Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on September 22, 2024, 07:52:54 AM
-
In regards to one's own spouse of course.
Reading St Alphonsus Sunday sermon this week had me thinking
Some young men will ask: Father, is it sinful to make love? I say: I cannot assert that of itself it is a mortal sin; but persons who do so are often in the proximate occasion of mortal sin; and experience shows that few of them are found free from grievous faults. It is useless for them to say that they neither had a bad motive nor bad thoughts. This is an illusion of the devil; in the beginning he does not suggest bad thoughts; but when, by frequent conversations together, and by frequently speaking of love, the affection of these lovers has become strong, the devil will make them blind to the danger and sinfulness of their conduct, and they shall find that, without knowing how, they have lost their souls and God by many sins of impurity and scandal. Oh! how many young persons of both sexes does the devil gain in this way! And of all those sins of scandal God will demand an account of fathers and mothers, who are bound, but neglect, to prevent these dangerous conversations. Hence, they are the cause of all these evils, and shall be severely chastised by God for them.
Above all, in order to avoid bad thoughts, men must abstain from looking at women, and females must be careful not to look at men
It is always dangerous to look at young persons elegantly dressed; and to look at them purposely, and without a just cause, is, at least, a venial sin.
is there a resource that explains what is or isn't permissible? I don't want people here to explain because this is a public forum and may cause scandal, but pointing me in the right direction would help.
-
Moral theology : Jone, Heribert, 1885-1967 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/moraltheology0000jone)
Not sure if it gives the whole book. If not:
Moral Theology: Jone, Heribert: 9780895554727: Amazon.com: Books (https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Theology-Heribert-Jone/dp/0895554720)
-
Most traditional moral theology manuals treat the explicit characteristics of intimacy, but do so in Latin.
In the strict order of things, any sɛҳuąƖ activity which doesn't complete in natural intercourse is gravely sinful. A liberal interpretation of this reality has led some to conclude that "anything goes" as long as the act completes in natural intercourse. I'm not convinced that's true. St Alphonsus, I've heard, regarded imperfect sodomy as a despicable act. I can't find a citation for that, maybe someone else can. But it sounds right to me.
I think the best advice comes from St Thomas Aquinas, who instructs husbands to treat their wives as their wives rather than as any woman. I think any man will intuitively understand that this means treating intimacy with a certain dignity that will preclude degrading and humiliating acts. And I think if a man asks himself "am I treating her as my wife or just as any woman?", he will instinctively know if he is acting properly.
-
Most traditional moral theology manuals treat the explicit characteristics of intimacy, but do so in Latin.
In the strict order of things, any sɛҳuąƖ activity which doesn't complete in natural intercourse is gravely sinful. A liberal interpretation of this reality has led some to conclude that "anything goes" as long as the act completes in natural intercourse. I'm not convinced that's true. St Alphonsus, I've heard, regarded imperfect sodomy as a despicable act. I can't find a citation for that, maybe someone else can. But it sounds right to me.
I think the best advice comes from St Thomas Aquinas, who instructs husbands to treat their wives as their wives rather than as any woman. I think any man will intuitively understand that this means treating intimacy with a certain dignity that will preclude degrading and humiliating acts. And I think if a man asks himself "am I treating her as my wife or just as any woman?", he will instinctively know if he is acting properly.
What if the man has a mindset that he wouldn't do such acts with any women except his wife?
-
What if the man has a mindset that he wouldn't do such acts with any women except his wife?
I could be misunderstanding, but you sound like a melancholic getting lost in the weeds of his own thoughts. Go do something to clear your mind.
-
I could be misunderstanding, but you sound like a melancholic getting lost in the weeds of his own thoughts. Go do something to clear your mind.
I am trying educate myself so that when I do get a wife I won't sin.
-
Moral theology : Jone, Heribert, 1885-1967 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/moraltheology0000jone)
Not sure if it gives the whole book. If not:
Moral Theology: Jone, Heribert: 9780895554727: Amazon.com: Books (https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Theology-Heribert-Jone/dp/0895554720)
limited preview
-
I am trying educate myself so that when I do get a wife I won't sin.
If you aren’t married or at the very least engaged, you don’t need to know things like this. There’s a reason that moral theology isn’t taught until the end of seminary, it’s a delicate subject with some nuance involved.
Broadly speaking, I will say that the church has taught that Saint Alphonsus is safe to follow in ALL of his opinions, but even St Alphonsus admits that many of his opinions are just those, opinions and one would be safe to follow more permissive opinions of other moral theologians.
in any case, don’t concern yourself with things like this if you aren’t married or at least engaged. Just pray for a holy spouse.
-
What if the man has a mindset that he wouldn't do such acts with any women except his wife?
.
He isn't treating his wife like his wife if he's treating her like a whore.
-
https://www.catechism.cc/articles/saint-alphonsus-liguori-marital-chastity.htm
-
If you aren’t married or at the very least engaged, you don’t need to know things like this. There’s a reason that moral theology isn’t taught until the end of seminary, it’s a delicate subject with some nuance involved.
Broadly speaking, I will say that the church has taught that Saint Alphonsus is safe to follow in ALL of his opinions, but even St Alphonsus admits that many of his opinions are just those, opinions and one would be safe to follow more permissive opinions of other moral theologians.
in any case, don’t concern yourself with things like this if you aren’t married or at least engaged. Just pray for a holy spouse.
^^^This^^^
I'd say, as long as you know how to avoid sin, you probably don't even need to know a single thing about how procreation works until you are about to marry. Anything else is just a way the devil gets you to dwell on dangerous topics.
-
Useless curiosity, if I may say so.
When you get married, it is expected that you will have some sort of preparation. A good priest should conduct some classes on the subject, and you can always ask a good confessor a week before your marriage or so.
Don't rush.
You are better off concentrating on reading about how to be a good husband and father.
-
limited preview
You can "borrow", so you you can read the whole book.
-
We converted 13 years ago after an initial civil marriage, so we then proceeded to have a catholic wedding. The priest gave us a article to read on the process of reproduction.
There was never any problem changing our mindset.
I remember reading an article from Ann Barhardt that I can no longer find. In the article it stated that of course the finality of the reproductive act is to have children and grow a family, but if you apply this rule to the letter you could still end up with very undignified and sinful behavior if all that matters is that you complete the act normally.
-
Useless curiosity, if I may say so.
When you get married, it is expected that you will have some sort of preparation. A good priest should conduct some classes on the subject, and you can always ask a good confessor a week before your marriage or so.
Don't rush.
You are better off concentrating on reading about how to be a good husband and father.
The above is very good advice. Wait until you are engaged to be married before you focus on the specific details of the marriage act.
-
^^^This^^^
I'd say, as long as you know how to avoid sin, you probably don't even need to know a single thing about how procreation works until you are about to marry.
I seriously have to question this. There are literary examples of how girls were never told about menstrual periods until they actually had one, and it scared them to death. (I suppose at that point, they had to be told something.) Likewise with young boys and nocturnal emissions.
And then there are the countless examples of either girls thinking "you can't get pregnant the first time", or boys who are duped into thinking they are the father of a child when, in fact, they are not (but, to be fair, at that point, the "avoiding sin" part is moot, because they've already fallen into it). There are also boys who are assured by an ambitious female that she can't get pregnant (for whatever reason) when, in fact, she can, and is using that as a ruse to trap the boy into fathering a child, or to return to the above scenario, thinking he's the father if she has more than one boyfriend and wants to pick the one she likes best, the young men possibly not even being aware of the other. (Thankfully, there are now DNA tests that can tell you who the father of the child actually is. About time.)
I'd put it in the same category as teaching your children that animals bite, or that climbing up onto tall edifices carries a danger of falling.
-
Two words:
prurient interest
-
What if the man has a mindset that he wouldn't do such acts with any women except his wife?
I think we really need to be talking about respect also when it comes to intimacy between wife and husband. A wife should be open to intimacy, but a man should not force a woman into something she is uncomfortable with and vice versa. The husband and wife will learn together. Some of the talk seems to side with a very puritan idea of the marital act, which could lead to a wife never receiving anything good other than a baby.
The only rule is the act ends in natural intercourse (like mithrandylan said).
Here are two encyclicals that might be helpful.
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html
-
Also, if you raise farm animals, you'll know how procreation works.
-
I think we really need to be talking about respect also when it comes to intimacy between wife and husband. A wife should be open to intimacy, but a man should not force a woman into something she is uncomfortable with and vice versa. The husband and wife will learn together. Some of the talk seems to side with a very puritan idea of the marital act, which could lead to a wife never receiving anything good other than a baby.
The only rule is the act ends in natural intercourse (like mithrandylan said).
Here are two encyclicals that might be helpful.
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html
The idea is to have a baby and to have the act the way God intended so no "extra stuff" that couples like to make excuses for, this goes into a species of lust and unnatural acts. St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, and others are clear on this.
-
The idea is to have a baby and to have the act the way God intended so no "extra stuff" that couples like to make excuses for, this goes into a species of lust and unnatural acts. St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, and others are clear on this.
That you Ville Heitanen?
-
The idea is to have a baby and to have the act the way God intended so no "extra stuff" that couples like to make excuses for, this goes into a species of lust and unnatural acts. St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, and others are clear on this.
Are you saying there is no foreplay allowed?
-
The idea is to have a baby and to have the act the way God intended so no "extra stuff" that couples like to make excuses for, this goes into a species of lust and unnatural acts. St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, and others are clear on this.
I am not sure what you are trying to say. What is defined by "extra stuff"?
I think we need a married person group, so we can discuss better without worrying about giving too much info away to the unmarried.
-
I am not sure what you are trying to say. What is defined by "extra stuff"?
I think we need a married person group, so we can discuss better without worrying about giving too much info away to the unmarried.
Better yet, this topic is discussed with a priest during marriage prep.
It boggles my mind that people ask such important and intimate questions to random laymen on the internet, instead of going to a priest.
-
limited preview
I have this Moral Theology book. You can get it on Amazon.
-
Better yet, this topic is discussed with a priest during marriage prep.
It boggles my mind that people ask such important and intimate questions to random laymen on the internet, instead of going to a priest.
What if your priest has feminist tenancies? Every trad priest is different, some are more strict than others.
-
What if your priest has feminist tenancies? Every trad priest is different, some are more strict than others.
tendencies*
-
I'd say, as long as you know how to avoid sin, you probably don't even need to know a single thing about how procreation works until you are about to marry. Anything else is just a way the devil gets you to dwell on dangerous topics.
If you do this to your sons they are going to be bullied, easily scandalized, and not be prepared to lead their wives in this regard. Five-year-olds who live on farms know about procreation, why on earth would you retard your 18-year-old son and make him weird by sheltering him from such a topic?
