Pollution

29. Definition and division. 1. Pollution, which is also called softness or masturbation (manustupratio), is complete venereal delectation with effusion of semen without intercourse.

a. Since pollution consists in the effusion of semen with complete delectation, it is clear that pollution in the true sense of the name cannot occur in those who do not have true semen, namely in boys, old men, eunuchs, and women, although they can perceive complete and satiative venereal delectation.

b. The essence of this sin consists in complete venereal delectation, to which, as specific malice, there is added the fruitless effusion of semen against the order of nature. Wherefore pollution is a sin specifically diverse from complete venereal delectation without effusion of semen.

Note. In order that pollution follow, it is necessary that some cause irritate the genital nerves, from whose contraction the expulsion of semen is had. A cause of this kind can be physical, as touch, motion, frictions, pressures of the genitals, or psychic, as more or less obscene phantasms.

2. a. Pollution is either voluntary, which is willed in itself or in the cause, or involuntary or natural, which is willed in no way, but follows from natural causes.

b. Voluntary pollution is either direct or willed in itself, if something is done with the very intention of procuring it for oneself, or if consent is given to it when it happens involuntarily; or indirect, or willed in the cause, when something is done with foresight but without intention of a future pollution.

c. Pollution which is called passive is involuntary. This occurs in the waking state because of great weakness of the organs, sometimes contracted from the custom of sinning, is provoked by any very slight causes, as motion, touch, effort, etc., and is completed without delectation. Passive pollution is an illness and is free from any fault.¹

¹ Cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedizin^2, p. 83.

30. On female pollution. Female pollution is the secretion or flow of vaginal humor, which is joined with complete venereal delectation; the sin of this pollution is not specifically diverse from the sin of complete venereal delectation in girls.

a. Women perceive venereal delectation in the clitoris, in the vagina, and in the uterus. If it is had with emission of humor, it is called pollution, and, as in men, it occurs both in time of waking and in time of sleep. Women are accustomed to procure venereal delectation or pollution for themselves by compressing the thighs, by touching the clitoris, by introducing fingers or some instrument into the vulva, by soliciting the uterus itself.

b. Female pollution is not an effusion of semen, since women do not have semen except the ovum, but is an effusion of vaginal humor, which nevertheless rarely is poured out exteriorly, but ordinarily flows down into the cavity of the uterus. If the humor flows down interiorly, its flow is rarely noticed; nevertheless it brings delectation. Therefore women can for the most part be judged to have been polluted only from this sign, that they have felt great delectation by which they have been libidinously satiated. They are capable of pollution of this kind already for some time before puberty.

c. Whether female pollution is a sin specifically diverse from complete venereal delectation, authors dispute. Those who call female pollution a specific sin use this argument: although that flow of humor is not necessary for generation, nevertheless it is ordered by nature to generation, and for the sake of generation complete venereal delectation is attached to it. Therefore in female pollution there intervenes a pouring forth of humor outside intercourse, which by nature is ordered only to intercourse.¹ This reason indeed does not prove the matter. For the specific malice of pollution consists in the effusion of semen against the end of nature; but women do not have semen properly so called; that which could be called female semen is only the ovum. Although the vaginal humor which is poured forth when women suffer pollution is ordered by nature to generation, nevertheless, since it is not necessary for it, its fruitless effusion is not of such great moment.² Therefore according to this opinion female pollution is not a consummated sin against nature, but is indeed a complete sin of lust, because it is complete venereal delectation, yet not consummated, because it is completed without effusion of semen.

d. Hence if women accuse themselves either of venereal delectation or of immodest touches, they are not to be questioned further as to whether they have been polluted; and this not only because often they do not know whether they have suffered pollution, or because pollution can be supposed, but especially because the question is not necessary, since the circumstance of pollution does not change the species of the sin. Therefore it suffices if they are asked whether they have basely satisfied themselves or have satisfied libido.

¹ Bucceroni, Institutiones theologiae moralis^4 (Rome: Typographia Augustin., 1900), I, n. 813.

² Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis (Rome: Pustet, 1905), I, n. 474 ff.

31. Whether they are of diverse species. Pollutions considered in themselves are not specifically diverse, but all are of the same species, because no specific difference appears by which diverse species would be constituted. For the diverse modes by which pollution is procured are related to the pollution itself, insofar as it is voluntary effusion of semen without intercourse, only materially and accidentally, provided only pollution is intended.

a. Therefore in confession one must not ask concerning the mode by which pollution was procured: for whether it was sought by imagination alone or by a base sight, by one's own touches or those of another, in one's own body or in another's body, it is always the same sin of pollution, provided there is absent affection toward a person or toward intercourse. Nevertheless induction or cooperation is added if it is provoked by human touches of another.

b. Many authors indeed teach that pollutions are specifically diverse according as they are provoked by the touch of a man, a woman, or a beast, because there intervenes affection toward the object which is touched; but affection is of diverse species according as it tends toward a man, a woman, or a beast. Nevertheless ordinarily it suffices if someone in this case accuses himself thus: I was polluted by touches of others, whether he himself touched others or allowed himself to be touched and thus polluted himself, because, if intercourse is not present, affection ordinarily is not borne toward sex but toward pollution alone. But if affection in fact tends also toward the object which is touched, the affection surely is specifically diverse according as it is borne toward a man, a woman, or a beast.

c. Things to be noted. a. Even that mode by which someone pollutes himself by abusing the mouth of another is only an aggravating circumstance, unless affection for sodomy is present. b. If someone pollutes another unwilling person, he commits two sins, one against chastity, the other against justice. If someone pollutes another consenting person, likewise he commits two sins, one against chastity, the other through cooperation against charity. If two persons pollute each other by touches, each commits a threefold sin, two against chastity, by polluting himself and the other, and the third through cooperation against charity.

d. Although in themselves all pollutions are of the same moral species, nevertheless from circumstances several diverse species are constituted. Circumstances of this kind occur: a. by reason of the subject; thus, if one bound by a vow of chastity is polluted, he commits sacrilege; if a married person is polluted, he commits adultery; b. by reason of the object; thus, if someone is polluted with a desire of sinning with an unmarried woman, he commits fornication, mental fornication; if with a desire of sinning with a married woman, adultery, mental adultery; c. by reason of the accomplice; if someone is polluted by touches of another, he commits the sin of induction or cooperation against charity; d. by reason of place; thus, if someone is polluted in a sacred place, he commits sacrilege.

32. On nocturnal pollution. 1. Its nature. This is completed in dreams and therefore without advertence and actual consent, but with delectation.

a. Nocturnal pollution is involuntary if it follows from natural causes independent of the will, or from causes indeed voluntary, but posited without foresight of future pollution; and it is voluntary in the cause if it follows from an action freely posited in waking with foresight of the pollution that will follow in sleep.

b. Among merely natural causes the chief is superfluous semen, by which nature, burdened, unloads itself; wherefore nocturnal pollution does not denote a libidinous soul, although more or less indecent phantasms provoke and accompany it. The words of St. Thomas are worthy of note: "when the seminal humor abounds in the body or when dissolution of the humor has occurred, ... the sleeper dreams those things which pertain to the expulsion of this kind of abundant or dissolved humor."¹

c. Young men suffer this after the years of puberty, and celibates, at the time when nature produces semen. At fixed times expulsions of semen of this kind return; but the time varies according to the diverse constitution of men and diverse manner of living; in some nocturnal pollution occurs once, in others even twice in a week, in others scarcely once in a month.

¹ Summa II-II, q. 154, a. 5.

33. 2. Its malice. a. Nocturnal pollution, both in itself and in the cause involuntary, is free from all fault, whether it pleases the sleeping person or displeases him.

b. Nocturnal pollution which sometimes happens to the half-awake must not be judged mortal, even if consent is given to it, because it occurs with imperfect cognition and will. The same must be said concerning nocturnal touches. In doubt it must be judged that no consent was present, if such things ordinarily displease in the waking state, because judgment must be made from things ordinarily occurring.

c. Nocturnal pollution voluntary in itself is a grave sin; but voluntary in the cause it is a grave or light sin, according as the action posited before sleep without reasonable cause and with sufficient advertence by its nature influences gravely or lightly toward provoking pollution.

a. Nocturnal pollution which is caused by honorable conversation with a person of the other sex, by very seasoned foods or by warm drinks moderately taken, by a certain more comfortable position in bed, is not imputed as sin, even if those causes were posited in waking with foresight of the future effect: for we are not bound to omit licit actions on account of the effect of future pollution, if there is a reasonable cause for positing them.

b. Nocturnal pollution which is caused by depraved thoughts or desires, by obscene readings, by indecent conversations, must be imputed as grave or light sin according as those causes were posited in waking with foresight that they would have a proximate or remote influence upon pollution.

34. On the malice of pollution voluntary in itself. Pollution directly willed is always a mortal sin: for a. voluntary pollution is a grave perversion of the order and institution of nature, for human semen by nature is ordered solely to the generation of man; but in pollution semen is poured out for the sake of pleasure in such a way that the end intended by nature is wholly frustrated. b. If pollution were not gravely illicit, the use of marriage would be impeded, which is so necessary for the human race; for men, content with this pleasure alone, would for the most part abstain from marriages, which are so troublesome. c. Wherefore St. Paul expressly enumerates softness among the sins which exclude from the kingdom of God: nor will the soft possess the kingdom of God.¹

1. Therefore it is never licit directly to procure pollution, not even if ejection of semen seemed necessary for preserving health; for even pollution which is taken up as a means for obtaining some end is willed in itself and directly, although not for its own sake.

2. Every voluntary effusion of semen, however small and slight, has the nature of pollution, and therefore is a mortal sin.

3. To promote in some way, by touch or motion or position, etc., pollution spontaneously begun, whether in waking or in sleep, is gravely illicit; but there is no obligation of impeding pollution spontaneously occurring or already begun in sleep, but it can be permitted that nature unload itself, provided consent to delectation is absent.

a. The reason on account of which the older authors thought that spontaneously begun pollution did not necessarily have to be restrained is indeed of no weight; nor nevertheless for that reason must an obligation of containing the impulse of nature be imposed. They themselves thought that semen already discharged, unless it is poured forth, is corrupted and, when corrupted, brings detriment to health; but in truth semen is never actually corrupted, and even when discharged it does not infect nature, but rather assists it. Wherefore it is certainly to be advised, especially on account of the danger of consent, that pollution already imminent, where this can be done, be restrained; but no obligation of doing this exists, because that effusion is involuntary.²

b. In order that consent to delectation be avoided while pollution occurs involuntarily, it is best to change position, or at least, either by praying and fostering pious thoughts or by thinking about profane matters, to turn the mind to other things. To avoid cooperation with the pollution occurring, it is best to have oneself exteriorly altogether passively, by abstaining from touches and from every voluntary motion of the body.

c. Any motion or impulse of the body deliberately employed, by which the effect of pollution follows, is gravely evil; nevertheless from deliberate motions there must be distinguished the motions or impulses which arise spontaneously in the body by the force of nature unloading itself, so that the effect of pollution may be completed.

¹ 1 Cor. 6, 10. Proposition 49, condemned by Innocent XI, has: softness is not prohibited by natural law ...

² A. Eschbach, l. c., disp. 5, c. 4, a. 2, § 3.

35. Concerning the malice of pollution willed in the cause, judgment must be made from those things which were said above, n. 12, namely pollution is imputed as grave or light sin according as its cause by its nature influences gravely or lightly toward provoking it; but it is not imputed as sin if a sufficient reason is present for positing that cause.

a. In order that pollution can be called voluntary in the cause, it is required that the one who posits its cause advert to the effect of pollution that will follow from it. Therefore one who, when he posits the cause of pollution, either does not advert to the effect arising from it, or prudently judges that the effect will not follow, cannot have pollution imputed to him, even if it follows.

b. One who, because of a peculiar disposition and infirmity, frequently suffers pollutions from actions licit in themselves which by their nature influence only lightly toward them, e.g. from riding horseback, is not bound to abstain from those actions, provided consent to delectation is excluded; for in positing them he uses his right. But if the action is lightly sinful, as a reading that is somewhat base, the sight of a somewhat obscene image, and is not excused by a just cause, is he bound under grave sin to avoid it on account of this evil effect? Of itself he must avoid it only under light sin; for the malice of pollution willed in the cause is taken from the influence which the cause by its nature has, not from the influence which in fact, on account of the peculiar temperament of the subject, it has on it. But practically he will rarely be excused from grave sin for another reason: for one who, taught by experience that he is frequently polluted by an action of this kind, nevertheless posits it without necessity, is shown to posit it from a depraved intention.

Therefore if, for example, the use of alcohol or of the nicotine herb, tobacco, so excites the nerves of someone that pollution follows from it either in sleep or outside sleep, there is no obligation of abstaining from those things if the use is moderate and therefore licit; the evil effect can simply be permitted, provided consent is avoided. But if the use of those things is immoderate, from the precept of chastity he must abstain from them under light sin; otherwise he sins according to the gravity of the matter gravely or lightly against temperance, and lightly, not gravely, against chastity, because those things accidentally, and therefore of themselves only lightly, excite libido.

36. On sufficient reason. 1. Declaration. Because pollution is not imputed as sin if the action which causes it is posited for a sufficient reason, it is now asked when there is present a sufficient reason for positing an action from which future pollution is foreseen. An action of this kind, which can be the cause of pollution, is always joined with a twofold danger, namely of material pollution and of consent to the venereal pleasure joined with it. Here abstraction is made from the danger of consent to base delectation: for to that danger the principles which are set forth elsewhere concerning the danger or occasion of sinning must be applied.¹ For making a judgment concerning the sufficiency of the reason in a particular case, the principles which follow below must be noted.

A greater reason is required in order that the danger of consent can be admitted than that the danger of material pollution can be admitted. Hence it can happen that, on account of proximate danger of consent, someone is bound under grave sin to avoid an action which on account of the proximate danger of pollution alone he is not bound to avoid, or at least not bound under grave sin to avoid. Someone who, for example, in horseback riding which he undertakes for the sake of recreation, is frequently not only polluted, but also sins by consent to delectation, if he cannot exclude sin by other means, is bound to omit horseback riding, which on account of the effect of pollution alone he is not bound to omit. Erotic readings idly undertaken, tender conversations with a person of diverse sex, kisses impressed on boys, even if they are only lightly sinful on account of the danger of pollution, nevertheless must be avoided under grave sin by him whom they cast into proximate danger of consenting.

¹ Cf. De principiis^3, n. 325 ff.

37. 2. Principles. a. If the danger of polluting oneself is proximate from the nature of the action, a grave reason is required in order that the action inducing the danger can licitly be posited; but as grave reason there is judged both necessity and true utility, either one's own or another's.

Therefore it is licit for physicians and surgeons to care for the sick and to procure births; it is licit for servants to attend to bodily necessities in baths or hospitals, even if on this occasion they suffer pollutions. But proximate danger of consent, if any is present, must always be guarded against, by the fact that it is rendered remote or none by apt remedies.

b. If the danger of polluting oneself from the nature of the action is remote, a light reason or any reasonable cause suffices in order that the action inducing the danger can licitly be posited.

a. Therefore all those reasons excuse which in good faith appear either necessary or useful or suitable, indeed even merely advantageous to soul or body. Wherefore these actions are licit of themselves, even if they are foreseen to provoke pollution: a. kisses, embraces, hand-claspings according to the custom of the country; b. honorable dances undertaken from suitable recreation; c. horseback riding even for the sake of recreation alone; d. performing gymnastic exercises; e. reclining in a certain position even solely for resting more comfortably; f. while sitting, placing leg upon leg; g. moderately taking very seasoned foods or warm drinks.

b. If the cause of positing an action from which pollution is foreseen to follow has indeed something of advantage and utility, but not sufficient to excuse the base effect, e.g. the study of medical or anatomical art undertaken from curiosity, probably a mortal sin is not committed, provided consent is excluded.¹

¹ Cf. Lessius, l. 4, c. 3, n. 118.

38. Whether it is licit to drive away by touch or friction an itching which someone suffers in the privates, however much pollution follows. a. If the itching is slight and easily tolerable, St. Alphonsus does not permit touch by which it would be driven away with danger of pollution, consent excluded; but he permits touch if only some arousal would follow.

b. If the itching is great and troublesome and has its origin from acrimony of the blood, it is licit to drive it away by touch or friction even with danger of pollution, provided consent is excluded: for an action with a twofold effect is had; the good is intended, the evil is permitted from a just cause.

c. But if the itching has its origin from the superfluous semen itself or from the ardor of libido, it is not licit to drive it away by touch or friction with danger of pollution, because the good effect follows only from the evil effect: for the touch tends directly toward procuring pollution or toward quieting libido, and only by this means is the itching driven away.

In order that one can discern whence pains in the genitals arise, attention must be paid to this. If the pains do not cease unless carnal movements or pollution have followed, these must be judged the means for quieting the pain and therefore to arise of themselves from touch and friction. But if, after touches or friction have been completed, the pains cease, even if carnal movements or pollution follow either not at all or not always, it is a sign that these are not the means of quieting the pain and that the movements and pollution follow accidentally. For the rest, if the itching is very troublesome, it must be judged to have arisen from acrimony of the blood rather than from semen. If it is doubtful whether it arises from acrimony of the blood or from superfluity of semen and from the ardor of libido, it is licit to free oneself from the itching: for in order that this be prohibited, it must be certainly established that it proceeds from semen or from libido.¹

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 483.

