THE MARITAL ACT:
IT'S NATURE AND MEANING

Nonmarrried males and females are capable of engaging in genital acts because they are endowed with genitals. But when nonmarried males and females have sex, they do not, and cannot, give themselves to each other and receive each other. They cannot do so precisely because they are not married. They have refused to make each other irreplaceable and unsubstitutable persons; they have refused to give themselves to each other and to make each other spouses. Their sexual act does not unite two irreplaceable and nonsubstitutable persons; it merely joins two individuals who remain in principle replaceable, substitutable, disposable. Their bodily act, as John Paul II correctly points out, is therefore a lie (Familiaris Consortio, n. 11).

Like nonmarried males and females, husbands and wives are capable of engaging in genital acts because they have genitals. But unlike nonmarried males and females, husbands and wives are capable of giving themselves to one another and of receiving one another; they are, in short, capable of engaging in the conjugal or spousal or marital act, the act proper and exclusive to spouses. And they are capable of doing so precisely because they have freely chosen to give themselves to one another and to receive one another irrevocably as spouses. Through their act of marital consent they have made each other irreplaceable and nonsubstitutable persons; they have freely given to themselves the identity of husband and wife, of spouses, and they have therefore capacitated themselves to do what spouses are capable of doing, and one of the things that spouses are capable of doing is to engage in the marital or conjugal act.

An analogy may be helpful here. I cannot diagnose diseases and prescribe remedies for them; I cannot do so because I have in no way freely chosen to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to engage in those activities. But doctors, who have freely chosen to discipline themselves and to acquire the knowledge and skills proper to the medical profession, are capable of engaging in these activities. They have capacitated themselves to do what doctors are supposed to do. Similarly, husbands and wives, unlike nonmarried males and females, have freely chosen to capacitate themselves to do what spouses are supposed to do: to give each other a unique and exclusive kind of love, to express that love in the conjugal or marital act, and to receive the gift of new human life.

From what has been said thus far we can conclude that the marital act is not simply a genital act between a man and a woman who "happen" to be married. It is, as we have seen, an act made possible by marriage itself. It is, therefore, in its proper human and moral sense, an act participating in marriage itself and in the goods or blessings of marriage, i.e. the goods of children and of faithful conjugal love. Precisely as marital, therefore, it is an act 1) open to the communication of conjugal love and 2) open to the gift of new conjugal life.

Thus, if the husband, in choosing to have sex with his wife, refuses to give himself in a receiving sort of way but rather seeks simply to use his wife to satisfy his sexual desires, he is not, in truth, engaging in the conjugal act, nor would his wife be doing so were her object simply the gratification of sexual desires. To be truly marital and fit for "consummating" the marital union, the freely chosen genital act between husband and wife must be engaged in, as the Code of Canon Law says, humano modo, i.e. in a morally upright way, in a way respectful of the goods and blessings of marriage (Canon 1061).

A remarkable passage, one frequently overlooked, in Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae brings out this important truth. In it he said that everyone will recognize that a conjugal act (and here he was using the expression in the purely descriptive sense as a genital act between persons who happen to be married) imposed upon one of the spouses with no consideration of his or her condition or legitimate desires "is not a true act of love" inasmuch as it "opposes what the moral order rightly requires from spouses" (HV, n. 13). It is, in reality, not a true marital act, for it violates one of the essential goods of marriage, namely, conjugal love, and precisely for this reason it does not inwardly participate in the marriage itself but rather constitutes an act of spousal abuse.

Indeed, as Pope John Paul II has reminded us, a husband can in a true sense commit adultery with his own wife if he simply uses her as a means to gratify his lust without any concern for her or even regard for her as his wife. (cf. Blessed Are the Pure of Heart: Catechesis on the Sermon on the Mount and Writings of St. Paul, pp. 135-141, esp. pp. 138-141). In saying this, the Holy Father simply reaffirmed the Catholic tradition. After all, a husband can look lustfully at his wife and commit adultery with her in his heart, and if this is what he intends in having sex with her, he is committing adultery in the flesh as well. This was the common teaching of the Fathers of the Church and of St. Thomas, who said that if a man has intercourse with his wife, not caring that she is his wife but simply a woman whom he can use to satisfy lust, he sins mortally (Supplement to the Summa theologiae, q. 49, a. 6). Marriage does not enable men and women to engage in lustful sexual acts  their sinful hearts do this  but it does enable them to engage in the conjugal or marital act.

Because it participates in the goods or blessings of marriage, the conjugal act is also one open to the gift of new human life. Conjugal love is, after all, a fertile or fecund love, one procreative in nature (see Gaudium et Spes. n. 50; HV, n. 9). The marital act, which uniquely expresses conjugal love, is thus the sort of act meant to welcome new human life. As Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them" (Lk 18:16).

Hence, just as husbands and wives violate their marriage and render their sexual union nonmarital if, in choosing to unite genitally, they deliberately repudiate conjugal love or the unitive meaning of the conjugal act, so too they violate their marriage and render their sexual union nonmarital if, in freely choosing to unite genitally, they intentionally repudiate its life-giving or procreative meaning.

The marital act, precisely as a human moral act, participates in the marriage itself and in its goods or blesssings. It fittingly expresses the intimate communion of persons between husband and wife, a communion established by their marital consent, and it opens them to the great gift of new human life, capacitating them to "welcome it lovingly, nourish it humanely, and educate it in the life and service of God and man." (See St. Augustine, De genesi ad literam 9, 1; PL 34, 397). If spouses freely choose to set aside either the great good of conjugal love or that of new human life to which their marital act is open and for which it is fit or apt, they make their act to be nonmarital in nature and violate their marriage.

Moreover, the marital act of Christian spouses is not only a morally good and excellent act, but a holy one as well (Supplement to the Summa, q. 49, a. 4). Since the marriage of Christians inwardly participates in and makes efficaciously present here and now the bridal union of Christ and his Church, their marital act participates in and makes efficaciously present this love-giving, life-giving, grace-giving union. Intentionally to set aside either its life-giving or love-making meaning, then, not only makes their act nonmarital but also desecrates its sacramental character.

William E. May is a professor at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family located in Washington. D.C. He is author of numerous books, a member of the International Theological Commission and a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars.