Article I: On Softness, or Pollution

92. Pollution is voluntary effusion of human semen outside intercourse. It is called also softness, not because it is a sin only of the soft or effeminate, but because by this sin the mind is softened and relaxed by pleasure.

It is said: voluntary. For if the effusion of semen occurs while the will in no way consents, no sin is present. Hence nocturnal pollution, if it is entirely involuntary, is not a sin, although it may sometimes arise from a preceding culpable cause.

It is said: effusion. Thus, for pollution, emission of semen is required, whether this occurs with or without touch, by sleep or waking, by oneself or by another, directly or indirectly, provided it is voluntary in itself or in its cause.

Of semen. Semen or sperm, properly speaking, is the humor naturally apt for generation, in which are contained the spermatic animalcules, which are also called zoospermata or spermatozoids. In the male, therefore, pollution is distinguished from distillation, which is a certain excretion from the urethra, often caused by weakness, irritation, or other bodily causes, and not true semen. In women there is no truly prolific semen in the strict sense; nevertheless, according to the common and older doctrine, there is in them an emission and consummated venereal pleasure, which has the moral nature of pollution, as will be explained below.

Outside intercourse, or concubitus. For if semen is emitted in a due conjugal act, it is not pollution, provided the act is otherwise ordered to generation according to nature. But if it is emitted apart from such intercourse, or if the intercourse itself is turned aside from its natural order, there is pollution or another sin against nature, according to the case.

93. Proposition 1. Directly voluntary pollution is always a mortal sin. This is certain from the very nature of the act, because in it semen, which nature has ordained to generation, is voluntarily and vainly poured out against the order of nature. Thus Innocent XI condemned this proposition: "Masturbation is not prohibited by the law of nature." The contrary is held by the common judgment of theologians and by the constant doctrine of moralists.

The reason is taken from St. Thomas: "If any emission of semen follows in such a way that generation cannot follow from it, this is against the good of man, which is the conservation of the species." St. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 154. a. 11. For nature has not given this humor for private pleasure, but for the propagation of the human race. Hence to use it outside the order appointed by nature is to pervert the natural institution in a grave matter.

Nor does it avail to say that nature sometimes expels semen of itself. For what nature does according to the order implanted by God is not contrary to nature; but what man voluntarily does against that order is contrary to nature. Thus it is not against nature that one die from defect of strength; but it would be against nature if one wished to take away his own strength for that reason.

94. Corollaries. 1. The special malice of pollution consists, as is clear from what has been said, in the vain effusion of semen against the order of nature. Therefore this sin differs in species from every impure touch, which indeed is followed by venereal pleasure, but not by any effusion of semen.

2. Voluntary pollution, for the sake of escaping any disease whatever, or the danger of death, is always a mortal sin. This is the most common doctrine of the doctors. It is entirely lawful, for the preservation of life and of the whole supposit, to cut off from a man some member, a hand or a foot. For no inconveniences ever lawfully follow from that cutting off; since the natural appetite vehemently abhors it as a most troublesome thing, men will not easily abuse that means and extend it beyond the case of extreme necessity. On the contrary, since pollution is a thing bringing great pleasure, to which nature itself inclines, the greatest danger is present lest, if it is ever lawful, men abuse it to the detriment of the species itself. And thus, for example, it is never lawful, not even in the case of extreme necessity, to violate the sacramental seal; because if this were lawful even in a most rare case, the sacrament of penance would be rendered hateful to the faithful, and they would be removed from it, to the greatest detriment of souls; just as, in fact, men are often deprived of the good of seeking counsel because they know that in some cases such a secret can be manifested. Sporer 640. 641.

"But if you object that it is sometimes expelled by nature, nothing is thereby concluded; for what is done by nature is not against nature, but by the author of nature; nor for that reason can it be lawfully done by us. Thus it is not against nature that one die from defect of strength; but it would be, if one for that reason wished to take away his strength from himself." Scavini. Cf. Gury, de Matr. et iur. n. 1315.

Lessius, De Iust. et iure, l. 4. c. 3. d. 14. n. 96., rightly says: Pollution "is a deadly sin, even if it is procured not for pleasure, but only for the sake of health or of mitigating temptation; both because temptation is not thus conquered, but yielded to and succumbed to; and because, if this is lawful, why did the saints undergo so much fasting and other austerities for taming the flesh? why was this combat held by the holy fathers to be the hardest and principal combat of the Christian man? finally, because, if one does not wish to use other aids, this work has indeed been granted as a remedy for concupiscence, but in legitimate marriage, not outside it; for a natural institution must not be perverted for an extrinsic and accidental end. Hence if anyone wishes to use this work for this end, he must enter marriage. It is confirmed, because the primary end of that work is offspring, and therefore it requires that state from which offspring can be received and rightly educated, which is marriage."

"For the same reason it is not even lawful for the sake of health, except in legitimate marriage. Nor is it an objection that it is lawful to draw blood for this end, and even to cut off a member, because these are instituted only for the good of the individual: for parts are for the good of the whole; hence we can dispose of them according as it is expedient for the health of the individual. But generation is only for the propagation of nature; hence we cannot use it except in that mode in which generation can follow."

3. To the simple malice of pollution other malices can be added by reason of circumstances, and this generally holds also for other species of lust, "for example, if a priest is polluted, sacrilege is added; if a married person, adultery; if with the desire of sinning with another person, a malice is added according to the quality of the person desired; likewise another malice is added if someone is polluted by delighting in an imaginary intercourse with some person, male or female, married or unmarried. Likewise another malice is added if he is polluted by the touches of another." L. 476.

95. Proposition 2. If the discussion is about pollution indirectly willed in its cause, he who without sufficient cause places an action from which he is going to suffer shameful motions, which nevertheless, although he foresees them, he does not intend, sins gravely, if that action is of itself mortal in the genus of lust and of itself gravely influences the pollution; he sins lightly, if that action is of itself venial in the genus of lust and of itself lightly influences the pollution; he does not sin in any way, if that action is of itself simply honorable and of itself has no influence on pollution. The reason is that, since the pollution is not willed in itself, but only in its cause, and therefore happens apart from every intention, it will be evil in the degree in which the cause itself is evil. Struggl, Tr. 7. q. 7. art. 1. n. 5.; L. 481. and following.

But a cause as such is evil according to the measure of the greater or lesser efficacy which of itself it has for the depraved effect. Moreover, pollution indirectly willed is also in itself, directly in the cause at least implicitly, truly willed, if without some other sufficient reason one wills a cause gravely influencing it of itself. For this shows a depraved affection of the will toward that pollution. But it is only permitted, if one wills its cause which of itself either in no way, or only lightly, influences it. For the cause then by its nature is not necessarily ordered to an effect of this kind, nor is the affection contained in that cause by necessary connection.

To the point are the things which Billuart has, Diss. V. art. 2. par. Confirmatur Conclusio. "If a man," he says, "were bound under mortal sin to avoid every action from which ordinarily a light venereal commotion follows, it would follow that one must condemn as mortal sin for the most part the non-necessary conversations of men with women, especially of young men with girls, familiar conversations, various recreations honest in themselves, in which flattering glances, soothing words, touches, kisses, embraces in honorable parts from friendship, play, lightness, very easily occur, since from these for the most part light venereal motions arise. But although these are to be avoided, nevertheless there are few, if any, who condemn them as mortal sin, where there is absent the danger of consent to venereal pleasure itself, nor is this the practice of confessors in the tribunal. Therefore."

Here also belong the things which Cajetan has apud Ithur., Cas. 18. n. 6., and apud Billuart, Diss. 6. art. 12. par. Confirm. Conc. He speaks of pollution arising from hearing confessions and says: "The voluntary indirectly, that is, because it is in the power of the will, is not imputed to the will except from the fact that it can and ought to act and does not act. In the proposed case this pollution does not fall under the voluntary except indirectly, namely because the will does not turn away from the hearing which is its cause. And although the will can, nevertheless it is not bound to turn away from such an act of hearing, thinking, and the like. Therefore this is not imputed to the will. The minor is declared. Because no artisan ought to omit the beginning and prosecution of his work because of defects consequent from the necessity of the matter; for someone would foolishly omit the construction of a saw or sword because they contract rust, on the ground that they are made of iron, and so with other things. But pollutions and stings of the flesh in the proposed case happen from the necessity of the matter, from the fact that the venereal matter is material to be purged, washed, disputed, preached, thought about; thence by a natural consequence follows commotion of the flesh, etc. Therefore a man ought not, on account of defects occurring from the necessity of venereal matter, to omit not only necessary, but useful thoughts, speeches, hearings, etc. For otherwise it would be necessary that either angels or very privileged men only should dispute, hear, etc., about such matters; the contrary of which ecclesiastical custom has, and reason teaches." Cf. also Elbel, de act. hum. n. 16.; Lessius l. 4. c. 3. dub. 14. n. 97-102.

96. Corollaries. 1. If the cause, even though gravely culpable in itself, is outside the genus of lust, as for example drunkenness, or the use of meats on Friday, etc., then certainly either all, or at least grave, efficacy of causality for that depraved effect is lacking; and therefore by reason of the subsequent pollution, although foreseen, but by no means intended, venial sin is not exceeded.

