Place and Manner, or Position

79. On situation. The natural and ordinary situation of the conjugal act is this, that it occur lying down, in such a way that the woman lies beneath and the man lies above: for this situation is most apt for the infusion of semen into the vessel of the woman. Any situation is unnatural which departs from the natural one, as if intercourse occurs sitting or standing, or in such a way that the man lies beneath and the woman lies above. Through an unnatural situation generation is indeed rendered more difficult, but not impossible, because the semen reaches the ovaries not by descent, but by attraction.¹

To choose a mode of coming together by which conception is actually rendered more difficult, from the intention of rendering conception more difficult, is a venial sin if it is done without a just cause: for since the generation of offspring is the primary end of marriage, to act thus without a just cause is against reason; nevertheless not gravely, because conception is not impeded.

1. An unnatural situation, whatever it may be, does not exceed venial sin, provided grave danger of pouring forth semen outside the vessel is excluded: for any situation by which intercourse can be had is apt for generation.

Therefore spouses must never be questioned concerning the situation which they employ in performing the conjugal act, since the matter is not necessary for confession; and if the penitents themselves ask about this matter for the sake of counsel, let the confessor respond only in general, that they complete the act duly and, as far as can be done, in the natural mode. But if penitents accuse themselves concerning an unnatural situation, let him ask whether generation could have followed from that intercourse, because it suffices for the confessor to know whether generation was altogether impeded.

2. If a change of the natural situation is done from a just cause, e.g. on account of danger of miscarriage or on account of difficulty of coming together in the natural mode, there is no sin, even if some part of the semen is scattered; indeed, if another mode of intercourse is impossible, even if a great part of the semen is lost: for on the one hand the scattering occurs accidentally, and on the other hand generation is not impeded, since a small part of semen suffices for it.²

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 917; Capellmann, Medicina past.^9, p. 151.

² Capellmann, Medicina pastor., p. 151.

80. On place. 1. Natural shame and the law of charity, by which we must avoid scandal, require that the place be secret.

a. To have intercourse before others is a grave sin by reason of scandal.

b. Parents ought to take care lest children acquire knowledge of this matter and thus suffer scandal.

2. In a sacred place ecclesiastical law prohibits intercourse under grave sin, unless necessity presses: for through the effusion of human semen irreverence is inflicted on the sacred place, and if the effusion becomes notorious, the church is polluted.¹

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 458; cf. De praeceptis^3, n. 178.

As regards place, it is enough to note that it ought to be profane and secret. One who has intercourse in a church sins gravely, unless necessity urges (St. Alphonsus III, 458). One who would have intercourse before others would give grave scandal.

I. The natural position is that spouses have intercourse lying down, and that the wife be beneath and supine, that is, with her face turned toward the husband, the husband lying upon her. It is unnatural when intercourse is done sitting, or standing, or from behind in the manner of beasts, or from the side, or with the husband beneath (St. Alphonsus VI, 917).

II. Obligation of the natural position. The unnatural position is rather commonly held in itself as unlawful, because it imports some inversion of the order indicated by nature. This, however, is in itself only venial, because it does not pervert the substance of the act, which of itself remains apt for generation. Nor does it become mortal because perhaps part of the semen will certainly or probably perish, since this is judged to happen by accident; and that is not called grave if the act itself is ordered to generation, for which the smallest part of semen suffices (St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 31, exposition of the text at the end; St. Alphonsus VI, 917).

III. Excusing causes. A just cause excuses from the natural position, for example the stoutness of the man, the weariness of the woman, the coldness of the spouses, if, namely, they are more excited by an unnatural position, foul breath, the danger of abortion to be guarded against, etc. (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

Note. If penitents accuse themselves of intercourse had from behind, in practice it will be doubtful whether they mean quasi-sodomitic intercourse, that is, in the preposterous vessel or in the anus, or only intercourse performed in an unnatural position. In order that this be clear, it is enough to ask whether they proceeded in such a way that generation could have followed. If generation could have followed, insemination took place in the right vessel, that is, in the vagina; otherwise, in the preposterous vessel, in which case unnatural lying together took place (n. 57).

172. Prop. 9. The natural position of conjugal copulation is that the woman be beneath and the man above; for this mode is more apt for the effusion of the male semen, and for reception into the feminine vessel for procreating offspring.

