From the HPR Archives – Part VII

December 1954, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 218–23

Again: A New Conjugal Morality?

By ED. GAGNON, S.S., S.T.D., J.C.D. and AIDAN M. CARR, O.FM. Conv., S.T.D., J.C.D.

IN THE TWENTY CENTURIES that the divine drama of the Church’s history has spun its gracious course, countless doctrinal monstrosities have strutted upon the stage of the Christian world, struck a posture, and then commenced to declaim in false tone (and falser sense) such lines as had no place in the Playwright’s script.

Despite the ringing applause of some less discriminating members of the audience, these erring imposters have, thank God, been unceremoniously escorted to the nearest exit by the outraged management, whether the offender is actual heresy or simply heresy’s third carbon copy: temerarious doctrine.

The Holy Office on the Amplexus Reservatus

Very recently (as time appears to the Church’s ageless vision) new evidence of this solicitude has been shown in a directive that has received scant, if any notice in ecclesiastical periodicals. Here is a translation of this important pronouncement of the Holy Office, dated June 30, 1952:

“The Apostolic See notices with great disquietude that in recent times many authors, in treating of conjugal life, have not hesitated to go openly and in minute fashion into each detail concerning the conjugal life. It notices further that certain authors decribe, praise and recommend a certain particular act called amplexus reservatus. In order not to be wanting in its duty in such an important domain which concerns the sanctity of marriage and the salvation of souls, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, in virtue of an express mandate of His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, gives to all these authors a serious warning to cease acting in this way. Furthermore, the Holy Office insistently exhorts Bishops to be vigilant with regard to these abuses and to employ with care opportune remedies. Moreover, priests should never, in the care of souls and the direction of consciences, dare, either spontaneously or in reply to questions placed to them, so presume to speak as if nothing in the Christian law were opposed to the amplexus reservatus.”¹ [1] AAS, 4 (1952), 546.

The Content of the Instruction

The almost universal silence that has greeted this serious monition could lead one to imagine that the Holy Office is tilting at windmills or taking broadsword strokes at straw men. Scarcely so! The Congregation is evidently profoundly concerned about some genuine dangers that have of late manifested themselves both in Europe and on our own continent. Assuredly we American priests wish to be on the alert to forestall further attacks on the sanctity of America’s already besieged marital life, no matter in what garb of sweetness and light such threats may disguise themselves. We are also warned about the risks connected with the spread of certain detailed books or pamphlets on the sexuality of marriage.

This Instruction, emanating from the Roman Congregation charged with safeguarding the purity of Catholic faith and morals, contains unequivocal statements that are not just disciplinary: they are doctrinal as well. Summarized, the directive does the following:

1. It warns authors who, in writing about the physical aspects of conjugal life, are lacking in due modesty through excessive detail. Realism in such matters is a risky undertaking, especially when contained in the written word. Measures have been taken in our country to curtail this sort of writing, for happiness in marriage is often the immediate concern of doctors of medicine, who can orally explain to puzzled spouses whatever doesn’t come naturally.
2. It specifically singles out Catholic writers who explain and advocate a particular practice called amplexus reservatus.
3. It exhorts bishops to vigilance against abuses, instructing them to take steps necessary to correct authors who err in these matters.
4. It forbids priests, in their care of souls, ever to speak as if the amplexus reservatus were morally unobjectionable.

Blamable Want of Modesty in Writing

The Instruction mentions that some writings are offensive to Christian delicacy by their descriptions of the most intimate details of the marital relationship. In this it repeats a warning given by Pope Pius XII in his discourse to French fathers in September of 1951.

At that time the Holy Father recognized the difficulties of Catholic fathers in a dechristianized milieu when he vigorously inveighed against writings that advocate “sexual initiation.” He observed that these are often penned by Catholics who may indeed mean well, but whose works are nonetheless erotic and unchristian. The Pontiff added that these writings obtain an enormous circulation, even among the young — to their detriment. This “initiation” Pius XII called “intolerable effrontery,” despite the earnest endeavors of its protagonists to justify it. The Pontiff expressed a doubt as to whether there is any notable difference (except in intention) between these “Catholic” writings and the deliberately salacious productions of a commercialized press.2 [2] The original French version of the Pope’s address is contained in Nos Cours (Montreal, 1951), Vol. 13, no. 6.

In its instruction the Holy Office reiterated the papal injunction: the norms of Christian modesty must be conscientiously respected. In effect it cautions Catholic writers to be on their guard lest they become unwitting sources of scandal for casual readers, since the easy availability of such pamphlets and books constitutes a danger to human weakness. To warn readers in a preface that the work is “only for adults” or “only for: present or future spouses,” has too often the effect of serving as a stimulus to the pruriency of Adam’s offspring.³ [3] The Church has such an exalted regard for the demands of modesty that a privately distributed (but very well known) Instruction of the Holy Office, under the date May 16, 1943, reminded confessors that even the absolute integrity of confession must be sacrificed where scandal for the penitent or danger for the confessor would be risked by (otherwise necessary) detail.