2. "If in some body, by reason of infirmity ... or another cause, there is a positive indisposition toward venery, although causes are applied to it which otherwise of themselves gravely influence pollution or carnal delectation with respect to others ... nevertheless with respect to that one ... they will not be gravely influencing, but only lightly, or even in no way; or they will be causes materially only of the genus of lust. Therefore commonly ... by reason of their influence on pollution he will not sin mortally." Salmant. T. 26. c. 7. n. 41. And this holds even when there has been grave fault in the act which gave occasion to the pollution, which is then judged to follow by accident.

3. If actions even gravely influencing "are placed from a cause necessary, useful, or convenient to soul or body, then ... the pollutions arising from them, even foreseen, are not sins, provided the danger of consent is absent. Thus commonly.... Hence, by reason of necessity, even when involuntary pollution is foreseen, it is lawful for parish priests and also for other confessors to hear the confessions of women, and to read treatises about shameful matters; for surgeons to look at and touch the parts of a sick woman, and to study medical matters ... to serve in baths.... It is lawful for someone who suffers great itching in the private parts to drive it away by touch, even if pollution follows.... But by reason of decorum, it is lawful to speak with, kiss, or embrace women according to the custom of the country ... and similar things." St. Alphonsus, l. 3. n. 433.; l. 6. n. 29. Finally, because of the aforesaid convenience and utility, it is lawful to ride on horseback not only for the sake of necessity and utility, but also for recreation; to lie down in a certain bodily position for more comfortable rest; to take warm foods or drinks moderately, and to lead honorable dances.

4. "A woman or man who, because of the placing of one thigh over the other, has felt a sensual motion, is not bound to change the manner of position, provided she is determined not to consent and there is no danger of consent; because we are not bound to avoid acts influencing pollution by accident." Diana, Tr. 6. de aliq. cas. circa mat. lux. Resol. 12. n. 4.

5. When for some persons there is a cause of necessity or utility for doing something from which pollution follows, if they consent to venereal delectation, they are to be treated in the same way as those who are in a morally necessary occasion, and therefore are to be absolved as long as a reasonable hope appears that they will render the occasion remote. L. 438. 483.; l. 5. n. 63.; l. 6. n. 453. 457.; D'Annibale, ed. 4. n. 94.

97. Proposition 3. 1. Just as directly willing and procuring pollution itself, or venereal delectation, is a grave sin, so consequently it will be a grave sin directly to will and procure libidinous distillation, namely distillation with a partial effusion of semen, or with only carnal commotion and venereal delectation, so that one directly wills and procures each. "Moreover, just as pollution itself, only indirectly voluntary in the cause placed, is only as much a sin as the cause itself placed in the genus of lust, so the same reasoning must be carried through concerning libidinous distillation and commotion." Sporer 659.

2. "Non-libidinous distillation, namely that which happens without any delectation or sensual venereal pleasure, although a light erection of the genitals is present, is not a sin. The reason is that if such distillation were a sin against chastity, this would be either because it is venereal delectation, or because it is a proximate danger for venereal delectation, or at least because that humor is dispersed. Not the first, because we are speaking about that mode of distillation in which no sensual delectation is present; not the second, because if the effusion of that humor brings no sensual delectation, there is no reason why, considered by itself alone, it should bring a proximate danger of consenting to illicit venereal pleasure; nor the third, because that humor dripping without pleasure is not semen, nor does its effusion harm generation as the effusion of semen does." Sporer 660.

98. Corollaries. 1. One need not be disturbed about that distillation which occurs insensibly. About that which is slight and with light commotion, "it seems no more to be cared for than sweat," Cajetan, Opusc. 22. q. 1.; therefore it can be permitted, provided one remains merely passive without any other consent to venereal delectation. Salmant. 33.

2. If the matter is considered practically, "directly and deliberately to procure any distillation whatever, even light, can in no way be excused from mortal sin." L. 477. The reason is that if the distillation is notable, it "cannot be without notable rebellion of the flesh; hence just as he sins gravely who procures notable commotion, so also he who procures great distillation." But if it is light, "in reality any distillation whatsoever always, or for the most part, carries with it some commotion and an effusion of a little semen." Thus L. ibid.

99. Do impuberes, whether boys or girls, and eunuchs, who by immodest motions try to emit semen, since they cannot do so, sin by the sin of pollution, or only of immodesty?

Resp. These are the words of Tamburini, de 2. Eccl. pr. c. 17. n. 13: "Those who, from defect of age or from another cause, such as impuberes and eunuchs, cannot by immodest motion pour forth semen, or pour forth useless semen, sin mortally ... but certainly this species of sin differs from true pollution, whose character is to cast out semen against the end of generation, which casting out is not such in the aforesaid; therefore the sin in impuberes is really reduced to immodest touch." Thus Sporer 639. "It is answered that it is indeed a mortal sin, to be reduced to softness; for it is of itself a depraved affection toward pollution. Nevertheless it seems to differ in species from true pollution, by which there is sowing, and is properly to be reduced in species to immodesty of touch; hence it is to be explained in confession." Thus also Holzmann, Babenstuber, and others.

Yet St. Alphonsus teaches the contrary, 476., openly affirming that "the pollution of eunuchs and boys, although they do not have perfect semen, differs in nothing from the pollution of adults." Cf. also Ithur., Cas. 23. n. 13. and following. But in reality the act seems specifically distinct in malice, since that act is essentially incomplete, and therefore from its intrinsic nature is still orderable to a complete act, and that humor is in no way prolific.

Nor does it avail to object that male semen necessary for generation is adequately constituted, first, from spermatozoids or spermatic animalcules; second, from the spermatic lymph which the testicles secrete; third, from the humors which the seminal vesicles, Cowperian glands, and prostate secrete, which in the act of ejaculation are mixed with the spermatic lymph. Hence that whole aggregate of spermatozoids and humors constitutes complete semen; for spermatozoids would be wholly unequal to generation unless they actually swam in those humors, and therefore that effusion of humors also is against generation. For although spermatozoids, in order to be apt for generation, must live in that spermatic humor which the testicles secrete, nevertheless the other humors which the other glands secrete serve immediately only to moisten and protect the organ through which the prolific semen must pass so as to be emitted outside, and to expel every foreign matter from that canal, so that the prolific semen may remain pure and not be mixed with foreign matter. Therefore humors of this kind neither essentially constitute prolific semen, although they are mixed with it in its passage, nor are they necessary for generation as containing the active power of generation, which resides only in the spermatozoids, or as a necessary medium in which the spermatozoids naturally live. And indeed before the sperm is poured forth outside, the spermatozoids certainly live in the spermatic lymph, nor do they need, in order to live, the humor of the other glands. Lugo, de Poenit. D. 16. n. 175. 338.

Eunuchs, lacking both testicles, emit only mucus, especially of the prostate and urethra, without any emission of semen.

100. Do women, who lack truly prolific semen, when they procure pollution for themselves, commit the special sin of pollution, or only of immodesty, as was said for impuberes and eunuchs?

Resp. Several of the more recent theologians affirm this because of the reason indicated in the very question. Hence they deduce that the confessor can abstain from every further interrogation, since this malice of pollution is not diverse in species from the malice of touches.

But it seems that this must altogether be denied with the very common and unanimous opinion of the older theologians, although even very many of these did not consider the woman's semination necessary for conception. The reason is that, although that humor is not of itself prolific and necessary for generation, it is nevertheless by its nature destined for the generative act; for it is ordered to accomplishing this more certainly and more easily. Hence in the effusion of that humor there is still frustrated the order of nature in the gravest matter of human generation, to which, outside concubitus, that whole act is now no longer orderable; and therefore it is against nature. But it is asserted wholly without proof by the adversaries that this reason does not really convince. For if that act, as they themselves assert, has a natural destination toward generation, therefore it is against the order of nature that this act be deprived of its natural end. And hence the difference is clear between the pollution of women and that effusion of impuberes and eunuchs. For the latter is intrinsically and essentially a physically incomplete act, and of itself orderable to a complete lawful act, namely conjugal intercourse; while on the contrary the pollution of women is intrinsically and essentially a physically complete act, as is clear even from the very series of phenomena of excitation which precedes and of quiet and satiety which follows. Therefore, if it occurs outside all concubitus, it is of itself no longer orderable to a complete lawful act, namely conjugal intercourse; for that emission of vulvo-vaginal mucus indicates the perfect pleasure attained, which by nature is ordered to the generative act. Antonelli, v. 2. p. 216. n. 471. note. Therefore again it is an act against nature.

Nor truly does it avail to press that, although that act is against nature and therefore of itself illicit, nevertheless it is not gravely, but only lightly illicit, since that uxorial act is not for the simple being of generation, but only for its better being. "Moreover, to abuse," says Billuart, l. c., "not only the things necessary which are ordered by nature to generation, but also useful things, is a mortal sin: thus he would sin mortally who deprived himself or another of one eye, although it is not absolutely necessary, but only useful, for seeing." But if that were not gravely illicit, and by its intrinsic nature, then women, for whom marriage is so burdensome, content with that pleasure alone by which they are enticed by nature to the work of marriage, would by no means apply themselves to the same work, and there would no longer be any limits to uxorial masturbation and conjugal onanism on the part of those wives. Indeed, for impure women marriage would be a way of more and more fostering and increasing impurity, since they could then exercise it without grave sin.

