Unnatural Consummated Lust

11. Principles. The proper malice of lust consists in this, that man abuses venereal delectation and semen, which are ordered by the author of nature only to the due propagation of the human race, for pleasure or for another end.

1. Venereal delectation directly and in itself willed outside marriage is a grave sin. a. For it is gravely illicit in a grave matter to seek delectation against the order of nature; but he who seeks venereal delectation outside marriage does this, for venereal delectation has been instituted by nature for that act alone which serves generation; but this act, with nature itself requiring, is the conjugal act. b. Moreover, that is gravely illicit which, if it were not prohibited, would redound to the gravest harm of the human race; but if men could licitly enjoy venereal delectation and in this way quiet concupiscence outside marriage, most would refuse the burdens of marriage, with the gravest detriment to the human race. c. Therefore lust of any genus whatever is gravely prohibited by God, since it is numbered among the sins which exclude from the kingdom of God: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust ... those who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.¹ Every fornicator or unclean person ... has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.² Do not err: neither fornicators ... nor adulterers, nor the soft, nor those who lie with males ... shall possess the kingdom of God.³

a. Although not all sins of lust are enumerated in these texts, nevertheless it is gathered from them that all are grave, both because the works of the flesh are generically exhibited as grave sins, and because the supreme species of lust, namely perfect acts, pollution, sodomy, fornication, and imperfect acts, uncleanness and immodesty, are exhibited as grave sins.⁴

b. Although the sin of lust is not judged among the graver mortal sins, nevertheless, if it is perpetrated by a Christian man, a certain peculiar foulness belongs to it which is not found in other sins, because this sin is committed in one's own body. For the body of a Christian, washed in the blood of Christ in baptism, has been made the temple of God through the indwelling Holy Spirit; but through the sin of lust this body, sanctified by the reception of the sacraments, especially of the Eucharist, is profaned and execrated, inasmuch as it becomes the object of sin.⁵

2. Venereal delectation directly willed does not admit smallness of matter, and therefore always, however slight and brief, is a mortal sin. For that is a grave sin which exposes man to proximate danger of sinning gravely; but any venereal delectation directly sought or freely admitted is of this kind, although slight: for venereal delectation, once freely admitted or sought, naturally and necessarily snatches one toward complete delectation.⁶

a. Therefore any action whatever which is placed with this intention, that through it venereal pleasure may be excited and perceived, even if brief and slight, is a grave sin, whether this action in itself is honorable or dishonorable: for the depraved intention is gravely sinful. The reason why other sins which man commits against himself or against neighbor admit smallness of matter, but sins of lust do not admit it, is this: that the former, admitted in small matter, do not cast one into proximate danger of sinning gravely, but the latter, on account of the highest propensity of human nature toward delectations of the flesh, cast one into danger of this kind. Sacred Scripture also intimates this danger: for she has cast down many wounded, and the strongest have been slain by her.⁷

b. There are those who show even from the very nature of this vice that slight delectation deliberately sought contains grave injury of the moral order. For any venereal delectation, so they say, arises from commotion of semen, which commotion naturally causes pollution; indeed it must be called begun pollution. Therefore what is affirmed concerning the malice of pollution, namely that it is a grave sin, must be affirmed also concerning its natural cause and beginning. It is clear that this argument does not have universal value, since venereal delectation is perceived which is not begun pollution, namely in those who, as lacking semen, such as boys, eunuchs, the aged, and women, are not capable of pollution.

c. Authors are not lacking, especially among the older ones, who think that there is smallness of matter in venereal delectation directly sought or admitted. In the year 1612, the general superior of the Society of Jesus, Claudius Aquaviva, most severely prescribed that no one in the Society of Jesus should hold this opinion, not only as true or probable, but not even as tolerable. From that time this sentence, that there is no smallness of matter in venereal delectation directly sought, became most common among moralists. Nevertheless there are those who deny that the truth of this sentence is speculatively proved from the arguments brought forward. Whatever may be said concerning the theoretical reasons by which the opinion admitting smallness of matter is proved false and improbable, practically it is certainly false and not sufficiently safe.⁸

3. In venereal delectation only indirectly willed, smallness of matter must be admitted. For in this case the consent of the will is borne only toward the cause which provokes and excites delectation; therefore its malice must be taken from its influence upon venereal delectation. But there are causes which influence base commotion only lightly; therefore to will these causes constitutes only a light sin against chastity.

