Another Renowned Moral Theologian on Sexual Morality in Marriage

Thomas Slater, SJ (1855-1928) was an English Jesuit and one of the most respected moral theologians of his generation in the English-speaking world. His Manual of Moral Theology was the first of its kind in native English, ran to five approved editions, and was written for priests who heard confessions. Trained in the tradition of St. Alphonsus and subsequent moralists, he knew the sources of moral theology very well. On questions as delicate as marital chastity, there are few safer guides available in English. Few writers in English are better placed to tell you what the Church’s confessors actually held on marital chastity.

---

The following excerpt is taken from Thomas Slater’s Manual of Moral Theology for English Speaking Countries, section De Debio conjugali:

Let the words of St. Paul's introduction hold a place for us as we briefly discuss this sordid matter: "Let the husband render to his wife dues, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and come together again, lest Satan tempt you because of your incontinency."

Accordingly, not only is the use of marriage permissible, but the other party who seriously and reasonably demands it must, in justice, repay the debt under a grave obligation.

Although this is most certain, excuses from this obligation are nevertheless admitted, so that there is no obligation to repay the debt when it cannot be repaid without danger to life or serious illness, or when it is not reasonably requested, as by a madman or a drunkard, or when it is requested too frequently, as if several times in the same night. Even a semi-drunk requester seems permissible, especially because of the risk of serious defects, both physical and moral, in the offspring that may be born, to deny the debt unless quarrels, discord, and incontinence on the part of the requester are feared.

It has been said that in these circumstances there is no obligation to repay the debt, nay, it would be per se unlawful to repay the debt with imminent danger to life or health. However, if the disease is long-lasting and not immediately leading to death, such as syphilis, it is permitted to pay a healthy debt with the risk of infection to avoid incontinence or to foster conjugal love. A greater difficulty is encountered when, by the doctor's judgment, the child is to be born at the mother's death. Such cases are not easy to admit, and indeed doctors pronounce a judgment of danger to life more easily because they see women taking it. Unless, therefore, the case is entirely special, the confessor will safely advise the woman alleging such a doctor's judgment to strive to please her husband and to commit herself to God with great confidence.

Since spouses are bound to render their dues to each other, it is clear that they are also regularly bound to cohabit together, except when necessity does not permit it or when by mutual consent it is done otherwise without danger of incontinence and without scandal.

Elderly or infirm spouses who often only perform intercourse imperfectly should not be denied the use of marriage, provided there is some hope that they will be able to properly complete the act.

2. What is permissible and what is not permissible for spouses in sexual acts.

The general rule is contained: What is useful for performing the conjugal act is permissible; what is against the generation of children or tends to impede it is gravely illicit; what is not against the generation of children, although it is beyond it, is at least not gravely illicit.

From which, we  resolve: It is permissible for the spouse to excite himself to intercourse with carnal touches and looks, and after the husband has withdrawn, it is permissible for the wife to excite herself to complete venereal delight with touches. Sodomy and intercourse begun but interrupted with the discharge of semen outside the woman's vessel are gravely unlawful.

[O]ther carnal touches and looks admitted by spouses without imminent danger of pollution do not seem mortal, and are excused from all sin if they are exercised for a just cause, such as to foster conjugal affection.

3. A man commits a grave sin against the nature and purpose of marriage when, after incomplete intercourse, he voluntarily withdraws from his wife and ejaculates outside the vagina. From the act of Onan, the sin is called onanism. 1

It is clear from Sacred Scripture that it is a grave sin because it frustrates the main purpose of marriage and is ordered toward the ruin of the human race. This is also clear from several responses of the Holy Congregations. Morally, it makes no difference by what means this sin of frustrated nature is committed, whether by some instrument, or by an envelope, or by the lotion of the woman's vagina after intercourse, or merely by the man's withdrawal before ejaculation. If such a thing is done by mutual agreement and consent of the spouses, both commit a grave sin.

However, if the man's onanistic act displeases the wife, who has also tried in vain to induce him to perform the act honorably, she does not seem to be prevented from repaying the debt owed to the husband when he asks for it or even from demanding it for a grave reason. For she materially only cooperates with the man's sin, which cooperation is permissible for a grave reason. There is, however, a grave reason, both on the part of the husband not to be offended, and on the part of the wife who, with the risk of incontinence, should not be deprived of her marital rights. Therefore, it is permissible for a woman, even if her husband acts onanistically, to enjoy sexual pleasure in the use of marriage, and indeed, after her husband has withdrawn, it is permissible for her to arouse herself with touches to complete satisfaction if she has not yet experienced this.

Confessors should not normally question spouses about the way in which they exercise marital rights. However, if a spouse raises doubts about the permissibility of onanism, the confessor should briefly explain Catholic doctrine to him. Indeed, if he has a well-founded suspicion that the spouses are acting onanistically, whether in good or bad faith, he should warn them, since this is a grave sin very harmful to the spouses themselves and to human society. A spouse who refuses to acquiesce to Catholic doctrine on this matter is inherently incapable of absolution.

4. Provided that intercourse can be properly performed, no position in exercising it is gravely illicit, and an unnatural-like position is considered sufficiently honorable as to not even be venially illicit….

By the old law, access to a wife was prohibited during menstruation and purgation, and indeed a similar prohibition was in force in ancient ecclesiastical law. It seems to be said that those laws are positive and no longer oblige Christians. There are various opinions of the Doctors regarding the licitness of such access. The reasons which many brought forward to demonstrate the illicitness of the act were based on fables….

…..

Nor does the morose pleasure of having or to have intercourse, except again with the imminent danger of pollution, seem to be prohibited under grave sin for married people. Indeed, a purely rational pleasure in a licit object, such as intercourse for married people, would not even be venial; yet in practice, pleasure in the conjugal act could hardly be merely rational, insofar as it naturally excites the senses and limbs. Hence the morose pleasure of having or having had intercourse is at least regularly venially sinful even for married people.

To exercise intercourse with a spouse with an adulterous mind, thinking of another person besides the spouse, is a grave sin because of the adulterous mind.