If you are easily scandalized or tempted (if you are a teenage boy) you probably should not read the below.
Still, no one has answered the question for OP. We have to have an understanding of 1) the ends of marriage, 2) the motives of the act, and 3) the nature of the act.
St. Albert the great lists the ends and motives for us, but for this thread, I will only touch on what he says certainly makes us culpable of grave sin. If the act comes forth with both 1) the end of quieting the concupiscence in mind and 2) at the urge of our vicious nature, then the act, even if completed in the natural way, “the sin is mortal.”
St. Albert then touches on unnatural acts during marriage. "While it remains true that marital intimacies which retain their relation to the primary purposes of conjugal life are never seriously sinful per se, yet the manner of their practice may be a sign of concupiscence which is gravely culpable. The attitude adopted in intimacy is a sign of such concupiscence." (Ethics of Conjugal Intimacy According to St. Albert the Great, Clifford).
Here I want to add a small foreword. Even if we decide to disagree with St. Albert here, it at least gives us an idea of what the bias has always been in the medieval Church when it comes to the permissibility of things in the marital act. St. Albert even disagrees with some early scholastics who posited that when the attitude of the marital act is anything outside of a single position, it is always a mortal sin. While St. Albert mentions that this opinion "displeases" him, we can at least see what the bias was. In a similar vein to those early scholastics, some Spanish Catholics in the Middle Ages would cut holes into a sheet and cover their wife with it so as not to incite unnecessary lust. Now ask yourself, what would these early scholastics and Spanish Catholics think if they heard that modern Traditional Catholics were taking the liberty to do whatever they want to do with their wives as long as "it ends up in the right place"? The bias of the Church has always been closer to St. Albert than to Christopher West.
To return to what St. Albert says on this subject: very little. But we can use the above information to inform us that he would obviously be against any sort of action during the martial act that exists outside of the actual marital act. So no, you cannot treat your wife as a prostitute and do whatever you want with her.
All of that being said, moral theology admits of dozens and hundreds and thousands of nuances on a case-by-case basis. If the marital act is directed towards the primary end and the human faculties are not perverted in any way (as they would be in sodomy, making the substantial nature of the act unnatural), any accidentals of the act being slightly misdirected do not seem to be enough to make the sin mortal in St. Albert's eyes, but instead may only enlighten us that the motive for the act is teetering on the line between holy and lustful. So, all of this needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis and you will need to let your conscience inform you whether or not you are stepping into the territory of a vicious lust.
What we focus on during the marital act can also inform us of what our motives were for engaging in it. If we are hovering around areas of the marital act that have no direct relation to the primary end of marriage for too long, that can inform us that the ends are being switched in our minds, and that we are giving ourselves up to concupiscence. If there are fleeting gestures that only amount to an accidental change in the nature of the act, I do not believe you would be gravely culpable (I believe I read something along these lines from St. Alphonsus).
I am not going to go into gross specifics, but I do not think men should get scrupulous about small touches, kisses, and other things done during the marital act which are not substantially unnatural. If you read through my post, I think you would get the gist enough of what specific things may be permissible and what are not without me having to spell everything out.
I think we all know what is an is not permissible in the bedroom. We just want to convince ourselves that we can take more liberty than we should by digging up what this or that "moral theologian" said on the subject. Stick to the great Saints. Stick to St. Thomas, St. Albert, and St. Alphonsus on this and you can't go wrong.
-
If you do this to your sons they are going to be bullied, easily scandalized, and not be prepared to lead their wives in this regard. Five-year-olds who live on farms know about procreation, why on earth would you retard your 18-year-old son and make him weird by sheltering him from such a topic?
The above was my post.
-
What if your priest has feminist tenancies? Every trad priest is different, some are more strict than others.
Exactly. I have had traditional priests tell me that "anything is permissible, the Church does not teach on the subject."
Some priests give out NFP dispensations willy-nilly, some think NFP is always a mortal sin. Etc. etc.
If I was OP, I would go to the most flamboyantly gαy and liberal "traditional" priest I could find just so I could get the liberal response that I want when it comes to this subject. Cathinfo is still by far probably the best place to ask these sorts of questions, because then, at least, you are getting the entire body of opinions on the subject. OP is not asking just "any layman," he is asking hundreds of actually "traditional" Catholics who have an amalgamation of lived experiences, advice personally received from priests, knowledge learned from seminary (in some of our more illustrious members cases), etc. I would trust Ladislaus' or Matthew's direction over that of many priests.
-
If I was OP, I would go to the most flamboyantly gαy and liberal "traditional" priest I could find just so I could get the liberal response that I want when it comes to this subject.
To be precise, you shouldn't want the Priest's opinion, you want God's direction on a particular matter, it just happens to come through the Priest. In practice, I pray for the Priest and that God would speak through him to direct me in the particular concern that I have. Doing that, I have received some very solid traditional direction from some rather "liberal" Priests and, once in a while, some advice that I would consider "liberal" from a solid traditional Priest. Tells me that not all my opinions and judgements might be correct in every matter.
-
To be precise, you shouldn't want the Priest's opinion, you want God's direction on a particular matter, it just happens to come through the Priest. In practice, I pray for the Priest and that God would speak through him to direct me in the particular concern that I have. Doing that, I have received some very solid traditional direction from some rather "liberal" Priests and, once in a while, some advice that I would consider "liberal" from a solid traditional Priest. Tells me that not all my opinions and judgements might be correct in every matter.
To add clarity, it's not just people seeking a permissive opinion that engage in "Priest-shopping"; it happens quite often that the scrupulous will do the same thing, trying to find a Priest that will condone their opinion or desires as well.
-
The above was my post.
Excellent post
-
Obviously, this is for those who are married and have need of access to the information. Those who aren't married or who don't need the info are cautioned not to be curious. There's a reason it's in Latin.
Get yourself an OCR/AI companion such as this: https://sider.ai/
This will allow you to translate Latin as you go through the following resources:
1871 - https://archive.org/details/compendio-della-teologia-morale-di-alfonso-maria-de-liguori-volume-2/page/467/mode/2up
1880 - https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis02scav/page/696/mode/2up
1884 - https://archive.org/details/CompendiumTheologiaeMoralis/page/791/mode/2up
1885 - https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol03gurygoog/page/400/mode/2up
1890 - https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheolo0002gury/page/400/mode/2up
1911 - https://archive.org/details/cu31924021851526/page/n95/mode/2up
1911 - https://archive.org/details/summatheologiaem01nold/page/n501/mode/2up
1925 - https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheolo0002ferr/page/726/mode/2up
1927 - https://archive.org/details/plaintalksonmarr0000revf/page/46/mode/2up
1935 - https://archive.org/details/summatheologiaem0000merk/page/946/mode/2up
1936 - https://archive.org/details/moralpastoralthe0004davi_h2g7/page/248/mode/2up
1945 - https://archive.org/details/moralpastoralthe0004davi_y0j2/page/n5/mode/2up
1958 - https://archive.org/details/catholicmarriage00kell/page/36/mode/2up
All of these have imprimaturs, and are written by real theologians, not keyboard theologians.
There is much in these manuals that will be helpful and give clarity on this topic. All of them are in complete agreement, and these sample principles from Compendium Theologiae Moralis 1884 is carried through to all of them:
---
938. Whatever is necessary for completing the conjugal act, or useful for performing it more easily, quickly, or perfectly, is entirely permissible for spouses. However, anything that, in the conjugal act, harms generation or induces pollution outside of the natural union is seriously illicit. Anything ultimately useless or indifferent to remotely and indirectly procuring generation or reasonably promoting the conjugal affection is equally illicit, but does not exceed a venial sin.
Reason for the first: Whoever has the right to the end also has the right to the necessary or useful means, unless otherwise prohibited; and those for whom the principal is permissible, the accessory is also permissible, as well as the means to it.
Reason for the second: Voluntary effusion of seed is not permissible except in order for generation. Marriage only gives spouses the ability for effusion of seed, which can directly serve generation. Otherwise, if people could enjoy just the pleasure itself without the consequent burden of offspring to be raised and educated, the generation of children would easily be neglected or deliberately avoided, and society itself would decline toward destruction.
Reason for the third: Only pleasure would be sought in these things, which, as said above, is indeed a sin, but doesn't exceed venial.
939. Resolutions
Any honest kisses between spouses and touches in both modest and less modest parts (if done cautiously) are innocent by the reason of demonstrating conjugal affection or fostering love, even if sometimes involuntary pollution occurs by accident. All honest signs of love, even tender ones, as means to an end, are permissible for those who must become one heart and one flesh by the matrimonial bond (cf. S. Alphons, n. 933).
Touches and actions that are intended to arouse are generally considered less honorable unless they are directly related to coupling. Even inherently dishonorable actions that are necessary or useful for arousal are not considered grave offenses when they serve as preparation for the act of coupling. However, these actions become venial if they are done solely for pleasure, even if they precede coupling immediately. They are considered mortal offenses if they expose one or both spouses to the risk of defilement before coupling, which can easily happen if they linger too long before proceeding with the marital act.
---
End of quote.
There is much more in these moral theology manuals which wouldn't be suitable for posting here. The moral theologians are always quite specific about what is forbidden. As you go through these, you will notice what is missing from the list of "forbidden acts". On these topics, theologians rarely get into the weeds in terms of what is permitted, citing the first principle and leaving it at that.
Moral theology is not always an exact science but rather involves men making their best judgments based on moral principles, Divine and Natural law, and the teachings of the Church. This is why there are variations in what some theologians deem acceptable while others may not. I'm not going to get into the details on this, but if you read the moral theology works from the 16th century and compare them to St. Alphonsus' works from the 18th century and later, you'd be surprised at the number of ideas that had been abandoned/changed even in that small time frame, and not all of them had only to do with increasing knowledge of biology.
And in terms of the St. Alphonsus quote that everyone keeps sharing, it's important to note that what he refers to is irrumatio, not the other unspoken term that is the elephant in the room (starts with an F). They are indeed different. And I blame translations from Latin to English to be the chief cause of the confusion, and people like Ronald Conte Jr. as a close second. But even irrumatio, St. Alphonsus quotes those theologians of his day who say that is permitted, so long as the danger of pollution isn't present. He quotes those who think it's wrong, and simply places his opinion with them.
That's all I'm going to say on this topic.
-
IMO, the poster is just being crude and suggestive, so I reported it to the mod. If you want to discuss fellatio and cunnilingus at least just say it.
