|
Objection 1: It would seem that nocturnal pollution is a sin. For
the same things are the matter of merit and demerit. Now a man may
merit while he sleeps, as was the case with Solomon, who while asleep
obtained the gift of wisdom from the Lord (3 Kgs. 3:2, Par.
1). Therefore a man may demerit while asleep; and thus nocturnal
pollution would seem to be a sin.
Objection 2: Further, whoever has the use of reason can sin. Now
a man has the use of reason while asleep, since in our sleep we
frequently discuss matters, choose this rather than that, consenting
to one thing, or dissenting to another. Therefore one may sin while
asleep, so that nocturnal pollution is not prevented by sleep from
being a sin, seeing that it is a sin according to its genus.
Objection 3: Further, it is useless to reprove and instruct one who
cannot act according to or against reason. Now man, while asleep, is
instructed and reproved by God, according to Job 33:15,16,
"By a dream in a vision by night, when deep sleep is wont to lay hold
of men] . . . Then He openeth the ears of men, and teaching
instructeth them in what they are to learn." Therefore a man, while
asleep, can act according to or against his reason, and this is to do
good or sinful actions, and thus it seems that nocturnal pollution is a
sin.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15):
"When the same image that comes into the mind of a speaker presents
itself to the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter is unable to
distinguish the imaginary from the real union of bodies, the flesh is
at once moved, with the result that usually follows such motions; and
yet there is as little sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore
thinking about such things while one is awake."
I answer that, Nocturnal pollution may be considered in two ways.
First, in itself; and thus it has not the character of a sin. For
every sin depends on the judgment of reason, since even the first
movement of the sensuality has nothing sinful in it, except in so far
as it can be suppressed by reason; wherefore in the absence of
reason's judgment, there is no sin in it. Now during sleep reason
has not a free judgment. For there is no one who while sleeping does
not regard some of the images formed by his imagination as though they
were real, as stated above in the FP, Question 84, Article 8,
ad 2. Wherefore what a man does while he sleeps and is deprived of
reason's judgment, is not imputed to him as a sin, as neither are the
actions of a maniac or an imbecile.
Secondly, nocturnal pollution may be considered with reference to its
cause. This may be threefold. One is a bodily cause. For when
there is excess of seminal humor in the body, or when the humor is
disintegrated either through overheating of the body or some other
disturbance, the sleeper dreams things that are connected with the
discharge of this excessive or disintegrated humor: the same thing
happens when nature is cumbered with other superfluities, so that
phantasms relating to the discharge of those superfluities are formed in
the imagination. Accordingly if this excess of humor be due to a
sinful cause (for instance excessive eating or drinking), nocturnal
pollution has the character of sin from its cause: whereas if the
excess or disintegration of these superfluities be not due to a sinful
cause, nocturnal pollution is not sinful, neither in itself nor in its
cause.
A second cause of nocturnal pollution is on the part of the soul and
the inner man: for instance when it happens to the sleeper on account
of some previous thought. For the thought which preceded while he was
awake, is sometimes purely speculative, for instance when one thinks
about the sins of the flesh for the purpose of discussion; while
sometimes it is accompanied by a certain emotion either of concupiscence
or of abhorrence. Now nocturnal pollution is more apt to arise from
thinking about carnal sins with concupiscence for such pleasures,
because this leaves its trace and inclination in the soul, so that the
sleeper is more easily led in his imagination to consent to acts
productive of pollution. In this sense the Philosopher says
(Ethic. i, 13) that "in so far as certain movements in some
degree pass" from the waking state to the state of sleep, "the dreams
of good men are better than those of any other people": and Augustine
says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15) that "even during sleep, the soul
may have conspicuous merit on account of its good disposition." Thus
it is evident that nocturnal pollution may be sinful on the part of its
cause. on the other hand, it may happen that nocturnal pollution
ensues after thoughts about carnal acts, though they were speculative,
or accompanied by abhorrence, and then it is not sinful, neither in
itself nor in its cause.
The third cause is spiritual and external; for instance when by the
work of a devil the sleeper's phantasms are disturbed so as to induce
the aforesaid result. Sometimes this is associated with a previous
sin, namely the neglect to guard against the wiles of the devil.
Hence the words of the hymn at even: "Our enemy repress, that so
our bodies no uncleanness know".
On the other hand, this may occur without any fault on man's part,
and through the wickedness of the devil alone. Thus we read in the
Collationes Patrum (Coll. xxii, 6) of a man who was ever wont to
suffer from nocturnal pollution on festivals, and that the devil
brought this about in order to prevent him from receiving Holy
Communion. Hence it is manifest that nocturnal pollution is never a
sin, but is sometimes the result of a previous sin.
Reply to Objection 1: Solomon did not merit to receive wisdom from
God while he was asleep. He received it in token of his previous
desire. It is for this reason that his petition is stated to have been
pleasing to God (3 Kgs. 3:10), as Augustine observes
(Gen. ad lit. xii, 15).
Reply to Objection 2: The use of reason is more or less hindered in
sleep, according as the inner sensitive powers are more or less
overcome by sleep, on account of the violence or attenuation of the
evaporations. Nevertheless it is always hindered somewhat, so as to
be unable to elicit a judgment altogether free, as stated in the FP,
Question 84, Article 8, ad 2. Therefore what it does then is
not imputed to it as a sin.
Reply to Objection 3: Reason's apprehension is not hindered during
sleep to the same extent as its judgment, for this is accomplished by
reason turning to sensible objects, which are the first principles of
human thought. Hence nothing hinders man's reason during sleep from
apprehending anew something arising out of the traces left by his
previous thoughts and phantasms presented to him, or again through
Divine revelation, or the interference of a good or bad angel.
|
|