Nor again can it be urged that at least in that pollution of a woman the proper notion of pollution is lacking, namely the vain effusion of semen against generation, since nothing is done against this. For in the pollution of a woman two things must be very carefully distinguished. The first is the effusion of humor, which is by no means necessary for generation but only useful; the other is the shedding of the ovule, which not only occurs naturally and spontaneously at the time of menstruation, but is also effected by this venereal excitation, which ruptures the follicle in which the ovule is contained, both by the erethism of the whole organ of generation and by the secretion of the humor with which it is filled. And the better physiologists affirm this, admitting masturbation in a woman, and coitus and the excitation of the genitals, to influence the shedding of the ovule. And this is the true intimate reason why, as all admit, the semination of the woman renders conception easier and more certain. Therefore, insofar as this venereal excitation tends of itself toward the shedding of the ovule from the ovary, it contains the true malice of pollution, since the ovule is on the woman's part the element altogether necessary for generation, which, fecundated by contact with the spermatozoids of the male sperm, displays the generation of a new individual. Therefore, as in the man the malice of pollution is in reality not in the vain effusion of humor, but in the vain shedding of spermatozoids from the testicles, or more properly from the seminal vesicles, in which resides the power of fecundating the ovule, and that shedding of spermatozoids is accompanied by that effusion of the remaining humor, whence this has from that its character of being against nature; so likewise in the woman the malice of pollution is not in the vain effusion of humor, but in the vain shedding of the ovule from the ovary, to which that effusion of humor tends, whence this has from that its character of being against nature. Cf. Milne Edwards, Tom. 8. pp. 338. 339. 355. 356. 359. 360.; Tom. 9. pp. 106-109.; Longet, traite de physiologie, Paris, 1850. Tome 2. 3rd part, pp. 80-95. 125.; Billuart, l. c.

Nor, finally, does it avail to object that this shedding of the ovule from the ovary is not against generation, because in reality nothing else then occurs than that very thing which occurs at the time of the menstrual flow, when the same shedding of the ovule is had. Therefore by venereal excitation at most there is nothing but a certain anticipation of that period, namely of the menstrual flow, by which the woman may conceive more easily and more certainly. For indeed nothing would be done against generation, if it were done in order to perfect the conjugal act. But since the thing is done independently of the conjugal act, the matter is evident: that act, as being no longer referable to intercourse, is against generation, and that shedding of the ovule is altogether vain, because then it is shed not so that it may be fecundated and live, but so that it may be corrupted, which in reality happens. But that by that menstrual flow there is periodically had that shedding of the ovule, although no conjugal act follows or can follow, does not press the point; for what nature does according to the order established by the creator himself is not against nature. But from this, as we have already observed, it cannot be deduced that the same thing is lawful for man to procure by his own action. Cf. the Letter of Cardinal Patrizi to the Archbishop of Malta, July 28, 1873. Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques, January 1882, p. 89.

Lastly, if the semination of a woman contains only the malice of immodest touch and of simple venereal delectation, it does not exceed venial fault at least probably in a married woman. And certain modern authors seem to affirm this; or if they do not affirm it, they certainly contradict themselves, affirming at the same time that feminine pollution is not a consummated sin against nature, and that in spouses it is a grave sin only if it is contrary to the primary end of marriage, namely voluntary pollution and sodomy.

Nevertheless, that a married woman sins gravely in the aforesaid semination, and consequently against nature, is clear also from the following resolution of the Sacred Penitentiary:

"Tibullus, hearing the confessions of women whose husbands are often accustomed to be absent and who do not easily contain themselves, teaches and persuades those same women that they do not sin in the following cases:

"1. If, by desiring their own absent husband, they suffer sensual commotion or pollution.

"2. If they desire to experience this same pollution in themselves from ardent love of the absent husband.

"3. If they excite pollution in themselves by touches had with themselves, provided they refer these acts to the absent husband.

"The Sacred Penitentiary replies to the beloved in Christ who writes: that on this matter it has already twice been answered by this sacred Tribunal, and that acts of this kind are gravely illicit, and that a confessor approving them is to be denounced." Sacred Penitentiary, September 2, 1904.

101. Are all pollutions of the same species?

Resp. "All pollutions according to themselves are of the same species, in whatever way they occur, if they occur without concubitus." L. 476. 467. It is said, according to themselves, because by reason of a circumstance, of the person, or of interior delectation and desire, or of cooperation in the sin of another, other malices can be joined to it. If they occur without concubitus: for this limitation see here n. 103.

102. Corollaries. 1. It is not necessary to explain in confession whether one has polluted himself immediately by his own hands, or by means of some instrument. 2. Copulation with a dead woman has neither the malice of fornication, because she is no longer a woman, nor the malice of bestiality, because a dead woman is not a beast, but it has the malice of simple pollution; just as one who would enter into concubitus with a picture or statue of a woman or with a woman's garments, etc. Nevertheless this will have to be explained in confession, at least generally by saying: I polluted myself with an inanimate instrument, with affection toward a woman. For there is present pollution and affective fornication. L. 466.; Sporer 639.; Diana l. c. resol. 6. n. 5. 3. "He who pollutes himself with an alien animate instrument, or parts of the body of another person, for example, besides the hands, the ordinary instrument of touch, between the arms, armpits, hips, breasts, etc., of a woman or man, etc., is indeed bound to explain that person, by reason of cooperation.... But there is no need to explain those particular parts of the body themselves, because they differ only materially, and that greater pleasure sought in one part does not transcend the species of malice which is in another, unless there were some particular affection toward preposterous parts and sodomy, which certainly would have to be explained." Sporer 636.; Billuart l. c. Cf. following n.

103. Is pollution had by touching a boy, or a woman, sleeping, or incapable of fraud, or the private parts of beasts, but without concubitus, of a different species from simple pollution?

Resp. "The first opinion affirms, and says that such pollution with a boy is sodomy, but with a woman is begun copulation. The second opinion holds that it is simple pollution. The reason is that, when concubitus is absent, they say that it is material whether pollution occurs by one's own touches or by another's. It is then sufficient to confess: I had pollution by alien touches. For when concubitus is not present, there is not affection toward the sex, but toward pollution; and this is the more probable. Therefore Roncaglia, de VI Praec. c. 7. q. 6., notes with Bonacina, Trullench, and Filliucci that, if someone is polluted by the touches of another, it is not necessary that he explain whether by the touches of a man or a woman; because, since only pollution is then intended, it is also material whether it happens by the touches of a man or of a woman. Nevertheless it must be said otherwise if it was done by the touches of a married woman or one having a vow of chastity." L. 467. 474. But the difficulty here is to reconcile these things with what is said by the same holy doctor, Hom. Ap. tr. 9. n. 3., where he asserts that sex must be explained in touches, because, he says, touches "are all of the same nature as the consummated act." Cf. n. 31.

104. If semen has become corrupt, is it lawful to expel it by medicines, even if besides the intention some emission of true semen follows?

Resp. Affirmatively. Thus the doctors more commonly. The reason is that those medicines of themselves directly tend only to the expulsion of corrupted semen; but some effusion of true semen follows by accident and besides the intention, which cannot be called illicit, since all concede that it is lawful by remedies to expel other harmful humors, although pollution follows by accident, just as it is also lawful to take a drug for expelling disease, even if an inanimate fetus is to be expelled indirectly, according likewise to the common opinion. "I judge this opinion," says St. Alphonsus, 478., "sufficiently probable, provided however, first, that the semen is certainly corrupt, not if doubtfully; second, that the expulsion of the corrupt semen can be done without a sense of lust, for since this is very dangerous it must not be attempted except in extremes, as Anacletus well warns; third, that there are no other remedies for curing the corrupt semen. Nevertheless it is never lawful by touch to expel corrupt semen, even if the danger of consent is absent; this must altogether be held with Sporer, etc. The reason is that, although a remedy is permitted, because that remedy of itself tends only to expel the corrupt semen, nevertheless friction is in no way to be permitted; because this of itself tends to move the carnal spirits and to expel true semen, which is never lawful." Therefore neither practically nor speculatively does the opinion of those theologians seem probable who think that at least sometimes it is lawful to rub the private parts to expel corrupt semen, although venereal delectation and even the effusion of prolific semen itself will follow. Billuart, l. c. Diss. 6. art. 12. Petes, at the end.

105. Is it lawful to take medicine to corrupt true semen, and afterward, now corrupt, to cast it out?

Resp. "Sanchez, Bonacina, Anacletus, Roncaglia, etc., probably concede this. The reason is that nature does not oblige one to preserve semen with danger to life; for if," says Sanchez, "it is lawful to amputate testicles for the protection of life, although without them a man is rendered altogether impotent for generating, why would it not be lawful to corrupt semen?" Liguori 478.; Billuart l. c.

Note. Physicians deny the hypothesis of corrupt semen. For either the semen still remains in the seminal vesicles, or it has left them. If it remains, then it remains sound until emission. And if it is not emitted, then it is absorbed, conferring new strength on the organism. If it leaves, it is immediately expelled by ejaculation or urination, and it can no longer return into the vesicles. But even if the hypothesis is admitted, they deny that it can be established by any certain sign; and although it could be established certainly, they say that no medicine known hitherto is present which has a power of itself to expel it. Debreyne, 1. P. ch. 1. art. 1. Sect. 1. S. 3.