There are a variety of opinions on the subject from pre Vatican 2 moralists and theologians and saints etc and no firm consensus. It is important to remember that if a number of pre Vatican 2 moral theologians, teach that a certain act is acceptable, you cannot bind people’s consciences to accept a more rigorous interpretation. Even St Alphonsus admitted that someone following the advice of a more permissive moral theologian would NOT commit a sin. This is a common principal in moral theology otherwise there would be chaos and scrupulously everywhere. Use common sense. At the most, it seems that these acts could be venially sinful if done out of lustful motives. I do not think most traditional priests would say that the act that the poster is asking about would be forbidden.
-
There are a variety of opinions on the subject from pre Vatican 2 moralists and theologians and saints etc and no firm consensus. It is important to remember that if a number of pre Vatican 2 moral theologians, teach that a certain act is acceptable, you cannot bind people’s consciences to accept a more rigorous interpretation. Even St Alphonsus admitted that someone following the advice of a more permissive moral theologian would NOT commit a sin. This is a common principal in moral theology otherwise there would be chaos and scrupulously everywhere. Use common sense. At the most, it seems that these acts could be venially sinful if done out of lustful motives. I do not think most traditional priests would say that the act that the poster is asking about would be forbidden.
That's all true, but if we're going to have an adult conversation, actually use the correct terms, not some vagary. That was the point.
-
I remember once Matthew said that he wanted the forums to be suitable for teenagers. I think that this thread has crossed this line.
-
That's all true, but if we're going to have an adult conversation, actually use the correct terms, not some vagary. That was the point.
Ah yes, agreed.
-
I remember once Matthew said that he wanted the forums to be suitable for teenagers. I think that this thread has crossed this line.
To be fair, the OP wrote this:
is there a resource that explains what is or isn't permissible? I don't want people here to explain because this is a public forum and may cause scandal but pointing me in the right direction would help.
-
To be fair, the OP wrote this:
is there a resource that explains what is or isn't permissible? I don't want people here to explain because this is a public forum and may cause scandal but pointing me in the right direction would help.
It was ok until people began to be more explicit, in my opinion.
The original anonymous poster was probably not the one to make the indiscreet posts.
Either way, I think that he got what he asked for, since people gave links to many Moral Theology manuals plus some useful advice.
-
It was ok until people began to be more explicit, in my opinion.
The original anonymous poster was probably not the one to make the indiscreet posts.
Either way, I think that he got what he asked for, since people gave links to many Moral Theology manuals plus some useful advice.
Agreed.
-
If you’re trying to find clear, trustworthy guidance on what really is and isn’t permitted "in the bedroom", the passage below is well worth reading. It’s taken from the 1866 Roman edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis (the first edition was published, I believe, around 1851) by Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J. (1801–1866), with notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. (1805–1881). Building on the work of St. Alphonsus Liguori, these Jesuit theologians gave classical shape to the Thomistic-Alphonsian moral system that formed confessors and seminarians for generations — including virtually all Trad priests today. Their work represents Catholic moral theology at its mature stage before the modern upheavals: clear in principle, calm in tone, and refreshingly practical in application.
Before this synthesis came together, moralists were anything but united. One author would call something mortal that another called venial or not sinful at all. Not a few moralists viewed the pleasure inseparable from the marital act with suspicion and restraint, as though sin lurked within the very enjoyment that nature had joined to it. Some multiplied prohibitions to the point of scrupulosity; others offered little help. It was St. Alphonsus who brought order and balance, blending the older rigor with pastoral prudence. Gury then codified this approach in a concise, teachable system, and Ballerini’s annotated Roman editions refined and stabilized it — giving confessors and married couples a stable rule that preserved modesty and peace of conscience while keeping the sanctity of marriage intact.
Far removed from both the laxity of modern moral liberalism and the puritanical severity of the rigorists, this approach stands out for its serene, balanced reasoning — the kind that marked the approved manuals of the pre-Conciliar Church.
In this thread (and others like it), a lot of what gets posted amounts to personal opinions (i.e., "no extra stuff", etc.), scattered quotations from saints (or attributions, i.e., "Saint So and So said X"), or even links to Novus Ordo “experts” like Ronald Conte Jr. (a self-appointed Roman Catholic Novus Ordo "theologian” who blends his own "principles" with Vatican II sources [i.e., Humanae Vitae, the 1983 Code, New Catechism, etc] and private speculation, grossly misquoting and distorting St. Alphonsus to support his own rigorist/puritan theories).
But these are, in the end, just opinions. The great moral theologians were well aware of the same quotations from St. Albert, St. Augustine, St. Alphonsus, and any others that get cited. They didn’t build private moral systems out of isolated sayings; they integrated them within the ordered framework of Catholic moral theology. Detached from that framework, such bits of piety easily turn into what Ballerini called “fanciful apprehensions” — fragments mistaken for doctrine.
From that solid foundation, virtually every respected moral theologian of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries taught the same essential principles. The synthesis laid down by St. Alphonsus and developed by Gury and Ballerini was received across the Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, Sulpician, and Redemptorist schools alike — and reaffirmed by Pietro Scavini (1790–1869), Jozef Aertnys, C.Ss.R. (1828–1915), Cornelius Damen, C.Ss.R. (1881–1953), Domenico Palmieri, S.J. (1829–1909), August Lehmkuhl, S.J. (1834–1918), Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. (1854–1932), Dominic Prümmer, O.P. (1866–1931), Henry Davis, S.J. (1866–1952), Benedict Merkelbach, O.P. (1871–1942), Felix Maria Cappello, S.J. (1879–1962), Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap. (1885–1967), and many others who maintained the same steady synthesis — firm in doctrine, free from laxity, and equally free from scrupulous rigor.
Finally, it is noteworthy that this 1866 Roman edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis bears the imprimatur of Fr. Hieronymus (Jerome) Gigli, O.P., Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace — the Dominican priest who served as Pope Pius IX’s official theologian and censor for works printed in Rome. A second imprimatur was granted by Archbishop Peter de Villanova Castellacci, Titular Archbishop of Petra and Vicegerent (Vicar General) of Rome. As Vicegerens, he acted as the deputy of the Cardinal Vicar, serving as the vicar general for the Diocese of Rome.
The author advances this general principle with deliberate care: that, apart from that disorder which is against nature (My Clarification: The phrase “that disorder which is against nature” (illa inordinatio quae est contra naturam) is clarified in the surrounding context. It refers specifically to acts that directly thwart the natural power and order of generation — that is, acts which pervert the generative faculty itself and thereby oppose the primary end of the marital act. These are what the classical moral theologians call “sins against nature” (peccata contra naturam).), scarcely anything can occur between spouses in this matter that can rightly be condemned as a grave sin.
Among various authors, one finds some condemning one kind of act as gravely sinful, others condemning another. Yet these are merely particular opinions, not derived from solid and certain principles, but rather from fanciful apprehensions or emotional exaggerations.
Some appeal to indecency and turpitude, and, with cries and declamations, they call the acts in question horrendous, abominable, most vile, and so forth — as though the reason for sin or the gravity of guilt were to be sought in the indecency of an act. Yet even the most lawful acts, and indeed those prescribed by nature herself, must, by reason of their natural indecency, be performed in secrecy and darkness.
Others appeal to the notion of unbridled lust, as though lust did not show itself most unbridled precisely in that act in which the purpose of marriage is consummated; or as though marriage itself had not been instituted precisely as a remedy for lust; or as though marriage could serve as a remedy for lust in any other way than by allowing that strong desire for pleasure to be satisfied — but only under the condition, as St. Thomas Aquinas notes, that it neither runs beyond the bounds of lawful marriage nor contradicts the natural purpose of generation.
In truth, unless one sins against one or the other of these — namely, against the good of fidelity or the good of procreation — no other solid reason appears by which any form of disorder between spouses could certainly be accused as a grave sin. Once this principle is rightly established, it gives the confessor a clear and reliable rule, by which he may protect both the sanctity of the sacrament and the salvation of penitents.
The sanctity of the sacrament demands that discussion of these matters occur only under urgent necessity. Hence, the confessor must be entirely averse to prying into such details and should hardly ever ask any question beyond something general, such as whether the penitent’s conscience is troubled by any scruple in this regard — and even that should not be asked without cause. If, however, the penitent raises the matter directly, the confessor must respond.
To ensure that such a response is brief, sufficient, and respectful of the sacredness of the sacrament, the rule already stated provides the best possible guidance. The welfare of penitents likewise demands this restraint. For they can easily become troubled by scruples concerning acts which they can scarcely bring themselves to name — and which, in truth, should never be described explicitly by either penitent or confessor. The principle already stated perfectly serves to remove both such scruples and the necessity of naming what modesty forbids to be expressed.
Once it is made clear to the penitent that nothing is mortally sinful between spouses unless something is done contrary to the end of marriage or of generation, and that therefore nothing in this regard constitutes matter necessary for confession (though lighter faults may at times occur), all the difficulties mentioned above are effectively resolved.
For past actions, once the penitent has confessed in general terms — as is commonly done — to having fallen in some way in this matter, and the confessor, by means of a general question, ascertains that something serious may have been involved, he should immediately refrain from further inquiry. It will suffice for the penitent to confess in general terms, for example: “I have committed a sin against nature,” or, “I have gravely failed in this matter against my conscience.” If necessary, the number of such sins may be asked, and the obligation of confession is thus fully satisfied.
For future conduct, the application of this rule prevents penitents from sinning gravely through mere mistaken scrupulosity of conscience, and it also provides an easy means for them to make proper confession if needed. As for venial faults, penitents should be advised in three ways.
First, that a spouse is not guilty of even a venial fault if, to avoid offending the other party, he or she passively allows something, not demanding it but merely tolerating it. Second, when that excuse does not apply, and the penitent wishes nonetheless to confess these lighter faults (for confession of venial sins is not obligatory), they should do so in entirely general terms, saying only something such as: “I have been somewhat negligent in the marital duty,” without ever specifying the particular acts involved. The holiness of the sacrament and the danger inherent in such subject matter require that nothing more than what is necessary be expressed. Third, if a penitent should happen to encounter a confessor so imprudent as to ask for further details, the penitent may, and indeed ought, to reply modestly that there is nothing further to be added on that point.
Since we are speaking of the necessary caution a confessor must exercise in such matters, it is appropriate to note how he should respond to a woman who is about to be married and is anxious to avoid sin in marital relations. Gobat (in Experientia Theologica, tractate 10, case 17, nos. 648–649) answers thus: If such a young woman has a living mother, she should be gently advised to speak with her mother about these matters rather than with her confessor (Burghaber adds: or, if not her mother, with another female relative).
