Indirectly voluntary

Indirectly voluntary pollution is a grave sin, or a slight one, or none at all, according to the circumstances. If it arises from a cause gravely evil in the matter of lust it is a mortal sin, because in willing such a cause a man implicitly wills the pollution also. If it arises from a cause slightly evil in the matter of lust, as from the curious reading of a less than decent book, the pollution itself is more probably only venial, “because, since the pollution is not willed in itself but only in its cause, it will be evil in the degree in which the cause itself is evil.” If it is foreseen as following incidentally from an honourable action, as from riding, or from a manner of lying down adopted for a reasonable cause, there will be no sin. But if it follows incidentally from an action evil under some heading other than lust, as from drunkenness or from breaking a fast, it seems to be venial, since some fault against chastity as well is admitted when pollution is foreseen as following from an action one has no right to perform. Some excuse from all fault, even venial, a pollution which follows incidentally from an action only venially evil under a heading other than lust. As is clear, in this question we leave aside the danger of consenting to the pleasure arising from the pollution, which we have not supposed. Pollution in sleep which happens as a result of a previous mortal sin in the matter of lust is itself a mortal sin; if it follows from a venial sin in the matter of lust, or from the mortal sin of drunkenness, it is itself venial; otherwise it is no sin. If anyone awakes while undergoing a pollution, there is no obligation positively to suppress it, provided no consent is given: the mind ought to be turned to God or to other things lest it consent to the evil. Provided there is a just and proportionate cause for performing actions — as with physicians who treat women — from which a pollution is foreseen as following which is neither intended nor consented to, this will be no sin, as is clear from the principle of the double effect.

¹ St Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 3, n. 484.

² ibid.

Although women do not furnish seed but an ovum to be fertilised by seed in the conjugal act, they are nevertheless capable of a like complete pleasure in solitude, as the male sex is. Hence, just as in men the incomplete sin of immodest touch and pollution are distinguished in kind, so in women the consummated solitary sin is distinguished in kind from the non-consummated. So it seems must be held with the common opinion. Not always, however, in women who undergo a pollution

is there an emission outside the vessel, but the discharge remains within. From pollution, moreover, as is clear, the menses are carefully to be distinguished, which after puberty is reached and until the menopause nearly all women experience every month without any heat of lust.

Those under the age of puberty, who have no generative seed, are incapable of the complete pleasure which accompanies a consummated sin, and hence at least probably cannot physically commit the sin of pollution. By voluntarily taking pleasure in immodest motions those under puberty do indeed sin mortally, but probably, for the reason stated, it is only the sin of immodest touch.

We have seen that a pollution which follows from a cause only slightly evil in the matter of lust, and which is not voluntary in itself, is only a venial sin. But it is a question controverted among the Doctors whether, if because of some particular disposition or weakness of a person a pollution almost always follows from such a cause, he is bound under grave sin to refrain from performing the action — on the ground that the cause is then judged to influence the effect gravely — or only under slight sin. If there is proximate danger of giving consent, all admit that there is a grave obligation to abstain from performing the action; otherwise the opinion of many seems probable, that the obligation is only slight. For the reason assigned by St Alphonsus for the doctrine given above still holds good: “because, since the pollution is not willed in itself but only in its cause, it will be evil in the degree in which the cause itself is evil.” And the reason why the cause seems in this case to influence the effect more gravely is the subjective disposition of the agent, which is not willed, and therefore does not affect the imputability of the effect.

I. Notion. Indirectly voluntary lust, or lust voluntary in its cause, is understood as a venereal effect, whether pollution or venereal commotion, which is not intended, but which is foreseen as going to follow from an action and ought to be guarded against. It is said:

1. Which is not intended; for if the venereal effect is intended, it is directly voluntary.

2. Which is foreseen as going to follow from an action. A venereal effect which does not follow from an action, but flows from nature alone, is merely natural and is so called, as if diurnal or nocturnal pollution arises from superabundance of semen, from temperament, from weakness of the nerves, from the natural warmth of the body, or even from the action of the demon (II-II, q. 154, a. 5; III, q. 80, a. 7; St. Alphonsus III, 480; V, 20).¹

3. And ought to be guarded against. But to what extent it ought to be guarded against, or to what extent, if it is not guarded against, it is imputed, the principles now to be stated will explain.

¹ Merely natural pollution has place in some twice, in others once in a week, in others once in a month, and in others very rarely.