39. For practice. Since the vice of pollution at the present time is most frequent in both sexes, though more frequent in men than in women, it will help to set forth briefly its causes, effects, and cure.

1. Of the causes some are external, others internal. The external causes are bad examples of others, to which must be added very many depraved books of every kind and base images, which excite libido. Idleness, which indeed is the origin of all vices, but especially of vices of the flesh; likewise a soft and effeminate education. Everything which excites the genital nerves, as to be occupied for a long time, for the sake of pleasure, with venereal matters; lying supine; the warmth of the bed; exciting foods, such as are very hot and seasoned, and abundant alcoholic drinks. Mothers, nurses, and maids who, in order to quiet infants, arouse the venereal sense by handling their genital members. Besides the fact that this is prohibited by the moral law, it moreover brings a disposition and inclination toward venereal things. There must be added the impious counsel of physicians which is given to adolescents, that they pollute themselves at least once in a week, since nature demands this and it does not harm health. But in truth this counsel provides neither for morality nor for health, since the depraved habit of polluting oneself brings with it worse carnal vices, which gradually destroy health. Internal causes are the peculiar state of the organism, such as a sanguine and nervous temperament, defect of care for the genitals, illnesses which affect the nervous system, as pulmonary phthisis and hysteria. There is added the great delectation which this vice brings, and the ease with which it can be hidden.

Note. Although the vice of pollution is ordinarily committed by men of sound mind only for the sake of pleasure, nevertheless it must be conceded that it often does not depend solely on the will, but that the temperament of the body more or less disposes and impels one toward it and diminishes its moral fault.

2. The effects of this vice continued for a long time are most destructive. Among them must especially be numbered grave irritations of the nervous system, general fatigue and weakness of the whole organism, palpitation of the heart and disturbance of circulation, from which diseases of hypochondria and melancholy easily arise, which sometimes degenerate into madness. The acuteness of the intellect and the energy of the will are weakened, so that those who indulge this vice, even if they repent after the fall, nevertheless can scarcely abstain from sin.

Note. Nevertheless, evil effects of this kind do not show themselves in everyone. For there are men of so robust a constitution of body that from this vice they suffer only slight harms to health and light disturbances of the nerves. Therefore those who try to frighten lustful youths away from the vice by setting forth its evil effects must beware of exaggerations.

3. Cure. Once this vice has been contracted, unless the help of special grace intervenes, it is removed only with pain and difficulty; nevertheless, since it brings so many harms to soul and body, all whom it concerns must be admonished to direct themselves seriously to its cure. There are no certain signs from which this vice can be recognized in adolescents; nevertheless parents and teachers, sufficiently instructed about this matter, can recognize it from certain inconveniences which children manifest to them, and can restrain it by opportune remedies, especially by removing the causes from which the vice is induced.

Natural or hygienic remedies: to distract the mind; to exercise the body even to fatigue; to use baths or cold washings; to spend due care upon the genitals: the genital organs both in boys and especially in girls, on account of menstruation, need frequent washings; to use a hard bed; not to sleep supine: since the dorsal or supine position excites the genital nerves, the posture should be lateral, and indeed on the right side; in the morning, once sleep has been shaken off, to rise immediately; morning or evening to wash the body around the genitals with cold water, mixed with vinegar; before going to bed, to empty the urinary bladder; to choose light foods, of easy digestion, not exciting, which in small volume provide sufficient nourishment; to abstain from very alcoholic drinks and, in the evening, from meats; let clothes not be too warming nor compress the genitals. There are also medicines by which nervous erections, if they are frequent and vehement, are restrained.

Moral remedies: to instill hatred and horror of the vice and to inspire, by suitable motives, the desire of recovering virtue; to exhort to flight from occasions, frequency of the sacraments, and exercises of piety; to strengthen the will, so that, despising pleasure, it energetically applies suitable remedies. For most the most efficacious remedy is marriage, which those who are given to this vice should be advised to contract as soon as possible.

4. Confessors who direct themselves to the cure of a penitent habituated in the base vice should note in particular these things, besides those which are indicated above and which are everywhere suggested to customary sinners and recidivists.

a. Let them prudently explore the time from which the penitent has been given to this vice; likewise let them strive to know both his bodily temperament and the circumstances of the sins, namely at what time, in what place, and in what circumstances of affairs the falls are accustomed to occur.

b. Let them take care that he return to the same confessor, make confession soon after a fall, and, if it can be done, also receive Holy Communion.

c. Let them inspire in him hope of victory, and to this end let them require that daily, morning and evening, he recite three times the Angelic Salutation in honor of the most pure Virgin, to obtain purity of body and soul, with the addition of a resolution not to sin.

d. There are young persons of both sexes, entangled in the habit of pollution, who because of a nervous or sanguine bodily temperament experience vehement temptations, and although they resist and pray, nevertheless are polluted. Let them know that pollutions which they truly suffer unwillingly are without sin.

e. There are others who first resist the temptation, but afterward, if the temptation continues to urge, are accustomed to yield to it. These must be encouraged to further resistance: for soon pollution will follow, which, as completed against the will, is inculpable.

f. Finally there are found others who, lying in bed, suffer vehement stirrings of the flesh, to which, if they continue to oppose positive resistance, they cannot fall asleep. These should be advised that, after imploring the help of God and eliciting dissent, with a secure conscience they may have themselves passively, whatever may happen.¹

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 5, n. 9; Aertnys, Theologia moralis, l. 6, n. 313; Eschbach, p. 556 ff.

40. On distillation. Distillation, which differs from pollution, is the moderate effusion of another, more subtle, non-prolific humor from the glands of the urethra. In pollution the effusion of humor is more copious and joined with great stirring and delectation; in distillation, on the contrary, the effusion of humor is slight and occurs almost drop by drop, with only light or scarcely any stirring and delectation that is perceived.

a. Sometimes from weakness of the organs distillation occurs almost habitually; this is an illness to be healed by a physician, not by a confessor. Although this illness here and there is contracted from a long-standing habit of sinning, nevertheless ordinarily it arises from natural causes.

b. Sometimes distillation also occurs with stirring of the genitals and venereal delectation; this distillation indeed is akin to pollution and disposes toward it.

1. If distillation occurs without delectation, no care must be had about it, nor does there exist an obligation of avoiding its cause. For this flow must be compared with the secretion of any other humor, e.g. of sweat, which nature is accustomed to cast out.

2. But distillation which occurs with delectation, directly willed or indirectly admitted without cause, cannot be excused from sin. This distillation is a sin of the same gravity and species as pollution itself, since it induces danger of it and is joined with venereal delectation.

41. On menstruation. 1. In women a peculiar phenomenon must be noted, which they call menstruation. By this name is signified the flow of blood which women suffer from the genital organs each month, and for this reason it is called the menstrual flow, the menses. Through the vagina menstrual blood flows out, on account of which the hymen is perforated. At the time of puberty menstruation begins and continues until about the fiftieth year of age, at which time fecundity is accustomed to cease. Physiologically this phenomenon is explained in this way. Each month in the ovaries an ovum matures, which, discharged from the ovaries, is transferred into the uterus. At the same time the interior parts of the uterus are filled with blood, so that blood may contribute to the development of the fetus, if it is conceived. But if the ovum has not been fertilized, blood flows out from the torn little arteries, and with the blood the ovum flows out through the genital organs. This flow ordinarily continues for two or three days, sometimes also for more days.¹ Sometimes the affected health of women demands that the menstrual flow be provoked by art, namely by the help of medicines; this indeed is morally licit, because no venereal delectation accompanies this flow.

2. Moreover it must be noted that women, at the time of the menstrual flow, especially in the first years in which they experience it, suffer vehement irritations of the nerves and are troubled by other inconveniences. But it cannot happen that these alterations of the body do not exercise an influence upon moral life. And indeed at that time they are agitated by various affections, especially by anger and sadness, which sometimes is increased even to melancholy. On this account they are then to be treated more indulgently and kindly, and not to be reproved on account of defects committed, but rather admonished to constancy in good resolutions.²

¹ Cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedicin^2, p. 87.

² Cf. A. Eschbach, l. c., disp. 1, c. 3, a. 1; Olfers, Pastoralmedicin^2, p. 87.

I. Notion. Pollution, softness, masturbation is a completed venereal act outside intercourse, both natural or copulation, and unnatural or sodomy and bestiality (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 11; St. Alphonsus III, 465). Moreover, it has been explained above (p. 6) in what a completed venereal act consists, both among men and among women.¹

¹ Cf. Van Roey, Quaestio specialis de Sexto decalogi praecepto.

II. Morality. First note proposition 49, which was condemned by Innocent XI at least as scandalous and dangerous in practice: "Softness is not prohibited by the law of nature. Hence, if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under mortal sin." With these things noted, receive the following:

1. Pollution both of a man and of a woman is a sin. This is clear both from Sacred Scripture (n. 27) and from the fact that the said pollutions involve the use of semen or quasi-semen which lacks ordination to the natural end of semen or quasi-semen, that is, to the good of the species. But a use of semen of this sort is a sin (n. 27).

Moreover, authors dispute in what especially the malice of pollution is situated. According to Eschbach,¹ Noldin,² and several more recent authors, it must chiefly be placed in satiating venereal pleasure. But this opinion seems to be rejected. For pleasure according to itself is not evil, but only by reason either of the end (p. 90), of which there is no discussion here, or of the work concerning which or in which one takes pleasure, so that one must necessarily come to the malice of the work itself. Hence the malice of pollution is primarily and chiefly to be placed in the disordering of the work itself,³ that is, in the fact that it involves a venereal act, completed, which is not ordered to the good of the species (cf. St. Thomas, De malo, q. 15, a. 1, corpus, and a. 2, corpus).

2. Pollution both of a man and of a woman is a grave sin. This is again clear from Sacred Scripture (n. 27). Next, as regards the pollution of a man, it is drawn from the fact that this involves a use of semen which is neither apt for generating nor ordered to the education of the one to be generated; these privations are grave (n. 28). As regards the pollution of a woman, it is deduced from the fact that there is had a use of quasi-semen which - to say nothing of the defect of ordination to generation (n. 28) - is not ordered to education, which ordination ought to be present in every use even of quasi-semen, and the privation of which is grave (n. 28). Hence St. Thomas: "From one intercourse one human being can be generated; and therefore a disordering of intercourse which impedes the good of the offspring to be born is, from the very kind of the act, mortal sin" (II-II, q. 154, a. 2, ad 6). But the holy Doctor speaks about fornication, and therefore about the disordering arising from the fact that ordination to education is lacking; for ordination to generation indeed subsists in fornication.

Note 1. It is disputed whether pollutions of a man and of a woman differ in species; in other words, whether the disordering which we have said is present in the pollution of a man and of a woman is morally, and not only physically, diverse; this is difficult to determine.⁴

Note 2. According to some,⁵ the completed venereal act of a woman, to which a flow of vaginal fluid is joined, differs specifically from completed venereal commotion which occurs without a pouring forth of this sort. But the said pouring forth of fluid either is necessarily required for completed commotion, or is nothing except the complement of completed commotion, and therefore does not differ from it.

Note 3. It is asked whether the venereal act of old men, eunuchs, and boys, carried all the way to its end, is of the same species as the pollution of an adult. Now with respect to old men this is quite commonly affirmed, and seems altogether to be affirmed, because old men possess true semen, though infertile, and therefore in them there is emission of semen. With respect to eunuchs and boys, who lack true semen, some deny it,⁶ chiefly because emission of semen, and therefore true pollution, is lacking. Others affirm it, relying especially on this reason, that the action and intention of the agent constitute the species more than the material effect does. Now the act and intention of the agent of themselves suffice for producing pollution. St. Alphonsus (III, 476), Van Roey,⁷ and Waffelaert⁸ adhere to this opinion.

3. Another malice can be added to pollution, namely from the object thought of, from the circumstances of the subject, but not from the manner in which the pollution is excited. I said:

a) From the object thought of, as if someone, while polluting himself, desires intercourse with an unmarried woman, a blood-relative, and so forth (St. Alphonsus III, 476).

b) From the circumstances of the subject or of the sinner. Thus if a married person pollutes himself, the species of adultery is added; if a sacred person, the species of carnal sacrilege, and so forth (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

c) From the circumstances of the object, that is, of the person by touching whom, with hand or body, by kissing, or by embracing, someone pollutes himself; as if he touches a married woman, a blood-relative, and so forth; in this case again there is had the species of adultery, incest, and so forth (St. Alphonsus III, 467, 476). These things, however, do not hold concerning the act of looking, unless the affection of libido is determined toward the person, for example, a married woman as such. The reason for the distinction is that touches, kisses, and embraces, since in the concrete and materially they reach such a person, cannot abstract from a circumstance inhering in the person; but looks, which are less material, commonly abstract from the person as such (St. Alphonsus III, 421).

¹ Disputatio physiologico-theologica, p. 548.

² De sexto praecepto, n. 29.

³ And these things hold concerning every sin of lust.

⁴ Cf. Waffelaert, De virtutibus cardinalibus, n. 167.

⁵ Cf. Bucceroni, Institutiones Theologiae Moralis I, n. 813.

⁶ Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis, I, n. 475; Vermeersch, De castitate et de vitiis contrariis, n. 328, and others.

⁷ Quaestio specialis de Sexto decalogi praecepto, p. 20.

⁸ De virtutibus cardinalibus, n. 162.

Question: whether another malice is added to pollution from the sex or species which someone pollutes himself by touching with hand or body; in other words, whether pollution provoked by touching with the hand a person of diverse or of the same sex, or a beast, has annexed to it the malice of fornication, sodomy, or bestiality.

Response. Quite probably, with St. Alphonsus, this is denied if only pollution is intended. It is true indeed that incomplete acts of themselves take on the species of the completed act in the same species, because by their nature they are ordered to it. Thus, for example, the touch of a woman of itself takes on the species of fornication (St. Alphonsus III, 416, 2; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 9, n. 3). But it is not clear that the same happens if the incomplete act is referred by the agent himself to an act completed in another species; for example, if the touch of a woman is referred by the one touching to pollution (St. Alphonsus III, 467; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 9, n. 25).

The same, strictly speaking, seems able to obtain if a joining of bodies outside the vessel intervenes; but then, regularly speaking, there will be had an affection toward true mingling, that is, toward an act completed in the same species. Hence if, for example, a male lies upon the body of a woman, the malice of fornication will scarcely be absent (St. Alphonsus, cited places, compared with III, 466, inferred 2).

d) But not from the manner in which the object is reached. Hence it is the same whether someone reaches the object with his own hand, with an instrument, or by sight and provokes pollution. Likewise, if there is question of bodily joining with a woman, it does not matter whether someone pollutes himself within the hands, between the breasts, or between her thighs. The reason is that these materially relate to the pollution in question, and they are not evil except by order to it, and therefore they do not change the species. Many except pollution in another's mouth, which is customarily called irrumatio; concerning this, see n. 57.

Note 1. If a penitent accuses himself of immodest touches, it seems that one can proceed thus:

I. If he is of more advanced age, or an adolescent of eighteen to nineteen years, or a girl of nineteen to twenty years, pollution can be presumed, and is sufficiently manifested by the very accusation of immodest touches; hence there is no obligation to ask about pollution having followed.

II. If pollution cannot be presumed, or rather if there is doubt whether it followed, let this be done:

1. If from the circumstances it is clear to the confessor that pollution is known to the penitent, he should ask about it.

2. If that is doubtful to the confessor, he should not ask, because it is better that the material integrity of confession be lacking than that the penitent learn things which up to that point he had been ignorant of, or that a desire of learning them be conceived by him, or that the confessor be exposed to suspicion and the Sacrament to hatred (cf. can. 868, § 2; St. Alphonsus, Praxis, n. 90). Hence impubescent boys and girls are not to be asked about pollution; the same should be applied to the pubescent in the first years after puberty, unless they appear corrupted.

III. In the case in which questioning seems to be required, women and girls should not be asked whether there was an effusion of semen or fluid, but whether they fully satisfied libido or nature, or whether they had vehement satisfaction, or whether they were greatly excited; but males who appear instructed in this matter can be asked whether they emitted nature.

Note 2. One who performs intercourse onanistically (n. 108) is guilty of pollution. Therefore its malice is added to the sin which fornicatorial, adulterous, incestuous, or sacrilegious intercourse already contains of itself.

But if it is asked whether, with foresight of the effusion of semen outside the vessel, it is licit to break off illicit intercourse, for example fornicatorial intercourse, the response is affirmative; indeed there is an obligation of doing so, that is, of desisting from the sin. Yet it would not be licit to break it off for this end, that offspring be avoided, by stopping at that; but it would be licit for this end, that offspring be avoided whose education is not provided for of itself.

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.

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.

The following must especially be noted:

I. Pollution, which in spouses in a certain way takes on the character of adultery, insofar as it involves the use of one's own body and thereby injures both the partner's right over it and the sanctity of the sacrament, which confirms the rights and duties of spouses.

Pollution.—Pollution is the voluntary emission of semen apart from coition.

(a) It is an emission, that is an external discharge. The internal secretion in the so-called female semination is also included by many under the head of pollution. The carnal motions spoken of in 2497 b are a preparation for pollution.

(b) It is a discharge of semen, that is, of the male fluid that fertilizes the female ovum. But equivalent pollution, from the moral viewpoint, is found in the discharge of certain non-prolific fluids that are accessory to generation or that produce in their movement a venereal satisfaction, such as the vaginal fluid in females (female semination), the urethral fluid in males capable or incapable of procreation (distillation). There is no pollution, however, in natural discharges such as menstruation and urination.

(c) It is apart from coition, and thus it differs from other consummated sins. But pollution may be committed either alone (solitary vice), or with another, and in the latter case it pertains reductively to adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc., as the case may be.

(d) It is voluntary directly or indirectly: directly, when one intends it as an end (e.g., for the sake of the pleasure) or as a means (e.g., as a relief from temptation or bodily itching, to obtain a specimen of semen for medical diagnosis); indirectly, when one unjustifiably does something from which one foresees that pollution will result. In all these cases pollution is formal or sinful, and it is not to be confused with material or natural pollution, which is a discharge of semen or distillation that is involuntary or unimputable.

Cases of Material or Non-Sinful Pollution.—(a) Involuntary pollution is passive or active. The former happens even when one is awake. It is evoked by such slight causes as physical movement and exertion, and is unaccompanied by pleasure; when habitual, it is a disease due to organic debility The latter happens during sleep, and may be caused by a superfluity of fluid. It is accompanied by pleasure and often by libidinous dreams. It is a means used by nature to relieve the system, and is therefore healthful and beneficial, unless the discharges are too frequent (e.g., nightly). There is no obligation of repressing the continuance of a pollution that began involuntarily during sleep, since it may be regarded as an act of nature; but consent must be withheld (2498 sqq.). Moreover, if merely natural pollution be considered, not as to its venereal gratification but solely as to its good effects (e.g., that it ends a temptation, that it benefits the mind or the health), there is no sin in rejoicing at its accomplishment or in desiring its fulfillment, provided nothing is done to produce it and the intention is good; for then the object of the will is indifferent and the end is good.

(b) Unimputable pollution is caused by a lawful act from which one foresees that pollution will ensue, there being no proximate danger of consent to sin, and the pollution being only permitted, and that for a proportionately grave reason.

Unimputable Pollution.—In reference to unimputable pollution the following distinctions should be noted:

(a) the danger risked by an act may be either of formal pollution (i.e., with consent to sin) or of material pollution (i.e., without consent to sin);

(b) the danger of pollution is either proximate or remote, the former being that from which pollution naturally and usually results and the latter that from which it does not naturally or usually result. Remotely dangerous are acts of a non-venereal kind, such as horseback riding, gymnastics, drinking alcoholic beverages, and also acts of a sexual kind that are only mildly exciting, such as conversations or books that are slightly “off color” when the parties are of mature age (see 2517, 2518). Proximately dangerous are acts of a venereal kind that notably inflame passion, such as warm and lingering kisses between persons of opposite sexes (see 2517, 2518);

(c) the reason for running the danger of pollution is either grave, serious, or slight. A grave reason is real necessity (e.g., the removal of disease or pain or of a very painful or troublesome itch due to the blood or disease) or great utility (e.g., the preservation of health, cleanliness of body); a serious reason is an important convenience of soul or body (e.g., the exercise of common politeness, the enjoyment of reasonable comfort); a slight reason is one in which none of the mentioned motives is found (e.g., the satisfaction of an idle curiosity, the removal of a trifling irritation or itch).

Proximate and Remote Occasions of Pollution.—It is never lawful to expose oneself to the immediate danger of sin, for he who loves the danger loves the sin (see 258, 260); but if one uses means to make the danger remote, one may lawfully encounter it for a good reason (see 258, 260, 261). It is lawful to permit an evil effect when there is sufficient justification according to the principle of double effect (see 103 sqq.).

(a) Hence, if there is proximate danger of formal pollution (that is, of consent to sin), no reason excuses an act even of a non-sexual kind, such as horseback riding. But if the act is necessary, the danger must be made remote by the use of special means, such as prayer, firm resolves, etc. (see 2497 sqq.).

(b) If there is proximate danger of material pollution, a grave reason suffices (e.g., the care of patients by physicians and nurses, assistance of bathers by attendants, warm soporific drinks taken for the sake of sleep).

(c) If there is remote danger of material pollution, a serious reason suffices (e.g., customary salutations of the country, physical exercises, moderate comfort in posture, seasoning in food.). A slight reason may excuse at times from mortal sin (e.g., unnecessary curiosity about the sciences of anatomy or sexology).

You will resolve: 1. "If the cause of pollution is one gravely influencing it, and the man does not abstain from positing that cause or action, it is clear that the pollution is imputed as sin, even if it was not intended, provided it was at least confusedly foreseen. But causes of this kind are without doubt all those which of themselves are grave faults in the genus of lust, namely touches or sights of the shameful parts of another's or one's own body with base and deliberate delight; the sight of human intercourse; and morose thoughts about venereal matters. Therefore all pollutions arising from these causes are certainly mortal. Thus S. Th. a. 2. q. 154. a. 5, and others commonly. And then that base act which is the cause of pollution has a special malice against nature, as Sanchez says, de Matr., l. 9, c. 45, n. 23, and all agree." L. 1. 3. n. 482. A special malice, namely of the effect or pollution, which is a sin against nature, besides the proper malice which consists in delight excited from a base object. Gravely influencing; therefore, if the cause, whether by reason of itself or by reason of the disposition of the subject, does not gravely influence, grave fault is absent by reason of the pollution perhaps going to follow, since then it follows outside the intention and accidentally. Of themselves are grave faults: "the common and more probable opinion teaches that pollution is not mortal (namely in the cause), unless it comes from a cause of itself mortal in the genus of lust.... The reason is that, since pollution is not willed except in the cause, it will be evil in that degree in which the cause itself is evil." L. 1. 3. n. 484. In the genus of lust, whence "it is inferred that the pollution which happens outside the intention from causes illicit even mortally in another genus than lust is not mortal, as from drunkenness, or from eating too immoderately or on a forbidden day." L. 1. 3. n. 484, 477; Salm., Theol. Schol., tr. 13, d. 10, n. 274; Theol. Mor., tr. 26, c. 7, n. 41.

2. "If someone, about to do some necessary or lawful and honorable thing, foresees that pollution will naturally follow, and this applies much more to distillation, which nevertheless he in no way wills or intends, then, provided the danger of consent to the delight is absent, he is not bound to abstain from such an action; because the effect following accidentally and outside the intention is not imputed to one pursuing his right. Hence, notwithstanding pollution, it is lawful to hear the confessions of women, to study cases of conscience, to touch oneself from necessity, cautiously and from necessity to kiss women, to embrace according to the custom of the country, if otherwise one would have to be regarded as uncivil." L. 1. 3. n. 481. "It is lawful for someone who suffers a great itching in the private parts to drive it away by touch, even if pollution follows." L. 1. 3. n. 483. The reason is that these acts either of themselves influence only lightly, or although they of themselves gravely influence, nevertheless, since they are not done from a base cause of concupiscence and delight, but from an honorable, necessary, useful, suitable cause, they no longer have the same force and influence upon the effect, which is gravely increased by that evil propensity of the will, and on the contrary is greatly diminished by the will turned elsewhere and resisting as far as it can. Hence the evil effect, if it follows, is attributed rather to natural constitution, or to weakness of nature, than to the aforesaid acts as cause. Besides, with the aforesaid honorable end standing, someone is not bound to abstain from the cause in order to impede the evil effect. For when a cause has two effects, one good, the other evil, it can be posited from the intention of the good effect alone, by behaving permissively toward the evil. Therefore that evil effect, in the case, truly follows accidentally and outside the intention. L. 1. 3. n. 483; l. 5. n. 14; S. Th. 3. p. q. 80. a. 7.

3. "It is inferred that the pollution which arises from a not prolonged conversation with a girl, or from a slight glance, or from curious reading venially base, is only venial; because, as has been said, since those causes influence lightly, the subsequent pollution proceeds rather from a natural cause than from them." L. 1. 3. n. 484. But if someone has a just cause, he sins in nothing. L. 1. 5. n. 29. A just cause is "any reasonable cause of necessity, utility, or fittingness." L. 1. 3. n. 484; l. 5. n. 29.

4. A fortiori grave fault is absent in those actions which influence remotely and accidentally, since they are outside the genus of lust. Therefore, although pollution or an evil commotion is foreseen as going to follow, it is lawful to ride horseback, not only for the sake of necessity and utility, but also for recreation; to recline in some position in order to rest more comfortably; moderately to take hot foods or drink; to lead honorable dances, etc. L. 1. 3. n. 483. Grave fault is absent; for whether light fault is present in the positing of such causes without a just reason, on account of the effect going to follow, is disputed. Holzmann and others deny it, "because, as they say, the pollution arises rather from the weakness of nature than from that cause, which concurs to pollution only accidentally and remotely. But Sanchez, Lessius, and others more probably affirm it..., because without a rational cause to permit pollution always seems something unbecoming and disordered." L. 1. 3. n. 484; Sanchez, de Matr., l. 9, d. 45; Sporer, de Matr., n. 644 ff.; Lessius, l. 4, c. 3, d. 14, n. 97-103.

Can children invincibly be ignorant of the malice of pollution? - R. Affirmatively, absolutely speaking, at least in some rare case, and at the beginning of a depraved habit. The reason is that the fact that an immodest look or touch, or the capturing of pleasure from procured pollution, or even from that which has naturally arisen, etc., are morally evil and illicit, is not so evidently made known from the very comprehension of the first principles, but discourse is needed to detect their malice. Therefore their malice can at least for some time be inculpably unknown. From this a prudent confessor will easily conclude that in such a contingency of fact one must proceed cautiously and prudently; and this caution and prudence, if it must always and with all be observed, especially in the matter of chastity, must be observed most of all with boys and girls. Elbel 128; Struggl l. c. n. 13.

Resolves: To rejoice concerning the manner, e.g., new, clever, vigorous, by which a thing was accomplished is not illicit, since the object of delectation is not evil. L. 18. If the thing, as it happened, is not evil, not even materially, nor harmful to another, to desire it is not of itself illicit, although otherwise it would be intrinsically evil, e.g., pollution which naturally happens in sleep. To desire, namely by simple affection and without any cooperation. But if it is licit to desire, it is also licit to rejoice concerning it already done. The reason is, "because what it is licit to desire that it be done, it is also licit to rejoice that it has been done; and conversely, if it is right to rejoice concerning the fact, it is also licit to desire that it be done; for these are of the same morality: for joy necessarily results from the desired good obtained, and supposes or implicitly includes desire." Lessius, de Iust. et Iur., l. 4, c. 3, n. 104; Laymann, l. 3, s. 4, n. 17; Lugo, l. c., n. 389. "I, however," says the same Lessius, l. c., "am not an author that desires of this sort be admitted to anyone; both because, although they are not evil in themselves, nevertheless they indicate an imperfect affection of chastity; and because holier remedies, and those used by holy men, are not lacking. I would say the same about joy. Also in all matters of this sort, as we have already often warned, every cooperation and danger of consent must be avoided." - Billuart, tr. de Temp., diss. 6, a. 4, Obj. III; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 154, a. 5; L. 19, 20; l. 3, n. 478.

It is not a sin, speaking in itself, at least not mortal, if spouses delight, only by the rational appetite, concerning an act of marriage past, future, or possible, with respect to the co-partner present or absent. The same must be said if a spouse-to-be desires future copulation, or likewise delights in it only by the rational appetite, or a widow concerning a past one, with the danger of consent into venereal delectation arising from it set aside. The reason is that these acts have a licit object. Nevertheless they are full of danger on account of the aforesaid venereal delectation often arising from them. Lugo, de Poenit., d. 19, n. 376, 385; Sanch., de Matr., l. 9, d. 47, n. 1, 4, 7; L. 23, 24, 25.

Sadness concerning a good accomplished which was commanded under grave obligation is gravely culpable; concerning a good which was commanded under light obligation, it is light. Likewise concerning a good under neither grave nor light precept, it is light, unless there is a just cause now of regretting it; for it is a certain disorder to be saddened over a good accomplished, although not commanded by precept. But if sadness is borne not into the good itself, but into the annoyance, the labor, etc., it is of itself not a sin. Sanch. in Dec., l. 4, c. 12, n. 2; Suarez, l. 5 de Voto, c. 7, n. 4; S. Th. 1. 2. q. 39.

What is softness or pollution? Softness, or voluntary pollution, is the voluntary emission of human seed outside intercourse or concubitus. Voluntary; for this emission of seed can also come naturally from the very abundance of humor, and can often be determined by several extrinsic circumstances, both in the state of wakefulness and especially in sleep. But some of these circumstances are physical, such as weakness of temperament, some disease producing irritation of the genital organs, lying on the back, softness and heat of the bed, exciting drinks, exercise of riding, etc.; others are moral, such as thoughts of venereal things, readings of the same things, conversations, etc. But pollution will be voluntary when it is intended in itself or even in its cause, whatever that cause finally may be. Since, moreover, this voluntary pollution often is excited by manual contact, hence commonly it is called masturbation.

Emission: this emission in males occurs outside the genital member; hence it is exterior emission. But in females it occurs both outside, though more rarely, and within the genital vessel without any exterior outflow. Although in females this emission occurs in the genital vessel, they themselves sensibly perceive it; for in it they are affected by great pleasure, and once it is completed they are satiated and are at rest; and by this sign of great pleasure and subsequent satisfaction it is discerned whether in reality they have been polluted. Hence pollution differs altogether from inordinate motions, which motions are alteration, commotion, swelling, erection of the genital parts; and these motions are joined to the sense of venereal pleasure, and dispose to pollution. These motions can have place both in men and in women. Of seed: seed here generally is understood as the viscous humor destined for generation by the Creator Himself. This humor is not of the same nature in male and female. For the matter which is secreted through pollution in a female is not prolific, but a certain simple mucous excretion, which renders the work of marriage easier; nevertheless it tends and is ordered by nature to the release and fecundation of the ovule, and in the ovule is the prolific element on the part of the woman. But the matter which is secreted in a male is truly prolific, and it is originally elaborated in the testicles. In it, however, there is to be distinguished mucus, especially prostatic and urethral, which serves to dilute the seed so that it may be emitted more easily in intercourse, and the seed itself, which is the prolific element on the part of the man, and which consists in zoospermata or nemaspermata. Hence pollution in a man differs from distillation, which is a certain urethral excretion, and flow of another humor, which is elaborated not in the testicles, but from the prostate gland and from the mucous glands of the urethra; nor is it prolific, nor is it usually emitted with so vehement, but only with light, indeed sometimes without any commotion of the flesh and venereal pleasure. Women also can experience not only pollution, but also an outflow of a certain humor from the vulvo-vaginal glands, not unlike the distillation of males, which therefore is not per se to be confused with true softness or pollution. Outside intercourse or concubitus; hence pollution has this, that it is a sin against nature, and therefore diverse in species. And thus S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 1, 11, 12 constantly derives the special malice of the vice against nature from this, that through it the generation of offspring is impeded, and that it is contrary to the natural order itself of the venereal act.

Is pollution a sin? - Voluntary pollution is a grave sin, as is clear from prop. 49 condemned by Innocent XI. "The most important reason of this most certain truth is brought forward: because if pollution of this sort were lawful, and at least not gravely prohibited, the use of marriage, so necessary in the world, would be impeded, since men would be content with that pleasure alone and would not wish to give themselves to marriages, for the most part so burdensome. Add to this: if fornication is forbidden by the law of nature and intrinsically evil, much more will pollution, by which seed is utterly wasted and generation is impeded contrary to the sole end intended by nature, be unlawful by the law of nature and intrinsically evil." Sporer 628; L. 425; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 1, 5; E. M.

You will resolve: The special malice of pollution consists in the vain emission of seed against the order of nature. Therefore this sin differs in species from every immodest touch, which indeed venereal pleasure follows, but no emission of seed. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 1, 11, 12. Penitents often do not distinguish simple venereal pleasure from pollution, as when they accuse themselves of having touched themselves. But, especially in this matter, one must stand by the common rule, namely that the Confessor ought to judge of sins accused according to the obvious and natural sense, and every danger of scandal is to be kept away from Confession. Therefore he acts prudently by abstaining from every shamefaced interrogation without true necessity. Therefore the intrinsic malice of pollution is not in vehement pleasure outside conjugal intercourse, but in the fact that it is against generation. Otherwise the sin would not be distinct in species from venereal pleasure outside conjugal intercourse. More and less do not change the species. "Every human act is said to be inordinate which is not proportioned to the due end.... But the end of the use of the genital members is the generation and education of offspring; and therefore every use of the aforesaid members which is not proportioned to the generation of offspring and its due education is in itself inordinate." S. Thom. de Malo q. 15, a. 1. Therefore the use of venereal things cannot be without sin, unless "it is done in the due mode and order, according as it is fitting to the end of generation." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 153, a. 2. "Therefore because in vices which are against nature man transgresses what is determined according to nature concerning the use of venereal things, from this it is that in such matter this sin is most grave." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 12. And because "the species of an act is taken from the object, which is the matter of the act.... thus insofar as generation of offspring is impeded, it is vice against nature, which is in every venereal act from which generation cannot follow." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 1. The use of marriage against nature, when the due vessel is passed over, "is always mortal sin, because offspring cannot follow." S. Th. 4, D. 31, Exp. text. in fine.