173. Corollary. "But the unnatural position is if coitus takes place otherwise, namely sitting, standing, from the side, or in a preposterous manner after the way of beasts, or if the man is beneath and the woman above... Commonly all say that all these modes do not exceed venial fault. The reason is that on the one hand, although some disorder is present, nevertheless it is not so great as to reach mortal sin, since it turns only upon the accidental things of copulation; on the other hand, the change of position does not impede generation, since the semen of the man is not received into the womb of the woman by infusion, or descent, but by attraction, while the womb of itself naturally attracts the male semen... Hence they commonly say that spouses sin not at all if they change position for a just cause, namely because of illness, or corpulence of the man, or because of danger of abortion, or scandal of others. Conversely all agree that, if it were known by experience that, when the natural position has been changed, the woman retained nothing of the semen, because of excessive looseness or moisture of the vessel, or because of some natural infirmity, as Palaus says, then it would be mortal; but Sanchez says otherwise if such effusion proceeds not from the position, but from some disease of the woman." L. 917. Cf. here n. 154.; Milne Edwards, t. 9. p. 112.

22. (B) On the position of copula. (a) The natural position is that the man be above and the woman beneath, since this mode is generally more apt for the infusion of seed. Nevertheless no position, even unnatural (sitting, standing¹, or with the woman above, etc.), of itself impedes generation, since seed can ascend into the uterus by attraction; hence change of the natural position does not exceed venial sin, provided the danger of pouring forth all the seed outside the vessel is excluded; even if a not small part of the seed is dispersed by accident, it is not mortal sin, because the smallest part of seed suffices for fecundation.

¹ According to experts of the medical art, to exercise copula sitting and especially standing can induce certain diseases. Cf. Vigouroux, Tr. de Medecine, vol. IV, p. 65. Hence on this head spouses are to be kept from a position of this sort.

(b) If a change of the natural position is made for a legitimate cause, e.g., because of danger of abortion during the time of pregnancy, or because of difficulty of coming together otherwise, there is no sin, even venial.

Hence in practice spouses must not be questioned concerning the position which they employ in exercising the conjugal act, since this is not necessary for the integrity of confession. If they inquire concerning it, let it be answered that the natural position is to be observed insofar as it can be done. If they accuse themselves of an unnatural position, let it be asked only whether they so act in order to impede generation.

23. (C) On place. (a) Modesty and charity demand that the use of marriage can take place only in a secret place, lest scandal be furnished to others. Therefore those sin gravely who have copula before others, especially younger persons, who can suffer scandal from it. Therefore parents must take care lest children sleeping in the same bedroom acquire knowledge of the marital matter.

(b) In a sacred place the use of marriage is prohibited under penalty of sacrilege, outside a case of necessity, which today will hardly ever occur.

240. - 1. The natural manner, which is to be observed per se, is that the man, lying above, know the wife lying beneath and turned toward him.

¹ On the title above. Cf. also no. 166.

But there can be a just cause for changing this position. Changed without a cause, because of a less ordered rationale of appetite, the manner contains venial guilt.

Nor will the change be mortal, as long as the manner permits sufficient seminal emission within the vessel, so that the intercourse of itself (that is, considered precisely in itself, with other circumstances which can exclude that hope omitted) affords a truly probable hope of fertilization. It matters sufficiently little that part of the semen be lost whenever the intercourse seriously cooperates per se with the primary end of nature ².

² Alberti, no. 123, following Berardi, warns that penitents speak ambiguously when they declare that "they had intercourse from behind." For by these words both unnatural intercourse and lawful intercourse performed in the manner of beasts can be signified. By asking whether or not the act was nevertheless sufficiently perfect, the ambiguity will be dispelled.

But if, the natural position having been changed, it is established that all the semen is lost, for example, because of the laxity of the vessel, authors agree that such a position cannot be chosen without mortal sin. For then this manner becomes of itself improper for generation and is not natural. Cf. Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 16, no. 5; St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 917; Aertnys, II, 492.

2. A spouse who, while exercising the conjugal work, delights in a fictitious intercourse with another person, sins gravely with an adulterous affection.

Nevertheless, a husband is not guilty of this sin if, in order that he may obtain the desired heat more easily, he imaginatively adorns his own wife, as it were, with the beauty of another person (living or depicted), and thus increases his affection toward his own spouse. But if it is a question of the appearance of another living person, let him take care lest he be held or captivated by desire for her.