¹ Gal. 5, 19 ff.

² Eph. 5, 5.

³ 1 Cor. 6, 9 f.

⁴ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 965.

⁵ Cf. 1 Cor. 6, 11-19.

⁶ Proposition 40, condemned by Alexander VII: The opinion is probable which says that a kiss had on account of carnal and sensible delectation which arises from the kiss, with the danger of further consent and pollution excluded, is only venial. Authors indeed do not agree in explaining the sense of this proposition. According to Viva, it is false because it affirms that venereal delectation, for this is the carnal delectation of the proposition, sought from a kiss is venial if the danger of further consent and pollution has been excluded.

⁷ Prov. 7, 26.

⁸ Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum III, tr. 10, n. 690.

12. Principle concerning the gravity of venereal delectation willed in the cause. Venereal delectation indirectly, or in the cause, willed is only as much sin as the cause itself is in the genus of lust. Therefore if the cause is a grave sin in the genus of lust, the effect of base delectation is imputed as grave sin; if the cause in the genus of lust is a light sin, the effect of delectation is imputed as light sin. Now indeed, a grave sin in the genus of lust is any action whatever which by its nature gravely influences the exciting of libido; a light sin in the genus of lust is an action which by its nature only lightly influences the exciting of libido.

a. Venereal delectation willed in the cause is had by any deliberately placed action which is foreseen to cause base commotion and venereal delectation, whether incomplete or complete, without this effect being intended. Now the question is asked concerning the gravity of the sin of lust which is committed by him who places the cause exciting delectation, who, for example, reads obscene things or uses a bath, although he foresees that venereal commotion will follow. But the gravity of the sin of lust which one placing a cause of this kind commits is not taken from the degree of malice which is present of itself in the action causing base delectation, but from the gravity of the influence which this action exercises in exciting it. Therefore it can happen that an action causing delectation is in itself a grave sin, but by reason of lust only a light one. Thus if someone, making himself drunk, foresees that pollution will follow in drunkenness, the drunkenness is in itself a grave sin, but by reason of lust light, because it influences it only lightly.

b. There are actions of which some cause a base motion of themselves, others cause it accidentally. Those actions cause it of themselves which by their nature are apt for exciting venereal delectation and therefore are ordered to generation, as a base look, touch, imagination. Those actions cause it accidentally which in no way pertain to generation. There are men who, from actions, imagination or sight, which are in no way referred to venereal matters, are vehemently excited by a hidden force. Of actions which cause a base motion of themselves, some by their nature proximately and notably influence that effect, namely those from which a base effect always or almost always follows; others by their nature influence a base motion only remotely and lightly, namely those from which an evil effect rarely arises. Actions which are outside the genus of lust and only accidentally excite a base motion, such as eating and drinking immoderately, riding, using a bath, sitting or lying in a certain position, etc., are counted among those actions which influence the base effect only remotely and lightly. But if at times they influence gravely, this proceeds not from the nature of the action but from the constitution of the subject.

Note 1. There are authors who distinguish accidentally influencing causes in such a way that they say that those which, from a special disposition of the subject, vehemently excite are gravely illicit if they are rare and can easily be avoided, but lightly illicit if they are frequent and therefore cannot be avoided without the greatest inconvenience. For example, there are those who are vehemently excited by the sight of a female foot; there are those who are vehemently excited by the sight of the slaughtering of animals. Those who without cause are delighted by the former sight sin lightly; those who are delighted by the latter, according to this sentence, sin gravely. But this distinction must be omitted, since the degree of malice which is present in actions of this kind must be taken not from the actual influence which they exercise in a particular case, but from the influence which by their nature they exercise. But of themselves and by their nature actions of this kind do not influence at all, or influence only lightly, and only accidentally in a determined individual do they produce a worse effect.

Note 2. As regards this proposition concerning the gravity of venereal delectation willed in the cause, these things must be admonished: a. It is supposed that there is no just cause for placing the action from which base commotion is foreseen to arise; for if a cause of this kind exists, it is licit to place the action. b. It is supposed that there is no consent to the delectation that occurs; for every consent of this kind is a grave sin. c. An action which, without cause, is placed and foreseen to cause carnal delectation is a sin, even if the depraved effect does not in fact follow; but if that effect follows, not only is the action sinful in itself, but also the depraved effect is imputed to the agent, and indeed under grave or light obligation according as the cause influences it gravely or lightly. d. What is established here concerning the cause of venereal delectation is valid also concerning the cause of pollution: for the same action which is foreseen to excite venereal commotion can, in those who are capable of pollution, cause also pollution, or commotion joined with pollution.