II. Principles. 1. Man of himself cannot promote the loss or consumption of venereal things, that is, of himself he cannot place an act from which a venereal effect is going to follow. For since venereal things as such have been entrusted to the individual for the good of the species, man, just as he cannot directly squander them, so of himself he cannot exercise an influence toward their loss, that is, place an act from which a venereal effect is going to follow. If he places the act without a proportionate reason, the effect is imputed as fault. And these things which we have said agree with the opinion of St. Thomas, since he teaches that pollution is imputed as fault if it has been caused by superfluity of food or drink (II-II, q. 154, a. 5), that is, from a cause influencing pollution only by accident. Finally, note well that the argument holds even if the venereal effect is merely permitted, that is, is not intended.

2. The more the act to be placed has the character of a cause, the graver in itself is the obligation of avoiding the act, and the graver is the cause required to render the act lawful. This being laid down, it seems altogether to be concluded that there is, of itself, a grave obligation of avoiding an act which has the character of a perfect cause, that is, one which both by its nature and gravely influences the venereal effect; the venereal effect, I say, that is, the pouring out of venereal things, which both depends on the will and is not ordered to the good of the species, and therefore involves a disorder, and indeed a grave one (n. 28).¹

Nor is St. Alphonsus more benign when he declares that "pollution is not mortal unless it proceeds from a cause mortal in itself, in the genus of lust" (III, 484). For he understands a cause which by its nature and gravely influences lust, and for this reason can be said to exist as mortal in itself and, as leading to lust, in the genus of lust; this is deduced from the fact that immediately afterward he proceeds thus: "One sins mortally who places shameful actions, of themselves proximately exciting to pollution or commotions. Otherwise, if the cause is remote, ... he will sin only venially" (loc. cit.).

¹ According to St. Thomas, lust is opposed to the life of man in potency. In human semen "there is man in potency ... and therefore disorder concerning the emission of semen concerns the life of man in proximate potency" (De Malo, q. 15, a. 2; q. 2, a. 10).

III. Applications. From the principles stated, particular norms are deduced both with regard to pollution, to which are equated vehement venereal commotion and distillation which occurs with great libido, and with regard to light venereal commotion, to which is equated distillation which occurs with lesser libido (St. Alphonsus III, 477).

1. Pollution is imputed:

a. As grave fault, if an action is placed which both by its nature and gravely influences it; for an action of this sort has, as we have already noted, the character of a perfect cause (St. Alphonsus III, 482). A reason of necessity or of notable utility excuses.

Actions both by their nature and gravely influencing are, for example: intense and rather prolonged thought about venereal things; kisses, whether columbine, that is, with the tongue put into the mouth of another, and repeated several times, or held with notable delay, or repeated very often; deliberate looking, whether at human intercourse, or at the naked breasts of a beautiful person, or at the obscene parts of a person of diverse sex, or, if the looks are prolonged, at obscene statues or pictures; touch of the obscene parts of another person, of naked breasts, and, at least if it is done lingeringly, of the genitals of animals; prolonged and tender conversation with a person loved inordinately, etc. (St. Alphonsus III, 417 sq.; 482).

Corollary. On account of an excusing cause, it is lawful, notwithstanding the pollution that will follow, to study venereal matters, to hear the confessions of women, to practice the surgical art, and to serve the sick or those going into the bath (St. Alphonsus III, 420, 483).

b. As light fault, if an action is placed which either by its nature, but only lightly, or by accident, influences it; for actions of this sort have only the character of an imperfect cause (St. Alphonsus III, 484). A just cause excuses; yet this is not had if there is question of an action influencing by accident but sinful (St. Alphonsus III, 483, 3, 4, 5; 484 at the end).

Actions influencing by their nature but only lightly are, for example: looking at the chest of a woman, at lightly immodest spectacles, and, at least if it is done in passing, at a naked person of the same sex; a light kiss of a girl; touch of one's own genitals done in passing, etc. - Actions influencing by accident are called those which are outside the matter of lust, such as excess in food, drunkenness, riding, etc. (St. Alphonsus III, 481).

Corollary. "It is lawful, even when pollution has been foreseen, to ride for the sake of utility ... and also for the sake of recreation ... It is lawful to lie in some position in order to rest more conveniently ... to take warm foods or drinks moderately" (St. Alphonsus III, 483).

It is disputed whether pollution is imputed as grave fault or as light fault if someone places an action which by its nature only moderately influences pollution, but which, in view of some person's peculiar disposition toward venereal things, is probably going to be followed by it. Now St. Alphonsus teaches that in the case pollution is imputed as grave fault, because on the one hand the action placed has, with respect to this subject, the character of a perfect cause; on the other hand it is not so burdensome to abstain from causes moderately influencing that a person is excused from the whole or from so much on that account. The contrary must be said if someone is frequently polluted from light causes, "because it is, as it were, morally impossible for men commonly to avoid all these causes" (St. Alphonsus III, 484).

Actions both by their nature and moderately influencing are, for example: looking at shameful spectacles from vanity, the intercourse of larger animals, and, at least if the look is continued, at a naked person of the same sex; touch of one's own genitals, etc. (St. Alphonsus III, 484).

2. Light venereal commotion is to be judged more mildly than pollution and vehement commotion; both because, although the disorder is grave, it is nevertheless lesser, and especially because of the burden of avoiding commotions of this sort. Hence, with sufficient probability, it is imputed only as light fault, even if someone places an action which both by its nature and gravely influences it; the same must be said a fortiori if the action, either by its nature and lightly, or only by accident, even if gravely, influences it (cf. St. Alphonsus III, 477, 2). A just cause excuses, even more in the case of light influence. If the said commotions follow from an honorable action, it is commonly better not to attend to them.

68. Corollary I. Note that more often, under the appearance of indirectly voluntary lust, direct lust is in reality had, especially when someone, on account of a reason not proportionate or merely pretextual, performs actions which of themselves and gravely influence a venereal effect. Reasons not proportionate, or even merely pretextual, are not so rarely: the advancement of knowledge, the care of one's own health or another's, pain, ignorance, the dissipation of a neighbor's scrupulosity, etc.; these, namely, are put forward as pretexts, while in reality, although with a certain tacit sense, the thing proceeds from an intention of lust. A manner of acting of this sort is called by Vermeersch masked lust.¹

Corollary II. Pollution had in sleep is to be judged thus:

1. It is not imputed as fault if it comes from a merely natural cause, as from superabundance of semen (n. 65). Indeed in that case it cannot in any way be called evil, so that it is even lawful to desire it with an inefficacious affection and to rejoice over it when it has arisen (St. Alphonsus III, 480; V, 20). Nevertheless it is in no way lawful to procure it, or in any way to help toward it, or to do something for the end that it happen, because then it would no longer be merely natural. "But if some celibate man has experienced spontaneous nocturnal emissions as more difficult or rarer, and for that reason has been badly affected nervously during the day, he can with a safe conscience take a suitable medicine, not indeed so that he may obtain some definite pollution, but so that evacuation in general may be rendered easier. For he directly effects nothing else than so to temper his body that nature can act regularly."²

2. It is imputed as grave fault: "1. if before it was directly or formally procured, that is, if it was intended, and the cause has not been retracted; 2. when after sleep it was pleasing and was approved on account of venereal pleasure; otherwise not" (St. Alphonsus III, 485; Homo Apostolicus, tract 9, n. 34). The reason why otherwise it is not imputed as grave fault is that sleep itself causes the cause placed before sleep not to be able to be called proximately influencing.

3. It is imputed as light fault if, without just cause, an immodest action is placed from which it is sufficiently foreseen that pollution will follow. And thus indeed it must be said theoretically; but practically it is difficult to determine when some action influences the pollution of which there is question, all the more because according to some, those phantasms rather recur during sleep with which one was less occupied during the day than those with which one was more occupied.³

One who, having awakened, notices that pollution is imminent or has begun, and generally one who suffers pollution involuntarily begun, is not bound to inhibit the flow of semen, because it is most difficult to avert the exit of semen already released from the loins. Care must nevertheless be taken that the danger of consent be averted, for example by praying or by thinking about other things (St. Alphonsus III, 479). If he consents, he sins gravely, if he is fully in possession of himself; otherwise, if he is not fully awake.

Corollary II. Great itching in the shameful parts can be driven away by rubbing, even if pollution follows, if the itching comes from acrimony of the blood, but not if it comes from the ardor of libido. The reason is that in the former case pollution is not a means of obtaining the good effect, but in the latter it is. Moreover, the itching can be presumed to come from acrimony of the blood unless, once pollution has been had, it suddenly ceases (St. Alphonsus III, 483, 2; Homo Apostolicus, tract 9, n. 35).

Corollary III. Great irritation of the nerves in the genitals, which as it were compels toward touches or motions that induce pollution, must be judged like the itching of which there was just discussion; namely, it can be extinguished by touch or motion if it is from acrimony of the blood, but not if it is judged to arise from the ardor of libido. But the fact that, for example, a motion of the body cannot be made for driving away irritation which comes from the ardor of libido does not prevent it from being made for another end - for example so that a truly troublesome position in bed may cease, etc. - and pollution be permitted. Meanwhile let that pitiable man beseech God, lest he consent to pollution.

¹ De castitate et de vitiis contrariis, nn. 388-389.

² Vermeersch, op. cit., n. 330.

³ Vermeersch, op. cit., n. 385.

51. (D) Pollution not directly, but only voluntary in the cause, is culpable or not, gravely or lightly, according as there was or was not a reason for placing the cause from which the evil effect arises.

Pollution is called voluntary in the cause when it is foreseen as about to follow from some other act. Now, from what has been said above, n. 175, it is lawful to place an act good or indifferent in itself from which an evil effect will follow, provided a proportionately grave reason is present, and moreover consent to the evil end is guarded against. (a) If the danger of pollution, from the very nature of the action, is proximate and very probable, the proportionately grave reason must be necessity or great usefulness; thus it is lawful for physicians, surgeons, servants who in hospitals or baths serve the necessities of the body, to place acts from which pollution is foreseen, because their ministry is necessary or very useful. (b) If the danger is of itself remote and probable, a light reason suffices for placing an act otherwise good or indifferent. Therefore honorable kisses, embraces, decent dances, gymnastic exercises, riding, abundant meals are lawful, even if probably pollution should sometimes follow therefrom, provided they are done for the sake of civility or recreation, without depraved affection and danger of consenting to venereal delectation. - To guard against this danger, it is better immediately to divert the mind to honorable things.

52. On this occasion it is asked whether it is lawful to drive away by touch or rubbing an itching which someone suffers in the private parts, with danger of pollution. Generally it is better to tolerate it patiently. Nevertheless, if the itching arises from some inflammation or acrimony of blood, it is not unlawful to drive it away thus, because true usefulness is present, provided the danger of consent is absent; but if it arises from abundance of seed or ardor of lust, it is not lawful, because the touch tends to calming lust through pollution; moreover, it is not lawful to use an evil as a means to an end, even a good one.

53. Corollaries. From what has been said it is established what must be judged concerning distillation and concerning movements of the flesh.

(a) Distillation which occurs involuntarily and frequently, without commotion of the organs and pleasure, is not sin, but a disease, concerning which a physician is to be approached. - Distillation which occurs with some excitation of the organs is a mortal sin if it is directly excited on account of venereal delectation; a venial sin if it is caused from curiosity or levity, without depraved affection and danger of consent; no sin if it arises from honorable and lawful acts, e.g., conversations and looks otherwise decent, provided consent to the commotion is absent: for then it must be attributed to human weakness.

54. (b) The same can be said of carnal movements, which especially consist in erection of the male member or of the female clitoris: if directly voluntary, they are a grave sin because of the venereal delectation which accompanies them; if indirectly voluntary, or in the cause, although without sufficient reason, they generally do not exceed venial sin, with depraved affection and danger of consent set aside, because they proceed from levity; when a sufficient cause accedes, they are no sin, provided no complacency is voluntarily taken in them.

When these movements arise spontaneously, if they are light and transitory, one need not care about them; for solicitude to impede them is accustomed rather to increase them. If they are grave and lasting, it is not enough to behave passively, but one must resist them, in order to avoid the danger of consent. Direct resistance, however, generally excites the nerves and increases the force of the temptation. Wherefore one must resist indirectly, by changing place or posture, by working, walking, writing, in one word by diverting the mind to other things.

373. - The defective rationale by which not a few endeavor to demonstrate the grave malice of pollution seems also to have effected this: that, the distinction between partial and complete pollutions having been neglected (cf. no. 322), many gratuitously devised a positive duty to impede pollution, even one not psychological. This was then extended to other involuntary rebellions of the flesh and filled the doctrinal proposition concerning indirect lust with wondrous ambiguity and confusion.

Moreover, indirect lust is that which, being in itself neither voluntary nor willed, or neither sought nor positively admitted, is imputed in its cause, from which it was foreseen that it would arise without our will.

Concerning this lust, after the explanations and demonstrations made, we judge that we can conclude the argument in this manner by a brief and clear assertion.

374. - Pollution which occurs apart from intention and without consent is gravely imputed only to one who foresaw it as sufficiently proximately connected with his sin of imperfect lust, or who did not impede it when it was then imminent by ceasing from lust.

Another carnal movement is never gravely imputed in its cause.

Foreknowledge of the proximate danger of pollution can have existed from the beginning, the very act of lust to which indulgence was given having been considered; or it can arise in the act itself, the commotion which in very fact was excited through that act having been considered. For often the commotion excited exceeds in degree the first foreknowledge. We affirm in each case the same obligation of impeding pollution; but, in the former case, the act will have to be omitted because of the danger already known, while, in the latter, one must cease from the act begun because of the arising danger. Hence we thus terminate the former sentence of the conclusion: "or who did not impede it when it was then imminent by ceasing from lust."

The other words need no explanation.

But it appears sufficiently clearly that the force of the conclusion is this: that a man, sincerely and truly doing something else, ought to avoid nothing under grave obligation because of the effect of pollution which will follow, except a carnal movement gravely blameworthy, with which the effect of pollution appears sufficiently proximately connected.

This conclusion also applies to spouses, for whom incomplete carnal movements are not lust, at least grave lust; but concerning the acts between spouses discussed above, we used the name which they necessarily have for the unmarried, that is, we called them by the name of imperfect lust. Cf., moreover, no. 375.

