III. Corollaries of the Demonstration Made

327. - Several things can be gathered from the demonstration and the genus of the argument.

1. The essential malice of pollution is to be placed neither in the loss of semen nor in the conjoined pleasure, but in the separated complete use of the generative faculty. This could also have been drawn from II-II, question 153, article 3. Therefore, as Rev. Dr. Van Roey ¹ observes, pollution, morally considered, is most excellently defined by the Most Illustrious Dr. Waffelaert: The complete use of the genital members outside intercourse.

¹ Quaestio specialis, p. 5.

328. - 2. Wherever that use is present, pollution of the same specific rationale must be acknowledged.

That complete use supposes in the male an erection with ejaculation of semen, at least broadly so called, and therefore even if spermatozoa are absent; but in the female, those contractions and movements of the vagina with distillation which accompany orgasm. Indeed, whether the distillation itself of the woman is necessary can be doubted.

And so, that we may speak consistently:

a) The pollution of a man and that of a woman do not differ in species. This is the common opinion, from which Lehmkuhl, I, 1039, is compelled to recede in order to be consistent with himself. But this very thing betrays the defect of his explanation. If the essence of pollution had to be derived from frustrated se- men necessary for generation, it would have to be said logically that the woman lacks pollution or, as Rev. Dr. Van Roey ² observes, that by her pollution, falsely so called, she does not sin against nature.

² Quaestio specialis, p. 19, in the note.

Wherefore a person who accuses a complete act is not to be questioned concerning his or her sex.

b) Nevertheless, we do not therefore deny that additional gravity proper to male pollution which Forel ³ notes thus: "Seminal loss through masturbation has in the man something particularly depressing, because it misses its end."

³ La question sexuelle, 9th ed., p. 235.

The pollution of a young man and of an old man, of one who has reached puberty and one who has not but who is nevertheless capable of copulation, and of a eunuch, so long as he remains capable of copulation, do not differ from one another in species. Thus also holds the common opinion, against Noldin ⁴ and certain others. Ballerini ⁵, however, reduces the pollutions of old men, those who have not reached puberty, and eunuchs, insofar as they emit useless semen, to immodest acts, so that in practice they need not be questioned about a complete exterior act. But cf. what will be said below concerning affection, nos. 332 and 337.

⁴ De sexto, no. 29, and this follows from the notion which he gives of pollution: he composes it of a twofold element, complete pleasure, in which the essence of the sin would consist, and the futile effusion of semen against the order of nature, which would add a specific malice. These things are not approved by us.

⁵ Opus theologicum, vol. II, no. 1028.

c) The pollutions of infants and of impotent persons who, when erection is lacking ⁶, are not capable of copulation, differ in species from those pollutions. Although they emit some liquid, the act is seen to be imperfect. And so, if they confess depraved acts, the confessor ought not to be solicitous about distinguishing complete and incomplete acts. Cf., however, what we shall write below concerning the effect of the complete act, no. 332.

⁶ Those who are impotent because of excessive heat experience true pollutions, as is manifest.

329. - Since complete pollution, and indeed as an operation and not only as pleasurable, is intrinsically evil ⁷, it would never be lawful for a person to procure this pollution for himself in order to preserve

⁷ The manner of our demonstration, drawn from the very notes of pollution, makes this manifest.

life, even, as it seems, contrary to what Alberti insinuates, De sexto, etc., no. 57 at the end, with the sense of lust removed, if a case were to occur, for example, in which diseased or corrupted semen had to be expelled. The authors therefore solved this fictitious case well, although they were impeded by their unfortunate argument from proving the matter clearly. Semen, they reasoned, was given to us for the multiplication of the species alone; wherefore every administration of semen has been taken away from us. Sanchez ⁸ perceived well the falsity of this rationale. For how would the obligation be demonstrated to preserve, with danger to life, corrupted semen, useless and even harmful to generation, which consequently no longer has any order toward the multiplication of the species? What prevents it from being expelled? Wherefore Sanchez attempted to polish and perfect this rationale by alleging the danger of delusion.

⁸ De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 17, nos. 15, 16.

But the prohibition of pollution is not a prohibition against pouring forth semen, but a prohibition against using the generative faculty or the genital members. Wherefore, even to explain why it is lawful for the saving of life to cut off the testicles themselves, by which semen is produced, while it is forbidden to expel the semen, it is not necessary to have recourse to the subtle distinction which Lessius uses: because the testes or testicles "are parts of the body, and therefore we can dispose of them as of other parts of the body. But semen properly and truly is not a part of the body, nor was it instituted for the good of the body, but for the sake of procreating offspring ⁹." We shall speak more simply: since no positive use either of the testes or of the semen for the good of the species is now commanded, for a proportionate cause it will be equally lawful both to amputate the testes and to expel the semen by some way other than pollution.

⁹ Lessius, De iustitia, etc., book 4, chapter 3, doubt 14, no. 96.

330. - 4. Natural pollution which occurs through sleep, in adult age, sometimes ¹⁰ to a young man or a celibate man, objectively incurs no reproach. This, with Sanchez ¹¹, Lessius ¹², Busembaum ¹³, and most theo- logians hold ¹⁴, against certain authors who find some disorder in it ¹⁵. Wherefore it will be lawful to desire it by a simple affection because of the conveniences which follow it, and to rejoice in it after it has occurred, while guarding, however, against a present excitation of lust.

¹⁰ How often? This usually varies according to age, bodily temperament, morals, and the seasons of the year. For pollution to occur twice a month in young men is altogether moderate. But there are those who experience it more rarely, and others more frequently, for example every week. There are also those in whom it occurs on several continuous days, after which a new pollution is separated by a longer interval. Concerning an unusual frequency, especially one which fatigues the body or renders someone less capable of labor, a good physician will usefully be consulted. Cf. above, no. 82.

¹¹ In Decalogum, book 1, chapter 2, no. 19.

¹² De iustitia, etc., chapter 3, no. 104.

¹³ De sexto praecepto et nono, under doubt IV.

¹⁴ Cf. Van Roey, Quaestio specialis, p. 26, note 4.

¹⁵ In the same place.

But is it lawful to procure it voluntarily by a suitable means?

In order that we may resolve that question prudently, it must be observed that this pollution does not occur in sleep without pleasure of sense and commotion of the body. Cf. Sanchez ¹⁶ and St. Thomas himself, who already explains the matter thus: "When the seminal liquid superabounds... the sleeper dreams of those things which pertain to the expulsion of this kind of abundant liquid ¹⁷."

¹⁶ In the cited place, no. 20.

¹⁷ II-II, question 154, article 5.

Wherefore one who wills it by a direct intention intends not only a pollution of the vegetative life but also of the sensitive life, and thus by his mind completes the pollution itself. Moreover, a pollution can no longer be called natural which is definitely voluntary when nothing manifests that it will be produced by nature. Therefore, this is no more lawful than it would be lawful for someone to supply nocturnal pollutions by voluntary diurnal pollutions. Lessius therefore wrote most excellently: "In no way is it lawful to procure it, nocturnal pollution, or in any way to assist toward it, or to do anything for the purpose that it may occur ¹⁸."

¹⁸ In the cited place, nos. 104, 105.

But if a celibate man has experienced spontaneous nocturnal emissions as more difficult or rarer, and for this reason is badly affected nervously during the day, he can with a safe conscience take a suitable medicine, not indeed that he may obtain some definite pollution, but that evacuation in general may be rendered easier. For he directly effects nothing other than so tempering his body that nature can act regularly.

331. - 5. Since no solicitude is to be had concerning the conservation of the semen itself, we entirely approve the recommendation made by Capellmann ¹⁹ where he treats of nocturnal pollution: "If the spasm and excitation of the genitals has been somewhat diminished, for previously this generally cannot be done, I vehemently

¹⁹ Medicina pastoralis, De sexto praecepto, II.

recommend that those who awaken while suffering pollution immediately empty the bladder by urinating. For a full bladder presses and irritates the seminal vessels; but if the bladder is emptied, the irritation is always greatly diminished."

By this action, indeed, some portion of the semen will be expelled more quickly, but the process of pollution will be interrupted more quickly, and no use of venereal things takes place, which alone is to be avoided.

332. - 6. One who, whether man or woman, whether before or after puberty, whether potent or impotent, if he or she has sought complete use in vain, either directly or indirectly, so that he or she has lacked the satiating pleasure which is the sign of complete use, commits by affection the sin of pollution, which is grave; but effectively or externally is not guilty of consummated lust.

But in practice this distinction is important between those who have not reached puberty, especially so long as they are sufficiently distant from the age of puberty, and eunuchs, especially those who were castrated late: those before puberty, who have experienced neither copulation nor true pollution, because of their ignorance will rather be presumed immune from that affection in immodest touches, while that affection is most easily judged to be present in the impure attempts of eunuchs. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1039, 3, 4.

333. - 7. A woman who has experienced lustful satiety has truly admitted the sin of pollution. Nor does it matter whether or not that effusion of vaginal liquid was present which is indeed present for the most part, but does not pertain to the essence of the sin. Another, however, would speak otherwise concerning this matter ²⁰.

²⁰ For example, Bucceroni, Institutiones, First Part, vol. I, no. 813, compared with no. 811.

But in practice it is certain that no question concerning the effusion of liquid is to be put to a woman who has confessed satiety. Cf. Noldin, De sexto, no. 30 ²¹.

²¹ Observe in this matter what difference there is between Ballerini and Noldin. Ballerini, if pollution properly so called is to be denied to a woman, reduces all the venereal things proper to her to imperfect acts; while Noldin, even then, separates the complete act from imperfect acts. For he distinguishes in species imperfect acts, the complete act, that is, complete venereal pleasure, and pollution, which superadds the effusion of semen, broadly so called. Cf. no. 29, 3.