3. It is consonant with nature and to be commended for the sake of health itself that both spouses experience the heat of pleasure at the same time. And wives who deliberately restrain their commotion are to be reproved, especially if by this means they wished to manifest a less benevolent disposition toward the husband. Yet this frigidity, since it does not impede generation, cannot of itself be accused of grave sin. Men likewise are to be reproved who, solicitous only concerning their own satisfaction, take no care for the wife's participation in pleasure.

Nevertheless, it seems to suffice for the law of union that the heat of each be morally joined. Wherefore, whether when intercourse is imminent or immediately after intercourse, if the wife is brought by her own touch or the touch of her husband to enjoy perfect pleasure, this is not grave, and, if some cause is added, it will be free from every fault. For through a moral union the heat preserves the utility which it ought to have, from God's providence, for human generation itself. There will be a just cause if, because of lesser heat, the wife could not be moved in the intercourse itself, or if the man himself is scarcely aroused otherwise than by seeing the arousal of the wife and can thereby complete intercourse.

But take care that you do not permit the same thing to the man after the wife has withdrawn herself. For on the part of the man nothing but a useless pollution would take place. Cf. Noldin, De sexto, etc., no. 70, c.

4. It is by no means lawful for one who is impeded neither by the avoidance of the contagion of disease nor by physical impotence from penetrating the vagina to place semen only at the opening of the vagina. And this would be grave. For this manner renders fertilization not probable but merely possible.

Wherefore, there is no approved author who permits this manner with the intention that offspring be avoided or that, with the hope of fertilization diminished, dangerous or fatal childbirth for the wife be forestalled. Let Bal- lerini be heard: "It must not be judged lawful for spouses to use matrimonial rights in a most imperfect manner for this reason, whenever they are able to come together in a more suitable manner. For although in general they are not bound to employ the greatest diligence so that the effect intended by nature may follow more certainly, they are nevertheless obliged, insofar as it is within their power, to avoid that manner of the work by virtue of which generation could not only be impeded but even could not be obtained except with the greatest difficulty ³." Let Noldin be heard: "If a more perfect manner is possible, it is not lawful to exercise the conjugal act in this imperfect manner, because this would be the same as morally impeding generation ⁴." Wherefore, it is also manifest that the words of Lehmkuhl ⁵, by which he tolerates this intercourse "in the case of a certainly validly contracted marriage, when it is impossible, or gravely harmful to the woman, to come together more perfectly," are to be understood of harm which would arise from the intercourse itself, as such, and not from the consequent conception or childbirth, lest, contrary to the most manifest mind of the celebrated theologian, he seem to connive at neo-Malthusianism.

³ Opus theologicum morale, vol. 6, treatise 10, no. 874.

⁴ Noldin, De sexto, etc., no. 68.

⁵ Theologia moralis, II, 1065.

For what if, through an impediment of a physical kind, for example, the excessive heat of the man, who immediately experiences pollution, or a nervous incapacity for erection, or vaginismus which does not tolerate contact, or the avoidance of contagion (if this case is granted), the spouses are prohibited from using marriage otherwise?

That we may speak first from our own persuasion, the placing of semen at the opening of the vagina does not seem to us to have the character of true intercourse: rather than intercourse, we would say that two simultaneous pollutions are exercised by the spouses. We do not deny that the end of nature can be obtained even in this way; but this does not suffice for acting honorably if you rupture the order of nature through the separate complete use of the genitals.

Yet not a few approved authors judge that this manner is lawful for spouses to whom another is inaccessible: thus Ballerini-Palmieri ⁶; Cardinal d'Annibale ⁷; Lehmkuhl ⁸; Cardinal Gasparri, in the first edition ⁹; Noldin ¹⁰; Alberti ¹¹. Some of these, excessively solicitous concerning the end of nature alone, formerly thought that even artificial fertilization, condemned by the Holy Of- fice, was permitted from necessity. We therefore fear lest they be deceived by an error of the same kind. Nevertheless, because, while the semen is placed at the vessel, both spouses operate together in the emission and reception of the semen, and this sufficiently immediately, the matter is not openly unlawful, and the probability of the opinion of weighty authors can be conceded until the Holy See decrees otherwise.

⁶ Loc. cit., no. 873.

⁷ Summula, vol. 3, no. 431, note 10.

⁸ Loc. cit.

⁹ De matrimonio, no. 1061. But in the third edition, nos. 575, 576, he adheres to the different opinion, with reasons added, although he says that the Holy Office is to be consulted.