13. Corollaries. Therefore venereal delectation, or pollution, willed in the cause is a grave sin if the cause itself of itself gravely influences base commotion. But it is established by experience that not all are moved in an equal way by one and the same action: for what vehemently excites a young or warm man moves an old or cold man little or not at all to libido. Hence for estimating the sin which is committed by indirectly voluntary delectation in a particular case, these things are to be noted:

a. Actions which by their nature gravely excite are always a grave sin, and therefore must be guarded against under grave obligation, except in the sole case in which someone knows certainly by experience that he is not gravely moved by an action of this kind.

Actions gravely exciting, for example, are: "more vivid practical thought concerning venereal matters; touch exercised on the obscene parts of another person, unless perhaps it is done altogether transiently on a person of the same sex without depraved affection; voluntarily continued sight of a person of the other sex entirely naked; indeed also the sight of a man upon the naked breast of a woman, or the sight of an obscene picture, at least if it is continued when commotion has already arisen."¹

b. Actions which by their nature move only lightly are never a grave sin, not even in him who perhaps knows that he is more vehemently excited on account of a subjective disposition; therefore no one is held under grave obligation to guard against them.

Actions lightly moving, for example, are: "touch or sight upon the dishonorable parts of one's own body done in passing; a non-dishonorable and light touch of a woman done in passing; taking her hand; a light kiss from an honorable cause; vain conversation with a woman; a non-fixed sight of her breast, a fortiori other lighter looks."²

Note 1. Below, where there is treatment of imperfect acts of lust, as much as can be done in this very arduous matter, it will be determined accurately what actions by their nature gravely influence venereal commotion and pollution, and what actions lightly influence them.

Note 2. Recent authors after St. Alphonsus,³ who followed the Salmanticenses,⁴ distinguish, besides actions gravely and lightly influencing, actions influencing moderately. But lest this matter, which in practice is most frequent, be entangled in greater difficulties than is fitting, it is preferable to return to the theory of those older authors who reduce actions causing venereal delectation to only two genera, to grave and light causes. For, as Berardi rightly notes,⁵ those which are called middle causes by their nature are light causes, but they gravely influence the base effect either from the duration of the action or from the depraved affection of the agent, in which case they must be referred to grave causes. Thus among middle causes is numbered the sight of an obscene picture; but sight of this kind ordinarily of itself does not gravely move, unless it is prolonged rather long or is done with libidinous affection.⁶

Whether invincible ignorance is found concerning sins of lust. a. Invincible ignorance is more easily admitted as regards impure thoughts and depraved desires, if they are inefficacious. b. But as regards efficacious desires it is conceded with greater difficulty: for he who knows the malice of the external action and nevertheless proposes to execute it ought also to know that he wills an evil thing. Therefore in a particular case it must be investigated whether invincible ignorance was really present. c. Even as regards the malice of pollution, invincible ignorance can be found, especially in childhood. d. Indeed even as regards other sins, invincible ignorance can be found in those circumstances in which actions of this kind can seem licit; thus to the betrothed even less honorable kisses, and to spouses burdened with numerous offspring onanism, can seem licit.

Those who from invincible ignorance think that the depraved action which they exercise either is not a sin or is not mortal are altogether to be admonished and taught where ignorance harms them. But this happens if, not admonished, they are in danger of contracting a depraved custom of polluting themselves, which afterward they will correct with the greatest difficulty. But penitents who indeed know the gravity of the base sin to which they are accustomed, but are ignorant of its specific malice, are not to be admonished concerning this, because an admonition of this kind is scarcely of any utility and only brings it about that formal sins are multiplied.

¹ Lehmkuhl I, n. 864.

² Lehmkuhl, ibid.

³ Cf. l. 4, n. 484.

⁴ Cf. tr. 26, c. 7, n. 37.

⁵ Cf. Praxis confessariorum^3 I, n. 876.

⁶ Cf. Genicot I, 399.

