(b) The obligation is grave, since the marriage contract is one of the most momentous of human agreements, its direct end being the propagation of the race, while the denial of its essential right is productive of most serious evils, such as incontinence, scandals and the disruption of families. There is light matter, however, as when the request is not imperative, or the denial is infrequent and without danger of incontinence.
2615. Absence of Obligation.--The obligation of paying the conjugal debt does not exist, however, when the right to make the request has been lost or when the request is unreasonable.
(a) Thus, the right to make the request is lost when one party has broken faith by committing adultery and has not been forgiven by the innocent party, and also when one party is incapable (e.g., on account of insanity or drunkenness) of asking in a rational manner.
(b) The request is unreasonable, first, when it is immoderate (e.g., when it cannot be granted without serious and unusual detriment to health, or without danger of death, or without likelihood of abortion or other great harm to a child conceived or to be conceived); secondly, when it is seductive (e.g., when it is an invitation to commit onanism).
2616. Suspension of Obligation.--The obligation of granting and the right of requesting conjugal relations are suspended when the marriage is discovered to be null or uncertain.
(a) Thus, if the marriage is certainly null, abstinence is necessary until the marriage is made valid; otherwise the parties are guilty of fornication. But if nullity is due to a merely ecclesiastical impediment, the impediment probably ceases in cases of most grave inconvenience when the nullity is known to only one spouse and the dispensation cannot be obtained at once.
(b) If the marriage is only doubtfully null, abstinence is not necessary unless both parties have a serious doubt and no examination has yet been made. Light doubts should not be considered, nor doubts that have not been corroborated by investigation; while, if only one party doubts, he or she cannot refuse the debt lest injustice be done the other.
2617. Is There an Obligation of Requesting Conjugal Intercourse?--(a) _Per se_, there is no obligation, since one may lawfully decide not to enjoy one"s right, and not to use what belongs to one. As man and wife were free to marry or not to marry, so are they free to agree either to consummate or not consummate marriage. It is even lawful for married people to contract together to abstain temporarily or permanently from marriage relations (e.g., for the sake of health, or of economy, or of mortification). By mutual consent one or both may make a vow of chast.i.ty, as was done by St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin, or the husband may enter the priesthood and the wife become a nun.
(b) _Per accidens_, there is often an obligation of requesting intercourse, for experience shows that continual non-use of marriage often leads to incontinence or to loss of affection (see 2228).
2618. The Morality of Venereal Acts of Marriage.--(a) Non-consummated Acts.--These acts, whether internal or external, are lawful _per se_ when they are used only as accessories to the act of marriage or as means to foster or preserve conjugal love, for the acts are meant by G.o.d to serve the purposes mentioned (2510). But _per accidens_ there may be venial sin, on account of inordinateness in the motive (i.e., when only pleasure is intended), or in the manner (i.e., when due decency is not observed). There is mortal sin when these acts are not referred to the lawful conjugal act, but either directly or indirectly to pollution, namely, when there is foreseen proximate danger of pollution and the acts are either solitary or coperative but performed without sufficient reason (such as expressions of special affection), for pollution is gravely sinful in the married, as well as in the single state (see 2539 sqq.).
(b) Natural Consummated Act.--This act in itself is not only lawful, but meritorious, because it exercises such virtues as obedience (Gen., i. 28), justice (I Cor., vii. 3 sqq.), and love of the common good and religion (Tob., viii. 9). Since marriage intercourse has for its ends not only reproduction, but also the expression of mutual love and the allaying of concupiscence, it is lawful even when conception is impossible or less probable, as when the parties are sterile, or the woman is pregnant, or during the so-called agenesic period, or at the time of lactation. It is a venial sin to exercise the conjugal act when one excludes every motive except that of pleasure (Denziger, n. 1159); and there may be even mortal sin on account of circ.u.mstances, such as place (e.g., scandal to others present), manner (e.g., external immoderation, internal desire of another person), evil consequences (e.g., when one of the parties has a contagious or veneral disease, when abortion will likely result, etc.).