It is regrettable that there has been such a wide diffusion of books treating sexual initiation. Their general distribution has, in some instances, been furthered by apostolic members of the clergy personally convinced that a service is thereby rendered the faithful. The mere fact that such works are not on “the Index,” or even possibly carry an Imprimatur, is no certain guarantee of the conformity of their contents to the mind of the Holy See. 4 [4] *Cf. Instruction of the Holy Office, March 29, 1941, AAS, 33 (1941), 121

The Problem of the Amplexus Reservatus

It is concerning the amplexus reservatus that the Instruction and this present article are especially concerned. It perhaps would be itself a violation of modesty to describe precisely what is meant by the Latin phrase. While the usual Moral Theology textbook does not use the words employed in the Instruction, still the term is nearly self-explanatory.

It will suffice to explain that the phrase has reference to a carnal union between the spouses which ends without an actual orgasm. It has the added distinction of being imported from the Orient, where the techniques of sensuality are an exquisitely developed art. A certain amount of practice and self-restraint are needed to acquire the ability, but once the technique is mastered a highly satisfactory sex life is quite possible. In the amplexus the partners, having achieved a studied control over the nervous system, commence the marital act in a normal fashion, but interrupt it without its fecundating effect taking place. This control is based on known psychological and physiological principles, joined to a species of autosuggestion.

This method, so its hucksters maintain, safeguards both the conjugal happiness of the couple and the exigencies of Moral Theology, while at the same time it precludes the conception of new life. Insofar as its morality is concerned, its fautores declare that there can be no reasonable objection to it, for it is, they say, no different from touches and other intimacies permitted spouses.5 [5] Cf. Paul Chanson, L’étreinte réservée, témoignage des époux (Paris, 1951), p. 7 et sqq.] Is this position tenable? The Holy Office appears to think otherwise.

The Catholic Teaching

The wide reception already given this doctrine in Europe is only another proof of the extent to which the “New Morality,” an ugly duckling of that false “irenicism” condemned by Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis, has penetrated into the minds of some Catholics, even of some priests. It is a morality that is subjective, utilitarian, viewing as of less value objective arguments and tradition in support of a position, than the number of partisans and the appeal of expediency that position happens at the moment to have. 6 [6] Cf. the present authors’ treatment of a similar error in The American Ecclesiastical Review (Washington, 1952), vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 173-181: A New Conjugal Morality?

Catholic moral teaching on the use of the generative faculty requires that this use have the aptitude to achieve the purpose of the faculty. The primary purpose of the conjugal act is the same as the primary purpose of marriage itself: the procreation (and subsequent education) of offspring. Thus, intercourse outside marriage is wrong, in the final analysis, because it does not take place in a total context propitious for the begetting and educating of new human life.

The use of marriage is itself licit to the extent that this use respects the intrinsic ordination of the act toward the primary and other ends of matrimony. Such is the divine intent embodied in the natural law, and the perfect observance of this law envisions the licit exercise of the conjugal union as containing the maximum co-operation which can be offered by man in the work of begetting new life.

This is to say nothing more than that the act does not exist for the pleasure, but that the pleasure has been attached by God to the performance of one’s marital duty. The moral evil of onanism (which, of course, the amplexus is not) does not lie in the material loss of seed; it is in the formal guilt of that egoism that seeks selfish gratification by disordering a pleasurable act from its due end.

In view of this, can one rightly say that simply because a couple has the right to commence the marriage act (a thing in itself perfectly good), that they similarly have the right to interrupt it without its normal termination? The practice of amplexus reservatus, it should be observed, is not concerned with two successive and distinct intentions — one to perform the marriage act, and another consequent one: its discontinuance for some proportionately grave and unforeseen reason. The amplexus is concerned rather with a pre-established plan by which from the beginning it has been decided that the act will be incapable of leading to conception because it will not be allowed to reach its normal termination.

An Objection Answered

Perhaps one may introduce the objection previously referred to: “The amplexus is really no different from the caresses and imperfect acts allowed a married couple in their ordinary love life.” This argument, which has a colorable claim to consideration, is frequently advanced by those who advocate the practice. But is this objection valid, especially if the amplexus is the habitual practice of partners who are committed to a policy of performing the act in such a manner that it will not be completed and so will not be fecund?

It must be remembered that imperfect acts are in general permitted when they prepare proximately or remotely for the normal union of the spouses. By the same token, they are certainly to be judged with indulgence and without the making of fine distinctions when they constitute simply a means to foster mutual love, even apart from intercourse. They are so intended by nature as an aid to promote a climate favorable to the begetting of new life. But in the case of the practice mentioned in the Instruction, the circumstances are otherwise, for by it the spouses seek venereal pleasure (even perhaps greater than that resulting from normal completion, at least from the point of duration if not from the point of intensity), and at the same time they deliberately exclude the primary end of the marriage which allows it.