¹⁰ Loc. cit.

¹¹ De sexto, etc., no. 122.

But even according to this opinion, since such a manner is not indulged to spouses except because they are unable to use a better one, they must then, by ordinary means, assist the introduction of semen into the vagina, so that they may truly come together in the best manner they can, and may endeavor to render fertilization probable rather than merely possible.

From the same opinion this follows, that "the case in which, by reason of impotence, intercourse ought to be forbidden to spouses as unlawful will be very rare" (Ballerini-Palmieri, vol. 6, treatise 10, no. 873).

The same writers will permit this use of marriage to those who are otherwise unable, not only for having offspring but also for the other ends of marriage. Wherefore, an old man who, having become incapable of penetration, uses his marriage by this means is not to be strictly reproved. Cf. Ballerini, vol. 6, treatise 10, nos. 873, 874.

N.B. Several things must be accurately distinguished here.

1. It is one thing to deposit semen at the opening; another, to penetrate the vagina a little. One who, being capable of another manner, chooses the former manner will sin gravely; but one who chooses the latter will be guilty of venial fault. (Aertnys, II, 497, 1; Alberti, De sexto, etc., no. 122.)

2. Even in our opinion, it will be lawful to attempt intercourse for old men who preserve hope of some penetration; it will likewise be lawful for a husband whose wife perhaps will be able to admit penetration, although she suffers from vaginismus, and this even if emission very often occurs outside the vessel. Cf. what was said in nos. 229, 230, and Aertnys, II, 497; Ballerini, vol. 6, treatise 10, nos. 873, 874.

3. Cardinal Gasparri, loc. cit., resolves the questions concerning impotence, the lawful use of marriage, and the consummation of marriage by one and the same rationale. Although we think this opinion reasonable, we distinguish these matters rather with others. For the respects seem to us to be diverse, and we think the conclusions must be drawn from somewhat diverse rationales. The immediate object of the contract is one thing: from this potency or capacity for marriage must be evaluated. But after marriage has been validly contracted, the very difficulty of continence between the spouses counsels that we easily concede to them the use of marriage which alone remains possible; finally, we shall call a marriage consummated where the rationale of the greater firmness of a consummated marriage is found. Wherefore, we hold certainly impotent one who cannot do anything except deposit semen at the opening of the vagina (cf. no. 72), since such a use of marriage is too distant from the intercourse intended; but with less certainty do we prohibit that use to spouses in the necessity explained above, because it seems to preserve something of intercourse; we judge marriage to be consummated by every introduction of semen, lest, in some case, we be compelled to admit the conception of offspring without the consummation of marriage, since offspring is the greatest argument why marriage, even in the natural order, cannot be dissolved. Cf. nos. 80, 87.

242. - The very natural sense of shame teaches man that a secret place is to be chosen for the conjugal work.

Wherefore, if perhaps they are discovered in the act of marriage, the spouses can interrupt intercourse, even with the certain foresight of pollution (without consent to the pollution).

In this matter parents must take care lest children, even those scarcely emerged from infancy, be able to observe the carnal intercourse of their parents.

From the reverence owed to a sacred place, it is evident that one must abstain from the conjugal act in a sacred edifice. This formerly, by positive law, was prohibited as a grave local sacrilege, so that a voluntary and at the same time notorious emission of human semen profaned a church. This cause of profanation is now passed over in silence in the new Code. Cf. canon 1172.

Even formerly they excepted a case of necessity, as if, being detained in a church, with another choice of place excluded, they were situated in danger of incontinence, or foresaw that they would remain there for a long time (for several weeks or for a month).

S. Th., Suppl., q. 53, a. 1; q. 58, a. 1 and 4; q. 59, a. 6; q. 62, a. 1; q. 64, a. 1 and a. 6-9.

942. Principle. The conjugal act is not licit in the concrete unless it is also done with due circumstances. - For a human act has morality not only from the object and the end, but also from circumstances; hence, that it be honorable, it ought to be good from every part, namely, of object, end, and circumstances. Therefore the use of marriage, whether consummated or begun, however much of itself licit, can per accidens be illicit by reason of circumstances, and indeed not only from the part of the end, but also a) from the part of the acting person by reason of impotence, or of a vow, or of a doubtfully valid matrimony; b) from the circumstance of mode by reason of position; c) from the circumstance of place by reason of scandal; d) from the circumstance of time by reason of danger or harm.