The demonstration, moreover, is of this kind.

1. On pollution. As long as no direct lust is committed, the mind does not serve the flesh; and the pollution which will arise will be merely bodily, which is incidental to the sin, or lower psychological pollution, the tolerance of which will be merely venial.

Therefore, a proximate danger of consent being excluded, this involuntary pollution cannot be gravely imputed. For, having considered the abundance in which it is produced, the very loss of semen, as we saw, is of no moment.

But when through an incomplete sin you have violated in the same genus the essential order by which sense is subordinated to the mind and the individual man to the species, and have thus given a blameworthy beginning to pollution, the virtue of chastity, because of the very terminus foreseen, consequently prohibits that beginning, so that foreseen pollution is to be assimilated to psychological pollutions, which are gravely prohibited.

But one who, during a lustful act, notices imminent pollution has certain foreknowledge of pollution from his own lustful act. And therefore the case and obligation just indicated here recur. Cf. Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 45, no. 22.

The same can be proposed in this other form. The perpetual rule is: because of a proportionate cause, an evil effect which can be neither intended nor chosen is legitimately permitted. Therefore it must be examined what positive duty of religion, justice, piety, or charity stands against permission; or what positive care of avoiding the effect is imposed. But when there is question of the effect of pollution which is harmful to no one, no grave obligation of positive care is proved, no grave duty exists besides the duty of chastity itself. But this duty is rather negative, namely, that you preserve the mind sincerely turned away from lust. Positively it imposes this one thing to be avoided: that you not expose yourself to a proximate occasion of sinning. Therefore, only when derogation is made from this duty through a sin of lust can the effect of foreseen pollution be imputed as grave guilt.

Moreover, foreknowledge of pollution and a sufficiently proximate connection are required as general conditions of imputability in the cause. Cf. Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 45, nos. 18-20.

In this matter, besides causes which are definitely light and causes which are judged grave by all, there are others of a middle genus, in which the subjective dispositions of the agent must especially be attended to. Lehmkuhl ¹ gives these examples: reading which is not merely slightly base; a deliberately continued sight of a naked person of the same sex; a touch made upon or repeated upon one's own body.

¹ Theologia moralis, I, 1031.

2. On other carnal movements. A movement short of pollution, if it results from imperfect lust, will be only one sin with that lust: both in species, since all incomplete lust is of the same species, and in number, since it proceeds from one and the same will.

A graver movement which is merely permitted and a less grave movement which alone, in the case, was intended or chosen can indeed be distinguished subtly. The permission of an evil thing is certainly a lesser guilt than intention. But this circumstance, although it diminishes the guilt, changes neither the species nor the number.

But if a movement short of pollution has a cause diverse from lust, it cannot be gravely imputed: for then, consent being excluded, it does not pertain to higher psychology. And it is repugnant to common sense that you should speak more severely about an inferior movement than about pollution, which is gravely imputed only because of imperfect lust.

The doctrine handed down is confirmed by the authority of St. Alphonsus ², who writes: "The common and more probable opinion teaches that pollution is not mortal unless it proceeds from a cause mortal of itself in the genus of lust.... Since pollution is not willed in itself but only in its cause, it will be evil in the degree in which the cause itself is evil."

² Book 3, no. 484, IV.

These words clearly express our opinion and preserve their proper force. Cf., moreover, the same matter written more clearly by Sporer: "When the cause posited of foreseen pollution, or the act from which it is foreseen that pollution will follow, is a mortal sin in the genus of lust, as being of itself and by its nature ordered to a venereal matter, even pollution indirectly willed in that cause will be a mortal sin... he is convicted of willing pollution implicitly and indirectly... if the cause is venial in the genus of lust, the pollution will be venial ³." Cf. also Ballerini-Palmieri ⁴.

³ Sporer, Theologia sacramentalis, part 4, chapter 3, section 15, nos. 646, 648.

⁴ Opus theologicum, vol. I, no. 579 ff.

Sanchez ⁵ is somewhat more severe; and so also is Rev. Dr. Van Roey, who derives formal guilt from the notable influence itself upon pollution, having first established a positive obligation, light, however, he says, of impeding pollution ⁶. Consequently, he himself must then, with others, extend indirect lust beyond the effect of pollution.

⁵ De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 45, no. 15.

⁶ Concerning this matter cf. Sanchez, In Decalogum, book 1, chapter 2, no. 13; Ballerini, Opus theologicum, vol. I, no. 598.

But if the obligation of impeding pollution is only light, how will an act which is not in itself lustful become a grave sin because of the unintended effect of pollution? We do not grasp this with the mind.