If she has no mother, or modesty prevents her from asking, the confessor should tell her to obey her husband as her head, even in these matters. If her husband should request something about which she is uncertain, she should gently ask him to refrain; if he insists, claiming that he knows what the laws of marriage permit, she should obey, being assured that she does not offend God when she obeys her superior in a doubtful matter. Later, at the first suitable opportunity, she may ask her confessor privately whether what she consented to was in fact lawful for spouses.
Thus, with prudence and restraint, the confessor preserves both the purity of the sacrament and the peace of conscience of the faithful. By holding firmly to the principle that nothing between spouses constitutes a mortal sin of lust except that which gravely violates either fidelity or procreation, he avoids unnecessary questioning, discourages scrupulosity, and upholds both modesty and truth within the sacred forum of confession.
Source:
Jean-Pierre Gury (1801–1866); revised and annotated by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. (1805–1881), Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II (Rome, 1866), p. 811 ff., footnote (a).
Available at: https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol02gury/page/810/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol02gury/page/810/mode/2up)
-
There are a variety of opinions on the subject from pre Vatican 2 moralists and theologians and saints etc and no firm consensus. It is important to remember that if a number of pre Vatican 2 moral theologians, teach that a certain act is acceptable, you cannot bind people’s consciences to accept a more rigorous interpretation. Even St Alphonsus admitted that someone following the advice of a more permissive moral theologian would NOT commit a sin. This is a common principal in moral theology otherwise there would be chaos and scrupulously everywhere. Use common sense. At the most, it seems that these acts could be venially sinful if done out of lustful motives. I do not think most traditional priests would say that the act that the poster is asking about would be forbidden.
I agree with this point also.
What is dangerous for one couple might not be dangerous for another. What might easily lead to pollution for one man might not in anyway lead to pollution for another. And in fact may be necessary for the proper completion of the act.
The rigorists on this site are morons when you think about it.
-
Yes, only the Church can bind consciences ... and while is PERMITTED to go with whatever opinion is out there, just make sure you really agree with it and really believe it to be the right one, and aren't JUST picking it because it's the one you want. I think that's important, to be sincere in those decisions rather than just going with what you want to do.
Take what's permitted to do on Sunday. Quite a few theologians are lax on that, but just make sure you don't agree with them simply because ... say ... you want to go shopping at the mall on a Sunday, vs. ... that you were persuaded that their position was the correct one.
Conversely, the scrupulous individual might err in the other direction by feeling he's required to accept the most restrictive opinion for fear of sin. That too isn't right. While there's almost no risk of sin if you go that route, it can also lead to an exacerbatoin of your scruples.
If you HONESTLY don't know and aren't picking one just because it's the one you want to be true for various ulterior motives, then you also just flip a coin or else ask God for a sign, or even do as the Apostles did and draw lots.
-
If you’re trying to find clear, trustworthy guidance on what really is and isn’t permitted "in the bedroom", the passage below is well worth reading. It’s taken from the 1866 Roman edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis (the first edition was published, I believe, around 1851) by Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J. (1801–1866), with notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. (1805–1881). Building on the work of St. Alphonsus Liguori, these Jesuit theologians gave classical shape to the Thomistic-Alphonsian moral system that formed confessors and seminarians for generations — including virtually all Trad priests today. Their work represents Catholic moral theology at its mature stage before the modern upheavals: clear in principle, calm in tone, and refreshingly practical in application.
Before this synthesis came together, moralists were anything but united. One author would call something mortal that another called venial or not sinful at all. Not a few moralists viewed the pleasure inseparable from the marital act with suspicion and restraint, as though sin lurked within the very enjoyment that nature had joined to it. Some multiplied prohibitions to the point of scrupulosity; others offered little help. It was St. Alphonsus who brought order and balance, blending the older rigor with pastoral prudence. Gury then codified this approach in a concise, teachable system, and Ballerini’s annotated Roman editions refined and stabilized it — giving confessors and married couples a stable rule that preserved modesty and peace of conscience while keeping the sanctity of marriage intact.
Far removed from both the laxity of modern moral liberalism and the puritanical severity of the rigorists, this approach stands out for its serene, balanced reasoning — the kind that marked the approved manuals of the pre-Conciliar Church.
In this thread (and others like it), a lot of what gets posted amounts to personal opinions (i.e., "no extra stuff", etc.), scattered quotations from saints (or attributions, i.e., "Saint So and So said X"), or even links to Novus Ordo “experts” like Ronald Conte Jr. (a self-appointed Roman Catholic Novus Ordo "theologian” who blends his own "principles" with Vatican II sources [i.e., Humanae Vitae, the 1983 Code, New Catechism, etc] and private speculation, grossly misquoting and distorting St. Alphonsus to support his own rigorist/puritan theories).
But these are, in the end, just opinions. The great moral theologians were well aware of the same quotations from St. Albert, St. Augustine, St. Alphonsus, and any others that get cited. They didn’t build private moral systems out of isolated sayings; they integrated them within the ordered framework of Catholic moral theology. Detached from that framework, such bits of piety easily turn into what Ballerini called “fanciful apprehensions” — fragments mistaken for doctrine.
From that solid foundation, virtually every respected moral theologian of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries taught the same essential principles. The synthesis laid down by St. Alphonsus and developed by Gury and Ballerini was received across the Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, Sulpician, and Redemptorist schools alike — and reaffirmed by Pietro Scavini (1790–1869), Jozef Aertnys, C.Ss.R. (1828–1915), Cornelius Damen, C.Ss.R. (1881–1953), Domenico Palmieri, S.J. (1829–1909), August Lehmkuhl, S.J. (1834–1918), Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. (1854–1932), Dominic Prümmer, O.P. (1866–1931), Henry Davis, S.J. (1866–1952), Benedict Merkelbach, O.P. (1871–1942), Felix Maria Cappello, S.J. (1879–1962), Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap. (1885–1967), and many others who maintained the same steady synthesis — firm in doctrine, free from laxity, and equally free from scrupulous rigor.
Finally, it is noteworthy that this 1866 Roman edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis bears the imprimatur of Fr. Hieronymus (Jerome) Gigli, O.P., Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace — the Dominican priest who served as Pope Pius IX’s official theologian and censor for works printed in Rome. A second imprimatur was granted by Archbishop Peter de Villanova Castellacci, Titular Archbishop of Petra and Vicegerent (Vicar General) of Rome. As Vicegerens, he acted as the deputy of the Cardinal Vicar, serving as the vicar general for the Diocese of Rome.
Wow excellent post. I think this thread can be locked, this is the answer.
-
If you’re trying to find clear, trustworthy guidance on what really is and isn’t permitted "in the bedroom", the passage below is well worth reading. It’s taken from the 1866 Roman edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis (the first edition was published, I believe, around 1851) by Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J. (1801–1866), with notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. (1805–1881). Building on the work of St. Alphonsus Liguori, these Jesuit theologians gave classical shape to the Thomistic-Alphonsian moral system that formed confessors and seminarians for generations — including virtually all Trad priests today. Their work represents Catholic moral theology at its mature stage before the modern upheavals: clear in principle, calm in tone, and refreshingly practical in application.
Before this synthesis came together, moralists were anything but united. One author would call something mortal that another called venial or not sinful at all. Not a few moralists viewed the pleasure inseparable from the marital act with suspicion and restraint, as though sin lurked within the very enjoyment that nature had joined to it. Some multiplied prohibitions to the point of scrupulosity; others offered little help. It was St. Alphonsus who brought order and balance, blending the older rigor with pastoral prudence. Gury then codified this approach in a concise, teachable system, and Ballerini’s annotated Roman editions refined and stabilized it — giving confessors and married couples a stable rule that preserved modesty and peace of conscience while keeping the sanctity of marriage intact.
Far removed from both the laxity of modern moral liberalism and the puritanical severity of the rigorists, this approach stands out for its serene, balanced reasoning — the kind that marked the approved manuals of the pre-Conciliar Church.
In this thread (and others like it), a lot of what gets posted amounts to personal opinions (i.e., "no extra stuff", etc.), scattered quotations from saints (or attributions, i.e., "Saint So and So said X"), or even links to Novus Ordo “experts” like Ronald Conte Jr. (a self-appointed Roman Catholic Novus Ordo "theologian” who blends his own "principles" with Vatican II sources [i.e., Humanae Vitae, the 1983 Code, New Catechism, etc] and private speculation, grossly misquoting and distorting St. Alphonsus to support his own rigorist/puritan theories).
But these are, in the end, just opinions. The great moral theologians were well aware of the same quotations from St. Albert, St. Augustine, St. Alphonsus, and any others that get cited. They didn’t build private moral systems out of isolated sayings; they integrated them within the ordered framework of Catholic moral theology. Detached from that framework, such bits of piety easily turn into what Ballerini called “fanciful apprehensions” — fragments mistaken for doctrine.
From that solid foundation, virtually every respected moral theologian of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries taught the same essential principles. The synthesis laid down by St. Alphonsus and developed by Gury and Ballerini was received across the Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, Sulpician, and Redemptorist schools alike — and reaffirmed by Pietro Scavini (1790–1869), Jozef Aertnys, C.Ss.R. (1828–1915), Cornelius Damen, C.Ss.R. (1881–1953), Domenico Palmieri, S.J. (1829–1909), August Lehmkuhl, S.J. (1834–1918), Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. (1854–1932), Dominic Prümmer, O.P. (1866–1931), Henry Davis, S.J. (1866–1952), Benedict Merkelbach, O.P. (1871–1942), Felix Maria Cappello, S.J. (1879–1962), Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap. (1885–1967), and many others who maintained the same steady synthesis — firm in doctrine, free from laxity, and equally free from scrupulous rigor.
Finally, it is noteworthy that this 1866 Roman edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis bears the imprimatur of Fr. Hieronymus (Jerome) Gigli, O.P., Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace — the Dominican priest who served as Pope Pius IX’s official theologian and censor for works printed in Rome. A second imprimatur was granted by Archbishop Peter de Villanova Castellacci, Titular Archbishop of Petra and Vicegerent (Vicar General) of Rome. As Vicegerens, he acted as the deputy of the Cardinal Vicar, serving as the vicar general for the Diocese of Rome.
Do we have an English version avaliable? Or even a .pdf file in Latin?
-
I gave you the English translation.
The Latin is found here: https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol02gury/page/810/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol02gury/page/810/mode/2up)
Page 811 ff, footnote A
Dominic M. Prümmer, OP, in his Manual of Moral Theology according to the Principles of St. Thomas Aquinas (1915), at the bottom of page 504 (Nota) also insists on the principle, and even quotes Ballerini.