14. Declarations. Those sins are called consummated in which effusion of semen has place. They are of two genera: some are according to nature, in which the effusion of semen of itself is apt for the generation of man; others are against nature, in which the effusion of semen is unfit for the generation of man. In the former, the end which nature intends in the voluntary effusion of semen is obtained; in the latter, it is frustrated. Wherefore sins against nature are of themselves graver than sins of lust according to nature.

a. Sins according to nature are numbered as six: fornication, adultery, incest, defilement, sacrilege, and rape. These sins differ specifically among themselves, not indeed by reason of lust, but on account of another special circumstance: for they are opposed to the virtue of chastity in the same way, but to each one there is superadded a circumstance which is properly not against chastity, but against another virtue.

b. Sins against nature are three: pollution, sodomy, and bestiality. These sins differ from one another in species by reason of lust, because each includes a special deformity and opposition against the virtue of chastity.

I. Unnatural consummated lust is: a completed venereal act which is unsuited for generation. Moreover, in order that an act be of itself apt for generation, there are required: 1. the carnal union of two; 2. the union of two of the same species; 3. the union of two of diverse sex; 4. union in the due vessel of the diverse sex. Hence there are four species of lust against nature, namely: pollution, which excludes the union of two; bestiality, which excludes the union of two of the same species; sodomy, which excludes the union of two of diverse sex; finally, intercourse which excludes union in the due vessel of the diverse sex (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 11; St. Alphonsus III, 412).

II. The enumerated sins differ in species, because in morally diverse ways they are repugnant to right seminal emission (St. Alphonsus III, 464). There is added proposition 24 condemned by Alexander VII: Softness, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same lowest species, and therefore it is enough to say in confession that one has procured pollution.

III. Concerning the relative gravity of the said sins, take these words of St. Thomas: "Gravity in sin is considered more from the abuse of some thing than from the omission of due use; and therefore among the vices which are against nature, the sin of uncleanness holds the lowest place, which consists in the mere omission of intercourse with another (pollution); but the gravest is the sin of bestiality, because the due species is not preserved; hence on that verse of Genesis 37, 'He accused his brothers of a most wicked crime,' the Gloss says that they were mingled with beasts. After this is the vice of sodomy, since there the due sex is not preserved; after this is the sin from the fact that the due manner of lying together is not preserved; but more if there is not the due vessel, than if there is disorder according to some other things pertaining to the manner of intercourse" (II-II, q. 154, a. 12, ad 4).

With these things having been noted generally, we shall speak specifically about the individual unnatural sins.

91. "As often as the order itself of nature is violated in the matter of lust, a sin against nature is present. But this can happen in two ways: first, because the use of the proper matter is impeded; and this happens in every voluntary emission of semen apart from a due union of male and female, which is called uncleanness, which some call softness. Secondly, because the conjunction of male and female is not observed; and this either as to the due sex, and thus a man sins with a man, or a woman with a woman, as the Apostle says to the Romans, chapter 1, and this is called sodomy; or as to due species, as when a man has commerce with a beast, and this is called bestiality." St. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 154. a. 11.

The species, therefore, of this sin against nature are: pollution, bestiality, sodomy. Onanism, however, of which we spoke above in n. 69., is true and properly so-called pollution, containing a special malice, as it were, of adultery; and hence it is even more grievous than solitary pollution. Nay more, it is also opposed to the end of marriage, and to the right of the other spouse.

These sins, according to the more common judgment of theologians, are of themselves more grievous than sins according to nature, because they are more opposed to the order of nature. Yet, by reason of circumstances, a sin according to nature can be more grievous; thus incest, sacrilege, adultery, by reason of the added malice, can be more grievous than simple pollution. "Softness, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate species, as to that which is common to them, namely, that they are against nature; but they are distinct according to species, according to diverse ways of being against nature." St. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 154. a. 11. "The sin against nature is the gravest among the species of lust." St. Thomas, ibid. a. 12.

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.

1. Lubanus is accustomed to ride horseback, either for the sake of utility or also not rarely for the sake of recreation. But often while riding, he experiences carnal motions, indeed sometimes even pollution itself. Although he detests depraved effects of this sort from his soul, nevertheless he fears lest he gravely stain his conscience, and again, anxious, asks the confessor whether he ought to form the proposal of riding no more.