(c) Unnatural Consummated Acts.--Pollution is mortally sinful (2535 sqq.), and is worse in married than in single persons, as being an injury to the faith pledged in marriage; and hence it is not lawful to practise it even for the purpose of artificial fecundation. Rectal copulation is also gravely sinful, being unnatural l.u.s.t (see 2534) and a violation of conjugal faith. The usual forms of unnatural v.a.g.i.n.al coition, which are very much practised today, are contraceptive in purpose, and are of two general kinds in the procedure--the physiological or preventive, which uses instruments to keep the s.e.m.e.n from the uterus (such as sponges or pessaries for the female, condoms or protectors for the male), or which employs douches or syringes to remove s.e.m.e.n from the v.a.g.i.n.a, or uses chemicals to devitalize it.
2619. Nota.--(a) Non habetur onanismus, nec peccatum, si copula abrumpitur, ex necessitate (v.g., ad vitandum scandalum persona inopinate supervenientis), vel ex utilitate, mutuo dato consensu et periculo pollutionis excluso; nam seminatio extra vas, aut involuntaria est, aut nulla.
(b) Non habetur contraceptio nec peccatum, sed potius actus honestus, si, ob defectum physic.u.m viri vel mulieris, natur adjuvetur mediis artificialibus ut copula fiat, vel ut s.e.m.e.n introducatur in uterum; nam fini matrimonii non obstat, sed obsecundat iste modus agendi.
(c) Artificial Insemination. The subject-matter of the latter part of the preceding paragraph is distinguished from several unlawful practices considered by moralists under the heading of artificial insemination. Pope Pius XII on several occasions has given a clear, accurate and complete statement of Catholic teaching on the subject. We append here his texts:
1) The practice of artificial insemination, when it refers to man, cannot be considered, either exclusively or princ.i.p.ally, from the biological and medical point of view, ignoring the moral and legal one.
Artificial insemination, outside of marriage, must be condemned as essentially and strictly immoral.
Natural law and divine positive law establish, in fact, that the procreation of a new life cannot but be the fruit of marriage. Only marriage safeguards the dignity of the spouses (princ.i.p.ally of the wife in the present case) and their personal good. It alone provides for the well-being and education of the child.
It follows that no divergence of opinion among Catholics is admitted on the condemnation of artificial insemination outside of marriage. The child conceived in those conditions would be, by that very fact, illegitimate.
Artificial insemination produced in a marriage by the active element of a third party is equally immoral and consequently to be condemned without appeal.
Only the spouses have a reciprocal right upon each other"s body to generate a new life: an exclusive, inalienable right, which cannot be ceded. And so it must be, even out of consideration for the child. On whoever gives life to a small being, nature imposes, by the very strength of that tie, the duty to keep and educate it. But no ties of origin, no moral or legal bonds of conjugal procreation, exist between the legitimate husband and the child who is the fruit of the active element of a third party (even if the husband has given his consent).
As far as the legitimacy of artificial insemination in marriage is concerned, it suffices, for the moment, to recall these principles of natural law: the simple fact that the result desired is obtained by this means does not justify the use of the means itself; nor does the desire of the husband and wife, in itself perfectly legitimate, to have a child, suffice to establish the legitimacy of resorting to the artificial insemination which would satisfy this desire.
It would be erroneous, therefore, to think that the possibility of resorting to this means might render valid a marriage between persons unable to contract it because of the _impedimentum impotentiae_.
On the other hand, it is superfluous to mention that the active element can never be obtained legitimately by means of acts against nature.
Although new methods cannot be ruled out a priori for the sole reason of their novelty, nonetheless, as far as artificial impregnation is concerned, extreme caution is not enough; it must be absolutely excluded. Saying this does not necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means destined only to facilitate the natural act, or to a.s.sure the accomplishment of the end of the natural act regularly performed.
Let it never be forgotten that only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the designs of the Creator brings with it, to a marvelous degree of perfection, the accomplishment of the proposed ends. It is at the same time in conformity with corporeal and spiritual nature and the dignity of the married couple, as well as with the healthy, normal development of the child (Address to Physicians, Sept.
29, 1949, _Discorsi e Radiomessaggi_, vol. xi, pp. 221 ff).
2) We also believe that it is of capital importance for you, gentlemen, not to neglect this perspective when you consider the methods of artificial fecundation. The means by which one tends toward the production of a new life take on an essential human significance inseparable from the desired end and susceptible of causing grave harm to this very end if these means are not conformable to reality and to the laws inscribed in the nature of beings.