Note: In all matters regarding the chastity of spouses, the confessor should always keep in mind the principle stated above: Nothing is a mortal sin of lust between spouses, except that which gravely harms one of the two goods of marriage — namely, either the good of fidelity or the good of procreation.
Antonio Ballerini (1805–1881) writes excellently on this matter: Among various authors, you will find some condemning one act as gravely sinful, while others condemn different acts. However, these are merely particular opinions, often not based on solid and certain principles, but rather drawn from fanciful apprehensions.
Some turn to indecency and turpitude, and they express themselves by exclaiming that certain acts are horrendous, abominable, most vile, etc., as if the reason for sin or the gravity of guilt should be determined by the indecency of an act. Yet, even the most licit acts, and indeed those prescribed by nature, must be committed in secret and in the dark, due to their indecency.
Others refer to the unbridled nature of lust, as if lust does not reveal itself most unbridled in the very place where the purpose of marriage is consummated, or as if marriage itself was not instituted as a remedy for lust. They seem to forget that marriage is, indeed, a remedy for lust, which satisfies a strong desire for pleasure, under the condition — which St. Thomas Aquinas suggests — that it does not go beyond legitimate marriage and does not contradict the purpose of nature.
In truth, unless one sins against either of these two goods (fidelity or procreation), there appears to be no solid reason for accusing another form of disorder of being a grave sin. Therefore, this principle provides the confessor with an easy rule to follow, ensuring both the sanctity of the sacrament and the spiritual well-being of penitents.
https://archive.org/details/manualetheologia03prum/page/504/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/manualetheologia03prum/page/504/mode/2up)
-
I gave you the English translation.
The Latin is found here: https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol02gury/page/810/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol02gury/page/810/mode/2up)
Page 811 ff, footnote A
Dominic M. Prümmer, OP, in his Manual of Moral Theology according to the Principles of St. Thomas Aquinas (1915), at the bottom of page 504 (Nota) also insists on the principle, and even quotes Ballerini.
I meant the whole book in English, but that is probably not avaliable. I have found the links to the books in Latin in yout other post. I like to have Moral Theology manuals avaliable, even if in Latin.
Thank you.
-
Yes. The only one in English that I'm aware of that discusses these topics is Heribert Jone's Moral Theology, the one published by TAN. All the others are in Latin, or at least have these particular sections in Latin.
-
Useless curiosity, if I may say so.
When you get married, it is expected that you will have some sort of preparation. A good priest should conduct some classes on the subject, and you can always ask a good confessor a week before your marriage or so.
Don't rush.
You are better off concentrating on reading about how to be a good husband and father.
Booo!
A "good" (i.e. "theologically educated") priest are very few and far between. I no longer trust any advice from any of them.
Many, many moons ago, i was taught, "swing from the rafters of you both want, as long as it ends in intercourse."
He did point out several items of notice:
- nothing anal
- everything must be consensual
-
I went ahead and translated the entire section On the Sins of Married Persons from the 1866 Compendium Theologiae Moralis, with the footnotes in place. I figured that one footnote by itself wouldn’t be nearly as helpful as seeing it in the full context of the chapter.
So, here it is:
-------------------
Article III — On the Sins of Married Persons
917. Sins may be committed between spouses with regard to the conjugal act, either by excess—that is, by performing acts useless for generation—or by defect, by failing to complete the essential act itself, or by defiling the marriage bed with the crime of onanism. Hence this article is divided into two sections.
§ I. On the Sins of Spouses by Excess.
NOTE. Acts that are apart from intercourse itself but performed on its occasion or under its pretext can be divided into three kinds. (1) Some are harmful to generation, such as sodomy and pollution, and are against nature. (2) Others are useful, such as touches that arouse nature and foster love. (3) Others are neither harmful nor useful and are called beside nature.
918. I. Whatever is necessary for completing the conjugal act, or useful for performing it more easily, quickly, or perfectly, is entirely lawful for spouses. The reason is that whoever has the right to the thing also has the right to the means necessary or useful for it, provided those means are not otherwise prohibited; and for whom the principal thing is lawful, the accessory, as a means ordered to that end, is also lawful.
II. Whatever in the conjugal act harms generation, or of itself brings about pollution outside natural union, is gravely illicit. The reason is that voluntary effusion of seed is lawful only in relation to generation; therefore marriage grants to spouses no right except to that effusion of seed which can of itself serve generation. Otherwise, if men could enjoy the pleasure itself without the consequent burden of nourishing and rearing offspring, the generation of children would easily be neglected, or even deliberately avoided, and thus society itself would tend toward ruin.
III. Whatever indeed does not hinder generation but is of itself less necessary or less useful to the act of generation cannot be imputed as sin except venial; from which, however, such acts are excused by other intrinsic ends, namely, that conjugal affection be preserved and fostered, or at least that concupiscence be quieted (Footnote: Compare what was said above in the note to n. 908, where—from the teaching of Chrysostom and St. Thomas interpreting the Apostle Paul—it was shown that the chief fruit of marriage consists precisely in this: that the ardor of concupiscence be extinguished, and thus a chaste life be led. Concupiscence is extinguished when marriage provides lawful satisfaction to the appetite for pleasure; a chaste life is led when that satisfaction is not sought outside the lawful marriage bed.)—which ends, however, need not be expressly intended, but, as was said above, it suffices that they not be positively excluded.
919. 1°. Among spouses, all honest kisses and touches—even of parts less honest, if done with caution—are without fault when they are given as a sign of conjugal affection or to foster love, even if sometimes by accident an involuntary pollution should follow; for all honest signs of love, even tender ones, are lawful as means to an end for those who by the bond of matrimony ought to become one heart and one flesh. (St. Alphonsus Liguori n. 934 and others commonly.)
2°. Touches and looks that are less modest are likewise in themselves without fault if they are immediately referred to intercourse. Indeed, the same must be held even if they are inherently indecent, provided they are necessary or useful for arousing nature; for then they are a kind of preparation and, as it were, a beginning of the conjugal union. But if acts by which one spouse disposes himself or herself for the conjugal act are such that they easily bring about pollution of themselves, they can be culpable if diligence is lacking to avoid pollution outside intercourse; and this omission of diligence, when such that one might thereby be judged to will pollution, may even be grave fault. If, however, with due diligence employed, pollution follows unintentionally, there is no fault.
(Footnote: The doctrine just stated must be kept in view also regarding the case which the author soon adds—that is, imperfect acts exercised between spouses without intention of intercourse. The author only notes the opinion that does not condemn such acts as gravely sinful. But another opinion, itself quite common (see St. Alphonsus, Lib. 6, n. 931), excuses these acts entirely from fault, even in the one who begins them, if pollution is not intended and there is no danger of consent to it, provided there is some serious reason, e.g., to foster mutual love or to avert the jealousy of the other. And (ibid.) he adds that, probably, even in the one who yields such touches (unless they are such as to appear an initiated pollution), these are licit, even if there be danger of pollution in the other, since the one yielding cooperates in something lawful. This opinion, which St. Alphonsus himself follows (ibid. n. 933), holds even when intercourse is altogether forbidden to the spouses or impossible due to impotence. Regarding the latter, see above note to n. 855. As to the former, the reason for the prohibition must be examined: the rule holds if the ban is for affinity contracted through crime with one’s own wife; otherwise, not, if it be for nullity of marriage. Diana notes similarly (Tom. 2, Tr. 6, Res. 205, n. 2): that if danger of pollution has ceased in both spouses, a husband does not sin mortally if he interrupts begun intercourse before emission to prevent conception, provided it be with the wife’s consent or without her reasonable objection. Indeed, if there is a just cause for preventing emission, e.g., poverty or excessive number of children, and yet they have intercourse to quiet concupiscence, there is no fault if mutual consent is present. Hence even weak spouses who begin intercourse to calm concupiscence and voluntarily do not complete it are not to be condemned even of venial fault; and this may often occur. He then proposes this case: A man begins intercourse with his wife and then, due to danger of illness, withdraws with her consent; pollution sometimes follows. Asked whether such touches are licit, I replied affirmatively: for it is no sin to cooperate in something lawful and honest, even if one foresees pollution, provided there is no danger of consent; because then the pollution is not directly willed nor indirectly willed in its cause, since one is not obliged to omit an otherwise lawful act for fear of pollution, given a just cause. See St. Alphonsus, Vol. 1, note to n. 412, p. 147; Sporer, De Matrimonio n. 500, following Gobat, Theol. Exper. Tr. 10, n. 668–669.)
3°. Spouses do not sin gravely even if, by touches had without intention of intercourse, there arises excitement of the spirits or of the members serving generation, or there follows a slight effusion; although in the unmarried such things would be mortal sins. Reason: with the crimes of voluntary pollution or sodomy excluded, nothing is done against the good of marriage.