Q. 1. Is pollution voluntary in the cause ever a grave sin? 2. Has Lubanus sinned?

R. To the first. Affirmatively, namely when the cause placed influences pollution per se, proximately, and gravely, and is placed without a just reason of necessity, or utility, or convenience. Now actions or causes influencing pollution per se, proximately, and gravely are those which directly, by their nature, of themselves tend to pollution, in almost the same way in which the infliction of a lethal wound is said to be a cause per se of death; and for this reason they constitute grave fault in the genus of lust. Such are, for example, morose thoughts about venereal things, voluntary sight of human intercourse, conversations openly too immodest, the reading or hearing of very shameful things, shameful touches in the private parts. I. M. 35-37, 40; Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 1, n. 780.

But it is permitted, from a just reason and notwithstanding the depraved effect, to place the aforesaid causes.

The reason is that no artisan ought to omit the beginning or prosecution of a work because of defects following from the necessity of the matter. For someone would foolishly omit the construction of a saw or sword because they will contract rust, since they are made from iron, and so concerning other things. But pollutions and stings of the flesh in the proposed matter happen from the necessity of the matter, from the fact that venereal matter is matter to be cleansed, washed, disputed about, preached about, thought about; from this, by natural sequence, there follows commotion of the flesh, etc. Therefore man ought not, because of defects occurring from the necessity of venereal matter, to omit not only necessary, but useful thoughts, speakings, hearings, etc. For otherwise it would be necessary either that angels or very privileged men only dispute, hear, etc., concerning things of this sort, the opposite of which ecclesiastical custom holds and reason teaches. Thus Cajetan, tom. 1, Opusc., tr. 22, q. un.; Billuart, De Temper., dissert. 6, art. 12, par. Confirmatur Conclusio.

And Lessius, l. 4, c. 3, d. 14, n. 102: "If that action or cause is of itself a proximate disposition to pollution, such as contact with and sight of immodest parts, etc., we are held by reason of pollution to avoid it under mortal sin, unless some necessity compels us to that action. The reason is that, speaking per se, to consent to the effect and to its proximate cause is of the same moral character. Nevertheless, when another just cause of that action underlies it, then that effect is not judged willed, but only permitted, as coming beyond the intention. It is confirmed in the proposed matter. For that contact does not move except as apprehended by the imagination. But apprehended by the imagination, for example, as a necessary means for curing, it does not have the power of stirring up lust. But if, with that apprehension, another also creeps in at the same time, as of a pleasurable thing, and this moves, that is per accidens, from the misery of nature and beyond the intention of the agent, not from the nature of the object considered under the aspect of a means to health. Hence, on account of such an effect, we are not held to deprive ourselves of that convenience. But it is called a per se disposition, or proximate cause, because when it is apprehended according to itself, not as a means to another end, it is such."

To the second. Lubanus must not be disturbed. The reason is that this cause is remote and per accidens; whence in such and a similar case, "man rather suffers than acts, since pollution proceeds not from his malice, but from the infirmity of nature.... To this is added that, when a cause has two effects, one good, the other evil, it can be placed from the intention of the good effect alone, conducting oneself permissively toward the evil." L. 483; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 64, a. 7; G. 11.

2. Marchantius once had shameful pleasure, but doubts whether sleeping or awake. Often in sleep he suffers pollution. But in the morning he rejoices because for this reason he is well and free from temptations. Finally, having awakened during pollution begun in sleep, he does not try to impede it. Often he also suffers distillation, concerning which he is very uncertain whether it is a sin.

Q. 1. Is distillation a grave sin? 2. Has Marchantius sinned?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 809, 811. To the second. Marchantius, in the first case, can be excused from sin. For the presumption stands for the state of sleep, since things which are done in the state of waking are adverted to and known. Voit 37.

In the second case he is still more to be excused from sin because of the defect of the voluntary. Nevertheless it could have been voluntary in the cause, if, foreseeing that depraved effect at least in a confused way, he placed its cause by shameful readings, conversations, thoughts, etc. Cf. Sanch., l. 9, d. 45, n. 28.

In the third case he is to be excused at least from grave sin, if he rejoices only concerning the good effect which followed. I. M. 292, 294; G. 23. - In the fourth case, "nor is he held to restrain its actual flow, because, from the fact that the motion of the flesh has been excited while sleeping, it is no further subject to the will of one awake; and although it were subject, it could not be restrained without notable burden of the body and danger of infirmities. Wherefore he can permit it as the effect of a natural cause which can no longer be impeded.... The same seems to be said concerning any involuntary pollution, whether it happens in sleep or in waking, since the reason of each is the same as to this." Billuart, De Temper., dissert. 6, art. 13, at the end; Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 1, n. 782; Lig. 479.