For observe that a sin of imperfect lust is committed directly, not only when it is sought by express intention, but also when, without another immediate cause, acts are exercised, for example certain touches which, in moral estimation, directly excite the flesh: then you are judged to effect a venereal movement. And also other acts, for example certain looks, unless they are explained otherwise by a serious rationale, betray a lustful affection or introduce a proximate danger of consent, so that they are gravely prohibited in the genus of lust. Cf. what is to be said concerning masked lust. Whatever acts are there condemned under grave obligation are, as such, also prohibited as a cause of pollution, yet in such a way that, when they are excused for the same rationales, this causality and the acts themselves are excused in themselves from grave sin.

375. - Acts which for the unmarried are imperfect lust are either permitted or not gravely prohibited for spouses. Yet because they are venereal and express an order to the complete act, pollution which is foreseen as about to follow from them, or because of which, if it is imminent, there is no cessation from those acts, is imputed in its cause as was said in nos. 274 and 276, unless a grave excuse is present. For the virtue which prohibits the terminus also prohibits its formal beginning as such.

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.

III. Merely natural pollution, proceeding from nature alone disburdening itself, which ordinarily is nocturnal,⁷ is in itself in no way evil nor worthy of any reprehension. Hence it is licit with a simple inefficacious affection to desire it on account of the advantages which follow and to rejoice over it after it has followed, provided one guards against a present excitation of lust or consent. Nevertheless it is not licit to procure it or assist it or do something so that it may happen, because then it would not be merely natural, but voluntary.

⁷ Not every passive pollution is merely natural: that one can arise from various causes, even external, which someone undergoes involuntarily; this one is from the physical disposition of nature, or from nature alone disburdening itself. In some, pollution occurs once; in others, twice in a week; in others, scarcely once in a month. It also sometimes succeeds itself immediately two or three times. But if it is accustomed to occur more frequently, there is reason to have recourse to a physician.

Father Vermeersch, however, judges that a man who experiences nocturnal emissions with greater difficulty and more rarely, and therefore is ill-affected nervously during the day, can take a remedy not directly to obtain pollution, but directly so that the body may be well tempered and composed, such that nature can act regularly, from which then a more frequent pollution will further follow naturally. Thus, provided the good composition of the body does not come from the pollution itself.

In the case in which nocturnal pollution is voluntary, the principles explained in the preceding number and in Question Two, number VII, come to be applied. Hence:

1. it is mortally evil if it is willed in itself and directly sought, for example if someone drinks much or lies down in a certain posture precisely so that he may suffer pollution;

2. likewise it is mortally evil if it is voluntary in a cause per se proximately and gravely influencing it, from which it is foreseen to follow, for example if it comes from impure thoughts, pleasures, or desires voluntarily and for a long time nourished before sleep while awake,⁸ a fortiori if from external acts which greatly dispose to it;

⁸ For an instantaneous consent to carnal pleasure does not gravely influence pollution. But lest nocturnal pollution be judged voluntary in the cause because more or less dishonorable phantasms provoke and accompany it: for, as Saint Thomas says, II-II, q. 154, a. 5, this also can occur naturally: "when seminal humor superabounds in the body or when a release of humor has occurred, ... the sleeper dreams those things which pertain to the expulsion of this kind of abundant or released humor." Hence a threefold cause of nocturnal pollution is distinguished by the holy Doctor: 1. one bodily, concerning which the things said hold; 2. another animal and interior, or preceding thoughts and pleasures while awake; 3. spiritual, namely the action of the demon. In the first case pollution does not have the notion of fault, except sometimes from its cause, if the abundance or release of humor is from a culpable cause, for example from excess in food or drink. But a cause of this kind is a cause per accidens which of itself influences remotely and lightly. In the second case, it is voluntary in the cause; and it has the notion of fault if the cause is culpable; indeed it is a fault more or less grave according to the gravity of the cause and of its influence. In the third case, it is not sin; nevertheless sometimes it is with preceding sin, namely negligence in preparing oneself against the illusions of the demon.

3. it is venially evil if it is voluntary in a cause lightly and remotely influencing it, or in a cause per accidens, from which it is foreseen to follow, for example if it comes from drunkenness or more abundant food;

4. it is no sin if there is a sufficient reason for placing the cause on account of necessity or utility.

S. Th. II-II, q. 154, a. 5, 11 and 12.

1014. A sin of luxury against nature is that which repugns the order and mode which nature established in the venereal act for generation, to which alone it is ordered by nature; hence it is a distinct species of luxury, since it has a special deformity.

