Renowned Moral Theologian on the Do’s and Don’ts of Sexual Love Between Spouses Outside the Marital Act

Periodically, we plan on dropping excerpts from highly esteemed traditional moral theologians on questions pertaining to marital chastity and sexual morality. Many of these are taken from our Compendium which you can access here. Today’s excerpt is from Hieronymous Noldin, SJ.

---

Hieronymus Noldin, S.J. (1838–1922) was a leading Catholic moral theologian and foremost authority on sexual ethics and marital chastity.

He held the chair of moral theology at the University of Innsbruck for nineteen years (1890–1909). His Summa Theologiae Moralis (1902–1904) became the standard seminary manual worldwide.

Noldin is especially renowned for his authoritative, practical treatment of conjugal morality in De sexto praecepto et de usu matrimonii (“On the Sixth Commandment and the Use of Marriage”), often published separately as a confessor’s guide.

---

Taken from Noldin’s Summa theologiae moralis

On what is lawful in marriage

Principles. The question is whether and when acts of internal carnal delight  (thoughts, pleasures and desires) and imperfect acts (touches, kisses, embraces, looks and conversations) are lawful for spouses. Furthermore, spouses either perform these acts alone [1] or mutually; and if they are mutual acts, they either have an intention to perform the marriage act or they do not. Currently, however, we consider actions that do not have an actual intention to perform the marriage act, since. about those that do terminate in the marriage act, in fact, has been said above (n. 70). Now to solve the proposed question two principles must be noted:

1. A grave sin in spouses is only that which is against the primary end of marriage; but apart from voluntary pollution, whether solitary or. onanistic, and the crime of sodomy, nothing is against the primary end of marriage, which is the generation of offspring. All other actions in themselves or considering their nature are permissible for spouses and become sins if they are practiced for pleasure alone or with a foreseeable risk of pollution without a just cause.

Pollution and its immediate danger are no less illicit in married couples than in unmarried ones; indeed, both the pollution itself and the actions that introduce its immediate danger are a more serious sin in married couples than in unmarried ones, because through them not only chastity but also the right of the other spouse is injured. For this reason, conjugal pollution and its danger are under grave: they are bound to beware, just as unmarried ones are to be lenient.

Some ask whether pollution also in wives, namely complete venereal pleasure (orgasm), which occurs with the effusion of the vaginal juices, and its immediate danger, is a grave sin. This is certainly affirmed, both because the effusion of humor occurs, not indeed prolific, which is nevertheless solely destined by nature for generation, namely to make it easier and more delightful; and because it brings complete venereal delight

2. Venereal pleasure sought within marriage is per se permissible for spouses: for marriage, since it grants the right to the conjugal act, makes the pleasure instituted for that act, which is gravely illicit for unmarried people, permissible for married people. Nor is it permissible for them only when they intend to have intercourse, but also when they either cannot have intercourse or do not wish to have intercourse.

Matters within marriage, i.e. acts naturally ordained to the conjugal act, such as mutual touches, looks, conversations, etc., which are by their nature apt to dispose of and prepare for intercourse. And since even the touches and looks which the married person exercises on his own body can be directed to the conjugal act, the married person who sexually touches or looks at himself does not seek pleasure outside, but within marriage.

Conjugal venereal pleasure, to whom the duty of preserving and propagating the human race falls, is permissible, just as the pleasure of food and drink is permissible for men in general, to whom the duty of preserving the human individual is incumbent. And just as excess in the enjoyment of food due to a lack of an honest end is a venial sin, so excess in the enjoyment of sexual pleasure, excluding the immediate danger of pollution, is a venial sin due to a lack of an honest end.

Therefore, those acts which by their nature excite venereal pleasure, such as touching, kissing, looking, etc., are permissible for married couples without the immediate danger of pollution in themselves, provided they have an honest end. The honest end for which such acts are performed by married couples is, above all, that conjugal love may be manifested and fostered

Corollaries. From these principles the following corollaries are now inferred: a) on imperfect mutual acts, b) on imperfect solitary acts, c) on morose pleasures in spouses

Mutual imperfect acts, which are not connected with the immediate danger of pollution, are no sin, if they are done for a reasonable cause; they are a venial sin, if they are performed without a reasonable cause, i.e., solely for the sake of mere pleasure.

Therefore, he who looks at his wife with carnal pleasure or sexually touches her without the intention of copulation out of mere pleasure does not sin mortally, provided that the danger of pollution is far from it: such looks and touches are per se permissible for spouses: but if they are done without an honorable end, they are a venial sin, because the inordinate use of something otherwise permissible is nothing but a venial sin.

There are those who condemn extremely obscene acts between spouses as grave sins, even without the danger of pollution. They list such acts: if they touch each other's genitals with their mouths or tongues, and the like. But in these acts, as in the rest, two elements must be distinguished. The first is the danger of pollution. This consideration is common to all incomplete sexual acts, albeit to a greater degree in this case. Insofar as this danger is considered, special malice does not apply to them. The second element is obscenity or foulness, which is said. Now, however, there is no action between married people, nor can it be imagined, which, because of foulness alone, is intrinsically evil, so that it can never be made lawful. Therefore, there is no lack of authors who consider that those acts are not to be exempted from the general rule on the lawfulness of incomplete sexual acts. Therefore, if experience were to show that in certain persons those acts do not induce an immediate danger of pollution, at least they would not be gravely sinful.

Mutual imperfect acts, which are foreseen to be connected with an immediate danger of pollution, are not a sin, if they are performed from a grave venture of necessity, utility or decency, and there is no danger of consent to the pollution. For just as those who are unmarried can perform lawful acts for a grave reason, even if pollution follows from them without intention, so those who are married can perform lawful acts for a grave reason, even if pollution is foreseen to follow; but such acts are lawful for married people.

Such a reason is sufficiently grave: to foster or restore mutual love; to avert suspicion of infidelity or love for another person; to obey the partner who asks that those acts be permitted or performed

Since pollution itself is unlawful in itself, it is not lawful to consent to pleasure that is linked to pollution; yet most spouses are unaware of the evil of this consent, and it is not expedient to warn them about this matter, lest they become formal sins from material sins.

Imperfect mutual acts, which are foreseen to be linked to the immediate danger of pollution, are a grave sin, if by their nature they introduce that danger and are performed without a just cause: for pollution is no less unlawful for spouses than for unmarried people; Therefore, whatever of itself introduces a near danger of it is also unlawful for them.

Spouses who are unable to have a conjugal act because of supervening impotence may lawfully perform imperfect mutual acts for an honest purpose, provided that the near danger of pollution is excluded, even if it sometimes follows accidentally. However, since its pleasure is unlawful, they must beware of consent.

Footnotes:

1. AMI editorial comment: While it is true that Noldin and many others (Pauludanus [13th cent.]. Sanchez [16th cent], Ballerini, Bucceroni, Cappello, Lanza, Lehmkuhl, Caharel, Brioci, Haine, Lovanii, Matharan, Parisiis, Genicot-Salsmans, Marc, Aertnys, etc) hold that a spouse can without grave sin enjoy incomplete sexual self-stimulation beyond even mental pleasure in the absence of the other spouse outside the proximate danger of pollution, we at the Apostolate choose to endorse St. Alphonsus’ judgment against such a position.