(Footnote: The author advances this general principle with deliberate care: that, apart from that disorder which is against nature, scarcely anything can occur between spouses in this matter that can rightly be condemned as a grave sin. Among various authors, one finds some condemning one kind of act as gravely sinful, others condemning another. Yet these are merely particular opinions, not derived from solid and certain principles, but rather from fanciful apprehensions or emotional exaggerations. Some appeal to indecency and turpitude, and, with cries and declamations, they call the acts in question horrendous, abominable, most vile, and so forth — as though the reason for sin or the gravity of guilt were to be sought in the indecency of an act. Yet even the most lawful acts, and indeed those prescribed by nature herself, must, by reason of their natural indecency, be performed in secrecy and darkness. Others appeal to the notion of unbridled lust, as though lust did not show itself most unbridled precisely in that act in which the purpose of marriage is consummated; or as though marriage itself had not been instituted precisely as a remedy for lust; or as though marriage could serve as a remedy for lust in any other way than by allowing that strong desire for pleasure to be satisfied — but only under the condition, as St. Thomas Aquinas notes, that it neither runs beyond the bounds of lawful marriage nor contradicts the natural purpose of generation. In truth, unless one sins against one or the other of these — namely, against the good of fidelity or the good of procreation — no other solid reason appears by which any form of disorder between spouses could certainly be accused as a grave sin. Once this principle is rightly established, it gives the confessor a clear and reliable rule, by which he may protect both the sanctity of the sacrament and the salvation of penitents. The sanctity of the sacrament demands that discussion of these matters occur only under urgent necessity. Hence, the confessor must be entirely averse to prying into such details and should hardly ever ask any question beyond something general, such as whether the penitent’s conscience is troubled by any scruple in this regard — and even that should not be asked without cause. If, however, the penitent raises the matter directly, the confessor must respond. To ensure that such a response is brief, sufficient, and respectful of the sacredness of the sacrament, the rule already stated provides the best possible guidance. The welfare of penitents likewise demands this restraint. For they can easily become troubled by scruples concerning acts which they can scarcely bring themselves to name — and which, in truth, should never be described explicitly by either penitent or confessor. The principle already stated perfectly serves to remove both such scruples and the necessity of naming what modesty forbids to be expressed. Once it is made clear to the penitent that nothing is mortally sinful between spouses unless something is done contrary to the end of marriage or of generation, and that therefore nothing in this regard constitutes matter necessary for confession (though lighter faults may at times occur), all the difficulties mentioned above are effectively resolved. For past actions, once the penitent has confessed in general terms — as is commonly done — to having fallen in some way in this matter, and the confessor, by means of a general question, ascertains that something serious may have been involved, he should immediately refrain from further inquiry. It will suffice for the penitent to confess in general terms, for example: “I have committed a sin against nature,” or, “I have gravely failed in this matter against my conscience.” If necessary, the number of such sins may be asked, and the obligation of confession is thus fully satisfied. For future conduct, the application of this rule prevents penitents from sinning gravely through mere mistaken scrupulosity of conscience, and it also provides an easy means for them to make proper confession if needed. As for venial faults, penitents should be advised in three ways. First, that a spouse is not guilty of even a venial fault if, to avoid offending the other party, he or she passively allows something, not demanding it but merely tolerating it. Second, when that excuse does not apply, and the penitent wishes nonetheless to confess these lighter faults (for confession of venial sins is not obligatory), they should do so in entirely general terms, saying only something such as: “I have been somewhat negligent in the marital duty,” without ever specifying the particular acts involved. The holiness of the sacrament and the danger inherent in such subject matter require that nothing more than what is necessary be expressed. Third, if a penitent should happen to encounter a confessor so imprudent as to ask for further details, the penitent may, and indeed ought, to reply modestly that there is nothing further to be added on that point. Since we are speaking of the necessary caution a confessor must exercise in such matters, it is appropriate to note how he should respond to a woman who is about to be married and is anxious to avoid sin in marital relations. Gobat (Experientia Theologica, Tractate 10, Case 17, nos. 648–649) answers thus: If such a young woman has a living mother, she should be gently advised to speak with her mother about these matters rather than with her confessor (Burghaber adds: or, if not her mother, with another female relative). If she has no mother, or modesty prevents her from asking, the confessor should tell her to obey her husband as her head, even in these matters. If her husband should request something about which she is uncertain, she should gently ask him to refrain; if he insists, claiming that he knows what the laws of marriage permit, she should obey, being assured that she does not offend God when she obeys her superior in a doubtful matter. Later, at the first suitable opportunity, she may ask her confessor privately whether what she consented to was in fact lawful for spouses. Thus, with prudence and restraint, the confessor preserves both the purity of the sacrament and the peace of conscience of the faithful. By holding firmly to the principle that nothing between spouses constitutes a mortal sin of lust except that which gravely violates either fidelity or procreation, he avoids unnecessary questioning, discourages scrupulosity, and upholds both modesty and truth within the sacred forum of confession.)
920. 1°. The wife does not sin gravely—in fact, according to the more common and probable opinion, not even venially—if she excites herself by touch to emission immediately after intercourse in which the husband alone has emitted; (1) because the emission of the wife pertains to the completion of the conjugal act, that spouses may truly be “one flesh”; and just as the wife may prepare herself by touch for intercourse, so also she may complete it; (2) because if women were bound to repress the natural movement following such irritation, they would be continually exposed to great danger of grave sin. (St. Alphonsus n. 919.)
5°. Touch with oneself for venereal pleasure, in the absence of the other spouse, according to the opinion of most authors, cannot be excused from grave sin, even if pollution or its proximate danger be excluded. The reason is that a spouse has no right to use his or her own body in order to satisfy pleasure alone, but only in order to intercourse. (Lacroix n. 339; St. Alphonsus n. 936.) Yet not a few authors cited by St. Alphonsus hold that, pollution being excluded, such fault does not exceed venial sin. St. Alphonsus judges the first opinion more probable and to be recommended.
(Footnote: St. Alphonsus, when he says that this opinion is to be recommended, by no means signifies that confessors should impose on penitents the belief that these acts are mortally sinful; for he sharply rebukes and condemns those who instill consciences with fear of mortal sin when they are not certain of the matter. His meaning is only that penitents should be earnestly deterred from such acts. On this question see Andreas Mendo, Stater. Opin. Diss. 5, Quaest. 19, who presents strong arguments for the contrary view, which are not easily answered.)
6°. Morose delectation (lingering pleasure) over intercourse had or to be had remotely, with pollution excluded, according to the common opinion, is only venial sin. (1) It is some sin, because in this pleasure, not referred to the proximate intercourse, there is found an inordinacy, since the honest end is lacking and the generative faculties are moved in vain, at least inchoatively. (2) It does not exceed venial, because, since intercourse itself is lawful to spouses, it cannot be gravely illicit to delight in it. (Footnote: St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, n. 937) cites St. Thomas (De Malo, q. 15, a. 2, ad 17): “Pleasures take their moral quality from the acts which cause them; and therefore, just as carnal intercourse is not mortal sin for a married person, but is mortal for an unmarried person, so also there is a similar difference concerning delight and consent in delight. For consent in delight cannot be a graver sin than consent in the act,” as Augustine shows. This argument proves not only that consent in delight (i.e., morose delectation) is not mortal, but even that it is not venial; and this leads directly to the author’s reason: it cannot be gravely illicit to delight in a lawful act, since, as St. Thomas says, “the goodness or badness of delight follows that of the thing in which one delights.”)
§ II. On Onanism in Particular
921. Onanism consists in this: that a man, after beginning intercourse, withdraws before emission and spills the seed outside, in order to prevent generation. Everyone sees that this is to indulge shameful lust without bearing the burdens of marriage. Its name comes from Onan, the second son of the patriarch Judah, who, after his brother Her had died, was obliged by custom to take his brother’s widow Thamar, that he might raise up seed for his brother; but when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children be born in his brother’s name. “And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.” (Genesis 38:9–10.)
§ 922. Points to Be Established
I declare, first: Voluntary onanism is always a mortal sin, as being against nature; therefore, in no case can it ever be lawful for spouses.
The reasons are:
1°. It plainly opposes the primary end of marriage, tends of itself toward the extinction of society, and therefore subverts the natural order.
2°. It was strictly prohibited by the supreme Legislator and Author of nature, as is evident from the text of Genesis just cited.
3°. It is further clear from the forty-ninth proposition condemned by Pope Innocent XI, which reads: “Masturbation is not prohibited by the natural law.”
From this follows: onanism is truly and properly masturbation—that is, pollution outside the lawful use of marriage; therefore, it is gravely sinful.
This is confirmed by various decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary and of the Holy Office, which will be cited below under numbers 927, 928, and 929.
II. I declare, secondly: A husband guilty of onanism can never be excused from grave sin, and therefore can never be absolved unless he sincerely repents of his sin and firmly resolves to avoid it in the future. The reason is clear from what has already been said.
III. I declare, thirdly: The wife can be entirely excused from all sin if, for a serious reason, she renders the marital debt to a husband who practices onanism—provided that she does not interiorly consent to his sin and that she outwardly shows her disapproval by serious admonitions or other clear signs of displeasure.
The reasons are:
1°. She herself is engaging in something lawful, and makes use of her right, of which she cannot be deprived because of her husband’s malice; nor does she cooperate in anything intrinsically evil, since she acts merely passively, and the intrinsically evil act consists only in the husband’s deed, when he departs from the order of nature.
2°. She is not bound by charity to prevent her husband’s sin when doing so would cause her grave inconvenience.
3°. This is evident also from various responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, in which it was declared that such a woman is not to be troubled in conscience. (See the decisions to be cited below under number 931.)
Resolutions
1°. The woman sins gravely who induces her husband to misuse marriage, even indirectly or tacitly—for example, by complaining about the number of children, or about the pains of childbirth or the labor of raising them, or by lamenting that she will die in the next delivery, and so forth. With even greater reason she sins gravely if, against her husband’s will, she withdraws from intercourse once begun before emission has taken place.
2°. Likewise, the woman sins gravely if she interiorly consents to her husband’s detestable action, even if she outwardly shows resistance. For sin must always be hated.
3°. The wife is bound, at least ordinarily, to admonish her onanistic husband of his obligation to act rightly, and, as far as she is able, to turn him away from his perverse habit of acting. Nor is it enough that she admonish him once; while his bad custom continues, she must at times repeat her warnings—unless she is certain that another admonition would in no way be of use. Nevertheless, even then, she is bound to manifest her disapproval in some manner, so that she may not appear willingly to consent to her husband’s sin. This is the common teaching, and such was the reply of the Sacred Penitentiary when consulted on the matter.
4°. It is also the wife’s duty to win over her husband by gentleness, by various signs of affection, by prayers and exhortations, to perform the act rightly, or else to abstain from it altogether. Experience shows that many husbands given to onanism have been brought to amendment of life by their wives in this manner.
What follows are some additional questions on onanism as well as decisions by the Sacred Congregations concerning onanism.
Source
Jean-Pierre Gury (1801–1866); revised and annotated by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. (1805–1881), Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II (Rome, 1866), p. 808-817.
Available at: https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol02gury/page/808/mode/2up
-------------------
My Reader's Digest Summary.
From the principles above, it is clear that within marriage, the morality of the conjugal act depends entirely upon its proper ordering toward the twofold good of marriage—fidelity and generation. Whatever directly contradicts the natural order of generation (e.g., onanism; sodomy, i.e., pollution in an undue vessel), or otherwise deliberately frustrates procreation, is intrinsically and gravely sinful.
Whatever violates the good of fidelity—by introducing a third party (even by consent, intention, or imagination), by consenting to acts or thoughts that deny the mutual right, or by refusing that right without just cause—is likewise gravely disordered.
By contrast, all acts that serve as a preparation for the lawful union, even if in themselves less modest or inherently indecent, are permitted when truly directed toward the completion of that union and when care is taken to avoid pollution outside it.
The moderate satisfaction of concupiscence and the fostering of mutual affection, as secondary ends of marriage, excuse lesser imperfections and even elevate conjugal life when governed by charity and modesty. Thus, the rule of conduct for spouses is this: nothing is mortally sinful in the marital act unless it frustrates the end of procreation or violates the good of fidelity; and in all else, prudence, mutual respect, and restraint should preserve both the sanctity of the sacrament and the peace of conscience.
Bottom line: Whatever is done must be ordered to and end in natural intercourse — the one rule.
-
That is a very good resource. Thank you for sharing that.
