Now there are several different ways of viewing this new and added sexual possibility in the human family, namely, the act of coitus for other than reproductive purposes.  The Catholic church has always counted it as a sin.  Popes have issued edicts regarding it, and conclaves of Bishops have discussed it and passed resolutions regarding it.  There has always been a difference of opinion upon the subject amongst these dignitaries and authorities, but they all agree in one respect, namely, that it is a sin.  The only point of difference has been as to the extent or enormity of the sin!  By some it has been reckoned as a “deadly sin,” punishable by eternal hell fire, if not duly absolved before death; by others it has been held to be only a “venial sin,” one that must always be confessed to the priest when coitus is engaged in, and which can be pardoned by the practice of due penance. But, always, it was a sin!

The Protestant church has never issued edicts regarding this matter, but, for the most part, it has tacitly held to the Catholic teaching in theory, while universally practicing the reverse, in actual married life.  Protestants have looked upon it as a necessity, but have taught that it was regrettable that such was the case.  They have held, with Paul, that, “it is better to marry than to burn.”  And most of them have chosen the marriage horn of the dilemma.

Among some European nations, attempts have been made to make it impossible for husbands and wives to cohabit except for reproductive purposes.  In one of these nations, padlocks were used for preventing the act.  A slit was made through the foreskin of the penis, and through this slit the ring of a padlock was passed, much as an ear-ring is passed through the lobe of a lady’s ear.  The padlock was made so large that it could not be introduced into the vaginal passage, and so coitus was impossible when it was worn.  It could only be removed by the magistrate into whose hands the regulation of this part of the citizens’ life was given.  Specimens of these padlocks are still to be seen in European museums.

Now the terribly immoral thing in all this way of living has always been the fact that it compelled people to continually violate their consciences, by pretending to believe one thing and constantly practicing the reverse of their proclaimed belief.  That is, it lured them into living a continual lie, and such can never be for the good of the soul!  It goes without saying that the sooner this abominable way of living can be ended, the better it will be for all parties concerned—­the individuals who are the victims of such falsehood, and the communities of which they form a part.

From all this it follows that the first thing every new husband and wife ought to do is to settle clearly in their own minds the issue as to whether it is right or wrong for them to engage in coitus for any other than procreative purposes.  Having settled this point, one way or the other, then let them conscientiously act accordingly.  For only so can they live righteous lives!