We have been asked to give some directives on this point also. On the subject of the experiments in artificial human fecundation "in vitro,"
let it suffice for Us to observe that they must be rejected as immoral and absolutely illicit. With regard to the various moral problems which are posed by artificial fecundation, in the ordinary meaning of the expression, or "artificial insemination," We have already expressed Our thought in a discourse addressed to physicians on September 29, 1949 (_Discorsi e Radiomessaggi_, vol. xi. pp. 221 ff.). For the details We refer you to what We said then and We confine Ourself here to repeating the concluding judgment given there: "With regard to artificial fecundation, not only is there reason to be extremely reserved, but it must be absolutely rejected. In speaking thus, one is not necessarily forbidding the use of certain artificial means destined solely to facilitate the natural act or to achieve the attainment of the natural act normally performed." But since artificial fecundation is being more and more widely used, and in order to correct some erroneous opinions which are being spread concerning what We have taught, We have the following to add:
Artificial fecundation exceeds the limits of the right which spouses have acquired by the matrimonial contract, namely, that of fully exercising their natural s.e.xual capacity in the natural accomplishment of the marital act. The contract in question does not confer on them a right to artificial fecundation, for such a right is not in any way expressed in the right to the natural conjugal act and cannot be deduced from it. Still less can one derive it from the right to the "child," the primary "end" of marriage. The matrimonial contract does not give this right, because it has for its object not the "child," but the "natural acts" which are capable of engendering a new life and are destined to this end. It must likewise be said that artificial fecundation violates the natural law and is contrary to justice and morality [1] (_Marriage and Parenthood_, May 19, 1956). See _The Pope Speaks_, Vol, III, No. 2, Autumn of 1956, pp. 194 ff.
[1] The Holy Father here spoke for several minutes in Latin as follows:
Alia nunc occurrit quaestio, ad quam pertractandam magis addecet latinam linguam adhibere.
Quemadmodum rationalis animus noster artificiali inseminationi adversatur, ita eadem ethica ratio, a qua agendi normo sumenda est, pariter vetat, quominus humanum s.e.m.e.n, peritorum examini subiciendum, masturbatiouis ope procuretur.
Hanc agendi rationem attigimus Nostra quoque allocutione coram Urologiae doctoribus coetum partic.i.p.antibus, die VIII mensis Octobris anno MDCCCCLIII prolata, in qua haec habuimus, verba: "Du reste le St-Office a dcid dj le 2 aot 1929 (_Acta Ap. Sedis_, vol. XXI a.
1929, p. 490, II) qu"une ""masturbatio directe procurata ut obtineatur sperma" n"est pas licite, ceci quel que soit le but de l"examen"
(_Discorsi e Radiomessaggi_ vol. XV, pag. 378). c.u.m vero n.o.bis allatum sit, pravam huiusmodi consuetudinem pluribus in locis invalescere, opportunum ducimus nunc etiam, quae tunc monuimus, commemorare atque iterum inculcare.
Si actus huiusmodi ad explendam libidinem ponantur, eos vel ipse naturalis hominis sensus sua sponte respuit, ac multo magis mentis iudicium, quotiesc.u.mque rem mature recteque considerat. Iidem actus tamen tunc quoque respuendi sunt, c.u.m graves rationes eos a culpa eximere videntur, uti sunt: remedia iis praestanda qui nimia nervorum intentione vel abnormibus animi spasmis laborant; medicis peragenda, ope microscopii, spermatis inspectio, quod venerei vel alius generis morbi bacteriis infectum sit; diversarum partium examen, ex quibus s.e.m.e.n ordinarie constat, ut vitalium spermatis elementorum praesentia, numerus, quant.i.tus, forma, vis, habitus aliaque id genus dignosc.u.n.tur.
Eiusmodi procuratio humani seminis, per masturbationem effecta, ad nihil aliud directe spectat, nisi ad naturalem in homine generandi facultatem plene exercendam; quod quidem plenum exercitium, extra conjugalem copulam peractum, sec.u.m fert dir.e.c.t.u.m et indebite usurpatum eiusdem facultatis usum. In hoc eiusmodi indebito facultatis usu proprie sita est intrinseca regulae morum violatio. Haudquaquam enim h.o.m.o ius ullum exercendi facultatem s.e.xualem iam inde habet, quod facultatem eandem a natura recepit. Homini nempe (secus ac in ceteris animantibus rationis expertibus contingit) ius et potestas utendi atque exercendi eandem facultatem tantummodo in nuptiis valide initis tribuitut, atque in iure matrimoniali continetur, quod ipsis nuptiis traditur et acceptatur. Inde elucet hominem, ob solam hanc causam quod facultatem s.e.xualem a natura recepit, non habere nisi potentiam et ius ad matrimonium ineundum. Hoc ius tamen, ad objectum et ambitum quod attinet, naturae lege, non hominum voluntate discribitur; vi huius legis naturae, homini non compet.i.t ius et potestas ad plenum facultatis s.e.xualis exercitium, directe intentum, nisi c.u.m coniugalem copulam exercet ad normam a natura ipsa imperatam atque definitam. Extra hunc naturalem actum, ne in ipso quidem matrimonio ius datur ad s.e.xuali hac facultate plene fruendum. Hi sunt limites, quibus ius, de quo diximus, eiusque exercitium a natura circ.u.mscribuntur. Ex eo quod plenum s.e.xualis facultatis exercitium hoc absolute copulae coniugalis limite circ.u.mscribitur, eadem facultas intrinsece apta efficitur ad plenum matrimonii naturalem finem a.s.sequendum (qui non modo est generatio, sed etiam prolis educatio), atque eius exercitum c.u.m dicto fine colligatur.
Quae c.u.m ita sint, masturbatio omnino est extra memoratam pleni facultatis s.e.xualis exercitii naturalem habilitatem, ideoque etiam extra eius colligationem c.u.m fine a natura ordinato; quamobrem eadem omni iuris t.i.tulo caret atque naturae et ethices legibus contraria est, etiamsi inservire intendat utilitati per se iustae nec improbandae.
Quae hactenus dicta sunt de intrinseca malitia cuiuslibet pleni usus potentiae generandi extra naturalem coniugalem copulam, valent eodem modo c.u.m agitur de matrimonio iunctis vel de matrimonio solutis, sive plenum exercitium apparatus genitalis fit a viro sive a muliere, sive ab utraque parte simul agente; sive fit tactibus manualibus sive coniugalis copulae interruptione; haec enim semper est actus naturae contrarius atque intrinsece malus.
2620. Contraception.--Contraception in all its forms (onanism, condonism, v.a.g.i.n.al irrigation, spermatocide) is a grave crime.
(a) It is an Injury to G.o.d.--Marriage was inst.i.tuted by G.o.d to propagate the human race (Gen., i. 27, 28) and to bless homes with children (Ps., cxxvi, cxxvii), and He has made it a sacred inst.i.tution and a Sacrament. Contraception defeats the ends of marriage and degrades it to the level of a mere instrument of carnal gratification.
The hatred of G.o.d for this sin appears in general from the horror with which Scripture speaks of unnatural l.u.s.t, and in particular from the case of Onan, whose sin is called detestable and whom G.o.d slew in punishment (Gen., x.x.xviii. 10).
(b) It is an Injury to Society.--The perpetuation of the human race is endangered as soon as marriage is abused as to its natural end. Hence, after the crime of homicide which destroys human life already in existence, contraception seems to rank next in enormity, since it prevents human life from coming into existence. This vice spreads moral degeneracy and decay from the home itself, and is rightly called race-suicide, since it depopulates and destroys the nation by the act of its own people.
(c) It is an Injury to the Family.--The happiness and success of the home depend chiefly on the respect which its members have one for the other and on the cultivation of the st.u.r.dy virtues that strengthen character. The husband and wife who practise onanism or other similar carnal vices cannot have the mutual respect they should have; the wife is deprived of the treasure of her modesty and is treated as a prost.i.tute rather than as an honored wife and mother, and the husband is brutalized by the removal of the natural restraint to his s.e.x pa.s.sion. Such self-indulgent persons will either selfishly neglect the one or two children they may have, or will spoil them for life by the luxury and laziness in which they are reared.
