“In his Theologiae Moralis, [Bishop Francis] Kenrick wrote that the wife had the right to bring herself to orgasm <<by touches>> after sexual intercourse, if she had experienced no climax during the intercourse. He also held that a husband who did not remain sexually active until his wife reached orgasm was guilty of a venial sin of omission and that it was mortal sin for a wife to distract herself during sexual intercourse in order to avoid having an orgasm. Kenrick founded his argument on Thomas Aquinas and Alphonsus Liguori. He pointed out that although there were some severe philosophers who rejected all enjoyment, St. Thomas said that they counseled badly. Kenrick further argued that passion could even add to the moral goodness of an act. Writing on concupiscence, he argued that consent to the passion resulting from a good act was itself another good act. This gave grounds to conclude that passionate sex in marriage was morally superior to sex without passion. However, following Aquinas, he argued that couples who engaged in sexual intercourse solely for pleasure without reference to one of the rational ends of the act incurred the guilt of venial sin. Kenrick also utilized the argument of Liguori, who permitted the same on the grounds of <<perfection>> to any child that might be conceived. Although Kenrick based his argument on Liguori, he eliminated the connection of woman's orgasm to conception and emphasized only her right for orgasm. In virtue of this omission, the encouragement of orgasm grew stronger and more unconditional. Further, in his list of reasons for a husband's obligation to seek intercourse, Kenrick replaced the negative purpose of helping the wife to avoid sin with a purpose of <<satisfying the wife>>.”
(The Concept of Sexual Pleasure in the Catholic Moral Tradition, Shaji Kochuthara, pp. 243-244)
Several errors are present within the preceding quote. Here's what we find in Kenrick:
71. Vir, juxta plures, postquamseminavit, teneturuxorem, siipsa non seminaverit, expectare, ut actus generandi sit integer: aliineganteumteneri: "concedunttameneipossescontinuarecopulamusquedumseminetfemina, quia hoc pertinetadcomplementumcopulaeuxoris." (Liguori, vi, 918)
72. Si vir se retrahat post seminationemsuam, sed ante seminationemuxoris, poterithaec, juxta plerosque, tactibus se excitareadseminandum, quiautriusqueseminatiopertinetadeundemactumconjugii. "Omnesautemconceduntuxoribus, quae frigidorissuntnaturae, posse tactibus se excitare ante copulam, utseminent in congressumaritalistatimhabendo." (Liguori, vi, 919)
73. Peccatmortalitervircopulaminchoando in vase praeposteroutpostea in vase debitoeamconsummet. Itacommunius et veriussentiumtheologi. "Ratio quia ipse hujusmodi coitus (etsiabsqueseminatione) estverasodomia, quamvis non consummata, sicutipsa copula in vase naturalimulierisalienaeestverafornicatio, licet non adsitseminatio." Viriliaperficare circa vas praeposterumuxorisestetiammortale: "ratio estquiasaltemtalistactus non potestmoraliterfieri sine affectasodomitico." Kenrick, Theologiaemoralis, III, 310 https://archive.org/stream/theologiaemoral02kenrgoog#page/n326/mode/2up
Note that throughout there is talk of female "semination," based on the biologically erroneous idea that some female seed is then released to assist conception.
In #71, Kenrick says the man, "according to many," may continue the marital act after his semination (ordinarily a venial sin) until female semination if that has not already occurred.
Failing that, in #72, it says that if the man withdraws after male semination but before the woman's semination, he may, "according to many," stimulate her by touch unto semination, "because her semination also pertains to the same conjugal act." The quote from Liguori says this may be done before the act if the wife is known to be "frigid" (again, flawed biology presuming some defect in the woman).
Lastly, in #73, it's made clear that this permission does not extend to unnatural acts, be it sodomy or vas debitum, which remain mortal sins even in marriage, according to the consensus of theologians.
Kendrick's citations from St. Alphonsus Liguori may give the impression that the latter endorsed these views. However, St. Alphonsus's "probabilist" method in his Theologiae moralis was to present multiple views on undecided questions, giving the reasons for each. In the section cited (Liguori, vi, 918), he explains the diversity of opinion on this question. Some hold with Hipppocrates and Galen that the "semen maternum" is plainly necessary for conception, while others hold with Aristotle and Avicenna that this is not necessary for generation. This latter opinion is held by the common consent (sententiacommunis) of theologians. Nonetheless, many who hold this latter opinion also think that the "female seed" confers some perfection to the offspring. At any rate, St. Alphonsus says the second opinion (not necessary to generation) is more common and more probable.
This leads up to the question in Liguori, vi, 919, whether the man may, after male semination, yet before "female semination", tactically stimulate her unto semination. Those who deny this give the reason that the "woman's seed" is not necessary to generation, and also because, if this occurs while separated, she is not one flesh with the man. Yet many give the affirmative, on the ground that "female semination" pertains to the completion of the conjugal act, which consists in the semination of both spouses, and also because women so "held in check after the provocation of nature" (i.e., frustrated) are continually exposed to great danger of sin, "often with men." The intent here is to dissuade onanism and adultery. As a third reason, "many" (plures) hold that the female seed is necessary or at least greatly contributes to generation. It seems that there was no theological consensus on this issue in the 16th-19th c., and that those who did uphold liceity (sententiaprobabilis) were grounded in the error that some "female semination" occurred to complete the act. This is an improper analogy with male sexuality, as is the early psychologists' assumption that this is equally necessary for satisfaction. The fixation on 'orgasm' took off in the 1920s (in a Freudian context) and again in 1965-75 (in a feminist context), but scientific evidence shows that this experience in women has no correlation to fertility, nor is it a regular natural occurrence in conjugal acts. In reality, the female experience is not binary, but involves a continuum of feelings of varying intensities and qualities. More importantly, satisfaction is strongly informed by the emotional context a woman finds in union, and attempts to reduce this to a sharp physiological release unwittingly repeat the error of equating male and female sexuality.
All of this is predicated on the faulty assumption that there is a "female semination" needed to complete or at least perfect the procreative act. It does seem strange that this wasn't considered masturbatory. Apparently, they felt so strongly that the procreative act needed to be completed that this somehow validated an ordinarily illicit act. The moralists cited by Liguori emphasized that this belongs to the integrity of the conjugal act, i.e., it is part of the act, not something extraneous to it. Without the "female semination" theory, however, there's no way to make that case any longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment