Article II. Applications

376. - Because of foreseen involuntary pollution, no one ought to abstain from an honorable action such as riding, gymnastic exercise, scientific study, the use of medical art, etc.; for a just cause then plainly excuses the effect.

But one who, while performing these things, notices imminent pollution and can easily avoid it but does not avoid it seems to commit a venial sin because of the rebellion of the flesh not repressed or tolerated without cause, and some danger of consent. Cf. Lessius, book 4, chapter 3, no. 100.

And one must act sincerely. In bed it is lawful to choose any position. But one who, when pollution is almost imminent, then places himself upon his stomach, unless he can allege another serious cause, ought he not to be judged to have done this on account of pollution? For what other cause did he then employ this certain and proximate means?

377. - To perform an unlawful action, even a gravely unlawful one, of a genus other than lust, for example drunkenness, gluttony, or excessive eating of stimulating foods, with foreseen pollution but without the intention of pollution, is not mortal from a violation of the virtue of chastity.

Nevertheless, it seems to be venial, because "to permit pollution without a reasonable cause always seems to be something indecent and disordered ¹."

¹ Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 45, no. 21; St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 484, at the end.

But it would be mortal to make oneself drunk with foreknowledge of masturbation to be performed, because this is a material sin which we must positively avoid under grave obligation unless a proportionate cause excuses.

378. - It is also venial, with foreknowledge of pollution, to read a base thing from curiosity, the danger of consent to venereal pleasure being excluded ². Concerning this matter St. Alphonsus says: "In practice, I would never concede it" (book 3, no. 484).

² Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 45, no. 18.

And because the cause is not judged to have a notable influence, San- chez ³ excuses from mortal sin one who perseveres in the aforesaid venially base things when he notices a proximate danger of pollution. Involuntary pollution is supposed. But beware of masked lust!

³ Sanchez, in the same place, no. 19.

379. - What is to be said of pollution which is foreseen as about to arise while someone, by touching and rubbing, attempts to extinguish heat in the genitals or itching?

The danger of consent being excluded, it is lawful thus to relieve non-venereal itching. In practice, however, penitents are to be exhorted rather to bear tolerable itching, especially since it is accustomed to be increased by rubbing. Let them also seek counsel from a prudent physician. A means will be indicated to them which is more efficacious and less joined with the danger of pollution.

But if the itching was venereal and tended toward pollution, it is certainly lawful for no voluntary cause to excite pollution.

But there is no slight difficulty in discerning this, especially in women, although the case is common to each sex.

These signs of non-venereal itching are proposed by Berardi ⁴: when the action immediately relieves the itching; if relief was sometimes obtained without venereal pleasure.

⁴ Praxis confessarii, vol. 2, no. 786.

But these signs of venereal itching are indicated: if there is no pain in the genital parts themselves which must be relieved; if the pain suddenly ceases when pollution has been obtained; if, when pollution has been obtained, the inducement to touch oneself is no longer present.

And because non-venereal itching is more ordinary, it can be presumed.

Cf. St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 483, 2. Moreover, if the itching participates in both rationales, no one is prohibited of itself from relieving it insofar as it is not venereal, while permitting the other effect. Cf. Berardi, Praxis, no. 398, approved by Alberti, no. 57.

Itching not rarely has as its cause neglected cleanliness of the genital parts.

Namely, not a few males, though not all, lest too much "smegma" be gathered under the foreskin, need, the foreskin having been retracted, to remove the matter adhering to the foreskin itself and to the corona of the glans. This is done by washing, which must be performed prudently but without anxiety or disturbance of mind. In order to avoid the danger of pollution, it will be better for one who fears commotion to perform this while almost fully clothed, rather than with his garments removed, when the phantasy has a greater occasion of excitation; and let a linen cloth be placed over it.

Indeed, every danger of pollution will be absent, according to Antonelli (I, no. 194), "if before washing the member is tightly constricted by the fingers near the base," and this until the washing is completed: "for constriction impedes the inflow of blood and therefore erection." "As regards women," the same author continues, "they should perform external washings, in the vulva, using a very light little cloth; and they should never wipe by rubbing, but only by applying the cloth and lightly compressing it by hand several times until the wiping is complete; because otherwise, namely by rubbing, the heat and irritation of the organs are increased, with proximate danger of consent to pleasure." (Medicina pastoralis, vol. 1, no. 192.)

