|
Objection 1: It seems that seminal loss does not hinder anyone from
receiving the body of Christ: because no one is prevented from
receiving the body of Christ except on account of sin. But seminal
loss happens without sin: for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii)
that "the same image that comes into the mind of a speaker may present
itself to the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter be unable to
distinguish the image from the reality, and is moved carnally and with
the result that usually follows such motions; and there is as little
sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking about such
things." Consequently these motions do not prevent one from receiving
this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, Gregory says in a Letter to Augustine,
Bishop of the English (Regist. xi): "Those who pay the debt of
marriage not from lust, but from desire to have children, should be
left to their own judgment, as to whether they should enter the church
and receive the mystery of our Lord's body, after such intercourse:
because they ought not to be forbidden from receiving it, since they
have passed through the fire unscorched."
From this it is evident that seminal loss even of one awake, if it be
without sin, is no hindrance to receiving the body of Christ.
Consequently, much less is it in the case of one asleep.
Objection 3: Further, these movements of the flesh seem to bring
with them only bodily uncleanness. But there are other bodily
defilements which according to the Law forbade entrance into the holy
places, yet which under the New Law do not prevent receiving this
sacrament: as, for instance, in the case of a woman after
child-birth, or in her periods, or suffering from issue of blood, as
Gregory writes to Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist.
xi). Therefore it seems that neither do these movements of the flesh
hinder a man from receiving this sacrament.
Objection 4: Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the
sacrament, nor is mortal sin after repentance. But even supposing
that seminal loss arises from some foregoing sin, whether of
intemperance, or of bad thoughts, for the most part such sin is
venial; and if occasionally it be mortal, a man may repent of it by
morning and confess it. Consequently, it seems that he ought not to
be prevented from receiving this sacrament.
Objection 5: Further, a sin against the Fifth Commandment is
greater than a sin against the Sixth. But if a man dream that he has
broken the Fifth or Seventh or any other Commandment, he is not on
that account debarred from receiving this sacrament. Therefore it
seems that much less should he be debarred through defilement resulting
from a dream against the Sixth Commandment.
On the contrary, It is written (Lev. 15:16): "The man
from whom the seed of copulation goeth out . . . shall be unclean
until evening." But for the unclean there is no approaching to the
sacraments. Therefore, it seems that owing to such defilement of the
flesh a man is debarred from taking this which is the greatest of the
sacraments.
I answer that, There are two things to be weighed regarding the
aforesaid movements: one on account of which they necessarily prevent a
man from receiving this sacrament; the other, on account of which they
do so, not of necessity, but from a sense of propriety.
Mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this
sacrament: and although these movements during sleep, considered in
themselves, cannot be a mortal sin, nevertheless, owing to their
cause, they have mortal sin connected with them; which cause,
therefore, must be investigated. Sometimes they are due to an
external spiritual cause, viz. the deception of the demons, who can
stir up phantasms, as was stated in the FP, Question 111,
Article 3, through the apparition of which, these movements
occasionally follow. Sometimes they are due to an internal spiritual
cause, such as previous thoughts. At other times they arise from some
internal corporeal cause, as from abundance or weakness of nature, or
even from surfeit of meat or drink. Now every one of these three
causes can be without sin at all, or else with venial sin, or with
mortal sin. If it be without sin, or with venial sin, it does not
necessarily prevent the receiving of this sacrament, so as to make a
man guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: but should it be with
mortal sin, it prevents it of necessity.
For such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come from one's not
striving to receive fervently; and this can be either a mortal or a
venial sin. At other times it is due to malice alone on the part of
the demons who wish to keep men from receiving this sacrament. So we
read in the Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, Collat. xxii)
that when a certain one always suffered thus on those feast-days on
which he had to receive Communion, his superiors, discovering that
there was no fault on his part, ruled that he was not to refrain from
communicating on that account, and the demoniacal illusion ceased.