-
I went ahead and translated the entire section On the Sins of Married Persons from the 1866 Compendium Theologiae Moralis, with the footnotes in place. I figured that one footnote by itself wouldn’t be nearly as helpful as seeing it in the full context of the chapter.
So, here it is:
-------------------
Article III — On the Sins of Married Persons
917. Sins may be committed between spouses with regard to the conjugal act, either by excess—that is, by performing acts useless for generation—or by defect, by failing to complete the essential act itself, or by defiling the marriage bed with the crime of onanism. Hence this article is divided into two sections.
§ I. On the Sins of Spouses by Excess.
NOTE. Acts that are apart from intercourse itself but performed on its occasion or under its pretext can be divided into three kinds. (1) Some are harmful to generation, such as sodomy and pollution, and are against nature. (2) Others are useful, such as touches that arouse nature and foster love. (3) Others are neither harmful nor useful and are called beside nature.
918. I. Whatever is necessary for completing the conjugal act, or useful for performing it more easily, quickly, or perfectly, is entirely lawful for spouses. The reason is that whoever has the right to the thing also has the right to the means necessary or useful for it, provided those means are not otherwise prohibited; and for whom the principal thing is lawful, the accessory, as a means ordered to that end, is also lawful.
II. Whatever in the conjugal act harms generation, or of itself brings about pollution outside natural union, is gravely illicit. The reason is that voluntary effusion of seed is lawful only in relation to generation; therefore marriage grants to spouses no right except to that effusion of seed which can of itself serve generation. Otherwise, if men could enjoy the pleasure itself without the consequent burden of nourishing and rearing offspring, the generation of children would easily be neglected, or even deliberately avoided, and thus society itself would tend toward ruin.
III. Whatever indeed does not hinder generation but is of itself less necessary or less useful to the act of generation cannot be imputed as sin except venial; from which, however, such acts are excused by other intrinsic ends, namely, that conjugal affection be preserved and fostered, or at least that concupiscence be quieted (Footnote: Compare what was said above in the note to n. 908, where—from the teaching of Chrysostom and St. Thomas interpreting the Apostle Paul—it was shown that the chief fruit of marriage consists precisely in this: that the ardor of concupiscence be extinguished, and thus a chaste life be led. Concupiscence is extinguished when marriage provides lawful satisfaction to the appetite for pleasure; a chaste life is led when that satisfaction is not sought outside the lawful marriage bed.)—which ends, however, need not be expressly intended, but, as was said above, it suffices that they not be positively excluded.
919. 1°. Among spouses, all honest kisses and touches—even of parts less honest, if done with caution—are without fault when they are given as a sign of conjugal affection or to foster love, even if sometimes by accident an involuntary pollution should follow; for all honest signs of love, even tender ones, are lawful as means to an end for those who by the bond of matrimony ought to become one heart and one flesh. (St. Alphonsus Liguori n. 934 and others commonly.)
2°. Touches and looks that are less modest are likewise in themselves without fault if they are immediately referred to intercourse. Indeed, the same must be held even if they are inherently indecent, provided they are necessary or useful for arousing nature; for then they are a kind of preparation and, as it were, a beginning of the conjugal union. But if acts by which one spouse disposes himself or herself for the conjugal act are such that they easily bring about pollution of themselves, they can be culpable if diligence is lacking to avoid pollution outside intercourse; and this omission of diligence, when such that one might thereby be judged to will pollution, may even be grave fault. If, however, with due diligence employed, pollution follows unintentionally, there is no fault.
(Footnote: The doctrine just stated must be kept in view also regarding the case which the author soon adds—that is, imperfect acts exercised between spouses without intention of intercourse. The author only notes the opinion that does not condemn such acts as gravely sinful. But another opinion, itself quite common (see St. Alphonsus, Lib. 6, n. 931), excuses these acts entirely from fault, even in the one who begins them, if pollution is not intended and there is no danger of consent to it, provided there is some serious reason, e.g., to foster mutual love or to avert the jealousy of the other. And (ibid.) he adds that, probably, even in the one who yields such touches (unless they are such as to appear an initiated pollution), these are licit, even if there be danger of pollution in the other, since the one yielding cooperates in something lawful. This opinion, which St. Alphonsus himself follows (ibid. n. 933), holds even when intercourse is altogether forbidden to the spouses or impossible due to impotence. Regarding the latter, see above note to n. 855. As to the former, the reason for the prohibition must be examined: the rule holds if the ban is for affinity contracted through crime with one’s own wife; otherwise, not, if it be for nullity of marriage. Diana notes similarly (Tom. 2, Tr. 6, Res. 205, n. 2): that if danger of pollution has ceased in both spouses, a husband does not sin mortally if he interrupts begun intercourse before emission to prevent conception, provided it be with the wife’s consent or without her reasonable objection. Indeed, if there is a just cause for preventing emission, e.g., poverty or excessive number of children, and yet they have intercourse to quiet concupiscence, there is no fault if mutual consent is present. Hence even weak spouses who begin intercourse to calm concupiscence and voluntarily do not complete it are not to be condemned even of venial fault; and this may often occur. He then proposes this case: A man begins intercourse with his wife and then, due to danger of illness, withdraws with her consent; pollution sometimes follows. Asked whether such touches are licit, I replied affirmatively: for it is no sin to cooperate in something lawful and honest, even if one foresees pollution, provided there is no danger of consent; because then the pollution is not directly willed nor indirectly willed in its cause, since one is not obliged to omit an otherwise lawful act for fear of pollution, given a just cause. See St. Alphonsus, Vol. 1, note to n. 412, p. 147; Sporer, De Matrimonio n. 500, following Gobat, Theol. Exper. Tr. 10, n. 668–669.)
3°. Spouses do not sin gravely even if, by touches had without intention of intercourse, there arises excitement of the spirits or of the members serving generation, or there follows a slight effusion; although in the unmarried such things would be mortal sins. Reason: with the crimes of voluntary pollution or sodomy excluded, nothing is done against the good of marriage.
(Footnote: The author advances this general principle with deliberate care: that, apart from that disorder which is against nature, scarcely anything can occur between spouses in this matter that can rightly be condemned as a grave sin. Among various authors, one finds some condemning one kind of act as gravely sinful, others condemning another. Yet these are merely particular opinions, not derived from solid and certain principles, but rather from fanciful apprehensions or emotional exaggerations. Some appeal to indecency and turpitude, and, with cries and declamations, they call the acts in question horrendous, abominable, most vile, and so forth — as though the reason for sin or the gravity of guilt were to be sought in the indecency of an act. Yet even the most lawful acts, and indeed those prescribed by nature herself, must, by reason of their natural indecency, be performed in secrecy and darkness. Others appeal to the notion of unbridled lust, as though lust did not show itself most unbridled precisely in that act in which the purpose of marriage is consummated; or as though marriage itself had not been instituted precisely as a remedy for lust; or as though marriage could serve as a remedy for lust in any other way than by allowing that strong desire for pleasure to be satisfied — but only under the condition, as St. Thomas Aquinas notes, that it neither runs beyond the bounds of lawful marriage nor contradicts the natural purpose of generation. In truth, unless one sins against one or the other of these — namely, against the good of fidelity or the good of procreation — no other solid reason appears by which any form of disorder between spouses could certainly be accused as a grave sin. Once this principle is rightly established, it gives the confessor a clear and reliable rule, by which he may protect both the sanctity of the sacrament and the salvation of penitents. The sanctity of the sacrament demands that discussion of these matters occur only under urgent necessity. Hence, the confessor must be entirely averse to prying into such details and should hardly ever ask any question beyond something general, such as whether the penitent’s conscience is troubled by any scruple in this regard — and even that should not be asked without cause. If, however, the penitent raises the matter directly, the confessor must respond. To ensure that such a response is brief, sufficient, and respectful of the sacredness of the sacrament, the rule already stated provides the best possible guidance. The welfare of penitents likewise demands this restraint. For they can easily become troubled by scruples concerning acts which they can scarcely bring themselves to name — and which, in truth, should never be described explicitly by either penitent or confessor. The principle already stated perfectly serves to remove both such scruples and the necessity of naming what modesty forbids to be expressed. Once it is made clear to the penitent that nothing is mortally sinful between spouses unless something is done contrary to the end of marriage or of generation, and that therefore nothing in this regard constitutes matter necessary for confession (though lighter faults may at times occur), all the difficulties mentioned above are effectively resolved. For past actions, once the penitent has confessed in general terms — as is commonly done — to having fallen in some way in this matter, and the confessor, by means of a general question, ascertains that something serious may have been involved, he should immediately refrain from further inquiry. It will suffice for the penitent to confess in general terms, for example: “I have committed a sin against nature,” or, “I have gravely failed in this matter against my conscience.” If necessary, the number of such sins may be asked, and the obligation of confession is thus fully satisfied. For future conduct, the application of this rule prevents penitents from sinning gravely through mere mistaken scrupulosity of conscience, and it also provides an easy means for them to make proper confession if needed. As for venial faults, penitents should be advised in three ways. First, that a spouse is not guilty of even a venial fault if, to avoid offending the other party, he or she passively allows something, not demanding it but merely tolerating it. Second, when that excuse does not apply, and the penitent wishes nonetheless to confess these lighter faults (for confession of venial sins is not obligatory), they should do so in entirely general terms, saying only something such as: “I have been somewhat negligent in the marital duty,” without ever specifying the particular acts involved. The holiness of the sacrament and the danger inherent in such subject matter require that nothing more than what is necessary be expressed. Third, if a penitent should happen to encounter a confessor so imprudent as to ask for further details, the penitent may, and indeed ought, to reply modestly that there is nothing further to be added on that point. Since we are speaking of the necessary caution a confessor must exercise in such matters, it is appropriate to note how he should respond to a woman who is about to be married and is anxious to avoid sin in marital relations. Gobat (Experientia Theologica, Tractate 10, Case 17, nos. 648–649) answers thus: If such a young woman has a living mother, she should be gently advised to speak with her mother about these matters rather than with her confessor (Burghaber adds: or, if not her mother, with another female relative). If she has no mother, or modesty prevents her from asking, the confessor should tell her to obey her husband as her head, even in these matters. If her husband should request something about which she is uncertain, she should gently ask him to refrain; if he insists, claiming that he knows what the laws of marriage permit, she should obey, being assured that she does not offend God when she obeys her superior in a doubtful matter. Later, at the first suitable opportunity, she may ask her confessor privately whether what she consented to was in fact lawful for spouses. Thus, with prudence and restraint, the confessor preserves both the purity of the sacrament and the peace of conscience of the faithful. By holding firmly to the principle that nothing between spouses constitutes a mortal sin of lust except that which gravely violates either fidelity or procreation, he avoids unnecessary questioning, discourages scrupulosity, and upholds both modesty and truth within the sacred forum of confession.)