380. - Concerning those very persons who suffer an intolerable irritation of the nerves in the genital parts which is calmed by pollution, and by which they are almost compelled toward certain touches and movements which induce pollution, Lehmkuhl ⁵ writes these things: "Certainly it is not lawful to perform any action which of itself provokes that effect, as touch and rubbing easily do; but neither do I think that, in that pitiable state, a man ought to be so constrained and studiously to abstain from every bodily movement which is certainly in no way judged of itself an efficacious cause of pollution, such as changing position in bed, placing one leg under the other, etc., provided that he does not thus intend pollution or undergo a grave danger of consent. For if some light action causes pollution, this takes its origin not from that action but from the peculiar and involuntary disposition of the agent; but to demand under grave obligation that he studiously avoid this action, if it is judged of itself truly to influence only lightly, on account of that miserable subjective condition, is in my judgment more severe. In every way, however, that man ought to take care that he detest the thing in itself and implore God not to permit him to fall."

⁵ Theologia moralis, I, 1042.

But because of the practical difficulty which penitents have in understanding these things, let the confessor be content with this general indication, that they abstain from touches which directly procure pollution; and for the rest let him leave them in good faith.

Nevertheless, let him beware lest he admit the case too hastily, or himself permit an act by which pollution is directly induced.

Wherefore let him also counsel the penitent to consult a God-fearing physician; and let the physician himself give counsel cautiously and prudently. For imprudent counsels are easily given in these matters by confessors who have been deceived by books.

381. - What is to be said of those whose nerves are so badly affected that they pass long hours, indeed nights, sleepless until pollution has been produced? Can they choose in bed a position which they know to be joined with pollution ⁶?

⁶ Observe that this connection is held to exist less because of the position of the body as such than because of contact with exterior things, for example bed linens, so that the pollution cannot be equated with natural evacuation.

It is no more lawful for them than for others directly to effect pollution.

And those who, even in these circumstances, positively flee pollution will be praised of themselves: they are distinguished cultivators of chastity and true martyrs.

Now speaking of the choice of a position which is at least honorable:

1. If at the same time they experience pain which is relieved by that position independently of pollution, the choice of the position is in no way to be condemned, since it has a most just cause.

If the position is also the most natural one which a healthy person would choose, or which they themselves were accustomed to choose before the illness, they are bound by no obligation to avoid that position.

The difficulty is greater when nothing except foreknowledge of soothing pollution seems to explain the choice of that position.

If the pollution were merely natural, the sick person would not be prohibited from choosing simply for the sake of sleep a position joined with pollution. For the permission of pollution would be merely passive, which is not imputed. For there is no positive obligation of impeding natural pollution, which is not evil; and we suppose the proximate danger of interior consent to be absent. But pollution is accustomed to arise not only from the disposition of the body but also from exterior circumstances voluntarily introduced through the choice of position. A position, for example, will be reclining upon the stomach, which brings the compression of the body against the bed.

Wherefore one who chooses that position actively concurs toward pollution. He therefore at least actively permits it. But active permission is honorable only on account of an end which does not presuppose pollution, while in the case pollution is said to be a prior condition of sleep. Yet because the connection is due to a special disposition of the body, that end or rationale excusing the permission will easily be present. Therefore we must bear solicitude that this excuse be held sincerely.

N.B. A lower carnal movement is better neglected.

382. - The opportunity returns here for the counsel that a good and most experienced physician join his effort with a spiritual father.

The same counsel must be given to those who, experience teaching them, feel themselves unequal to overcoming temptations without fasts, sleeping upon the ground, and other extraordinary penances of this kind, by which health itself is brought into danger. Although they do not have an obligation to employ those extraordinary means, those who tread that arduous path of virtue are to be praised most highly; at the same time, however, they must be aided so that the yoke of the Lord may be lightened for them without detriment to virtue.

There are also exceedingly rare persons who, wholly accidentally, because of a morbid condition of the body, are driven by observed continence to such a state that, deprived of the use of reason itself, they would have to be confined in asylums for the insane. Unless they can be aided by an honorable marriage, concerning them also that saying is valid: "Rather to die than to be defiled." Remedies, however, are to be sought from the best physician, who through suitable suggestions, even hypnotic ones if it seems appropriate ⁷, will endeavor gently and at the same time firmly to restore the dominion of the will.

⁷ Rev. Father Gemelli, Non moechaberis, although on p. 164 he declares himself little inclined toward the remedy of hypnotism, nevertheless admits on p. 228 that the method is sometimes necessary.

383. - On this occasion you will ask what is to be pronounced concerning those who are not even tempted during the day, but at night, in a state of wakefulness as they think, pollute themselves by hand.

Response. In the first place, it must be diligently investigated whether they were fully or only imperfectly awake. For it is certain that grave guilt cannot be induced by an action performed while half-asleep. For one half-asleep is not sufficiently in possession of himself to deliberate fully concerning things to be done. Therefore, strange rationales which occur to the mind, for example, "they are glad that now without sin they can satisfy them- selves," or other signs will demonstrate the defect of full consciousness.

