What a Renowned Catholic Moral Theologian Taught About Amplexus Reservatus, or Incomplete, Non-Orgasmic Sexual Intercourse

As part of our ongoing release of excerpts from renowned Catholic moral theologians, we turn here to Fr. John J. Lynch, S.J., and his treatment of the morality of amplexus reservatus (or, incomplete sexual intercourse where orgasm is deliberately withheld from both parties) within marriage. Drawing on traditional principles governing incomplete conjugal acts, Lynch explains why many respected theologians regarded the practice as morally licit under certain conditions. The full compendium of these classical moral theology texts is available to our Patreon members.

---

Fr. John J. Lynch, S.J., was a respected Jesuit moral theologian, professor of moral and pastoral theology at Weston College, and a longtime contributor to scholarly discussions of Catholic sexual and medical morality.

---

Fr. John J Lynch, SJ, Notes on Moral Theology, 1962:

In determining the morality of any incomplete venereal act on the part of married people—and by definition amplexus reservatus most assuredly qualifies as actus venereus incompletus—the principle to be applied may be stated as follows: incomplete conjugal acts, either mutual or solitary, are in the order of chastity licit, provided that they maintain their proper relation both to the complete act of marital intercourse and to one's partner in marriage. Licitness is restricted to the order of chastity in order not to deny the possibility of violating some other virtue by an act which is per se conjugally chaste. Certain incomplete acts, for example, even though licit in themselves, may be so distasteful to one partner that for the other to insist on them could be a violation of charity. The "proper ordination of incomplete acts to one's partner in marriage" merely emphasizes the monogamous nature of matrimony or the singular personal object of legitimate sexual activity in marriage. Just as the complete sexual act with a partner other than one's spouse is condemned as adultery, so also the incomplete act tending towards any object except one's conjugal partner is forbidden. Thus, for example, a married man, because of embraces and kisses with his own wife, might deliberately experience incomplete sexual pleasure. 

At least as far as this first condition is concerned, such an individual cannot be accused of sin against chastity. Whereas the same man, similarly stimulated by embraces with a woman other than his wife, could scarcely maintain that his incomplete sexual act was properly related to the latter. This relationship of incomplete act to one's partner in marriage is normally verified unless it is positively excluded, either explicitly by one's conscious direction of it towards another object, or implicitly by its natural and undiverted tendency toward such another object. With due regard for the danger of intemperate self-indulgence, the "proper ordination of the incomplete act to the complete" means nothing more than the absence of proximate danger of complete sexual gratification in an act other than that of copula perfecta (consummated conjugal act). So again, the married man who in solitude is consciously stimulated sexually by phantasms of his wife remains within his marital rights until he reaches the point where danger of pollution is proximate (1). Similarly, incomplete mutual acts between husband and wife are qualified by this same condition, viz., that those acts maintain their proper relation to the complete act or, in other words, that there be no unjustifiable danger for either partner of complete sexual satisfaction apart from copula perfecta. It does not mean that the complete act must be consummated on that very occasion. 

Absence of proximate danger of pollution suffices to fulfil this final condition. It is in view of these sound speculative principles determining the morality of incomplete sexual acts as performed by married people that so many reputable theologians have concluded—with such qualifications as have already been mentioned—to the ex objecto (from its object) licitness of amplexus reservatus. To maintain, as does Msgr. Squillaci, that the act becomes gravely sinful either because it is by choice restricted to the category of the truly incomplete or because it is motivated by the intention to avoid conception, is to ignore the more common teaching of theologians and thus to misrepresent seriously the obligations of married people in this regard. Regrettably, much the same criticism would have to be expressed of Msgr. Squillaci's thesis on copula dimidiata that complete marital act which consists in only partial penetration of the vagina but with total semination within the interior portion of that organ. If motivated by the belief that conception is thereby made impossible, or at least far less likely, this mode of intercourse becomes, according to the Monsignore moral assessment, "certainly gravely sinful." He claims confirmation of this teaching in the 1922 private response of the Holy Office to several doubts relative to proper pastoral counseling in respect to this form of conjugal coitus. A survey of representative authors who commit themselves on this question would reveal that they are virtually unanimous in holding that copula dimidiata, performed solely because of the expectation of thereby lessening the likelihood of conception, does not exceed venial sin. (In fact, Zalba asserts that it would not be even venially sinful if a couple had valid grounds for not desiring a pregnancy) The reason for denying gravity of matter is the fact that this form of intercourse fulfils all the requisites of copula perfecta, viz., vaginal penetration and intravaginal semination. One may suspect that the capital reason for predicating even venial sin of the act is to facilitate interpretation of the response to the second of the three dubia mentioned in the preceding paragraph. But it is quite evidently the firm conviction of theologians—and one never disavowed by the Holy Office in the course of forty years—that these answers were not designed to declare seriously sinful the act of copula dimidiata even when naively intended as an effective means of escaping pregnancy. Subjective mortal sin, of course, would be committed if the act were performed by husband and wife with the erroneous conviction on the part of either that this form of intercourse is objectively a serious violation of conjugal chastity. If one analyzes carefully the language used by the Holy Office in reference to both amplexus reservatus and copula dimidiata, several similarities of approach and phraseology soon become apparent. Both documents treat explicitly not of the intrinsic morality of a particular act but of a pastoral modus agendi on the part of confessors and spiritual counselors. Both are worded in such a way as to rebuke some of these latter for a deplorable failure to temper with proper qualifications and restrictions their approval of certain sexual acts which for various extrinsic reasons are at best morally perilous unless extreme caution is observed. But in neither case does the Congregation state, either explicitly or by necessary implication, what it most easily could and doubtlessly would have said if convinced of its truth, viz., that either act is ex objecto gravely sinful. 

Editorial AMI Footnote:

1. When Fr. Lynch discusses sexual stimulation, it should be noted that this can take two forms: mental pleasure (or, morose delectation) or sexual self-stimulation brought about by self-touch without any foreseen proximate danger of orgasm. Theologians are nearly unanimous on the permissibility of the first category, but are more divided on the second. Among theologians who hold that this would either be licit or at most venially sinful are: Pauludanus, Sanchez, Noldin; Regatillo, Archbishop Lanza, Bucceroni, Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, Noldin, Tanquerey, Vermeersch, Cappello, Genicot-Salsmans, Marc, Aertnys, Matharan; Merkelbach, Caharel, McHugh-Callan (“solidly probable”); Slater (“the probable opinion of many”), Lynch, Cardinal Eijk, and others. Those who believe they are mortally sinful are: Alphonsus, Diana, Sporer, Billuart, De Smet, Vasquez, Bishop Kenrick, and others. We at the Apostolate for Marital Intimacy prefer to endorse and counsel the safer course of action. You can analyze perspectives on both sides by reading our Compendium.