106. Is one bound to prevent pollution involuntarily begun?

Resp. Some affirm, because they say that it is false that any danger of disease is present from it. These are the words of P. Debreyne, "Moechialogie," Brussels, 1853, p. 26: "There are those who think," says that author, a monk of the great Trappe and a medical doctor, "that the spermatic liquor, when once it has more or less gone out from its receptacles, is necessarily corrupted and harms health because of its state of corruption and its morbid qualities. But these things are most certain and demonstrated from the principles of physiology, namely, first, that that part of the semen which reaches as far as the urethral vessel must necessarily be emitted outside the body either immediately or with urine, and no time is present in which it can undergo any alteration; second, that the spermatic liquor which was to be the matter of pollution, however impeded, and which has not yet been ejaculated from its vessels near the gland, goes back within, or remains in the same receptacles with its natural and vital qualities. Nor is it itself the cause of any disease because of its corruption, but rather supplies force and vigor either to body or to spirit." Hence they say that pollution soon imminent or begun must be checked, by retaining ejaculation, by seeking, if it happens at night, a cold place in the bed, by jumping out of bed, etc. Vernier.

The same Debreyne, l. c. p. 57., suggests another means: "For at least one or two moments, with the first two fingers of either hand, a rather strong compression must be made before and near the anus, or rather above the anterior margin of the anus, that is, at the beginning or origin of the urethra, or little canal of urine, so that its passage may be blotted out for a little while, and consequently every flow of semen may be prohibited. But for this end, and so that this work may be rightly carried out, a somewhat difficult condition is required, namely awakening or at least half-awakening, so that compression may be exercised at the time of pollution imminent or sometimes already begun."

But others commonly deny. For then one does not will that pollution naturally begun and naturally continuing, but merely permits and suffers it. L. 479. "The same seems to be said of any involuntary pollution whatsoever, whether it happens in sleep or in waking, since the reason of both is the same as to this, as I have already said from Cajetan." Billuart, l. c. Diss. 6. art. 13. at the end. "Nevertheless great care must be taken lest one who awakens in such a way, or otherwise senses an involuntarily arisen pollution, not only permit or not repress it, which alone is conceded, but also by some positive effort or impulse promote or complete it, even only as to pushing out some remaining drops of semen, in almost the same way in which those urinating, when the flow ceases, are accustomed to push out a few drops; which indeed would not be lawful without grave sin, if it were done altogether deliberately." Sporer 657. 642. 656.; Ithur., Cas. 23. n. 30.

107. Note. "When pollution begins in sleep and emission happens in half-full waking, then, if the man experiences some delectation, not fully deliberate, he indeed sins only venially." Liguori, ibid. "He who has suffered pollution in sleep, although he doubts whether in that point of time he had sufficient use of reason or not, nevertheless cannot be judged to have sinned mortally, but rather the contrary must be presumed." Suarez, de Relig. T. 2. Tr. 6. l. 4. c. 6. n. 9.

108. Is one bound to impede directly, by positive resistance, depraved motions of concupiscence involuntarily arisen?

Resp. Negatively; nor indeed is this expedient, since the imagination then grows inflamed by that very effort, and by natural sympathy of faculty with faculty excites the genital spirits more and more. The more opportune remedy will be indirect positive resistance, namely tranquilly to invoke God, and to turn the mind and imagination away from obscene images, and to apply them by serious application to other things, especially to exterior affairs. Thus commonly.

109. Does he sin gravely who purely permits those depraved motions of concupiscence, namely without having complacency in them or displeasure at them, but conducts himself negatively?

Resp. He sins mortally if there is proximate danger of consent. But, when that danger ceases, it is not mortal, but venial, not to resist positively those inordinate motions, if there is not a just cause excusing from resistance; but if such a cause is present, when that danger ceases, it will not even be venial. This is proved, first, because knowingly to expose oneself to a proximate occasion of sin is a grave sin. It is proved, second, because actual consent of the will is required for actual sin. But he who only negatively resists a thing gravely prohibited does not actually consent to the shameful thing; for he places no positive act of the will. Therefore. It is proved, third, for reason dictates that a man ought to guard lest the sensitive appetite draw the will after itself; but when proximate danger of consent is lacking, this obligation is only light. Therefore. It is proved, fourth, because when the question concerns a venial sin which is not such from its intrinsic nature, as for example a lie in a light matter, but only by reason of something extrinsic, any just extrinsic cause then makes the act honorable and excuses from venial sin.