Those who were awake are rather to be presumed to have done freely what they did. Nor does daytime immunity of itself prove nighttime innocence. For the very habit of nocturnal masturbation can remove temptations during the day. Furthermore, the warmth of the bed and the idleness of one lying down favor depraved phantasms, from which daytime labors distract and turn away the mind. Moreover, that they feel themselves to be affected entirely otherwise during the day is not at all surprising in itself: even those who commit wholly voluntary faults during the day, when the heat has ended, detest what was done and sometimes judge a new sin almost impossible.

Certain circumstances, however, can prove that all guilt or at least grave guilt is absent, as if this masturbation is connected with an involuntary circumstance, or if promptness of execution and quiet of conscience demonstrate a rather mechanical act. One who after a struggle yielded to temptation either acted when wearied by the struggle and disturbed in spirit, which will be an argument of excuse; or he acted with mind sufficiently present and not disturbed, and then the struggle itself is an indication of deliberation.

Not so rarely will the confessor remain uncertain. In practice, he will then regularly not permit Communion or Mass without prior confession, lest reverence toward the Most Holy Sacrament be diminished, or lest even a lesser effort be made against temptation; nevertheless, an impediment which suffices will be interpreted more benignly, so that someone, after at least a fervent contrition, may approach to taste the sacred banquet.

In general, he will beware of both things: lest by excessive facility he render the penitent negligent or more audacious; lest by excessive severity he depress his spirit.

Finally, note that because someone abstained from a depraved act in certain special circumstances of commotion, it is not thereby proved that he did the same freely in other circumstances.

384. - A mortal base act exercised with foreknowledge of pollution sufficiently connected with it is infected by a special malice against nature because of that foreknowledge ⁸. The sin

⁸ Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 45, no. 21.

is then committed when the act is exercised under this foreknowledge, but in no way depends upon the effect, that is, upon pollution having truly followed or not followed.

One who perseveres in a base act when pollution is imminent, although he did not previously foresee it, is to be blamed with the same guilt ⁹.

⁹ Sanchez, in the same place.

385. - It remains that we speak of nocturnal pollution.

1. As we have already warned, pollution which is effected by hand in a dream is a material sin; but that which flowed spontaneously from an abundance of semen or another cause is not even to be called a material sin ¹⁰. But nocturnal pollution of one sleeping never of itself induces the rationale of formal sin ¹¹.

¹⁰ Sanchez, In Decalogum, book 1, chapter 2, no. 20, where he also approves Vasquez speaking in the same manner concerning accidental pollution which arises during the day from a cause which ought not to have been avoided.

¹¹ St. Thomas, II-II, question 154, article 5.

2. But that which is intended before sleep through an efficacious means will be imputed. Whether it actually occurred or not, the same sin was committed, which is accused thus: I employed an efficacious means to produce nocturnal pollution.

But one who employed an inefficacious means to obtain it also sins gravely because of the depraved intention.

Thus far, the things which are agreed upon.

3. But they are accustomed to impute nocturnal pollution severely to those who, without the intention of this pollution, through blameworthy acts of interior or exterior lust, for example depraved phantasms of the day, gave a cause to nocturnal pollution.

Nevertheless, it can be doubted whether between daytime thoughts and actions and dreams of the night there is a sufficient connection to induce the guilt of pollution in a voluntary lustful cause. To us the connection seems too slight and accidental. For they have observed that those phantasms recur rather during the night by which the mind was occupied somewhat but not excessively during the day, so that it was not wearied. Wherefore one who morally revolved obscene things during the whole day seems to have posited a less efficacious cause of pollution than one who admitted them moderately or repelled them.

Wherefore, one who has experienced nocturnal pollution, unless he intended it, ought not to be solicitous concerning its cause. But if he intended it, whether the intention was efficacious or inefficacious, the very effect of pollution will not have to be accused.

386. - The cited passage of St. Alphonsus, in which he says that "pollution is not mortal unless it proceeds from a cause mortal of itself in the genus of lust," is sometimes explained so that acts "which in the rationale of an exterior act would be a grave sin against chastity if they arose from a lustful affection ¹²" are said to be causes mortal of themselves in the genus of lust. But this accords less well with the rationale which the Holy Doctor adds: "Since pollution... is willed... only in its cause, it will be evil in the degree in which the cause itself is evil." For if the causing act is not in itself blameworthy, it is not an evil cause but would only be so if it flowed from a lustful affection. Nevertheless, afterward, the Holy Doctor approves the more severe statements of Roncaglia. Wherefore we cannot allege St. Alphonsus as fully agreeing with us ¹³.

¹² Cf. Rev. Dr. Standaert, Collationes Gandavenses, vol. 4, p. 45.

¹³ Cf., however, Ballerini-Palmieri, vol. 1, no. 592.