Voluntary pollution, for the sake of escaping the danger of any disease or death, is always mortal sin. It is altogether lawful for preserving life and the whole suppositum to cut off some member from a man, a hand or foot. For from that cutting off, sometimes lawful, no inconveniences follow, since from it, as from a very troublesome thing, natural appetite vehemently abhors, and 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 this should ever be lawful, men abuse it to the detriment of the species itself. And thus, for example, it is never lawful, not even in a case of extreme necessity, to violate the sacramental seal; because if this were lawful even in a very rare case, the sacrament of penance would become hateful to the faithful, and they would be removed from it, to the greatest detriment of souls, just as in reality men are often deprived of the good of seeking counsel because they know that in certain cases perhaps a secret can be manifested. Besides, "the more something is necessary, the more it is fitting that the order of reason be preserved concerning it.... But the use of venereal things is very necessary to the common good, which is the conservation of the human race." Hence, although seed is superfluous, nevertheless the emission of seed "ought to be done in such a way that it is fitting to the end for which it is needed." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 153, a. 3.

To the malice of simple 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 desire of sinning with another person, another malice is added according to the quality of the person desired; likewise another malice is added if someone is polluted while delighting himself concerning imagined intercourse, when he is polluted by the touches of others." L. 476; Sporer 640, 641; Sanch. de Matr. l. 9, d. 17, n. 16. Just as to will and procure pollution itself, or venereal pleasure, is grave sin, so consequently it will be grave sin to will and procure lustful distillation, namely distillation with partial emission of seed, or with only carnal commotion and venereal pleasure. Nevertheless simple distillation does not carry with it the emission of seed. But concerning that distillation which occurs involuntarily and insensibly, one need not be troubled. Distillation easily arises even from a small irritation, or small erection of the member, while emission of seed, apart from the case of disease, requires a great irritation of the member, which brings about the vehement and spasmodic contraction of the canals carrying seed and of all the muscles of the perineum, by which the seed is emitted from the vesicles through the urethra. Caiet., opusc. 22, q. 1; Sporer 260; Salmant. 33; L. 447.

Do the impubescent, whether boys or girls, and eunuchs, who try by immodest motions to emit seed, when they cannot, sin by the sin of pollution, or only of immodesty? Eunuchs lacking both testicles emit only mucus, especially of the prostate and urethra, without any emission of seed. Spadones are those who by design or causally have been deprived of testicles.

Eunuchs, however, are called those who have been born thus without testicles. Those lacking both testicles are impotent, and cannot contract marriage. Moreover Tamburini, on the 2nd Precept of the Church, c. 17, n. 13, has these things: "Those who from defect of age or from another cause, such as the impubescent and eunuchs, cannot by immodest motion pour out seed, or pour out useless seed, sin mortally... but certainly this species of sin differs from true pollution, whose nature is to cast forth seed against the end of generation, which casting forth is not in the aforesaid persons in this way; therefore the sin in the impubescent is in reality reduced to immodest touch." So Sporer 639: "It is answered that it is indeed mortal sin, to be reduced to softness; for of itself it is a depraved affection toward pollution; nevertheless it seems to differ in species from true pollution, by which seed is emitted; in proper species it is to be reduced to the immodesty of touch; hence it is to be explained in Confession." So also Holzmann, Babenstuber, and others. Yet St. Alphonsus 476 teaches the contrary; he openly affirms that "the pollution of spadones and boys, although they do not have perfect seed, differs in nothing from the pollution of adults."

When women procure pollution for themselves, do they commit the special sin of pollution, or only of immodesty, as was said for the impubescent and eunuchs? Some of the more recent theologians affirm, because women lack seed, or rather humor, truly prolific. Hence they deduce: 1. that the Confessor can abstain from every further interrogation, since this malice of pollution is not diverse in species from the malice of touches. 2. that in a married woman such pollution does not exceed venial fault, since in the same woman immodest touches probably do not exceed such malice. But the most common opinion of the more recent theologians and the altogether unanimous opinion of the older theologians denies this, although even very many of these did not consider the emission of the woman necessary for conception. The reason is that although that humor of women is not of itself prolific and necessary for generation, nevertheless from its nature it is destined for the generative act; for it is ordered to accomplishing this better and more easily. Hence in the emission of that humor the order of nature is still frustrated in the most grave matter of human generation, to which outside concubitus that whole act is no longer orderable; and therefore it is against nature. And from this the difference is clear between the pollution of women and that emission of the impubescent and eunuchs. For this 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 that pollution of women intrinsically and essentially is a physically complete act, as is clear even from the very series of phenomena of excitation which precedes, and of rest and satiety which follows; and therefore, if it is done outside every concubitus, of itself it is no longer orderable to a complete lawful act, namely conjugal intercourse; for that emission of vulvo-vaginal mucus indicates a perfect pleasure attained, which by nature is ordered to the generative act. Antonelli vol. 2, p. 216, n. 471, note. Therefore again it is an act against nature. Sanchez aptly says, l. 9, d. 17, n. 13: "The voluntary emission of seed outside the vessel, or that mode of coming together from which it follows, is a manifest mortal crime against nature. Because it is opposed to the end of natural generation, for which nature itself has destined seed. This reason plainly has place in the seed of a man, as altogether necessary for generation. But the same must be said of the voluntary pollution of a woman, for her seed is ordered by nature to generation, either as necessary according to one opinion, or at least according to the truer opinion, as most useful and greatly contributing to it." And S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 11, making no distinction, absolutely affirms that vice against nature, such as pollution, is a determinate species of lust, since in it a special account of deformity occurs, namely "because it is contrary to the natural order itself of the venereal act, which is fitting to the human species... if pollution is procured without any concubitus for the sake of venereal pleasure." And a. 12, likewise making no distinction, he says absolutely: "Because in vices which are against nature man transgresses what is determined according to nature concerning the use of venereal things, from this it is that in such matter this sin is most grave." "Tibullus, receiving the confessions of women whose husbands are often accustomed to be absent, and who do not easily contain themselves, teaches and persuades the 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 adds to the beloved in Christ who wrote: that already twice concerning this matter it had been answered by this sacred Tribunal, and that acts of this sort are gravely unlawful, and that a confessor approving them is to be denounced." S. Poenit., 2 Sept. 1904. Nor indeed is it valid to insist that, although that act is against nature and therefore unlawful of itself, nevertheless it is not gravely but only lightly unlawful, since that wifely act is not for the simple being of generation, but only for its better being. For if this were not gravely unlawful, and by its intrinsic nature, then women, for whom marriage is so burdensome, content with that pleasure alone by which they are allured by nature to the work of marriage, would by no means devote themselves to it, and there would no longer be any limits to wifely masturbation and conjugal onanism on the part of those same wives. Indeed, for immodest women marriage would be a way for fostering and increasing immodesty more and more, since they could exercise it at least without grave sin.

Nor again can it be urged that at least in that pollution of a woman the proper reason of pollution is lacking, namely the vain emission of seed against generation, since nothing is done against this. For in the pollution of a woman two things are especially to be distinguished. The first is the emission of humor, which is by no means necessary for generation, but only useful; the other is the release of the ovule, which not only occurs naturally and spontaneously at the time of menstruation, but also occurs by this venereal excitation, which ruptures the follicle in which the ovule is contained, both by the very erethism of the whole organ of generation and by the secretion of humor with which it is filled. Therefore insofar as that venereal excitation of itself tends to the release of the ovule from the ovary, it contains true malice of pollution, since the ovule is on the part of the female an element altogether necessary for generation, which, fecundated by contact with the spermatozoid of male sperm, exhibits the generation of a new individual. Therefore, just as in a man the malice of pollution in reality is not in the vain emission of humor, but in the vain release of spermatozoids from the testicles, or more properly from the seminal vesicles, in which resides the force of fecundating the ovule, which release of spermatozoids accompanies that emission of the remaining humor; whence this has from that the fact that it is against nature; so likewise in a woman the malice of pollution is not in the vain emission of humor, but in the vain release of the ovule from the ovary, to which that emission of humor tends, whence this has from that the fact that it is against nature.

And indeed who will be able to deny that this complete feminine act, by its nature, as in a man, is ordered to generation, and therefore to the release of the ovule from the ovary, without which generation is impossible? The illustrious Doctor Joseph Antonelli, in his work Medicina Pastoralis, ed. 3, vol. 1, nn. 201, 202, says that natural and spontaneous ovulation, or ejection of ovules from the vesicles of Graaf, occurs at the time of menstruation, without venereal sense, but that venereal sense can accelerate ejection; if male seed meets it, it is fecundated, otherwise it is expelled, corrupted, together with menstrual blood. And n. 220 he says: "Looking at the matter a priori, the time which follows the development and exit of the ovules from the vesicles, and therefore the menses, would seem to be more apt for fecundation. Nevertheless that it is not so, many things persuade. For it must be diligently noted that many causes can change the time of maturation and the exit of the ovules, such as coition, excitation of the genitals, dangerous company of men, etc." Therefore just as ovulation, or ejection of ovules, is had naturally and spontaneously, so it is also had by venereal excitation, which is produced by coition, dangerous company of men, etc. With local congestion increased, as the same illustrious Author has, l. c., vol. 2, n. 247, the emission of vulvo-vaginal mucus is produced; so, with the same congestion increased by venereal excitation, the release of the ovule is produced. And since a woman can be fecundated at any time, although, as they now say, the week preceding menstruation is more favorable, it is plainly evident that from coition and venereal excitation the release of the ovule is determined. Milne Edwards, Lecons sur la physiologie et l'anatomie comparee, etc., Paris 1870, tom. 8, pp. 338, 339, 355, 356, 359, 360; tom. 9, pp. 106-109; Longet, Traite de physiologie, Paris 1850, tom. 2, 3rd part, pp. 80, 95.

Are all pollutions of the same species? "All pollutions, considered in themselves, are of the same species, in whatever way they are done, if they are done without concubitus." L. 476, 477. Considered in themselves, because by reason of the circumstances of the person, or of interior pleasure and desire, or of cooperation in the sin of another, other malices can be added to it.

"Is pollution had by touching a boy or sleeping women, or those incapable of deceit, or the pudenda of beasts, but without concubitus, of a species diverse from simple pollution? The first opinion affirms, and says that such pollution with a boy is sodomy, but with a female is inchoate intercourse. 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 is done by one's own touches or another's. Then it suffices to confess: I had pollution by another's touches. For when concubitus is not present, there is not affection toward sex, but toward pollution; and this is more probable. Therefore Roncaglia notes, de VI Praec., c. 7, q. 6, with Bonacina, Trullench, and Filliucci, that if someone is polluted by the touches of a man or woman, since only pollution is then intended, it is also material whether it happens by the touches of a man or woman. Yet it must be said otherwise if it was done by the touches of a married woman, or of one having a vow of chastity." L. 467, 474, 485. But the difficulty here is to reconcile these things with what was said by the Holy Doctor himself, H. A. 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."

If seed has been corrupted, is it lawful to expel it by medicines, even if besides the intention some emission of true seed follows? R. Affirmatively. Thus more commonly the doctors. The reason is that those medicines per se directly tend only to the expulsion of corrupted seed; but some emission of true seed follows per accidens and besides the intention, which cannot be called unlawful, since all concede that it is lawful by remedies to expel other harmful humors, although pollution follows per accidens, just as it is also lawful to take a drug for expelling a disease, even if indirectly an inanimate fetus is to be expelled, according likewise to the common opinion.

"This opinion," says St. Alphonsus 478, "I judge sufficiently probable, provided however: 1. The seed is certainly corrupted, but not if doubtfully. 2. The expulsion of corrupted seed can be done without the sense of lust. 3. There are no other remedies for healing the corrupted seed. Yet it is never lawful by touch to expel corrupted seed, even if the danger of consent is absent; this must altogether be held...

The reason is that, although a remedy is permitted, because it alone of itself tends to expelling corrupted seed, nevertheless friction is in no way to be permitted, because that of itself tends to stirring carnal spirits and expelling true seed, which is never lawful." More recent authors deny the hypothesis of corrupted seed. For either the seed still remains in the seminal vesicles, or it has left them. If it remains, then it remains healthy until emission. And if it is not emitted, then it is absorbed, conferring new strength on the organism. If it has left, it is immediately expelled by ejaculation or urination, and it can no longer return into the vesicles.

Is it lawful to take medicine for corrupting true seed, and afterward ejecting it once already corrupted? "Sanchez, Bonacina, Anacletus, Roncaglia, etc., probably concede this. The reason: because nature does not oblige one to preserve seed with danger of life. For if," says Sanchez, "it is lawful to amputate the testicles to protect life, although without them a man is rendered altogether impotent for generating, why would it not be lawful to corrupt seed?" L. 478. Cf. here n. 817.

Is someone bound to impede pollution involuntarily begun? Some affirm, because, they say, it is false that any danger of disease is present from this. Debreyne, Moechialogie, Brussels 1853, p. 26. But others commonly deny. For then someone does not will that pollution, but merely suffers it. But if pollution is restrained, the seed is afterward expelled with urine, but meanwhile it is the cause of vehement venereal excitation. Therefore a reason also is not lacking for negatively permitting it. L. 479; Spor. 657, 642, 656.

Note: "When pollution begins in sleep, and emission happens in half-full wakefulness, then, if the man experiences some pleasure, not fully deliberate, he indeed sins only venially." L. ib.

Is someone bound by positive effort to impede depraved motions of concupiscence involuntarily arisen? R. Negatively; nor indeed is this expedient, since then the imagination itself grows hot by the very strain, and by the natural sympathy of faculty with faculty excites the genital spirits more and more. The more suitable remedy will be to invoke God and turn the mind and imagination away from obscene images, and by serious application to apply them to other things, especially to exterior affairs.

If actions which per se in no way, or only altogether lightly, influence depraved motions, or even pollution, gravely influence those same effects by reason of a peculiar infirmity and subjective disposition, is someone bound under grave obligation to abstain from such actions? R. Scavini l. 1, n. 78, ed. 12, Milan 1874, affirms. But it must be denied, with the proximate danger of consent in those depraved effects nevertheless excluded. The reason is that a subjective disposition cannot change the intrinsic nature of that action, and therefore cannot make it gravely unlawful if in itself it is only lightly unlawful, or even simply lawful. But that depraved motions or even pollution follow from it is per accidens. This case, since the action in itself is honorable, is the case of a cause honorable in itself, having a double effect, one per se good, the other evil, and indeed per accidens. Therefore someone can pursue his own right in placing that action. Nor indeed is a sufficient and proportionate reason lacking on the part of the agent in such a manner of acting; for one who is so sensibly affected by honorable things themselves is liable to innumerable scruples and anxieties, and, if he wishes to avoid all things by which he can be badly affected, he is forced to lead a truly intolerable life. But if that action is altogether lightly unlawful, per se "there is no grave obligation" of avoiding it, L. 484; but practically "it is as it were morally impossible for men commonly to avoid all these causes." L. ib. Billuart Diss. 6, art. 12, Dico 1; L. 423, 484.

How is a church polluted, and how must it be reconciled? - Resp. To the first. A church is polluted or violated when certain base or indecent actions and actions injurious to a sacred place are exercised in it, on account of which it is considered indecent that the immaculate Host be offered there and divine offices be celebrated until it is reconciled. Therefore the Church is polluted: 1. By homicide, voluntary, mortally evil, or at least injurious to ecclesiastical immunity. 2. By the shedding of human blood from a blow or a gravely injurious wound. 3. By illicit voluntary emission of human seed. 4. By the burial of one not baptized, or an unbeliever. Except more probably if he is a catechumen, because he is not judged an unbeliever. Likewise, if he is an infant whose parents are Christians, because then the parents desire Baptism for him. Thus Pichler, Gousset 310, against others. 5. By the burial of an excommunicated person to be avoided. - But for a church to be judged polluted, these crimes must be notorious, so that they can in no way be hidden. They must also be committed in the church itself, not only in the tower, roof, sacristy, or other places adhering to the church. C. 19, 20, 27, de Consecr. dist. 1; c. 4, 7, 10, de Consecr., etc.; c. un. h. t. in 6; c. 5, de Adulter.; S. R. C., Apr. 23, 1875, n. 3344; L. 362, 364. "Note the expression 'shedding of blood,' which signifies abundance.... Hence it does not violate if from a slight blow or wound, e.g., of the nostrils in a quarrel of boys, even abundant blood flows, because in this there is commonly no mortal sin." L. 365. - A church is not polluted "by desolation, heretical exercise, filth of men or of animals stabled there, etc., although it is fitting and practice has it that it be reconciled and washed by the Bishop, or at least a priest, with some ceremony; understand this likewise of an altar in a similar case." L. 367.