943. From the circumstance of person the use of marriage is illicit:

1° From impotence: a) A man who certainly cannot penetrate, or does not have seed, or cannot emit it, or cannot deposit it in the vagina, cannot exercise copula, nor can the wife with such a man.

b) If impotence is doubtful, they can attempt copula, if there is hope of completing it.

c) But if impotence is altogether certain but temporary, they are bound to abstain during this time.

2° From a vow: a) A spouse who has made a vow of chastity is forbidden by religion, under grave obligation, to seek the debt; nevertheless he can and must render it to the one who has the right and justly demands it, because one is not deprived of a right by the deed of another. He could nevertheless also seek it if he noticed the other party placed in danger of incontinence and not daring to seek it (which can especially happen in a wife because of modesty); for thus he rather renders to one tacitly seeking than seeks.

b) If each has vowed separately, even with the other party knowing and agreeing, neither can seek, because they have freely deprived themselves of the use of the debt; but if in fact one seeks, the other is bound to render from justice, because the right of seeking always remains: illicitly, indeed, he seeks, but he seeks with right, and therefore sins against religion, not against chastity.

c) But if each has vowed by mutual consent and by the same pact, each is forbidden both to render and to seek, because by a pact each intends freely to renounce mutually his own right of seeking, as to its exercise.

A wife can indirectly irritate the vow of her husband, insofar as it is contrary to her rights; a husband can irritate the vow of his wife, perhaps even directly. But not if they have vowed by mutual pact, because then they have renounced this right of irritation.

3° From doubt concerning the validity of matrimony: a) Doubt concerning the validity of matrimony, if it is on each side, simply forbids the use until due inquiry has been made.

b) If, after due inquiry, true doubt remains, the use is licit, because in doubt one must stand for the value of matrimony.

c) If only one doubts, during the doubt he is forbidden to seek, but is bound to render, because he cannot expose himself to the danger of injuring justice, nor is the other deprived of his right because of the doubt of the other party; if the doubt remains after due inquiry, he can seek and render.

Thus it is certain if matrimony was entered in good faith. But whether he who in bad faith contracted matrimony in doubt can seek the debt, and especially if the doubtful matrimony is such on account of the impediment of bond, or the bond of a prior matrimony perhaps enduring, which would be in possession, can be disputed. Practically, however, there are authors who think it licit, because they hold it probable that, even in the last case, the principle of can. 1014 can be applied: "in doubt one must stand for the value of matrimony until the contrary is proved."

944. From the circumstance of mode or position copula can be illicit. - Position is indicated by nature according to which the man ought to be incumbent, the woman lying beneath, turned face to face; for this is generally more apt for a more intimate penetration of bodies and for the infusion of virile seed and its due reception, and it befits human beings, who ought to exercise the act of generation not after the manner of brutes but from reasonable love, by seeing and speaking to one another and by communicating their senses and affections. Hence:

1° he sins who without reason changes the natural position, because it is an inversion of the order of nature; but in whatever mode the thing is done (standing, sitting, from the side, from behind, with the man beneath, etc.), it is not grave, provided the conjugal act can duly be completed, apt for generation, because this alone is essential, and position is something accessory: a change of position of itself does not pervert the substance of the act;

2° indeed, if a sufficient reason is present that another position be chosen than the natural, there is no sin.

This can happen sometimes in time of pregnancy lest there be danger of abortion, or on account of frigidity if in an unnatural position the frigid person is more easily excited, or on account of a certain difficulty of copulating otherwise (for example from the curvature, obesity, or hernia of the man, the fatigue of the woman, or the fetid breath of either), or if thus there would be greater hope of fecundation.

But let it be noted that, according to physicians, habitually exercising copula either with the man beneath or especially standing can induce diseases for the man.

945. From the circumstance of place copula can be illicit, even gravely, if it is done in a public or not secret place, by reason, namely, of scandal; hence, if a person unexpectedly comes upon them, copula can be interrupted even if the seed perhaps is poured outside the vagina: for this happens apart from the intention, in order to avoid a greater moral evil.

Therefore spouses are to be warned not to allow children who have the use of reason (nor even before this) to sleep with them in the bed or in the room. But if poverty compels this, let them take care that the children notice nothing; in the bed let them keep boys on the side of the father, girls on the side of the mother.