Physicians indeed deny the aforesaid danger of infirmity in the case. And thus Dr. C. Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, 11th ed., Aachen, 1896, p. 79, openly says: "There is no such corrupted seed which can in some way bring disease to the body." But even prescinding from a danger of this sort, the reason brought forward holds, namely that in that pollution naturally begun the will conducts itself merely permissively, not impeding it, since it does not arise from any influence of the will and any efficacy of the will, but by force of nature itself; whence it is that, as it begins naturally, so consequently it is also completed merely naturally. Hence St. Alphonsus says in the cited place: "When emission began in sleep, but afterward is consummated in full waking, in that case, provided consent in the pleasure or proximate danger of consent from past experience is absent, man is not held to restrain it.... For then he does not will the pollution, but merely suffers it.... Then it is expedient to fortify oneself with the sign of the cross, and by averting the mind from that shameful pleasure, and by invoking the Most Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, fervently to pray them not to permit any fall."

Finally, as regards distillation, this first must be noted: that distillation properly differs from pollution. For pollution is the outpouring of human seed without congress with another. But distillation is a certain flow of humor intermediate between urine and true seed, which falls drop by drop in small quantity. Then indeed it must be adverted that, if distillation happens beyond the intention, without voluntary sense of the flesh and without voluntary commotion of the genital spirits, it is not a sin, nor is it necessary to be disturbed about it more than about any other simple sweat of the body.

But if it happens with voluntary carnal sense and with voluntary commotion of the spirits serving generation, for example, from shameful touch, from shameful conversation, from shameful sight, it is a grave sin. Wherefore it is mortal deliberately to procure even light distillation which carries with itself some commotion of the flesh and the outpouring of a little true seed, or certainly contains proximate danger of it. The same must be said a fortiori if the voluntary distillation is in great quantity, which is with notable venereal pleasure and notable commotion, or with some outpouring of true seed. Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 1, n. 778, 783; Lig. 477.

Hence St. Alphonsus, l. c., says: "Just as he sins gravely who procures a notable commotion (which is incipient pollution), so also he who procures great distillation." And Sanchez, l. 9, d. 45, n. 32, says: "Whenever it is a mortal sin to give a cause to foreseen pollution, by not removing causes notably influencing it, it is similarly mortal to give a cause to notable distillation or to commotion of the vital spirits serving generation through similar causes. Because this distillation and commotion of the spirits is notably shameful and as it were incipient pollution." Ballerini has the same, Op. Theol. Mor., 1st ed., v. 2, p. 725, where he asserts that distillation "frequently itself also happens with commotion and pleasure of the genitals; for it is joined to some outpouring of seed, or disposes to it. But again and again it has place without any pleasure. If therefore it happens in the former way, moral malice will be placed in the venereal pleasure procured either in itself or in the cause, and also in pollution or outpouring of seed, or in the proximate danger of this. But if it happens in the other way, without pleasure, although with a certain natural commotion, theologians say that it is not to be cared about, just as concerning any other excretion, nor ought we to avoid its cause." And from these things it is abundantly clear what must be thought concerning Marchantius in the fifth case.

Now, progressing further in this matter, that must be noted which the praised Sanchez, l. c., has concerning married persons. For after the words just reported, he immediately adds: "Whether this holds true in married persons, we shall say in the last number." But in this number, namely 43, he says: "I do not think that it is mortal in married persons, through touches, sights, and shameful words, and through venereal pleasure arising from intercourse thought about, to give a cause to commotion of the members serving generation and to incur foreseen distillations." And Fr. Gury, Comp., v. 2, n. 919. 3°, says: "Spouses do not sin gravely, even if, from touches had even without the intention of intercourse, there arises commotion of the spirits or members serving generation, or distillation follows.... The reason is that, the crime of voluntary pollution outside the vessel or of sodomy being set aside, nothing is done against the good of marriage." But this conclusion of Sanchez and Gury, as regards distillation, does not seem able to be admitted absolutely of itself, as is easily gathered even from the very reason brought forward by Gury. For it can indeed be admitted concerning distillation which is without outpouring of seed. Nor indeed is distillation always with outpouring of seed, which indeed is opposed to the very definition of distillation.