920. 1°. The wife does not sin gravely—in fact, according to the more common and probable opinion, not even venially—if she excites herself by touch to emission immediately after intercourse in which the husband alone has emitted; (1) because the emission of the wife pertains to the completion of the conjugal act, that spouses may truly be “one flesh”; and just as the wife may prepare herself by touch for intercourse, so also she may complete it; (2) because if women were bound to repress the natural movement following such irritation, they would be continually exposed to great danger of grave sin. (St. Alphonsus n. 919.)
5°. Touch with oneself for venereal pleasure, in the absence of the other spouse, according to the opinion of most authors, cannot be excused from grave sin, even if pollution or its proximate danger be excluded. The reason is that a spouse has no right to use his or her own body in order to satisfy pleasure alone, but only in order to intercourse. (Lacroix n. 339; St. Alphonsus n. 936.) Yet not a few authors cited by St. Alphonsus hold that, pollution being excluded, such fault does not exceed venial sin. St. Alphonsus judges the first opinion more probable and to be recommended.
(Footnote: St. Alphonsus, when he says that this opinion is to be recommended, by no means signifies that confessors should impose on penitents the belief that these acts are mortally sinful; for he sharply rebukes and condemns those who instill consciences with fear of mortal sin when they are not certain of the matter. His meaning is only that penitents should be earnestly deterred from such acts. On this question see Andreas Mendo, Stater. Opin. Diss. 5, Quaest. 19, who presents strong arguments for the contrary view, which are not easily answered.)
6°. Morose delectation (lingering pleasure) over intercourse had or to be had remotely, with pollution excluded, according to the common opinion, is only venial sin. (1) It is some sin, because in this pleasure, not referred to the proximate intercourse, there is found an inordinacy, since the honest end is lacking and the generative faculties are moved in vain, at least inchoatively. (2) It does not exceed venial, because, since intercourse itself is lawful to spouses, it cannot be gravely illicit to delight in it. (Footnote: St. Alphonsus (Lib. 6, n. 937) cites St. Thomas (De Malo, q. 15, a. 2, ad 17): “Pleasures take their moral quality from the acts which cause them; and therefore, just as carnal intercourse is not mortal sin for a married person, but is mortal for an unmarried person, so also there is a similar difference concerning delight and consent in delight. For consent in delight cannot be a graver sin than consent in the act,” as Augustine shows. This argument proves not only that consent in delight (i.e., morose delectation) is not mortal, but even that it is not venial; and this leads directly to the author’s reason: it cannot be gravely illicit to delight in a lawful act, since, as St. Thomas says, “the goodness or badness of delight follows that of the thing in which one delights.”)
§ II. On Onanism in Particular
921. Onanism consists in this: that a man, after beginning intercourse, withdraws before emission and spills the seed outside, in order to prevent generation. Everyone sees that this is to indulge shameful lust without bearing the burdens of marriage. Its name comes from Onan, the second son of the patriarch Judah, who, after his brother Her had died, was obliged by custom to take his brother’s widow Thamar, that he might raise up seed for his brother; but when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children be born in his brother’s name. “And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.” (Genesis 38:9–10.)
§ 922. Points to Be Established
I declare, first: Voluntary onanism is always a mortal sin, as being against nature; therefore, in no case can it ever be lawful for spouses.
The reasons are:
1°. It plainly opposes the primary end of marriage, tends of itself toward the extinction of society, and therefore subverts the natural order.
2°. It was strictly prohibited by the supreme Legislator and Author of nature, as is evident from the text of Genesis just cited.
3°. It is further clear from the forty-ninth proposition condemned by Pope Innocent XI, which reads: “Masturbation is not prohibited by the natural law.”
From this follows: onanism is truly and properly masturbation—that is, pollution outside the lawful use of marriage; therefore, it is gravely sinful.
This is confirmed by various decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary and of the Holy Office, which will be cited below under numbers 927, 928, and 929.
II. I declare, secondly: A husband guilty of onanism can never be excused from grave sin, and therefore can never be absolved unless he sincerely repents of his sin and firmly resolves to avoid it in the future. The reason is clear from what has already been said.
III. I declare, thirdly: The wife can be entirely excused from all sin if, for a serious reason, she renders the marital debt to a husband who practices onanism—provided that she does not interiorly consent to his sin and that she outwardly shows her disapproval by serious admonitions or other clear signs of displeasure.
The reasons are:
1°. She herself is engaging in something lawful, and makes use of her right, of which she cannot be deprived because of her husband’s malice; nor does she cooperate in anything intrinsically evil, since she acts merely passively, and the intrinsically evil act consists only in the husband’s deed, when he departs from the order of nature.
2°. She is not bound by charity to prevent her husband’s sin when doing so would cause her grave inconvenience.
3°. This is evident also from various responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, in which it was declared that such a woman is not to be troubled in conscience. (See the decisions to be cited below under number 931.)
Resolutions
1°. The woman sins gravely who induces her husband to misuse marriage, even indirectly or tacitly—for example, by complaining about the number of children, or about the pains of childbirth or the labor of raising them, or by lamenting that she will die in the next delivery, and so forth. With even greater reason she sins gravely if, against her husband’s will, she withdraws from intercourse once begun before emission has taken place.
2°. Likewise, the woman sins gravely if she interiorly consents to her husband’s detestable action, even if she outwardly shows resistance. For sin must always be hated.
3°. The wife is bound, at least ordinarily, to admonish her onanistic husband of his obligation to act rightly, and, as far as she is able, to turn him away from his perverse habit of acting. Nor is it enough that she admonish him once; while his bad custom continues, she must at times repeat her warnings—unless she is certain that another admonition would in no way be of use. Nevertheless, even then, she is bound to manifest her disapproval in some manner, so that she may not appear willingly to consent to her husband’s sin. This is the common teaching, and such was the reply of the Sacred Penitentiary when consulted on the matter.
4°. It is also the wife’s duty to win over her husband by gentleness, by various signs of affection, by prayers and exhortations, to perform the act rightly, or else to abstain from it altogether. Experience shows that many husbands given to onanism have been brought to amendment of life by their wives in this manner.
What follows are some additional questions on onanism as well as decisions by the Sacred Congregations concerning onanism.
Source
Jean-Pierre Gury (1801–1866); revised and annotated by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. (1805–1881), Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II (Rome, 1866), p. 808-817.
Available at: https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol02gury/page/808/mode/2up
-------------------
My Reader's Digest Summary.
From the principles above, it is clear that within marriage, the morality of the conjugal act depends entirely upon its proper ordering toward the twofold good of marriage—fidelity and generation. Whatever directly contradicts the natural order of generation (e.g., onanism; sodomy, i.e., pollution in an undue vessel), or otherwise deliberately frustrates procreation, is intrinsically and gravely sinful.
Whatever violates the good of fidelity—by introducing a third party (even by consent, intention, or imagination), by consenting to acts or thoughts that deny the mutual right, or by refusing that right without just cause—is likewise gravely disordered.
By contrast, all acts that serve as a preparation for the lawful union, even if in themselves less modest or inherently indecent, are permitted when truly directed toward the completion of that union and when care is taken to avoid pollution outside it.
The moderate satisfaction of concupiscence and the fostering of mutual affection, as secondary ends of marriage, excuse lesser imperfections and even elevate conjugal life when governed by charity and modesty. Thus, the rule of conduct for spouses is this: nothing is mortally sinful in the marital act unless it frustrates the end of procreation or violates the good of fidelity; and in all else, prudence, mutual respect, and restraint should preserve both the sanctity of the sacrament and the peace of conscience.
Bottom line: Whatever is done must be ordered to and end in natural intercourse — the one rule.
I haven't read this yet but what about post-menopausal relations?
-
I haven't read this yet but what about post-menopausal relations?
Yes. The Church’s moral tradition has always taught that the right use of marriage doesn’t depend on whether a child can actually be conceived at that moment. What matters is that the act itself remains the normal, natural union of husband and wife, and that nothing is done to exclude or frustrate the purpose that God built into that union.
As St. Alphonsus Liguori explains in his Theologia Moralis (lib. VI, nn. 922–925), the moral goodness of the marital act depends on its kind and intention, not on the physical outcome. He allows the use of marriage at times when conception cannot occur—during pregnancy, menstruation, or infertility—so long as the act itself is natural and nothing is done to contradict its proper end.
St. Alphonsus (n. 924):
Communis sententia est licere, nisi adsit probabilis abortus periculi.
Translation: “The common opinion holds it is permitted [for spouses to have relations during pregnancy] unless there is probable danger of miscarriage.”
When that danger is absent, he adds, there is not even venial fault, because the act remains natural and good in kind.
He also teaches that the conjugal act is not rendered sinful simply because conception is impossible:
St. Alphonsus (n. 925):
Ad coitum cohonestandum non requiritur, ut ex eo sequatur generatio, sed sufficit, quod coitus ille per se sit aptus generationi, esto per accidens semen dispergatur.
Translation: “To make the conjugal act upright, it is not required that generation actually follow from it; it is enough that the act be in itself apt for generation, even if by accident conception does not occur.”
So even when conception is impossible—because of age, infertility, pregnancy, menstruation, hysterectomy, etc.—the act remains good and worthy when it is:
- the normal marital union between husband and wife, completed in the natural way;
- carried out with mutual respect and love; and
- not willfully directed against its natural end (infertility or age does not justify changing the nature of the act)
All theologians, including St. Alphonsus, also reminded couples that marriage has more than one purpose. Alongside the primary end—the good of children—there are secondary ends that are also good and willed by God: the deepening of affection, the fostering of unity, and the quieting of concupiscence. These are not mere concessions but real goods that belong to marriage itself. As St. Alphonsus makes clear, such ends may be sought honestly, so long as the primary end of generation is never positively excluded or contradicted.
Ballerini–Palmieri later express the same principle:
“Spouses make rightful use of marriage if the act is natural, even when offspring cannot result, so long as they do not positively exclude its natural ordering.”
(Opus theologicuм morale in Busembaum Medullam, vol. 6, n. 553)
In short:
The moral rule doesn’t change with age or condition. What matters is not whether conception can happen, but whether the act remains the genuine marital union that God designed. The love, fidelity, and mutual self-giving of the spouses—joined to the honest satisfaction of nature in its proper order—remain good and holy, provided the natural end of generation is not rejected. As long as that’s the case, and it’s done with charity and moderation, the marriage bed remains honorable in all things.