There are four subordinate species of it, including a diverse repugnance to nature and reason. For the venereal act, so that offspring can be conceived from it, requires four things: 1) the intercourse of two; 2) the same specific nature in each; 3) diversity of sexes; 4) the connatural mode of lying together. Therefore there are four species of sin against nature:

1. If, without intercourse, pollution is procured for the sake of venereal pleasure; this is called the solitary sin or mollities (zelfbevlekking);

2. If it happens through intercourse with a thing of a different species; this is called bestiality (beestachtigheid);

3. If it happens through intercourse with an undue sex, that is, with the same sex, for example male with male, or female with female; this is called sodomy properly so called (sodomieterij);

4. If, while the due sex is preserved, the due natural mode of lying together is not preserved, so that generation is impeded; this is unnatural intercourse with a woman (a. 11). This can happen in two ways: a) on the part of the organ: it is called sodomy improperly so called, if copulation happens in an undue organ, for example in the posterior vessel; b) on the part of the mode alone, if copulation is exercised in the due organ, but in such a way that, from the very mode by which the action is carried out, generation is impeded, either because the man withdraws himself before insemination and pours out seed externally, or because he or the woman uses an instrument or another means by which the seed is impeded from passing to the womb. It is usually called onanism.

Therefore sins against nature are morally distinct in species from one another, as repugning nature and reason in diverse ways; and the contrary was condemned by Alexander VII.¹

¹ Proposition 24 was condemned: "Mollities, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same lowest species; and therefore it suffices to say in confession that one procured pollution."

A mere change of the natural position in copulation is not against nature except insofar as generation would be impeded by it, which ordinarily does not happen; otherwise it will rather be beside nature than against nature, and is only venial in spouses and sometimes nothing, namely if some reason requires that it be done so.

1015. Luxury against nature is in the genus of luxury the gravest in itself and other things being equal, because it transgresses that which is determined according to nature itself concerning the use of venereal things; but the other sins transgress only that which is further determined by reason. Yet by reason of an added circumstance these can be graver in another genus: thus adultery by reason of injustice is graver than pollution, and sacrilege by reason of irreligion; but pollution is graver than both in the account of luxury (a. 12).

Among sins against nature, bestiality is the gravest, because the due species is not preserved; after this is sodomy, because there the due sex is not preserved; then there is an undue mode of lying together, but more if the due organ is not preserved, than if the mode alone is impeditive of generation; the lowest place is held by pollution, which consists only in the omission of intercourse with another. For the gravity of sin is considered more from the abuse of some thing than from the omission of due use (ad 4).

Let it be noted: 1) Sodomy is an execrable sin, as is clear both from the fact that even brute animals regularly abhor it, and from the graver penalties inflicted by ancient law or by God himself (Gen. 19). The same holds concerning bestiality, as is proved from the penalties laid down against it by God, for example, Lev. 20.

2. For these sins to be committed externally in their proper species, a mere touch exercised upon a person of the same sex or upon an animal is not sufficient, even with sodomitic or bestial affection; rather, intercourse to an undue vessel is required, whether it is not destined for coition or is naturally destined for it. Indeed, for them to be fully consummated in their species, insemination within the vessel is required.

3. Intercourse with a demon is reduced to bestiality, because the demon is of a different species from man: whether the demon really appears under a human form, which happens rarely, or the sinner, by hallucination, sets him before himself as present in this way. This sin additionally includes the malice of superstition against religion; then another diverse species of luxury according to the form under which the demon is seen by the sinner: if as a person of the same sex, the malice of sodomy is present; if as a person of a different sex, the malice of fornication; if under the form of another's spouse or of a nun, the malice of adultery or sacrilege, etc.

1016. Pollution, or the solitary sin, is the separated complete use of the genitals without intercourse. It is said:

1. Complete use of the genitals: for thus it is distinguished from immodesty or acts of imperfect luxury, which are only the beginning and preparation of complete luxury, and it differs from these in species, as the mere beginning of a work differs from consummation, beginning from terminus, and an incomplete species from a complete species;

2. Without intercourse, because if it happens in natural intercourse, it will be fornication or another species according to nature; if in unnatural intercourse, namely had in an undue organ, it will be another species against nature. Therefore from the fact that it is a solitary vice, or that it implies the separated use of the genital organ, pollution differs in species from other consummated sins according to and against nature.

The complete use of the genital organ is apt to produce perfect and satiative venereal pleasure; and in men, the expulsion of seed, which aggravates the sin comparatively to what takes place in women. Yet these two things do not constitute the essence of the solitary sin, but are a certain bad effect which usually accompanies it, and an indication and sign of the complete use of the genitals. But the essential inordination is in the perverse use of the genital organ, which someone employs for individual satisfaction, without any order to generation and the good of the species for the sake of which alone it can be employed. Hence the complete solitary sin also exists in women,1 and can exist in men if they do not have seed, as sometimes happens in the young and the old, or if accidentally it does not flow out externally.