But as regards that distillation which is in reality joined with an outpouring of seed, even if only partial, the aforesaid acts seem to be prohibited for the same reason, by reason of distillation as by reason of pollution. Wherefore, just as from the aforesaid acts which can be exercised by spouses, at least without grave fault, those acts must altogether be excluded which by their nature are an inchoate pollution, or of themselves proximately dispose to pollution, so consequently those acts seem to have to be excluded which of themselves proximately dispose to distillation joined with the outpouring of seed, and which consequently, by reason of this sort of joined distillation, are by their nature an inchoate pollution. Cf. I. M. V. 2, n. 1079-1083.

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.

55. 2. Concerning sodomy. (A) Paul testifies that the unspeakable crime of sodomy flourished among the pagans:¹ "For their women changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And likewise the males also, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their desires toward one another, males with males working shame."

¹ Rom. 1:26-27.

A twofold sodomy is distinguished: perfect, or properly so called, which is intercourse of two of the same sex, namely of male with male,² or of female with female; imperfect, or improperly so called, which is intercourse with a person of different sex, but in an unnatural vessel. They are two diverse species. - For sodomy simple touch does not suffice, but there is required, at least on one side, application of the genital member to the body of another, in whatever manner it is done.

² When men abuse boys to fulfill lust, it is called pederasty.

(B) Sodomy is a most grave sin, graver than fornication and simple pollution, both because it is most against nature and because both sodomites furnish scandal to each other and concur in the sin of the other.

56. Although perfect sodomy can be performed in various ways, penitents are not to be asked about these: it is enough to know whether it was consummated by effusion of seed.

Sodomy improperly so called, which is committed in the preposterous vessel, is accustomed to induce most grave diseases, especially in women; concerning these read physicians.

There is a more horrendous kind of sodomy, which by theologians is called irrumatio, by the common people abuse of the mouth: it consists in licking the genitals of the same or of another sex, and in other shameful acts committed with the tongue and mouth; this likewise draws many diseases after itself.

When sodomy is a reserved sin, as in many dioceses, sodomy properly so called, and indeed consummated, is understood, unless another thing is declared; this more frequently happens among males, but sometimes also among girls and women, who rub genitals against genitals with each other.

57. 3. Concerning bestiality. (A) Bestiality is intercourse with a beast; when effusion of seed in the natural vessel accedes, bestiality properly so called and consummated is had. Where sodomy is reserved, reservation is to be understood of this kind, unless another thing is established.

(B) Bestiality is of itself the gravest of all sins of luxury, since through it man is compared to beasts and becomes one flesh with them.³ - The species of the sin is not changed, whatever the sex of the beast may be. - This crime is committed especially by country people, and by certain women who use dogs to fulfill lust. Immodest touches with a beast are not properly bestiality, but lead to it and often provoke pollution: in which case they are gravely sinful.

³ In the old law the horrendous crime of bestiality was not only prohibited, but punished with death: "He who has intercourse with a beast or cattle, let him die the death; kill the beast also. The woman who shall lie under any beast, let her be killed together with it" (Lev. 20:15-16).

58. (C) Related to this sin is the crime of necrophilia, or intercourse with a dead woman, which is sometimes committed by guardians of the dead: it shows a wholly depraved sense.

I. Lust against nature is so called because it altogether repugns the natural ordering or destination of the venereal act, while it impedes generation. There are four species of it distinct by object. For the genital act, in order that offspring may be conceived, requires four things: a. the concubitus of two; b. of different sex; c. of the same specific nature; d. in a natural mode. Hence someone can act against nature in four ways:

1. if, without concubitus, pollution is procured for the sake of venereal pleasure: solitary sin;

2. if concubitus is done toward the same sex, for example male with male or female with female: sodomy properly so called;

3. if concubitus is done with a thing of a different species: bestiality;

4. if the natural mode of lying together is not preserved, either by seeking an undue vessel or organ: sodomy improperly so called, or another undue mode in such a way, however, that generation is thereby impeded: onanism.

These differ in species according to a diverse repugnance toward nature and reason.¹

¹ Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 11. Hence proposition 24 was condemned by Alexander VII: "Softness, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same lowest species; and therefore it suffices to say in confession that one has procured pollution."

II. Lust against nature, according to itself and other things being equal, is the gravest in the genus of lust, because it transgresses that which has been determined by nature itself concerning the use of the genitals as to their primary end. But the other sins of lust transgress only that which is further determined by reason. The first is more fundamental, because reason cannot determine certain things except according to those things which have first been determined by nature.