(d) It is an Injury to the Individual.--As concerns the body, there is a perversion of the s.e.x act from its definite use and specific end, and hence contraception has been described as "reciprocal masturbation." As regards the soul, its higher goods of will and intellect are subordinated by the contraceptionist to the delight of pa.s.sion, the lower impulses are greatly strengthened and self-control made more and more difficult, and the spiritual objectives that should prompt a rational creature are sacrificed for the pa.s.sing gratification that moves the beasts.
2621. Some Arguments of Neo-Malthusians and Other Advocates of Contraception.--(a) Necessity for the Individual.--"This practice is demanded by comfort (e.g., in order to have a good and easy time, to have more opportunity for pleasures and occupations outside the home, to preserve form and beauty, to escape the troubles of child-bearing and child-rearing), or by utility (e.g., in order that suffering wives be freed from the slavery of excessive child-bearing, in order that children receive more attention and care than is possible in large families)." This argument from comfort is unworthy of any but a pagan or materialist, for the end of existence is something higher than pleasure or escape from all hardship. But even if happiness alone be considered, the childless home is not the most cheerful, and it often happens that parents who have sinfully limited their parenthood will lose an only child and be left sterile and desolate. The argument from utility proves only that sometimes (not often) it is inadvisable for a couple to have any or many children, but it does not prove that family limitation through means forbidden by the laws of G.o.d and of nature is permissible. The normal woman is not harmed but helped by child-bearing, whereas onanism and other unnatural vices are fearfully damaging both to mental and physical health. Experience too shows that mothers of five or more children live longer, and that children from large families are very often superior in qualities and achievements and stand a better chance in life. Exceptions only emphasize the rule.
(b) Necessity for the Family.--"Large families are impossible to many persons because the high cost of children today (expenses for clothing, food, medical care, schooling, etc.) is beyond their means." The inability to support many children is often due to extravagance or to insufficient wages, and the remedy lies in prudent economy or in improvement of the economic condition of workers, not in the abuse of marriage. The weakness of the objection is shown from the fact that race-suicide is more common among the well-to-do than among the poorer cla.s.ses. However, in a genuine case of inability to maintain a large family, limitation of children is a duty, but not by means of the sin of contraception or onanism.
(c) Necessity for the Community.--"The cause of unemployment, dest.i.tution, famine and war is the overpopulation of the world.
Moreover, if the poorer cla.s.ses would practise contraception and the better-to-do cla.s.ses have larger families, the standard of living of the former would be raised, the culture of the latter would be preserved, and the quality of the whole race be greatly improved." The resources of the earth are easily adequate to support many times the present population, and the misfortunes referred to are due, not to the number of people who inhabit the earth, but to accident or to human greed or imprudence. The eugenic argument is a vain dream, for the history of nations and modern facts show that the ideal of race improvement makes little appeal when the easier way of indulgence has been learned. As said above, it is the wealthy and educated cla.s.ses who have the fewest children.
(d) Necessity of a Moral Kind.--"Contraception is a useful control of nature similar to that employed by physicians, surgeons and other scientists; it is not a contradiction of nature, since it preserves the end of the s.e.xual faculty in expressing physical love. The motives of those who use it are not necessarily carnal, but may be of a very Christian kind (e.g., the need of limitation of family in order the better to practise one"s vocation, or in order to spare one"s wife, or to keep her from abortion), and they may sincerely believe it to be lawful." Contraception does not control, but defeats nature, by voluntarily frustrating the primary end which nature has in view, and, if permitted, it logically leads to every kind of sensual indulgence.
The motives or conscience of those who use it cannot change its character, for the end does not justify the means and a wrong conscience does not change the law. Those who have not been spoiled or misled by contraceptive propaganda or advice, instinctively regard artificial birth-control as well as onanism with disgust.
2622. Is Birth-Control Ever Lawful?--(a) If this refers to an end (viz., the limitation of the number of children or the s.p.a.cing of their arrival), it is not unlawful in itself (see 2617); and it is sometimes a duty, as when the wife is in very poor health or the family is unable to take care of more. But in view of the decline and deterioration in populations today, it seems that couples who are able to bring up children well should consider it a duty to the common welfare to have at least four children, and it should be easy for many to have at least a dozen children. The example of those married persons of means who are unable to have a number of children of their own, but who adopt or raise orphaned little ones, is very commendable.