These are the words of St. Alphonsus: "It must be noted that there is no obligation to resist carnal motions positively, if there is a just cause for not resisting, namely if one has experienced that by resisting the motions are more excited and increased, or if the motions have arisen from a necessary or useful action ... if it is not an easy matter to repel them. It is therefore enough then to conduct oneself negatively with a firm purpose never to consent; for the actual care of not consenting itself then suffices to free a man from fault, at least mortal, even if not from venial, if the resistance is tepid, as they say. Tollet, Cajetan, Laymann, etc., with the Salmanticenses. But Croix, with Azor and Sanchez, supposes as certain that in the aforesaid case, when the temptation lasts long and it would be too troublesome continually to repel the motions positively, it is no sin to permit them, conducting oneself negatively. And Cont. Tournely with Sylvius counsels those who are of timid conscience to act thus." l. 2. n. 9. And in the same place, n. 8., the same holy doctor says: "If the motions are light, it will be better to contemn them without positive resistance." Ithur., Cas. 18. n. 9. 10.; Billuart, Diss. 6. art. 15. Sect. II.; St. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 35. art. 1. ad 2.

110. If actions which of themselves in no way, or only altogether lightly, influence depraved motions or even pollution, gravely influence those same effects by reason of a particular infirmity and subjective disposition, is one bound under grave sin to abstain from such actions?

Scavini affirms, Tr. 4. D. 2. C. 3. art. 1. Sect. 2. post q. 3., who cites Roncaglia and the Salmanticenses. Cf. L. 423. 484. But it seems that this must be denied, with proximate danger of consent to those depraved effects nevertheless excluded. The reason is that subjective disposition cannot change the intrinsic nature of that action, and therefore cannot make it gravely illicit if it is in itself only lightly illicit or even simply lawful. But that depraved motions or even pollution follow from it is by accident; and, when the cause is honorable in itself, this case is the case of a cause honorable in itself having a double effect, one good of itself, the other evil and indeed by accident. Therefore one can, in placing that action, pursue his own right. Nor is there lacking on the part of the agent a sufficient and proportionate reason for such a mode of acting; for he who is so sensibly affected by honest things themselves is subject to innumerable scruples and anxieties, and if he should wish to avoid all things by which he can be badly affected, he is forced to live a truly intolerable life. And indeed this is confirmed by the very common practice of confessors, who, if ever they come upon such penitents who are affected perversely even by most holy things, counsel them to proceed with simplicity and to contemn such depraved motions entirely if they arise. But if that action is altogether lightly illicit, of itself "there is no grave obligation" to avoid it, L. 484.; but practically "it is, as it were, morally impossible for men commonly to avoid all these causes." L. ibid. Cf. here n. 95. 96. And Billuart, Diss. 6. art. 12. Dico 1., admits this even if pollution follows. And this indeed follows altogether logically from the commonly received principles.

Nevertheless, as regards practice, the moderation of St. Alphonsus greatly pleases me. He distinguishes between "actions altogether lightly shameful" and "actions which influence pollution more vehemently, although of themselves they do not reach mortal sins, if from these frequent pollution follows," by reason of the proximate danger of consent which can be present, and of the depraved disposition of the will, whence things which perhaps of themselves do not yet gravely influence pollution acquire grave malice by reason of depraved affection. When the matter practically reaches these terms, men of conscience not very delicate certainly suffer great illusion in this matter, although they would openly be unwilling to admit grave sin. These are the words of the holy doctor: "The Salmanticenses rightly say, and Roncaglia agrees, that he is not excused from mortal sin who has experienced frequent pollution from some causes in the same genus of lust, which more vehemently influence pollution, and otherwise voluntarily and without necessity places them, although in themselves they do not reach mortal sins; such as, namely, curious reading of shameful things, sight of an obscene picture or of the coitus of animals, touch of one's own private parts or of another from levity, and similar things. The reason is that, with respect to that person, because of his depraved disposition, such a cause does not influence lightly. But they say otherwise if pollution from causes of this kind rarely happens, as the Salmanticenses, l. c. And otherwise also if the causes are altogether light, as would be the sight of the honorable parts of a woman, lightly shameful reading, conversation with a woman not long-lasting or lightly obscene. The reason is that it is, as it were, morally impossible for men commonly to avoid all these causes. Thus Sanchez and the Salmanticenses." L. 484.

111. Is one bound to omit communion because of pollution?

Resp. 1. Negatively, if it was involuntary, and this even if it arose from a venially culpable cause, provided that notable disturbance of mind, arising from that bodily commotion, does not endure; or one tries to repel it, doing what is in him so as to approach devoutly; otherwise, speaking of itself, it will be venial. The reason is that an external stain, since it is already past, does not impede present decency of body. 2. Negatively, if it was culpable and already retracted by due penance, provided there is a just cause of necessity or even of utility for approaching communion; otherwise it will be venial because of the reverence due to so great a sacrament; but this is sufficiently provided for by that proportionate reason which is present for receiving communion. Rubr. Miss. tit. 9. de Defect. 5.; L. l. 6. n. 272.