Resp. To the second. 1. If the church was only blessed, it can be reconciled by a priest delegated by the Bishop, with the customary prayers and with blessed water. But the water can be blessed by the priest himself. Indeed Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. 13, c. 15, n. 2, says: "If the church was simply blessed, then the same Gregory IX, in c. Si ecclesia, de Consecr. eccl., established that, no delegation having first been obtained, a polluted church can be reconciled by a simple priest, with blessed water, which they call holy or lustral, being used." But S. R. C., July 8, 1904, in Nolana, responded that delegation of the Ordinary is necessary, as is had in the Roman Ritual, tit. 8, cap. 18. - 2. But if that church was consecrated, it must be reconciled by the Bishop himself, or by a priest delegated by the Pope according to the rite of the Roman Pontifical. Nevertheless, if the divine offices cannot be omitted without grave inconvenience, the Bishop, detained by some impediment, can delegate a priest to bless the church with a simple blessing, until he himself can reconcile and consecrate it. - 3. But private oratories, although blessed and deputed to worship, are not judged to be polluted, and therefore do not need reconciliation. Suarez disp. 8, sect. 4, n. 6; Lugo disp. 20, nn. 58, 59. - Giraldi p. 1, sect. 598; L. 362, 363; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 3 ad 3; E. M.

Must the confessor admonish the penitent if he is in ignorance? - Resp. In the affirmative, if the ignorance seems vincible, i.e., if the confessor notices that the penitent doubts in such a way that good faith is already lacking. The reason is that in making the admonition no danger threatens; but otherwise the penitent, acting with that doubt, is not free from sin. - If the ignorance is invincible, a distinction must be made. The admonition is to be made if there is question of a matter necessary by necessity of means; otherwise the penitent is certainly indisposed. If there is question of other matters, affirmatively, if the admonition will be useful. The reason is that this is required from the general precept of charity and from the office of teacher which the confessor has.

If the admonition will not be useful, although there is question of repairing the harm of a third private person, e.g., of restitution of a debt, it is either simply to be omitted or deferred to a better occasion. The reason is that it would be useless to the creditor and harmful to the penitent. - If there is question of public harm, speaking of itself, the admonition is to be made. The reason is that the public good is to be preferred to the private good of the penitent, and the confirmation and propagation of evil is to be impeded, lest others think that what is not corrected is lawful, and themselves also do it, "since someone thinks that those things are lawful for him which he observes to be done with impunity by those who frequent the sacraments of the Church." Benedict XIV, Encyclical Apostolica Constitutio, June 26, 1749, § 20. Besides, there is hope that, with God's grace helping, the admonition made will be useful to the public good, even as regards the part of the penitent himself, if he himself brings a sincere will to receive the sacrament of penance, if not immediately, perhaps after some time, after he has seriously considered the matter. Speaking of itself, because if perhaps greater harm, both private and public, were feared from the admonition made; because, for example, a penitent not very fervent and pious would therefore be entirely turned away from the Church, and because of his influence would bring greater harm upon the Church, it will belong to prudence to dissemble, permitting the lesser evil so that the greater may be avoided. Then indeed that holds which St. Alphonsus 610 calls a most valid reason, "namely that of two evils the lesser is to be permitted, that the greater may be avoided." - L. 609, 614, 615, 694; l. 3, n. 682; Lugo, d. 22, n. 29, 30, 37.

Resolutions: Therefore the penitent is to be admonished: Whenever he himself asks about the malice of some matter, because since he doubts about the lawfulness of the matter, he is already not in invincible ignorance. - Whenever the silence of the confessor would confirm him in the purpose of doing an evil thing, by thus tacitly approving the error. - Whenever his ignorance concerns the first principles of natural law or their proximate conclusions; because such ignorance, if it is possible, cannot be invincible for long. - Whenever, if the admonition were omitted, the penitent would be going to remain formally in a proximate occasion of sinning. - Lugo, d. 22, n. 29, 37; Sanchez, de Matr., l. 2, 38, n. 11; L. 609, 615, 616; Ithur., Cas. 31.

What if spouses foresee that pollution will follow from these shameful acts in themselves or in the other? The resolution depends on the intrinsic nature of the act, on the manner in which it is exercised, on the cause, and on the other circumstances. For there is question of the voluntary in its cause; therefore if the act is such, or at least is exercised in such a way, that per se and proximately it influences pollution, and no just cause is present, there is certainly grave sin. But otherwise, if the act is such, and is exercised in such a way, with due caution applied for preventing it, that pollution, if it follows, follows only per accidens, and there is a just cause.

Hence St. Alphonsus, after relating three opinions concerning the proposed question, says: "I think it more probable that it must be said that shameful acts between spouses with danger of pollution, both in the one asking and in the one rendering, are mortal; unless they are had so that the spouses excite themselves to copulation to follow proximately, because since they have a right to copulation, they also have a right to such acts, although pollution per accidens should precede copulation. But I also judge modest acts to be mortal if they are done with danger of pollution in oneself or in the other, in the case in which they are had for pleasure alone, or even for a slight cause; otherwise if for a grave cause, for instance if sometimes there is an urgent cause of showing signs of affection, for fostering love, or so that a spouse may avert suspicion from the other that he himself is inclined toward another person. Sanchez, etc., probably say that in the one rendering, even immodest touches, unless they are such that they seem to be pollution begun, are licit, although danger of pollution is present in either one, because then the one rendering applies himself to a licit thing to which he is bound by reason of the right of the one asking, who although he sins, nevertheless does not lose the right, since the fault holds itself on the part of the person." L. 934; Sanchez, book 9, disp. 45. Indeed St. Alphonsus himself, book 3, n. 484, says: "The common and more probable opinion teaches that pollution is not mortal unless it proceeds from a cause per se mortal in the genus of lust." And in book 3, n. 483, he says: "Yet exception is made if the aforesaid actions (gravely influencing pollution) are placed from a cause necessary, useful, or fitting for soul or body; for then pollutions proceeding from them, even foreseen, are not sins, provided that consent, or danger of it, is absent."

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:

428. • Pollution is the effusion of semen without intercourse with another. Voluntary pollution, of which alone we treat, is either directly or indirectly sought. It is also called mollities. But it differs from distillation, which is the light effusion of another more subtle humor. In pollution semen is ordinarily ejaculated with vehement delight and great commotion; but distillation is had ordinarily with no delight and commotion, or with very slight.

429. Principles. - I. Pollution directly and perfectly voluntary is always a mortal sin, so that it is never lawful to procure it. The reason is, 1. because pollution has intrinsic repugnance with nature, which has ordered the effusion of semen solely to generation ¹; 2. because if it were ever permitted, or prohibited only under venial sin, a habit of pollution would most easily be contracted because of the great proclivity of corrupted nature into lust, and therefore the order of nature would shortly be subverted; 3. it is clear from various texts of Sacred Scripture, for example 1 Cor. 6. 10: "Nor the effeminate... shall possess the kingdom of God"; 4. it is also clear from proposition 49 condemned by Innocent XI, which has itself thus: "Mollities is not prohibited by the law of nature; hence if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good..." - See St. Lig., n. 476.

¹ ** It is certainly important to know accurately in what the special malice of this sin resides, so that from this the Confessor may take some norm by which, concerning the questioning of penitents, he may more easily free himself from troublesome scruples. Therefore the proper notion of this sin ought to be sought from the character of a sin against nature. Concerning this, Filliuccius says generally thus (tr. 30, n. 137): "This sin is called against nature, because it is not only repugnant to the rational order - for this is common to any sin of lust, which is against reason and is repugnant to the rational order - but also because it is repugnant to the natural order of the venereal act in the human species; for the natural order of such an act ought to be of such a kind that from it the generation of a human being can follow; for this is its end. Therefore if it cannot follow, such an act will be against the natural order, and therefore will be called a sin against nature." But more briefly and more distinctly Elbel (part 4, conf. 9, n. 254) says of the special malice of this sin: "The reason is that human seed is ordered by nature to generation; therefore to pour it forth for another end (pleasure) is repugnant to the order of nature." Therefore, since this special malice consists in the vain effusion of semen against the order of nature, now it is clear why this sin differs in species from any immodest act which venereal pleasure indeed follows, but no effusion of semen; and therefore why the Confessor (with those cautions indeed which all the Doctors deservedly require) not imprudently asks about this as an object of a peculiar species.

But again, since this special disorder is placed in the vain effusion of semen, which was instituted by nature solely for conjugal copula so that offspring might be received from it, now the reason is clear why the Doctors judge differently about this baseness as regards those who either can emit no semen, or certainly not true semen. Hence what Sporer has (Theol. Sacr., p. 4, c. 2, n. 39) concerning the prepubescent: "If boys or girls, who cannot yet sow seed, touch themselves basely..., it is indeed a mortal sin; ... yet it seems to differ in species from true pollution, through which seed is sown, and in proper species it must be reduced to the immodesty of touch." Likewise Holzmann (part 2, tr. 2, n. 686): "If the prepubescent, whether boys or girls, try by immodest motion to elicit seed, when they cannot yet do so, they commit a sin diverse in species from true pollution, in reality pertaining to the immodesty of touch.... The reason is that... since they do not pour forth semen, they do not commit the sin of true pollution, but another diverse in species." Think the same thing of eunuchs deprived of seed apt for generation. Nor otherwise Babenstuber (tr. 5, disp. 7, art. 2, n. 71): "The prepubescent..., who try by immodest motion to pour forth seed, when they cannot yet do so, do indeed sin mortally...; nevertheless that sin of theirs differs in species from true and properly so-called pollution. The reason is that it belongs to the nature of true pollution to pour forth seed against the end of human generation; but in persons of this sort there is no effusion of seed. Therefore this sin in reality and properly pertains to the immodesty of touch.... What has been said of the prepubescent must also be understood of eunuchs. For in these there is no seed useful for generation." And Tamburini had gone before (De 2. Eccl. Praec., c. 17, n. 13), saying: "Those who from defect of age, or from another cause (such as the prepubescent, as also eunuchs), cannot by immodest motion pour forth seed, or pour forth useless seed, sin mortally...; but certainly this species of sin differs from true pollution, to which it belongs to throw forth seed against the end of generation; this throwing forth is not in the aforesaid persons of this sort; therefore the sin in the prepubescent is reduced in reality to immodest touch." From this, moreover, to the reasons which Doctors are accustomed wisely to bring forward why the Confessor must be most cautious in questioning penitents of this sort about this argument, this peremptory reason accedes: that as soon as they shall prudently have searched sufficiently whether these things were maliciously carried out, no place remains for further questions.

But from these things arises an occasion of almost the same question concerning the same sin, if there is question of women. For however theologians may introduce speech concerning female seed, and indeed for many causes, nevertheless when they then ask about its nature, they commonly have nothing except what is altogether uncertain. Let Bonacina stand for all (De Matr., q. 4, p. 6, n. 13), who writes: "According to the most probable opinion the seed of a woman concurs neither actively nor passively toward generation." And Sanchez (lib. 9, disp. 17, n. 9): "That female seed is not necessary, nor concurs actively toward generation, Galen, contrary to himself, Aristotle, Avicenna, Albertus M., Hugo Senensis, and many others teach, and the whole school of theologians with St. Thomas, 3, q. 31, art. 4, ad 3. This is clear from this, that, experience testifying, women wholly unwilling... conceive when receiving male seed; but then they by no means emit seed. Therefore since without that seed... generation follows," etc. But although the old followers of Scotus, as Sanchez suggests (l. c.), and then Elbel (part 4, conf. 9, n. 252), after Hippocrates thought that the seed of a woman concurs actively toward generation, nevertheless Elbel himself (ibid., n. 253) then confesses that today it is commonly denied by learned Physicians that true seed, or true testicles, are given in women, but rather ovaries filled with certain little things (by others they are called vesicles). Thus Georgius Francus in Paulus Zacchia, Quaest. medic. legal. From this, as from a hypothesis, the same one (l. c.) rightly concludes from the premised principles: "Whatever nevertheless may be about this matter, among theologians it remains certain and undoubted that it is as little permitted to women as to the prepubescent or eunuchs to provoke themselves to venery by their own touch or that of another." Now since the matter is now no longer uncertain or hypothetical, but certain and most thoroughly investigated among Physicians or those skilled in physiology, namely that what has been customarily called female seed is wholly diverse from the nature of true seed, and that no other end has been established by nature for humors of this sort than that they may make the work of marriage easier; from the principles posited before, a reason is supplied for gravely doubting whether as regards this matter one must now judge otherwise about women than we have already seen to be judged about the prepubescent or eunuchs. Whence it would follow that, since the Doctors have already been accustomed to bring forward other causes on account of which questions about any such female pollution are to be spared, much more now it would seem that they are to be spared, while it is now sufficiently clear that in women, however gravely they may sin, nevertheless there is not present the reason of that special malice which is proper to true and strictly so-called pollution. But concerning this whole matter let the more skilled judge.

II. Pollution indirectly, or voluntary only in the cause, is a grave sin whenever the proximate cause, that is, one per se directly and by its nature tending to pollution, for example lingering thoughts concerning very libidinous things, etc., is placed without just reason (Scav. - St. Lig., n. 482); but it is venial whenever the cause which is placed is only remote, or such that danger is joined to it per accidens or rarely. - Thus commonly. - The reason of each is evident. - St. Lig., n. 484.

III. Pollution indirectly voluntary lacks every sin whenever there is sufficient reason for placing its cause, consent or affection of the will into the consequent pleasure being removed. The reason is that where two effects follow from the same cause indifferent in itself, one evil and the other good or equivalent, it is lawful to place the cause by intending the good and permitting the evil ². But a greater reason is required for a greater danger. - Recall the things said concerning Human Acts, n. 9. - See St. Lig., n. 483.

² In these adjuncts neither ought the evil effect in reality to be called voluntary, nor will the agent properly be called its cause. For when there is question merely of the obligation of abstaining from some action by reason of an effect which follows besides the intention, the reason of causality is taken not from physical influence, but from moral influence, and therefore there is question of causality which induces the moral imputation of the effect that followed, so that causality sounds almost the same as something culpable. Therefore then someone will properly be said to be in the cause, when for this reason he was bound to abstain from the action, lest that effect should follow; but he will not be judged to be in the cause when he was not bound for this reason to abstain from the work, but exercised it licitly and according to his right. And in altogether this sense the effect is said to follow per accidens, not as if namely the effect itself does not spontaneously follow from some action, but because it cannot be imputed to the agent as to a moral cause; and by this very fact, when we say that the effect follows besides the intention, we already say that the effect is not voluntary, namely by that will to which it ought morally to be imputed.

430. Resolves. - 1. Pollution altogether involuntary is in no way sinful, as is clear. Hence pollution which a physician, surgeon, or Confessor can suffer in carrying out the duties of his office is free from every fault, provided that he acts with pure intention ³, and provides no consent at all to the delight.

³ That is, he does not intend that effect.

2. Likewise nocturnal pollution is free from fault, because it does not arise from a free will, nor is any assent provided to it, as is supposed; but neither does it always denote a libidinous mind, since it can come from many natural causes, for example from the superfluity of nature, from weakness of organs, or from the disposition of nerves. But it will be mortal or venial if before sleep it was caused and foreseen according to greater or lesser advertence and influence of the cause. Thus voluntary wicked thoughts, wicked conversations, and other things of this sort preceding sleep will easily render it mortal. But intemperance in food or drink, etc., ordinarily will make it only venial. Likewise nocturnal pollution which happens with imperfect will and liberty must not be judged mortal, as sometimes happens in those half-asleep; but it must be judged that no consent was present, or at most a very imperfect one, when it ordinarily displeases in the state of wakefulness; because judgment must be made from things ordinarily occurring. Hold the same thing also concerning nocturnal touches.

431. • 3. Pollution which follows from touch, look, or gravely base reading is a mortal sin even when actual consent is removed, unless a just cause excuses. The reason is that then pollution is voluntary at least in the cause, since these things per se induce grave danger of pollution. But it will be only a venial sin if these things are lightly base, provided the pollution follows besides the intention of the agent and against his at least direct will; because then in these things there is not given a proximate danger of consent either into pollution or into venereal delight. Yet danger remote in itself can become proximate per accidens for someone by reason of his own weakness. - St. Lig., n. 482-485.

4. Every deliberate effusion of seed, however small, is pollution and therefore a mortal sin. - Lacroix, de Poenit., n. 1034. - Likewise it is mortal to acquiesce in the delight of pollution even for the briefest time, and even if it happens besides the intention and spontaneously from whatever cause. - St. Lig., n. 477. A fortiori if pollution begun is promoted by some effort.

5. He who caused pollution in another must explain in confession whether this person is sacred, related by blood, etc.; because he contracted the malice of sacrilege, or incest, etc. - St. Lig., n. 476.

6. It is not a sin per se to ride a horse for the sake of reasonable recreation, to lie in bed in a certain position, to take heating foods temperately, to speak with the other sex from an honorable cause, to serve the sick, to help them in baths, to exercise the surgical art, and similar things, although it is foreseen that pollution is going to follow per accidens, provided it is not intended, and there is a firm purpose of not assenting to it if it happens, and proximate danger of consent is absent. - St. Lig., n. 483.