In like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be without any sin
whatever, as when one has to think of such things on account of
lecturing or debating; and if it be done without concupiscence and
delectation, the thoughts will not be unclean but honest; and yet
defilement can come of such thoughts, as is clear from the authority of
Augustine (Objection 1). At other times such thoughts come of
concupiscence and delectation, and should there be consent, it will be
a mortal sin: otherwise it will be a venial sin.
In the same way too the corporeal cause can be without sin, as when it
arises from bodily debility, and hence some individuals suffer seminal
loss without sin even in their wakeful hours; or it can come from the
abundance of nature: for, just as blood can flow without sin, so also
can the semen which is superfluity of the blood, according to the
Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i). But occasionally it is with
sin, as when it is due to excess of food or drink. And this also can
be either venial or mortal sin; although more frequently the sin is
mortal in the case of evil thoughts on account of the proneness to
consent, rather than in the case of consumption of food and drink.
Hence Gregory, writing to Augustine, Bishop of the English
(Regist. xi), says that one ought to refrain from Communion when
this arises from evil thoughts, but not when it arises from excess of
food or drink, especially if necessity call for Communion. So,
then, one must judge from its cause whether such bodily defilement of
necessity hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
At the same time a sense of decency forbids Communion on two
accounts. The first of these is always verified, viz. the bodily
defilement, with which, out of reverence for the sacrament, it is
unbecoming to approach the altar (and hence those who wish to touch any
sacred object, wash their hands): except perchance such uncleanness
be perpetual or of long standing, such as leprosy or issue of blood,
or anything else of the kind. The other reason is the mental
distraction which follows after the aforesaid movements, especially
when they take place with unclean imaginings. Now this obstacle,
which arises from a sense of decency, can be set aside owing to any
necessity, as Gregory says (Regist. xi): "As when perchance
either a festival day calls for it, or necessity compels one to
exercise the ministry because there is no other priest at hand."
Reply to Objection 1: A person is hindered necessarily, only by
mortal sin, from receiving this sacrament: but from a sense of decency
one may be hindered through other causes, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: Conjugal intercourse, if it be without sin,
(for instance, if it be done for the sake of begetting offspring, or
of paying the marriage debt), does not prevent the receiving of this
sacrament for any other reason than do those movements in question which
happen without sin, as stated above; namely, on account of the
defilement to the body and distraction to the mind. On this account
Jerome expresses himself in the following terms in his commentary on
Matthew (Epist. xxviii, among St. Jerome's works): "If the
loaves of Proposition might not be eaten by them who had known their
wives carnally, how much less may this bread which has come down from
heaven be defiled and touched by them who shortly before have been in
conjugal embraces? It is not that we condemn marriages, but that at
the time when we are going to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we ought not
to indulge in carnal acts." But since this is to be understood in the
sense of decency, and not of necessity, Gregory says that such a
person "is to be left to his own judgment." "But if," as Gregory
says (Regist. xi), "it be not desire of begetting offspring, but
lust that prevails," then such a one should be forbidden to approach
this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 3: As Gregory says in his Letter quoted above
to Augustine, Bishop of the English, in the Old Testament some
persons were termed polluted figuratively, which the people of the New
Law understand spiritually. Hence such bodily uncleannesses, if
perpetual or of long standing, do not hinder the receiving of this
saving sacrament, as they prevented approaching those figurative
sacraments; but if they pass speedily, like the uncleanness of the
aforesaid movements, then from a sense of fittingness they hinder the
receiving of this sacrament during the day on which it happens. Hence
it is written (Dt. 23:10): "If there be among you any man,
that is defiled in a dream by night, he shall go forth out of the
camp; and he shall not return before he be washed with water in the
evening."
Reply to Objection 4: Although the stain of guilt be taken away by
contrition and confession nevertheless the bodily defilement is not
taken away, nor the mental distraction which follows therefrom.
Reply to Objection 5: To dream of homicide brings no bodily
uncleanness, nor such distraction of mind as fornication, on account
of its intense delectation; still if the dream of homicide comes of a
cause sinful in itself, especially if it be mortal sin, then owing to
its cause it hinders the receiving of this sacrament.
|
|