After this, however, is incest, which is also against a secondary natural inclination, namely against the natural reverence which we owe to persons joined to us. Adultery is graver than stuprum, because the injury is greater if someone abuses a person subject to the power of another for the use of generation than for guardianship alone; and simple fornication, which is committed without injury to another person, is least among the species of complete lust. By raptus and sacrilege, however, the aforesaid things can be aggravated.²

² Ibid., a. 12.

All these things are to be understood:

1. according to themselves, that is, according to their proper and distinct species; for per accidens several, indeed all, species of lust according to nature can concur in one act, so that in that act there is greater gravity than in one sin against nature;

2. formally, or in the genus of lust, without attending to the malice of another species. For in another genus, by reason of an added circumstance, other sins can become simply graver, for example adultery by reason of injustice is absolutely graver than pollution, and sacrilege by reason of irreligion; but pollution in the genus of lust is graver than both;

3. other things being equal, so that in equal circumstances a sin against nature is greater, and so that the greatest sin against nature is greater than the greatest according to nature.

Nevertheless nothing prevents some sin according to nature from being graver on the part of the agent, for instance because it is done from special malice or with greater audacity.

III. Among sins against nature, gravity is attended from the greater abuse rather than from the mere omission of due use. Hence bestiality is graver, because it recedes most of all from the rule of nature, since even the due species is not preserved; then sodomy properly so called, in which the due sex is not preserved; then sodomy improperly so called, or the undue mode of lying together, in which the due organ is not preserved; then onanism, or unnatural concubitus from the mode alone impeding generation. The lowest place is held by solitary sin, which is in the omission alone of concubitus toward another (ibid., a. 4).

Concerning these we must now speak in particular.

I. Unnatural concubitus with a woman (tegennatuurlijke vrouwenbeslaping) is that which does not preserve the mode indicated by nature, in such a way that the possibility of generation is thereby impeded. Hence by that very fact it is against nature and gravely sinful, because it is directly opposed to the natural end of the genital act.

It can be against nature in two ways:

1. on the part of the organ in which copulation is had, while it is not exercised in the natural vessel, that is, the female genital canal, but in an unnatural vessel and undue organ, namely in the posterior vessel or in the mouth. It is called sodomy improperly so called, because it imitates true sodomy;

2. on the part of the mode alone, if copulation is exercised in the natural vessel and due organ, the female genital canal, 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 semen outside the female genital canal, or because he himself or the woman employs instruments or other means by which the semen is impeded from passing to the uterus. It is called onanism, from the deed narrated concerning Onan (Gen. XXXVIII, 9). For if only the natural and due mode in situation, place, or time is not preserved, yet in such a way that generation is not impeded, the mode is only beside nature (ongepaste or ongewone wijze), not against nature, nor evil of itself gravely.

II. Onanism can be done in various ways:

1. on the part of the man: a. if he begins copulation in the female genital canal but withdraws himself before insemination and pours out semen outside the female genital canal; b. if he clothes the virile member or only its glans with some thin covering or sheath, a condom,¹ capote anglaise, within which the emitted semen is retained;

¹ It is so called because it had Doctor Condom as inventor.

2. on the part of the woman: a. if she uses an occlusive pessary (sterilet), that is, a certain thing introduced into the lowest part of the female genital canal for closing the mouth of the uterus, for example a metallic barrier, sponge, cotton, threads of linen, and so forth; b. if she uses a pseudo-vagina, that is, a thin membrane arranged within the whole female genital canal in which semen is emitted.

Besides these unnatural modes of lying together, there are other modes by which, after the action has been completed, conception is impeded, for example washing of the female canal by which, by means of a syringe or irrigator after copulation, semen is expelled by water or an antiseptic substance; or, immediately before or after copulation, the sprinkling of a chemical substance, for example anticonceptional powder, or the injection of an acidic liquid by which semen is killed. But these modes are rather against justice, to which they are opposed per se, than against chastity, to which they are opposed per accidens because of the intention of the agent. Besides, there are several unjust modes by which offspring already conceived is impeded from being born or living, for example abortion or craniotomy.

III. Observations. 1. Pollution done between the arms, legs, breasts, and so forth, of a woman is not imperfect sodomy; neither is it so in affection unless there is affection toward an undue organ. It is pollution with affection of fornication.

2. In sodomy improperly so called, it must be expressed whether pollution was present; for it is consummated by the emission of semen.

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.