432. • 7. Voluntary distillation, even only indirectly voluntary, if it is notable or happens with notable commotion of the genital spirits, can be a mortal sin ⁴; because it is grave disorder, and induces proximate danger of pollution. But if it is small and without notable commotion, one must distinguish: 1. If it is directly voluntary, it cannot be excused from mortal sin; because any distillation whatever always, or for the most part, brings with itself commotion and some effusion of semen. 2. If it is only indirectly voluntary, it will easily even be excused from every sin; because no more care is to be taken concerning such flow than concerning the emission of any other excrement by which nature is accustomed to unload itself. - Thus expressly St. Lig., n. 477.

⁴ It has often already been noted what is here called indirectly voluntary: that which happens besides the intention; and therefore that those things are valid also concerning indirectly voluntary distillation which in the note to n. 412 were said about wicked motions, and by the Author in n. 429 about indirectly voluntary pollution; which indeed the Author also suggests a little later.

8. Disordered motions with venereal delight, whether grave or light, are mortal sins whenever they are directly voluntary, or also whenever the will adheres to them after they arise spontaneously; because then venereal delight sought in itself is present, which never admits smallness of matter. - But if they do not depend on the will either in themselves or in the cause, as often happens, and no consent is provided to them, they are immune from every sin. - Finally, if their cause is freely placed without their being intended, concerning them it must be said as concerning pollution indirectly voluntary, with due proportion nevertheless being given. Hence a light cause of motions will easily excuse from grave sin, since the Doctors commonly assert this concerning pollution itself with St. Lig., n. 484. - For a cause of such motions can be placed more easily than a cause of pollution, as is clear.

9. It is lawful for someone suffering great itching in the private parts to drive it away by touch, even if pollution follows, provided that itching proceeds from acrimony of the blood, as ordinarily happens, but not from the ardor of lust. For if pollution happens, with danger of consent removed, it happens per accidens and therefore inculpably. Moreover, penitents are to be exhorted that, insofar as it can be done without grave trouble, they restrain themselves from touches of this sort. - St. Lig., n. 483.

45. 1. Concerning pollution. (A) By this name theologians designate any effusion whatever of human seed, whether voluntary or involuntary, without intercourse. Physicians, however, commonly understand by this word involuntary effusion of seed, especially that which happens during sleep. But voluntary emission they call onanism, solitary vice, masturbation (from the words manu, stupration); this indeed must be noticed, lest, in hearing confessions or understanding books of physicians, a harmful error be incurred.

Pollution properly so called is not found in those who do not have true seed, namely in the prepubescent, eunuchs, indeed also women. For in women there is no other seed except the ovum, which descends from the ovaries into the uterus without perception of delectation; the vaginal humor, which flows within the organs and sometimes externally, is not prolific; nevertheless, since it is joined with complete venereal delectation, the voluntary effusion of this humor, outside marital intercourse, is a mortal sin, because, although not necessary for generation, nevertheless it is ordered to it as something accessory.

Pollution in men differs from distillation, which is a small effusion of humor flowing from the prostate and urethra, akin to the vaginal humor of which above.

46. (B) For judging the morality of pollution, one must diligently distinguish between pollution willed in itself or in the cause, and pollution wholly involuntary. This sometimes happens in the state of waking, but more often in sleep. (a) Involuntary pollution which happens to those awake is called passive (perte seminale), is provoked by very slight causes, and occurs without delectation: this is truly a disease, not rarely proceeding from the habit of sinning, but in itself free from every fault.

47. (b) The latter is called nocturnal pollution, because it occurs during sleep. Often it arises from merely natural causes, especially from abundance of seed, and is, as it were, an emptying of nature. Young men who have attained puberty and those who remain unmarried suffer this more or less frequently; when it happens only once in a week, it is not to be cared about; if three times or more often, and indeed in a habitual manner, it is expedient to have recourse to a physician.

Now nocturnal pollution, when both in itself and in its cause it is involuntary, is no sin, even if phantasms more or less dishonorable precede or accompany it: for it is natural that phantasms of this kind occur when superabundant seed is expelled,¹ on account of the connection between the genital organs and the brain, the seat of imagination. - If it happens to those half-asleep with some consent to the delectation accompanying it, it does not exceed venial sin, because of imperfect knowledge and volition (above, n. 79). In doubt whether someone consented, it must be judged that consent was not given, at least not fully, if in the waking state all these things displease him. - Sometimes, however, it happens that pollution is voluntary in the cause, insofar as it is caused by dishonorable thoughts, readings, or conversations deliberately had, with foresight of this depraved effect: then it is a sin, more or less grave, according as the aforesaid actions were more or less sinful and the foresight more certain and distinct. But the sin is committed not at the time when the pollution happens, but at that instant when it is foreseen and its cause is deliberately placed (above, n. 174).

¹ St. Thomas, 2. 2ae, q. 154, a. 5.

48. (C) Pollution in itself, or directly voluntary, is a grave sin. For St. Paul numbers effeminacy, that is, pollution, among the sins which exclude from the kingdom of God.² In reality the effusion of human seed is ordered solely to the generation of offspring, and the pleasure annexed to it is for attaining this end more efficaciously; but in pollution directly willed, seed is emitted for the sake of pleasure alone, against the order of nature, and therefore it is sin;³ but if it were lightly unlawful, the end intended by nature would be frustrated: for many men, content with this pleasure, would bid farewell to the burdens of matrimony, or would contract nuptials only after lust had been fulfilled, when they have become impotent for generating. - Therefore this proposition 49 was rightly reproved by Innocent XI: "Effeminacy is not prohibited by natural law. Hence if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under mortal sin."

² 1 Cor. 6:10.

³ The pagans themselves admitted this, the poet Martial testifying (Epigram., l. IX, 42): "Believe nature herself to say of things: That which with your fingers, Ponticus, you destroy, is a man."

49. Moreover, the physical and moral effects which follow from voluntary pollution clearly show how much it is contrary to nature. For young persons addicted to this vice easily contract a wholly tyrannical habit, which greatly weakens their strength: frequency of immodest acts disturbs the whole nervous system and the brain; hence weakness and general weariness, pains of the head, diminution of appetite, convulsions of the limbs, weakening of sight and hearing; then involuntary, or passive, pollutions accede, vehement palpitations of the heart; sometimes also incurable diseases: phthisis, dropsy, epilepsy, tabes dorsalis, and, among women, inflammation of the uterus, hysteria. Often also by frequent masturbation the power of coition and generating is lost. - To these effects must be added others, moral, namely depression of soul, enervation of the will, inability for labors, especially intellectual ones: for the mind, infected with obscene images, can scarcely think about other things; soon noble ideas and pure affections vanish, insane egoism prevails; sometimes madness succeeds. - Not all these effects indeed are always produced, nor in the same degree in all: for this depends on bodily constitution, frequency and duration of acts, and other circumstances; but the danger is certainly present that an inveterate and almost incurable habit be contracted, from which the aforesaid effects will follow more or less.⁴

⁴ Many physicians have described these effects, among whom: Tissot, De l'onanisme, 1760; Garnier, Onanisme; Fournier, L'onanisme, Paris, 1892; Ribbing, L'hygiene sexuelle, Paris, Alcan, 1901, p. 156; Surbled, La Morale, t. II, ch. 3-8; idem, Le vice solitaire, Paris, 1905; Vigouroux, Traite de Medecine, t. IV, pp. 304-317; Stall, What a young boy ought to know, Philadelphia, 1897, pp. 97-118.

Nor are those physicians to be heard who, in order to deter young men from pollution, advise fornication to them, falsely asserting that seed must sometimes be poured forth for the sake of health. - For part of the seed is reabsorbed in the body, to which it adds new strength;⁵ the other part is poured forth naturally during sleep, without any disturbance of the nerves; while fornication, which is morally evil, can induce syphilis.

⁵ Surbled, Vie de jeune homme, ch. 6-7.

50. Corollary. When pollution has begun without consent of the will, whether in sleep or in waking, he sins gravely who voluntarily and positively performs and completes it, whether by touch or by movement. Nevertheless there is no strict obligation positively to restrain it, but it can be permitted that nature empty itself, provided the danger of consenting to the delectation itself is absent. For in the prior case pollution is truly procured; in the latter only the emptying of nature is permitted: which in certain circumstances is useful, lest a grave temptation arise therefrom, which the will would resist with difficulty, and lest disturbance of the nerves occur.⁶ Generally, however, it is more advisable to restrain imminent pollution when this can be done without irritation of the nerves.

⁶ Theologians formerly said that this was lawful lest the seed be corrupted; this reason indeed is physiologically false; but sudden and frequent suppression of begun pollution predisposes to nervous diseases; cf. Debreyne-Ferrand, La theol. morale et les sc. med., 6th ed., p. 87.

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.

336. - 2. From voluntariness, pollution directly voluntary or sought differs in species from casual pollution to which consent is given, because in casual pollution the exterior act need not be disclosed. Except if someone has willed to increase a pollution which has arisen, for then he becomes guilty of voluntary pollution. Lehmkuhl, I, 1039, 1.

342. - It remains finally that we estimate the gravity of complete pollution.

1. If we attend merely to the genus of lust, since the person who

pollutes himself recedes farther from the order of nature by his exterior act, pollution exceeds fornication in gravity.

2. Yet it must be said to have a guilt simply less. For in fornication there accrue the danger of disordered generation, the guilt of another's sin because of complicity, audacity, and a greater obstinacy of the will, which contemns shame in order to disclose a shameful design, and which overcomes difficulties in order to find an accomplice.

But an affection against nature is often absent from pollution; indeed, not rarely an affection according to nature is preserved in that sin, as when, in the absence of an occasion of fornication, the sin of pollution is committed. But the disposition of the will supplies the principal element of the sin.

N.B. Concerning indirect pollution, or pollution imputable in its cause, cf. the place where indirect lust is treated.

B. Passive pollution according to itself is only an effect physically evil, the emission of humor. This evil of itself is not grave nor altogether to be avoided, even for men, because of itself it is gravely harmful to no one. For semen does not have to be conserved with special solicitude, both because nature itself sometimes expels it, and because it pours it forth and prepares it more abundantly than is needed for the conservation of the species. Hence:

a. merely to permit such a foreseen effect, while it could be impeded, without sufficient reason, is only a venial sin: an inordinate motion of concupiscence admitted without reason; unless per accidens there is present a proximate danger of consent;

b. not to repress an arisen pollution by a positive effort is no sin, because it is judged too difficult.

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.

790. Definition. Pollution (or softness, masturbation, from disturbing by hand) is the effusion of human semen, without congress with another. Here by the name semen there is understood not only semen properly so called, such as the semen of a man, but also improperly so called, such as the semen of a woman or of boys or eunuchs, which ordinarily is not produced unless pleasure has reached its final terminus. Cf. n. 763, 3.

We already said (ibid., 6) what distinction is present between male pollution and distillation.

Division. Pollution can be: either voluntary in itself, or directly, as masturbation; or voluntary in the cause, or indirectly; or involuntary, which happens especially in sleep.

791. Principles. I. The sin of pollution essentially consists in this, that it is completed lust against nature; in other words, that it is "the complete use of the genital members outside concubitus." This is the common opinion among theologians and the much more probable opinion. For all agree in this: that pollution is a sin against nature; but the note must be designated by which it is diversified from other sins of lust, and this consists in this, that there is had effusion of semen without concubitus, and indeed perfectly satisfying of concupiscence, through acts that can no longer be ordered to procreation (Van Roey, Quaest. de 6 praec., p. 17). The same is established from the authority of theologians (cf. Eschbach, c. IV, where many things are given; Genicot, I, n. 396) and from the common doctrine concerning virginity.

792. II. Directly voluntary pollution is always a mortal sin; so that it is never licit directly to procure it. Theologians agree unanimously, so that "no Catholic appears who contradicts" (Cajet., 2.2, q. 154, a. 12). It is established: 1. From Scripture (1 Cor., 6, 10): Neither the soft shall possess the kingdom of God (likewise Rom., 1, 24 and Gen., 38, 9). 2. From reason: the primary reason, which avails as much for males as for females, boys, and eunuchs, is that (as we proved above n. 768) it is wicked directly to seek carnal pleasure outside the legitimate use of matrimony. But pollution is direct lust and carries with it the most vehement venereal pleasure. Therefore it is intrinsically evil. But this pleasure, because it satisfies the appetite and is physically complete (cf. the preceding number), differs in species from non-consummated pleasure, which can still be ordered to procreation; hence in confession it is to be distinctly accused (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1039, 3).

Another reason accedes, which up to the end of the sixteenth century was judged to avail for all, but today is judged valid chiefly for males, namely: pollution frustrates the end intended by nature, which ordered the effusion of semen, especially in the man, solely to the good of the human race, that is, to the generation of offspring. Finally it is confirmed from proposition 49 condemned by Innocent XI: "Softness is not prohibited by the right of nature; hence, if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good" (III, 467, 476; cf. Sanchez, l. 9, disp. 17, n. 15).

793. III. All pollutions, according to themselves, are of the same species, in whatever mode they happen, if they happen without concubitus. Thus commonly, against certain authors who think that pollution in females is not of the same species as in males. Reason: in any pollution there is had the same special note that we indicated in the first principle.

We say according to themselves: because by reason of circumstances other malices distinct in species can be joined. These circumstances are taken: 1. from the part of the subject, for instance if one having a vow of chastity is polluted, sacrilege is added; if married, adultery; 2. from the part of the object imagined or desired: thus pollution has joined to itself the species of fornication, adultery, etc., if it happens with the desire of sinning with a girl, married woman, etc., or with pleasure concerning concubitus with such a person; 3. from the part of the accomplice: if someone is polluted by another's touches, he sins both by reason of his own sin and by reason of the other's sin, i.e. by reason of scandal, seduction, or cooperation. Hence, if the accomplice was a married person, or bound by a vow of chastity, or a blood relative, this circumstance also is to be disclosed in confession; but not, according to the more probable opinion, whether it was a man or a woman; because when concubitus is not had, there is not of itself affection toward sex, but toward pollution (III, 416); 4. from the part of place or thing, for instance if a sacred thing is taken or pollution happens in a sacred place (cf. n. 788, 789).

From these things you will gather: 1. Not even for conserving life will it be licit directly to procure pollution for oneself; likewise it is not licit by touch, posture, etc., voluntarily to promote pollution begun. Yet movements that arise from the muscles while involuntary emptying is standing are not counted among deliberate movements. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1042, note.

2. "No concern is to be had about the various modes applied to pollution. For whether a man uses imagination alone, or the sight of a shameful thing, or touches, or other means...; similarly whether a woman procures for herself the highest pleasure by compression of the thighs alone, or by handling of the clitoris, or by introduction of fingers or some instrument into the vulva,

whether penetrating more deeply, she solicits the very neck of the womb by more shameful itching, one crime is present in all these modes of acting, namely pollution" Lapellas, de Castit., P. 3, sect. 2, c. 1.

3. Similarly, he who is polluted by touching a sleeping person, or one incapable of deceit, or an animal, or an inanimate thing, provided affection toward sex or concubitus is absent, contracts only the malice of pollution.

794. Practical Rules. 1. Those polluting themselves should also be asked about immodest touches separated from pollutions, and they should be admonished that such touches are mortal sins, namely by reason of the proximate danger of falling into pollution or into venereal pleasure (III, 454; Praxis, n. 41).

2. From boys and girls one should not ask whether effusion of semen was present, or great pleasure: for it is better that something be lacking in the material integrity of confession than to give knowledge of those things that are unknown, or at least to sharpen dangerous curiosity (H. Ap., tr. ult., n. 37). Yet let the confessor know what skilled physicians say, namely: that girls, although naturally less prone to venery than boys, give themselves earlier to masturbation, on account of an itching in the private parts so easily existing among them (Antonelli, II, n. 246 ff.; Bossu, Anthropol., II, p. 48).

3. It is never to be asked of women whether pollution was present; for the question is useless. They are held polluted when from vehement movement of the organs great pleasure arises in them; once this is completed, the venereal appetite is satisfied and rests. Hence it suffices if they are asked whether they have satisfied themselves in a dishonorable manner, or have fulfilled passion (Scavini, I, n. 778, adn.).

4. If boys ask about this or that sin concerning which they have heard in preaching, one must respond either by general words, by inspiring horror of this sin, or by turning the mind away to other things.

5. If someone, most miserably agitated by pleasure for hours, indeed for days, by help of a light action that of itself does not tend to pollution, for example by placing leg over leg, procures emptying for himself, do not condemn him a priori of the guilt of directly willed pollution, provided the intention of pollution is lacking. In this manner of acting, there is present rather licit permission than volition (Lehmkuhl, I, 1042).

The question of the imputability of indirectly voluntary pollution is not to be confused with the question, although related, concerning the danger of consent.

Indirectly voluntary pollution is that which, at least confusedly foreseen, comes from an action more or less influencing it, and voluntarily posited.

795. Principles. I. Indirectly voluntary pollution is imputed unto fault when no reason of necessity or utility is given for positing the action from which it is foreseen as about to follow. But the fault is grave or light according as the action, posited without sufficient reason, gravely or lightly influences pollution. This is established from what was said concerning the indirect voluntary (n. 314-315).

