices not in the sin itself, but in the pleasure which is experienced in copula of this sort before the man withdraws himself, or in the effects of this sin, e.g., in preservation from the troubles and labors of pregnancy or childbirth, by that very fact she is not guilty of mortal fault; for, strictly speaking, she can rejoice concerning these, provided she detests that sin and seriously tries to impede it. Nevertheless, since it is greatly to be feared lest complacency concerning the effects pass into complacency concerning the sin itself, it is to be advised to her that she quickly turn her mind away from that joy, and before God protest that she does not approve such abuse.

45. (B) If the cooperation is material, i.e., if the wife suffers or permits onanistic copula, without approving it in any way, a distinction must be made: (a) when onanism is performed by the withdrawal of the man alone, the cooperation of the woman is permitted from a grave cause, e.g., for avoiding quarrels, or the adultery of the husband, or her own incontinence; indeed the wife can ask the debt from an onanistic man, because of a grave reason, e.g., because it is grave for her to abstain so long from the use of marriage. For there is question of an act which in itself is licit, and which the man can furnish in a licit mode, if he wishes; and, even if it is foreseen that he will sin from his own malice, this can be permitted, provided there is sufficient reason. Hence in this case the wife can consent to the pleasure arising from this copula, since she herself completes the conjugal act in a legitimate mode.

Nevertheless by prayers, blandishments, admonitions, signs of displeasure, or other means she ought to induce the man to have copula in a legitimate mode; to this she is held, not indeed on each single occasion, but at an opportune time, both by the obligation of fraternal correction, and lest otherwise she seem to consent¹.

¹ "Nevertheless let the petitioner admonish a wife of this sort, that she not cease prudently to warn her husband that he desist from this turpitude." (Sacred Penitentiary, Nov. 5, 1816).

46. (b) But when onanism is performed condomistically, i.e., with the instrument commonly called a condom, within which the virile seed is retained, regularly not even the material cooperation of the wife is licit; for such congress is intrinsically evil already from the beginning, since it renders conception impossible: and to cooperate with it is a grave sin. Therefore the wife ought positively to resist with all her strength. For the man in this case is deservedly equated with an oppressor, and therefore the woman ought to oppose that resistance which a virgin opposes to an invader, as the Sacred Penitentiary declared, June 3, 1916². Nevertheless, just as a woman oppressed by a man is not bound to resist him even to death: then she does not permit, but only suffers the abuse of marriage, every affection toward evil delight having been excluded.

² Apud Marc, n. 2117.

This doctrine is confirmed by the response of the Holy Office, April 6, 1853: "1° Whether the imperfect use of marriage, whether it be done onanistically or condomistically, according as in the case, is licit? - Negatively; for it is intrinsically evil. 2° Whether a wife, knowing, in condomistic congress can passively offer herself? - Negatively; for she would give assistance to a thing intrinsically illicit."¹

¹ Apud Ami du Clerge, loc. cit., p. 1077.

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.

701. Principles: 1. A spouse is not bound to render the conjugal debt to an onanistic consort.

The reason is that spouses indeed grant one another a right over the body, but only in order to generation. Now the onanistic spouse not only does not intend generation, but entirely excludes it. Therefore that spouse's right is in no way violated if the use of matrimony, or rather its abuse, is denied by the other party. Thus holds the more common opinion.⁴¹²

2. Formal cooperation in onanism is never licit.

For it is never lawful to cooperate formally in the sin of another. Hence a wife sins gravely not only if by common consent with her husband she perpetrates onanism, but also if by continual complaints about the state of pregnancy, the pains of childbirth, numerous offspring, and so forth, she gives occasion for the husband to complete intercourse in an onanistic manner.

3. Material cooperation in onanism is licit, provided that a proportionately grave cause is present.

Thus holds the opinion today common and true, confirmed by a Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of April 3, 1916.⁴¹³ The reason, however, is that the action performed by the spouse cooperating materially is not intrinsically evil, but honorable or at least indifferent. For by virtue of matrimony a spouse can licitly effect the union of members with the consort. Such an action is honorable. But that the consort abuses this union is per accidens and is imputed to that consort alone. Just as, by parity, an innkeeper has the right to serve wine, even though he certainly foresees the abuse of the wine for causing drunkenness; just as it is lawful to rent a house to a prostitute, even though someone certainly knows that the prostitute will abuse the house for fornications;⁴¹⁴ so a spouse can cooperate materially in onanistic intercourse, provided that a proportionately grave cause is present. Proportionately grave and sufficient causes for a spouse to be able to cooperate materially in onanistic intercourse are, for example, a well-founded fear of quarrels, fights, adultery otherwise to be committed by the husband, and so forth.⁴¹⁵

⁴¹² Cf. Noldin, loc. cit., n. 90; Göpfert, Moraltheol. III, 287. St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 947) thinks the opposite opinion more probable.

⁴¹³ In Marc-Raus, Inst. mor.¹⁰ II, 2117.

⁴¹⁴ Cf. above, II, n. 619 ff.

⁴¹⁵ Cf. Noldin, loc. cit., n. 68.

702. When a spouse uses the instruments enumerated above for preventing conception, theologians most commonly teach that the other spouse is bound according to his or her powers to resist this manner of acting as intrinsically evil and evil from the beginning, and indeed on every occasion, and that merely passive resistance does not suffice.⁴¹⁶

In order that material cooperation in onanism (strictly so called) may be free from fault, not only is 1. a proportionately grave cause required, but in addition it is necessary 2. that the spouse conduct himself or herself passively, 3. that the spouse endeavor to turn the consort away from the latter's most evil manner of acting, and 4. that interior complacency in the sinful act be restrained. Hence sometimes (although not on every occasion) a spouse is bound to admonish the consort to abstain from the conjugal act, or, if the consort is unwilling to do this, to complete it in the natural manner.

Since from a proportionate cause it is lawful to cooperate materially in onanistic intercourse, the innocent spouse can not only render but also request the conjugal debt. For a prolonged privation of the right of requesting the debt, which is accustomed to induce danger of incontinence, is a proportionately grave cause. Thus holds the common opinion.⁴¹⁷

⁴¹⁶ Cf. Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 3, 1916, in Marc-Raus, Inst. mor.¹⁰ II, 2117: "1. Whether a woman, in the case in which the man wishes to use an instrument for practicing onanism, is bound to positive resistance? 2. Whether, so that this entire matter may be expounded and taught upon 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 ought to oppose to an oppressor? R. Affirmatively to both." This response, however, has not yet been authentically published.

⁴¹⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., l. 6, n. 947; Marc, loc. cit., n. 2116.