1017. Pollution directly and in itself voluntary is intrinsically and gravely evil, and therefore prohibited by natural law, so that it can never be made honorable by any end. - It is proved:

1. From the Scriptures: 1 Cor. 6:10; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:².

² Hence, when the doubt was proposed: "whether masturbation directly procured so that sperm may be obtained by which a contagious disease may be scientifically detected and, as far as possible, cured is licit," the Holy Office responded: in the negative, 24 July 1929.

2. From the condemnation of proposition 49 by Innocent XI.³

³ "Mollities is not prohibited by natural law; hence if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under mortal sin."

3. By reason: This act is directly against the primary end to which the genital organs, venereal pleasure, and human seed are destined by nature and by the author of nature. Therefore a) it is an inordination intrinsically evil and illicit by the law of nature, so that it can never be made honorable by any end;3 b) it is also a grave or mortal inordination, because it is directly opposed to the primary inclination of our nature and to the greatest common good of human society, namely its conservation and propagation. Hence if fornication itself is a mortal sin because it is against the due education of offspring, a fortiori pollution, which is against propagation itself.

This is confirmed: "If in any case whatsoever it were licit to procure pollution for oneself or another, since in it men are affected with the greatest pleasure, they would easily abuse that license and extend it to almost infinite cases, and thus, content with that pleasure, they would neglect marriage and the legitimate mode of generating with the greatest detriment of the human species. Therefore in this, as in many other matters, one must not attend precisely to the actual harm which follows, but to the harm which would follow or would be apt to follow if this were licit."⁴

⁴ Some modern authors doubted concerning this, among whom was also Noldin; but in new editions of his work this was corrected by Fr. Schmitt.

Every pollution of itself is a sin of the same species, in whatever way it happens.

Accidentally, however, by reason of a special circumstance, another species can be added. Hence pollution is divided into simple, which besides the malice of pollution has no other malice joined; and qualified, which has another joined, either on the part of affection toward the object thought of, as if someone, while polluting himself, has a fornicarious, incestuous, adulterous, sacrilegious, sodomitic, etc. affection, by taking pleasure precisely in a woman, a blood relative, a married woman, one sacred to God, a male, as such, or by desiring them; or on the part of the person polluted or polluting, as if a religious, a married person, etc. pollutes himself or another, or is polluted by another. These circumstances, as adding a species, must be declared in confession.

1. Billuart, diss. VI, a. 11.

1018. Corollary. - The doctrine set forth applies to pollution directly and in itself voluntary; but not to pollution voluntary only in the cause or indirectly. For this is not always gravely evil, indeed not always a sin, as is clear from the principles set forth concerning the voluntary in the cause and the indirect, which are to be applied here.

1. It is not illicit to posit an action from which pollution is foreseen to follow, provided the action is licit in itself and at the same time necessary or useful, provided consent to the pollution or proximate danger of consent is absent. For no one is bound to omit an action licit in itself, necessary or useful for a good effect, because of some evil, not very great, following from it apart from intention, provided the evil is not the means for obtaining the good effect. But in the case the action, as is supposed, is licit in itself, and necessary or useful; the passive pollution following from it apart from intention is a rather slight evil, bringing little or altogether no inconvenience either to the acting individual or to the human species. Therefore the action is licit, provided the pollution is not the means by which the good effect is obtained.

2. It is a venial sin, without sufficient reason, to posit an action lightly evil and lightly and remotely influencing pollution which is foreseen to follow from it. For pollution, since it is not willed in itself, is not more voluntary and sinful than its cause as cause; but the cause as cause is only lightly evil, since its influence is only light and remote; for a light influence upon something grave is something light. Therefore pollution is only lightly evil; unless, however, there is proximate danger of consenting to it.

3. A fortiori it is only venial, without sufficient reason, not to impede depraved motions of concupiscence and pollution itself, while nevertheless it can be impeded without inconvenience; because in the case every tendency or positive consent of the will toward pollution is lacking; unless, however, there is proximate danger of consent to it.

4. It is mortal, by reason of pollution, without a just cause, to posit an action mortally evil from which pollution is perfectly foreseen naturally to follow, or an action which per se, notably, and proximately influences it so that it is apt to follow from it. For to will an effect and to will its proximate cause are of the same morality, unless there underlies a grave and just reason.

1019. Remark. - As to nocturnal pollution, its malice is to be weighed from its causes. Hence it either is or is not a sin according to the condition of the cause in which it was foreseen, or ought to have been foreseen. If the cause is not culpable, as if it is posited from a just reason, and a fortiori if it is merely natural, neither will the pollution itself be culpable; if the cause is culpable venially, lightly and remotely influencing it, it will be venial; if the cause is mortal, gravely and proximately influencing it, it will be mortal.