Hence: 1. It is a grave sin whenever the action that is posited without necessity is a proximate or direct cause of pollution: as, for example, reading or hearing of very shameful matters, voluntary and lingering sight of entirely obscene things, a prolonged conversation with a girl inordinately loved (at least on account of the danger of consent), injections, shameful and lustful touches, especially on another's body, attentive thought concerning concubitus, etc. For these of themselves gravely influence, and he who posits such a cause, adverting to the danger of pollution at least confusedly, by that very fact wills the effect connaturally joined to it, even if he does not intend it (III, 424-426, 482; H. Ap., IX, 33).

2. It is venial when the action that is posited without necessity and without utility is a remote cause of pollution, i.e. such that danger is rarely or by accident joined to it. - Actions of this sort are: curious sight of a beautiful woman, or of an indecent picture, or of the coitus of animals (provided the sight is not prolonged), curious reading of a lightly shameful book, and similar things, which in the genus of lust are venial sins. Except if someone knew that pollution frequently comes to him from there; because then from that special disposition these would be, with respect to himself, a proximate cause of pollution¹ (cf. n. 769).

Yet it would be said more mildly "if the causes (in the genus of immodesty) were altogether light, as would be sight of the honorable parts of a woman, lightly shameful reading, conversation with a woman not prolonged, or lightly obscene; because it is as if morally impossible commonly to avoid all these causes" (III, 484).

3. Likewise, pollution is imputed to venial fault if the cause is indeed mortal, but not in the genus of lust, such as drunkenness or gravely sinful intemperance; because such a cause is judged to influence not of itself, but rather from the weakness of nature, and by accident² (H. Ap., IX, 35).

796. II. Indirectly voluntary pollution is free from every fault, if there is present a sufficient reason for positing its cause, with all consent to venereal pleasure and its danger removed. This is established from what was said concerning the indirect voluntary, n. 315. But the reason of acting is reputed sufficient when it is proportionate, i.e. grave for proximate danger, light for remote danger. Thus any reasonable cause of necessity, utility, or convenience excuses from a light influence (even in a shameful genus). Cf. III, 483; H. Ap., IX, 34, 35; Berardi, Theol. mor., n. 760.

Hence, it is not of itself a sin: for the sake of recreation to ride; to take heating foods temperately; to perform gymnastic exercises; to lie in bed in a certain posture; from an honorable cause to speak with a person of the other sex; to kiss or embrace a relative according to the custom of the country; to serve the sick; to help them in baths; to exercise the surgical art; to hear sweet singing; to hear the confessions of the faithful, and similar things; although pollution is foreseen as about to follow by accident, provided it is not intended, and there is present a firm purpose of not assenting to it, if perhaps it comes. See also n. 810.

Note. Where, besides the danger of material pollution, some danger of formal consent is given, a graver reason and special caution are necessary, as was said n. 375. - See n. 800, concerning cautions or remedies to be applied.

797. Principles. I. Involuntary and natural pollution is free from every fault. The reason is evident of itself. Cf. St. Thom., 2.2, q. 154, a. 5; 3, q. 80, a. 7. It is called involuntary and natural: namely that which, without any cooperation (neither direct nor indirect) of the will, comes from merely natural causes and can stand with pleasure. Thus pollution sometimes arises from the superfluity of nature, weakness of the organs, excessive heating of the body, etc. Directly to intend and procure nocturnal pollution is mortal (Genicot, I, n. 400).

798. II. There is not of itself an obligation of restraining pollution occurring spontaneously; provided both consent to pleasure and its proximate danger are absent (which each one can judge from past experience). The reason is both because it is most difficult to restrain it once begun, and because man is not held to impede this natural effect with danger of a graver temptation or of another inconvenience (cf. n. 353, q. 2). - Yet it is expedient for the health of the body to restrain or impede it, especially for those who are weakened by frequent pollution (III, 479).

St. Alphonsus notes: 1. He who suffers pollution ought to take care that at that time he turns the mind away from pleasure, and devoutly and trustingly invokes the Most Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, so that thus he may avoid consent. 2. He who, half asleep, takes pleasure concerning pollution is not to be condemned of mortal sin, since for mortal sin both full advertence and perfect consent are required. And the same is to be said of nocturnal touches (H. Ap., IX, 32).

799. What, you will ask, about distillation and carnal movement?

Resp. 1. "If it is with some venereal pleasure, or with movement of the spirits, it will indeed be mortal if it is not avoided, just as pollution is to be avoided. But if it happens without sense and movement, it can be permitted, as the emission of another excrement, but it can never be procured deliberately" (H. Ap., IX, 30). In other words: no concern is to be had about it, nor is there an obligation of omitting the causes of such effusion.

2. The same, with proportion observed, seems to be said of movement of the genital parts. If it is grave and lustful, it ought to be avoided, as pollution itself is, and with the same cautions applied; if light, and coming from an honorable action, or from weakness of nature, it is better to disregard it, and divert oneself to other things (cf. n. 322). - Generally it can be said that the same principles that are established concerning pollution have force here.

800. Note. Remedies for healing those accustomed to the sin of pollution are: 1. In the natural order, abstinence from warm or irritating liquors and foods; discreet mortifications; labor and weariness of the body; custody of the senses; prompt repulsion of shameful thoughts; flight from occasions, bad books, persons of the different sex, sadness, solitude, idleness, etc. They counsel also covering and compressing the moved parts with clothing (St. Alph., V, 8; Berardi, de Sexto, n. 772; Sani, de Sexto, n. 1885, I and II). 2. In the supernatural order, fervent prayer, and invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially in time of temptation, alms, but especially frequent approach to the sacraments. "I scarcely think there is another efficacious remedy than to use most frequent confession; for this sacrament is the greatest bridle, and he who does not use it, let him not promise himself amendment, except by miracle." Thus St. Alphonsus with Toletus (VI, 464). Cf. Antonelli, II, n. 176 ff., where many very useful things are given. See below (n. 1831) how one must act with the habituated and relapsing.

500. • Definition. It is the effusion of semen with libidinous delectation without congress with another. - It differs from distillation, which is a flow of a certain humor of lesser moment, almost drop by drop, and accustomed to happen without vehement delectation or movement.¹

Division. Pollution can be either voluntary in itself, or direct; or voluntary in the cause, or indirect; or involuntary.

501. Principles. - I. Pollution directly and perfectly voluntary is always a mortal sin; so that it is never licit to procure it. - This is clear 1° from Scripture: Neither the soft shall possess the kingdom of God.² 2° By reason: both because pollution has an intrinsic repugnance with nature, which has ordered the effusion of semen in each sex solely to the work of generation; and because, on account of the vehement delectation in this effusion, the order of nature would soon be overturned, unless pollution were gravely prohibited. Most easily a habit of the same is contracted, which is wont to be followed by alienation from the licit pleasures of marriage, dullness of sense and reason from frequent failing of the mind, weakening of the body, an accumulation of diseases, finally the abominable corruption of the whole man. 3° It is confirmed by the condemnation of proposition 49 by Innocent XI, p. XVII.³ Hence it follows:

1° In no case, and not even for preserving life, is it licit to intend or procure the effusion of semen, however slight, or to promote one begun.

2° It would probably be licit to expel semen certainly corrupted, provided it could be done without the sense of lust and without direct effusion of healthy semen, for example by the help of a medicine.¹ But today physicians testify that semen is not corrupted, but only not elaborated, and therefore that the hypothesis of corrupted and disease-producing semen is vain.²

II. All pollutions according to themselves are of the same species, provided they occur without concubitus. We say according to themselves; because by reason of circumstances there can be annexed to it other malices, for example, if a priest or a married man is polluted; if it is done with a desire of sinning, or by delighting in concubitus with another imagined person, or through alien touches. Hence:

1° He who is polluted by touching a dead person, a sleeping person, or one incapable of deceit, or an infant (provided affection toward the sex or concubitus is absent), need not declare in Confession anything except the sin of pollution.

2° He who is polluted by the touches of others, without affection toward sex, is not bound to explain whether he was polluted by the touches of a man or a woman, but only to say whether that other was a married person, blood-related, etc.³

3° He who is polluted from contact with a beast is not bound to express this circumstance if concubitus was not present;⁴ a fortiori nothing is to be said about the use of an inanimate instrument.

4° The pollution of eunuchs, boys, and girls, although they do not have perfect semen, theologically differs in nothing from the pollution of others. Nor are diverse grades (inside or outside the womb, etc.) in the pollution of a woman to be distinguished; although by accident a man or woman ought to express grave harm inflicted on himself or on offspring to be born, if it was foreseen.

Note. - Physicians of today see in women no semen properly so called in the humor which is poured forth in them inwardly or outwardly, and they say that that semen improperly so called is not necessary for generation. And this sentence indeed already seemed more probable to St. Alphonsus. Nevertheless effusions of this sort, just as also inordinate motions of women, of themselves speaking, must be declared in Confession; and effusions indeed as sins of luxury consummated (since in women they are the final term of venereal delectation, inasmuch as it is satiated and comes to rest through them), and against nature, since they have been destined by the Creator for the commerce of the sexes. Thus Craisson in the periodical Revue des sciences ecclés.¹

Practical rules. - I. Those polluting themselves are to be questioned also about immodest touches separated from pollutions, and admonished that they are mortal.²

II. From boys or girls it is not to be asked whether effusion of semen was present; because with these it is better to be lacking in the material integrity of Confession than to be the cause that they apprehend things which they do not yet know, or are placed in curiosity to learn them.³

III. Commonly they also teach that it is never to be asked of women whether an effusion of this sort was present; for the question is useless. - Women polluted are recognized when, from vehement movement of the organs, great delectation arises in them, by which, when completed, the moved parts are satiated and come to rest.⁴

502. Principles. - I. Pollution indirectly, or in the cause, voluntary is then a sin when no reason of necessity or utility is given for positing the action from which the loss of semen is foreseen as going to follow. It follows from what was said in n. 7. - Moreover:

1° It is a grave sin whenever the action is a cause per se and proximate of pollution, as certainly are those things which are gravely culpable in matter of luxury, for example, reading or hearing of very base things, voluntary and morose looking at things altogether obscene, a prolonged conversation with a girl loved inordinately (at least on account of the danger of consent), base and libidinous touches, especially on another's body, morose thought of concubitus, etc.; ... for these things of themselves gravely influence it, and he who posits such a cause, adverting at least in a confused way to the danger, by that very fact wills the effect connaturally joined to it, although he does not intend it.⁵

2° It is venial when the action is a cause per accidens or only remote of pollution, or venial in base matter, to which danger is joined per accidens, or rarely. Such is, for example, a curious look at a beautiful woman, or a less honorable picture, or the coitus of smaller animals, a lightly base reading, a base word uttered in jest, and similar venial sins in the genus of luxury. Likewise causes which are indeed mortal, but not mortal in the genus of luxury, as, for example, intemperance in food or drink gravely sinful. The reason is because these are judged to influence not of themselves, but rather from the infirmity of nature and per accidens. Except, as is clear, if someone knew that pollution frequently happened to him from causes evil of themselves venially in base matter; because then, from that special disposition, these would be respectively a proximate cause of pollution. But otherwise, "if the causes are altogether slight, as would be the sight of honorable parts of a woman, a lightly base reading, a conversation with a woman not prolonged, or lightly obscene"; for "to avoid them all would be morally impossible."¹

II. Indirectly voluntary pollution is free from all fault if a sufficient reason is had for positing its cause, provided that 1° the pollution is in no way intended by the agent, 2° the danger of consenting to it is excluded. - The reason is that celebrated one of St. Thomas: Where two effects follow from the same cause indifferent per se, one evil, the other good, it is licit to posit the action by intending the good effect and permitting the evil one.² But the reason of acting (or the good effect intended) is called sufficient when it is proportionate, that is, grave for grave danger, slight for slight danger. Thus any reasonable cause of necessity, utility, or convenience excuses from a slight influence (even in the genus of the base), as they commonly teach.³

Hence it is not a sin of itself: to ride horseback for the sake of recreation; to take heating foods temperately; to lie in bed in a certain position; from an honorable cause to speak with a person of the other sex; to kiss or embrace a female relative according to the custom of the country; to serve the infirm; to help them in baths; to practice the surgical art; to hear sweet singing; to receive Confessions, and similar things; although there is foreseen as going to follow by accident a pollution, provided it is not intended and a firm purpose is present of not assenting to it if perhaps it happens.

Note. - If beyond the danger of material pollution there is given some danger of formal consent, a graver reason and special caution will be necessary. It follows from what was said in n. 8.

503. Principle. - There is no obligation to restrain pollution occurring of its own accord, that is, in sleep or in wakefulness begun against the will, provided consent to the delectation is absent, or proximate danger of it (which from past experience each one will be able to judge). - The reason is that it is most difficult to restrain it, when it has already begun, nor is man bound to impede it with danger of disease, temptation, or another inconvenience: for then he does not will it, but suffers it. - Yet ordinarily it is very expedient to restrain or impede it, also for the health of the body; and this is valid especially for those who labor under frequent pollution.¹ Craisson assigns a certain material means,² which I would prefer to leave to the judgment of wiser men, how much it is worth and whether it can be used by all without danger of soul.

St. Alphonsus notes: 1° "He who suffers pollution ought at least to take care that at that time he avert his mind from delectation and devoutly and trustingly invoke the Names of Jesus and Mary, that he may avoid consent. - 2° If a person exists in half-waking and then is delighted by the copula begun, he is by no means to be condemned of mortal sin, since full advertence and perfect consent are altogether required for mortal sin; and these certainly he lacks who is half-asleep, and therefore does not have the use of reason perfectly free and ready."³ Hold the same also concerning nocturnal touches.

What, you ask, concerning distillation and carnal movement?

Resp. 1° Concerning distillation St. Doctor hands down these things: "If it is with some venereal delectation, or with movement of the spirits, it will indeed be mortal if it is not avoided as pollution is to be avoided. - But if without sense and movement, it can be permitted as the emission of another excrement, as they most commonly teach. - But it can never be procured on purpose."¹

2° The same things, with proportion observed, seem to be said concerning movement of the genital parts. If it is grave and libidinous, it must altogether be avoided, as pollution itself; if it is slight and proceeding from an honorable action, or from the infirmity of nature, it will be more advisable to contemn it, by turning to other things. (Cf. n. 234.)

Note. - Remedies for curing those accustomed to the sin of pollution are: 1° In the order of nature: abstinence from liquors and foods that heat or irritate; discreet mortifications; custody of the senses; prompt repulsion of base thoughts; flight from occasions, bad books, persons of different sex, etc. 2° In the order of grace: fervent prayer and invocation of the B. V. M., especially in time of temptation; - alms; - but especially frequent approach to the Sacraments. "I scarcely think," says St. Doctor with Toletus, "there is another efficacious remedy than to use most frequent Confession; for this Sacrament is the greatest bridle, and he who does not use this should not promise amendment to himself except through a miracle."²

705. 1. Venereal pollution (mollities; by physicians it is also called onanism,¹³⁶⁸ masturbation, that is, defilement by the hand) is the emission of seed or quasi-seed outside carnal intercourse. It is said: the emission of seed or quasi-seed. For pollution strictly so called has place only in males who can emit true seed. But in a broader sense the emission of quasi-seed, that is, of some fluid, occurring with great venereal pleasure in boys, eunuchs, and women, is also called pollution. The moral malice of each pollution is almost the same. For the malice of pollution consists formally in venereal pleasure inordinately desired, and only materially in the real emission of seed. The same holds concerning so-called distillation, at least if it is joined with venereal pleasure and with proximate danger of pollution. Pollution is either voluntary directly or indirectly, or involuntary.

a) Voluntary pollution is a mortal sin from its whole genus. This is clear from the first principle brought forward above, n. 682. For such pollution is not only venereal pleasure directly willed outside legitimate marriage, but also a grave abuse of the genital members. Therefore St. Paul, speaking of pollution, says: "Nor the effeminate ... shall possess the kingdom of God."¹³⁶⁹ With respect to its morality, it matters little how it was procured, provided, however, that an affection of sodomy, bestiality, or complicity, or another means illicit in itself, is absent. Hence the confessor as judge (it is otherwise as physician) is not bound to know what moderns say concerning sadism,¹³⁷⁰ masochism,¹³⁷¹ lustful fetishism,¹³⁷² and what is related concerning tribadism, sapphism, and Lesbian love.¹³⁷³

b) Involuntary pollution is no sin, as is clear of itself.

c) Concerning indirectly voluntary pollution, judgment must be made according to the general rules of the indirect voluntary. But concerning nocturnal pollution, judgment must be made according as it is voluntary (directly or indirectly) or involuntary.

Hence nocturnal pollution which is caused by evil thoughts or desires freely admitted, or by obscene readings or conversations had before sleep, is to be imputed as a grave sin if it could and ought to have been foreseen. On the contrary, nocturnal pollution which sometimes happens to those half asleep, or which proceeds from a licit cause, for example, from a more comfortable position in bed, from hot liquids taken, etc., is not imputed as sin although it was foreseen; for no one is bound to avoid such licit causes.

