Case 10. The Vow of Chastity

Catherine, a professed nun in a certain religious Congregation, confesses with great difficulty and after many evasions that she sinned against the second vow by indulging in evil thoughts and also by touching herself immodestly. From her other statements Titius, the confessor, gathers that she sometimes procured an emission of semen, as she asserts, in no way for the purpose of taking pleasure but only to allay itching. Having heard this, Titius tells her that in such matters it is sufficient to confess the immodest touching. Hence it is asked:

1. What is the object of the religious vow of chastity, and does it comprehend internal acts?

2. Is there a specifically distinct sin of self-pollution both among men and among women?

3. Is it ever lawful to procure an emission of semen outside the use of marriage?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is the object of the vow of religious chastity, and does it include internal acts?

“ It is so well established among all that by the vow of chastity, by reason of religion, not only external acts of lust but also every internal act is forbidden, that it is unnecessary to dwell upon it.,” says Lehmkuhl (I, n. 687).

2. Is there a specifically distinct sin of masturbation both among men and among women?

“ Even in women there is an emission which differs specifically from incomplete venereal pleasure, and therefore must be distinctly accused in confession. Thus we opine with the common doctrine, even of the more recent authors,” says Génicot (I. n. 396).

3. Is it ever lawful to procure an emission of semen outside the use of marriage?

Insofar as a voluntary emission of semen outside marital intercourse is gravely and intrinsically evil, it is never lawful directly to procure it.

4. In the case. In order to fully confess, Catharina should declare how often she has indulged in evil thoughts, and how often she has touched herself impudently. She sought the emission of semen or full sexual pleasure to relieve itching, not to obtain pleasure. However, as far as the emission of semen was directly sought as a means to the end, and that means is intrinsically and gravely evil, Catharina committed a mortal sin. Lehmkuhl says (I, p. 586), nota: “ According to St. Alphonsus (III, 476), all condemn as mortal sin not only permitting pollution but procuring or intending it, even if it were done for the sake of health or of preserving life. Therefore the distinction between physiological and moral pollution, as though only the latter, which is done for the sake of pleasure, were unlawful, while the former were lawful if the intention and approval of pleasure were absent, is plainly excluded.”

From what has been said it follows by itself it is insufficient even for women to confess only an impure touch when complete venereal pleasure has been admitted. Nevertheless, a woman a confessor is not required to interrogate a woman who confesses an impure touch whether she committed pollution for, as Génicot says, citing Berardi: “Berardi rightly writes (Practice of Confessors, no. 851): ‘When a penitent says, “I touched myself,” if it is established that the person truly touched himself or herself lustfully, it must be presumed that the act was carried through to its natural end; hence (whether men or women are in question) I would say that questions about this matter can be omitted.’ It is true that some interrupt the act, even though they began it lustfully; but it cannot thence be concluded that confessors are obliged, for each and every person who confesses having touched himself or herself, to add questions in ordinary confessions about this interruption itself.”

1 Génicot, vol. i, n. 396.