946. From the circumstance of time the use of marriage can be rendered illicit. - Per se the conjugal act is forbidden at no time by reason of the time itself, because no law excludes any time: thus it is licitly exercised on more solemn feast days, on days of fasting, before communion, etc., although by counsel it is good to abstain at these times; nevertheless, per accidens, if in some determined time there exists a cause of some sufficiently grave danger, it can be illicit, but only as long as that cause exists. Thus:

1° In time of illness, if there is a grave and proximate danger of life, for example from contagion. For since no one is master of human life, copula will be gravely illicit, so that a spouse cannot seek it nor render it without at least warning the other party of the danger; nevertheless the other party, if a just reason approaches, as incontinence to be avoided, domestic peace to be preserved, adultery of the other party to be avoided, etc., can from charity admit copula, unless death is imminent. Likewise, if there is grave danger to health, for example from phthisis, copula is illicit without a just cause, such as the avoidance of incontinence in oneself or in the other party; wherefore at least the use is to be moderated.

1. Phthisis is not so much a contagious disease, but rather a hereditary one, at least in the sense that offspring receive by heredity the greatest disposition toward contracting this disease; syphilis, and also the flow of seed, gonorrhea, is generally a certain species of contagious disease; on the contrary, leucorrhea, or the white flux with which pregnant women often suffer, is not harmful. Cf. R. Eccl. de Liege, VIII, May 1913, n. 6, p. 383.

"This is the natural order," says S. Thomas, "that first something be perfected in itself, and afterward communicate to another from its perfection; and this is also the order of charity, which perfects nature. And therefore, since the wife does not have power over the husband except as to the generative power, but not as to those things which are ordered to the preservation of the individual, the husband is bound to render the debt to the wife in those things which regard the generation of offspring, yet first with the safety of the person preserved... The wife does not have power over the body of the husband except with the consistency of the person himself preserved..., whence if she demands beyond this, it is not a petition of the debt, but an unjust exaction, and for this reason the husband is not bound to satisfy her" (q. 64, a. 1 and ad 2).

Hence a) for one who is infected with syphilitic or venereal disease, copula is illicit in those stages of the disease in which there exists morally certain danger of infecting the other party;

b) nevertheless this other party can from charity admit copula;

c) it is not illicit on account of the danger of infecting offspring or of leaving them in want, because, as S. Thomas says, "it is better so to be than not to be," q. 64, a. 1, ad 4, especially on account of the beatific vision for which the soul is destined.

2° Copula is illicit in time of pregnancy if from it there is danger of abortion, which nevertheless rarely happens, unless perhaps copula is performed too often and too vehemently.

3° Likewise in time of puerperal purgation, especially at the beginning, if grave harm threatens the wife from it, which in the first days (2 or rather 8, or sometimes more) can easily happen; in these matters account must be taken of the condition of each person, and in doubt a physician is to be consulted.

Nevertheless it is better to abstain for 15 days. But as the time of puerperal purgation progresses or is coming to an end, likewise in time of lactation, after a copious meal, a bath, or bloodletting, copula is not illicit, whatever certain ones formerly said; nor even per se during the ordinary menstrual flux, or even the extraordinary, because only slight irritation arises from copula; unless per accidens, if some disease were greatly aggravated thereby.

1. In time of lactation conception rarely occurs. But if it occurs, the milk is not thereby infected, but it is diminished or even ceases; yet the offspring can be nourished otherwise, even by artificial lactation.

2. In the Old Testament it was forbidden in time of menstruation under penalty of death (Lev. XX, 16), but the reason can be that in the very hot regions of Asia women suffer a copious flow, and often part of the blood already altogether corrupted remains in the vagina; whence there could arise danger lest men contract a grave disease in the genitals.

XII. QUESTION V. Whether the conjugal office be vicious by reason of a place either public or sacred? ANSWER. If copulation be exercised in the presence of others, it is a mortal sin, no one denying it, on account of the scandal. Touches themselves between spouses in the presence of others are vicious. The conjugal office in a sacred place, urgent necessity being taken away, is sacrilegious. In the time of the menstrual flux the conjugal office is unlawful. For in Leviticus 20 these things are prescribed by God: He that lieth with a woman in her flowers … both shall be destroyed out of the midst of their people. Again chapter 18: Thou shalt not approach to a woman having her flowers. The testimonies of Augustine, Jerome, and the other Fathers I pass over.