Scholion. On remedies to be employed against venereal pollutions. It is established by experience that the vice of pollution rages widely among young persons of both sexes and can be eradicated only with difficulty. In the care of a penitent habituated to this vice, let the confessor strive above all that the penitent not lose heart, but, relying upon firm hope of obtaining victory, vigorously employ the necessary means indicated by the confessor. Such remedies are a) moral and supernatural, and b) natural and hygienic.

a) The moral and supernatural remedies are: frequent reception of the sacraments, contrition,¹³⁷⁴ special exercises of piety to be performed daily, flight from occasion and idleness, and horror and detestation of the vice itself.

b) The natural and hygienic remedies are: bodily exercises even unto moderate bodily weariness; cold baths and washings of the whole body; the use of a hard and not excessively warm bed; sleeping in bed upon the right side and with the hands composed upon the breast; rising immediately in the morning at the due time; guarding against excessively abundant or stimulating food and drink; using medicines which calm the nerves; finally, if frequent pollutions proceed from a morbid state of the body, consulting a conscientious physician. But those physicians are altogether to be avoided and censured who, for curing the habit of polluting oneself, most wickedly counsel carnal commerce with prostitutes.

¹³⁶⁸ Conjugal onanism will be treated below, III, n. 710 ff.

¹³⁶⁹ 1 Cor. 6:10.

¹³⁷⁰ Sadism (named from the perverse man Marquis de Sade) is excitation to venereal pleasure by means of cruelty exercised upon another.

¹³⁷¹ Masochism (named from the lewd writer Sacher Masoch) is excitation to venereal pleasure by means of cruelty, or at least pain, inflicted by another. Thus, while the masochist suffers cruelty from lust, the sadist causes it in another.

¹³⁷² Fetishism (named from the Portuguese word feitiço) is the worship of some idol, either religious or lustful. Lustful fetishism excites venereal pleasure in many ways, for example, by handling women's clothing, shoes, hair, etc.

¹³⁷³ These three modes are nothing other than pollutions performed between women.

¹³⁷⁴ Cf. Lanserath, O. Min., Die Liebesreue, Dülmen.

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.

Pollution is the emission of semen without congress with another. Voluntary pollution, of which alone we are treating, is sought either directly or indirectly. It is also called softness, and differs from distillation, which is the slight emission of another, more subtle humor. In pollution, semen is ordinarily ejaculated with vehement pleasure and great stirring; but distillation is had ordinarily with no pleasure or with very slight pleasure and stirring.

I say 1st. Pollution directly and perfectly voluntary is always a mortal sin, so that it is never licit to procure it. The reason is 1st. because this is drawn from the words of the Apostle, I Cor. vi, 10: "Nor the effeminate ... shall possess the kingdom of God"; 2nd. because pollution has intrinsic repugnance with nature, which has ordered the emission of semen solely to generation; 3rd. because if it were ever permitted, or prohibited only under venial matter, most easily, on account of so great a proclivity of corrupt nature toward lust, the habit of pollution would be contracted, and therefore the order of nature would shortly be subverted; 4th. because prop. 49 was condemned by Innocent XI, which has itself thus: "Mollities is not prohibited by the law of nature; whence, if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good. ..." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 476. - Viva, on this proposition.

I say 2nd. Pollution indirectly or only in the cause voluntary is a grave sin whenever the proximate cause, and one tending by its own nature to pollution, e.g., lingering thoughts about very lustful things, is posited without just reason; but it is venial whenever the cause which is posited is only remote, or such that danger is joined to it by accident or rarely. The reason for each is easily gathered from those things which were said elsewhere concerning the indirectly voluntary. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 483 and 484.

You Will Resolve. - 1st. Every deliberate emission of semen, however small, is pollution and therefore a mortal sin. Likewise it is mortal to acquiesce in the pleasure of pollution, even for a very brief time, and although it happens beyond intention and spontaneously. A fortiori if pollution spontaneously begun is promoted by some effort. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 477. - Lacroix, de Paenit., n. 1034.

2nd. Pollution which follows from touch, gaze, or reading gravely base and posited without just cause, is a mortal sin even with actual consent excluded. The reason is that then the pollution is voluntary in the cause, since these things of themselves introduce grave danger of pollution. But the sin will be only venial if these things are lightly base, and the pollution follows beyond the intention of the agent. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 482 and following.

3rd. Nocturnal pollution lacks fault, because it does not arise from the free will, nor is any assent given to it, as is supposed; but neither does it indeed always denote a lustful mind, since it can come from many natural causes, e.g., from superfluity of nature, from weakness of the organs, or from disposition of the nerves. But it will be mortal or venial if before sleep it was caused and foreseen, according to the greater or lesser advertence and influence of the cause. Thus voluntary wicked thoughts, wicked conversations, and other things of this kind preceding sleep will easily render it mortal. But ordinarily intemperance in food or drink, etc., will make it only venial. Likewise nocturnal pollution which happens with imperfect will and liberty, as sometimes occurs in the half-asleep, ought not to be judged mortal; but it must be judged that no consent was present, or at most very imperfect consent, when ordinarily in the state of wakefulness it displeases; because judgment must be made according to ordinary contingencies. The same also must be held concerning nocturnal touches.

4th. Voluntary distillation, even only indirectly voluntary, if it is notable or occurs with notable stirring of the genital spirits, can be a mortal sin; because it is a grave disordering, and introduces proximate danger of pollution. But if it is small and without notable stirring, a distinction must be made: 1st. If it is directly voluntary, it cannot be excused from mortal sin; because any distillation whatsoever always, or for the most part, carries with itself stirring and some emission of semen. 2nd. But if it is only indirectly voluntary, it will easily be excused from every sin; because no more care is to be taken concerning such a flux than concerning the emission of any other excrement by which nature is accustomed to unload itself. - Thus expressly St. Alphonsus, n. 477.

5th. It is licit for someone suffering severe itching in the private parts to remove it by touch, even if pollution follows, provided that the itching arises from acrimony of the blood, as ordinarily happens, but not from ardor of lust. For if pollution then happens, with the danger of consent excluded, it happens by accident and therefore inculpably. For the rest, penitents are to be exhorted that, insofar as it can be done without grave trouble, they restrain themselves from touches of this kind. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 483.

You Will Ask. Does the sin of pollution take place in women?

Response. Affirmatively; for although it is today undoubted among physicians that women do not emit true semen, but only some humor which neither contains the essential qualities of semen nor is necessary for conceiving, nevertheless when they use fingers or some instrument, they feel the very same carnal pleasure which they would experience in congress with a man, and when this has been had, they rest satisfied, as if the work of marriage had been completed. But the essential malice of pollution does not consist properly in the material loss of semen, but precisely in this, that outside marriage that same pleasure is sought which has been bound by the author of nature only to the licit act of congress, as inducive to it. Therefore.

From this solution must be sought the true reason why by many theologians it is said that eunuchs, boys, and generally all who are unfit for copulation properly so called are immune from the malice of pollution, but commit only impure touches. For since they are impotent for the use of marriage, they cannot contract that malice which consists in seeking the pleasure proper to marriage outside the licit use of it. Cf. Revue des sciences eccles. vol. 27, p. 586; and vol. 29, p. 98, and p. 205. - Baller., note (a), p. 417.

It must be observed here that women generally, and a fortiori younger girls, are not to be asked by a prudent confessor whether there was some emission of humor ... or complete satisfaction ... or some exhaustion, etc., whenever they accuse themselves in confession of some solitary sin against the sixth precept. Wherefore if some girl says while confessing: I touched myself basely - or - I did some baseness with myself, or something similar, it must be understood that she perpetrated the sin of pollution, although perhaps she admitted only an impure touch. The reason why those questions ought not to be asked is that the decency to be preserved in the confessional stands in the way, and there is danger lest the girl suffer scandal.

IT MUST BE NOTED from St. Bonaventure in speculo animae, cap. 3. §. Circa tactum, et opusc. de puritate conscientiae, cap. 7. et 8. that pollution can occur in various ways and from various causes. For it can occur either in sleep or in waking, voluntarily, which is defined: Voluntary emission of seed.

THE NOCTURNAL, or in sleep, is sometimes wholly in sleep, and then it is not a sin, because it is not voluntary. So the Saintly Doctor in the places adduced, St. Thomas art. 5. Cajetan. ibi, Navar. cap. 16. Tolet. lib. 5. summae, cap. 13. Azor. tom. 3. cap. 24. quaestio 1. Fagundez in 6. praecept. lib. 6. cap. 9. num. 17. But this is understood provided it was not procured beforehand in waking, or you consent in the same waking.

SOMETIMES it is partly in sleep, partly in waking, as if the movement of the flesh and the decision of seed happen in sleep: but the emission of seed in waking, in which you have full power of restraining, or half-full.

If the movement and decision happen in dreams, and the emission in half-waking, there is no sin.

THE QUESTION, however, is whether, if the emission happens in full waking, it is culpable.

THE FIRST opinion is that it is mortal not to repress it. So Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 13.

THE SECOND opinion is that there is no sin, but that it is enough not to take pleasure in it. So Sà verb. Luxuria, Filliucius tom. 1. tract. 30. in 6. praecep. cap. 8. Navar. sum. cap. 16. Graff. lib. 2. decis. cap. 81. num. 14. Azor tom. 3. cap. 24. Cordub. quaest. 23. Soto in 4. dist. 12. quaest. 1. art. 2. Sanchez lib. 9. de matrim. disp. 17. Fagundez in 6. praecep. lib. 6. cap. 9. with St. Bonaventure in the places cited.

MY REASON is, because the seed once decided is naturally and necessarily carried outside. For whether seed is generated in the vessels of the testicles, as the learned Vesalius and Bartolinus teach, which I assert — for it has often been observed in cadavers, as Dodoneus writes observ. 39. Hofmannus de gener. cap. 18. Carpus Riolanus in Bartolinus lib. 1. de infirmo ventre, cap. 22. — or whether it is not generated in them, as Fallopius, Cabrolius, Posthius, Casp. Hofmannus, Caesar Cremoninus, Adr. Spigelius, Regius and others in Bartolinus will; certainly there are vessels of Seed, beginning from the testicles, ending at the root of the penis, by which they carry it, and with force ejaculate the seed, prepared in the testicles, or elaborated above in the spermatic vessels. Wherefore indeed it can restrain it for a time, but yet the seed will without doubt come forth at last.

BUT it CAN, even occurring in sleep, be culpable in its cause. First in the desire for pleasure, second in the procuration, third in not removing the foreseen cause.

IT IS ASKED whether it is lawful to wish for pollution in sleep for health, or for a moderation of lust.

Valentia disput. 9. quaest. 3. puncto 3. Sot. 4. dist. 12. quaest. 1. art. 7. Lopez part. 1. cap. 74. Syluius 2. 2. quaest. 154. art. 5. DENY it; otherwise it would be lawful to procure it.

THEY GRANT that to wish for it, although not to procure it, is lawful: for thus it is lawful to wish for the death of a tyrant king, but God forbid procuring it: Sayrus lib. 8. cap. 5. Navar. sum. cap. 16. Angelus, and Sylvester V. Pollu. Sa V. Luxur. Toletus lib. 5. cap. 13. D. Anton. 2. part. tit. 6. cap. 6. Vasquez 1. 2. disp. 115. cap. 3. Sanchez sum. cap. 2. Filliucius tom. 2. tract. 30. cap. 8. num. 144. Fagundez cap. 9. num. 31. Bassaeus V. Luxur. num. 14. with St. Bonaventure in the places cited.

FOR THAT REASON it is lawful to rejoice, as they teach: Diana part. 3. tract. 5. misc. Resol. 21. et 87. Sanchez select. disp. 21. num. 35. Tannet. prima secunda, disp. 4. quaest. 8. num. 145. Fernand. part. 4. cap. 2. §. 4. Cruz part. 1. praecep. 6. art. 8. dub. 10.

TO PROCURE, however, is always lethal, as they teach with St. Bonaventure, in Sanchez lib. 9. de matrim. disp. 17. num. 16. Fagundez num. 31. who brings forward many reasons of disparity, not very strong. For if it is lawful to cut off a member for life; why not sperm, which is almost an excrement? Because, you say, the members are destined first for the conservation of the individual, therefore it is lawful to expose them for life; but not the seed, which is ordered to the propagation of the species — this, I say, is weak, even though it is commonly brought forward, because also the testicles are ordered to the species, and nearer still the very embryo inanimate, and yet it is lawful to tear these away for the health of the individual.

EXCELLENT is the reason of St. Bonaventure in Diaeta, tit. 1. cap. ult. which Sanchez uses de Matrim. in the place cited: for the emission of seed by excessive pleasure overwhelms reason, and reduces the will to a deplorable servitude. Wherefore nature granted it only for generation; but the mutilation of members, compensated by pain, man does not pursue. Fagundez brings the same reason num. 33. with Tostatus quaest. 184. in cap. 5. Matth. on these words: It is expedient for you that you lose one of your members rather than that your whole body be cast into hell, which passage the Saintly Doctor turns to this purpose, loc. cit. St. Bonaventure indicates this reason also in 4. d. 31. art. 2. quaest. 3.

As regards foreseen pollution occurring in dreams.

It is the opinion of many that you are bound under pain of mortal sin to avoid the causes from which you know pollution will come, or which you know morally, for example eating such foods, lying in such a position, provided however you are not morally certain, that it is only venial. So Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 13. Sylvest. verb. pollutio, Less. tom. 1. lib. 4. cap. 3. d. 14. Sotus 4. dist. 12. quaest. 1. art. 7. Fagundez in 6. praec. lib. 6. cap. 9. num. 34. They add the condition for mortal sin, if it can easily be avoided, for example by taking other foods, etc.

In truth Diana p. p. Tract. de circumstan. aggrav. resol. 65. judges that foreseen pollution, but not intended, and not only in ordinary foods and eating, but in mortally lethal ones, for example drunkenness, is not mortal. He adduces Villalob. tom. 2. tract. 40. d. 16. Vasq. prima 2. d. 115. cap. 3. Sanchez de matrim. tom. 3. l. 9. d. 45. num. 17. Granado 3. part. 2. controv. 6. tract. 4. d. 6. Sancium fol. d. 21. num. 15. et d. 23. num. 29. who further adds that no cause is given efficacious of itself for polluting in dreams, whether the sights or touches be foul; for if they do not cause it while they are present, much less when absent. Therefore no cause is to be confessed unless one be given by the intention of willing that pollution; but then only the intention is to be confessed, not the pollution. Bassaeus praises this doctrine V. Luxur. num. 15. although he adds, from Sanchez lib. 9. d. 45. num. 30. that the pollution itself is also to be confessed. He adduces also Vasquez prima 2. d. 125.

This doctrine of Sancius stinks to me, for it too much conflicts with the practice and with confessions received from confessants of secular priests, whom I have consulted: why, however, those objects materially absent act more in dreams is, because wherever they are moved intentionally, those species agitated in the quiet of the other senses are stronger by a power there united, and in a manner reflected.

I will say, however, with Diana, that foreseen pollution, but not intended, from actions sinful only venially in the genus of luxury, is not mortal. He alleges Suarez, Henriquez, Sanchez, Villalob. Less. and others, whom Tanner. adduces 2. part. d. 4. quaest. 8. dub. 6. num. 123. whose opinion he judges probable in num. 126.

From these Sancius also says, num. 12. that one is not bound otherwise to lie in bed, even if one can conveniently do otherwise: and num. 18. that one is not bound to leave the bed, even if one feels delectation with an alteration of the private parts. Diana reports him p. p. Tract. 16. resol. ult.

Many say it is lawful to procure the expulsion of corrupt seed by friction, even if by accident the emission of true seed follows. So Sanchez, and Villalobus. But here in the fifth edition he expunged this; the latter retracted it, because it is truly a false opinion, although Bonacina follows it de matrim. quaest. 4. p. 10. num. 11.

It will indeed be lawful for a Surgeon to handle the private parts of a sick man in need of turning, for the sake of the cure, with the danger of pollution. So Vasquez prima 2. Tom. 1. d. 115. num. 9. Less. lib. 4. cap. 3. d. 14. Ioan. de la Cruz in direct. praec. 6. d. 9. and others in Diana.

So neither is a runner forced to go on foot, even if he has experienced that he suffers pollution by riding. So many, with whom Diana concurs.

Much less will it be a sin not to abandon grave duties from which pollution follows, as confessions, studies, schools. Fagundez admits this also num. 35. adducing others.

There is also pollution procured, occurring in waking, which is called softness, and it is a grave offence, as is had in 1 Cor. 6. Therefore of these it is said: The soft shall not possess the kingdom of God.

For it is against the special order of nature, as St. Bonaventure notes in the place adduced above.

Therefore Physicians sin most gravely who persuade this to the sick, or provoke it with medicines, as Fagundez notes; nor are those excused from mortal sin who obey them. So they teach Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 13. Lessius lib. 4. cap. 3. d. 14. num. 94. and others in Fagundez. It can however be provoked per se, or with another, which are to be expressed in confession, as St. Bonaventure teaches, Speculo, cap. 3. and others.

To procure a great movement of the genital spirits is lethal; it is truly known to be great, if it gravely disturbs reason, as Bassaeus says with Sanch. num. 19. He says otherwise where a slight distillation and movement of the spirits is procured by reason of the patency of the matter ceasing, with the danger of pollution, and he adduces Sanch. de matr. and Bonacina: But I did not admit the patency of the matter, quaest. 3. disp. 1.