If one affirms that the technique, which prescinds from the purpose of venereal pleasure, is licit simply because there is not a full completion, then how can one call “grave” and “contrary to the good of the species” incomplete solitary acts? Theologians agree in declaring that the grave sin in violations of purity does not result from the mere loss of seed, but from the faulty intention of using a faculty without subordinating such use to the faculty’s purpose. In a word, one obtains to a greater or lesser degree the satisfaction attached to a particular funcetion but without the will to accept the annexed responsibility.

From this sound principle theologians conclude that the slightest venereal pleasure deliberately sought for outside marriage is a serious transgression of God’s law. Similarly, it may be logically deduced that in marriage one does not escape some imputability of a selfish action turned from its due end, simply from the fact that one has achieved the ability to prevent that act from terminating. This deduction would seem to hold with special efficacy when the method recommended to prevent the completion of the sexual act is at the same time even presented as a means to increase sexual pleasure! 7. [7: Cf. Vermeersch, De Castitate, (Roma, 1921), p. 339 et sqq.]

An additional serious flaw in the arguments developed to support the entire morality of amplexus (perhaps yet more telling against its proponents than other flaws) is that the practice in effect implies an equation between the secondary personal ends of marriage and the primary procreative end of marriage. The due ordering of the hierarchy of ends may not be ignored without flying directly into the face of repeated papal pronouncements, notably the address of Pius XII to the Congress of Italian Catholic Midwives in November of 1951.8 [8: Cf. The Brooklyn Tablet (New York, Nov. 10, 1951), p. 6].

Finally, human nature being what it is, an habitual use of the amplexus would seem to include a serious danger of yet more manifest and graver violations of chastity, onanism for example, since any studied exaltation of concupiscence tends fatally to lead to a casting aside of all moral restraint.

Docility to the Mens Ecclesiae

What reactions can be expected to result, in time, from this directive of the Holy Office? Among most of those affected by it there will be a ready submission to its letter and spirit. Among some of the advocates of the amplexus the reply will doubtless be heard, “Well, after all, the Congregation has not said that it is contrary to the natural law or in any way intrinsically evil. Rome has not directly forbidden the book of Chanson, nor condemned his teaching in so many words.”

That is quite so. The Church has not so categorically fulminated against this Oriental refinement. But for souls who are prepared to accept the thesis that the way to eternal salvation is not a primrose path; who are even ready to be as heroic as Pope Pius XII has exhorted all men of these days to be; who are pleased to be guided in all docility by the warnings of the Church without demanding more positive demands — such souls will find in themselves a willingness to abide by the Church’s maternal admonitions.

It matters not whether one is a priest who must, as a guide of souls or as a confessor, be informed about the Church’s attitude, or whether one is of the simple faithful for whom the problem perhaps has deeply personal implications. In either case, “sentire cum Ecclesia” is more than merely a bit of sage counsel. It is the office of sons.

Both in Europe and on our own continent there will be more discussions in this regard. We submit that authors who praise the practice of the amplexus as a happy solution to a vexing problem thereby forfeit the confidence of moral theologians, even though they may merit no censure otherwise. Surely it is not an indifferent question, about which one is free to follow whatever opinion one happens to fancy. That much is certain.

Insofar as confessors and preachers are concerned, they are not at liberty to speak as if nothing in the Christian law interdicted the amplexus reservatus. Nor may writers, clerical or lay, interpret it as something unobjectionable. To do so would be in contravention of the vigorous phrase of the Instruction:

“ . . . numquam, sive sponte sive interroganti, ita loqui praesumant (sacerdotes) quasi ex parte legis christianae contra ‘amplexum reservatum’ nihil esset obiiciendum.”

“Roma locuta …”

“Why then,” one may inquire, “did not the Holy Office employ a positive form of expression to condemn the amplexus, saying, for example: ‘The practice is opposed to the natural law — utterly evil — contrary to Catholic morality?’ Why this indirect formula forbidding one to speak ‘as if nothing were opposed’ to the practice?”

The reply to such a query would simply be that the Church ordinarily reproves error in very much the same terms as the proponents of an error adopt in their expression of it. And the advocates of this exotic Oriental importation have consistently referred to its morality in guarded phrases, indirectly and substantially in this form: “From a moral point of view, nothing is opposed to it.” It is against this general approval that the Holy See has proportioned its own denial. One could scarcely expect a more extensive and detailed statement. At least not for the present.

Insofar as concerns a positive text on the completely licit use of marriage, one might cite the solemn and clear teaching of Pius XI in the immortal encyclical:

“. . . any use whatever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”9 [9: N.C.W.C. translation, p. 20.]

In its Instruction (although of course guided by the principle enunciated by Pius XI) the Congregation of the Holy Office does not speak so bluntly about the immorality of the amplexus reservatus, and so as to the degree of its malice there is still room for discussion among theologians. But it is surely not open to discussion as to whether or not the practice is in complete accord with the Christian moral law. On that particular point, “Roma locuta. . .”