Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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 1, 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.

Articulus 7

Argumentum 1

Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nocturna pollutio non impediat aliquem a sumptione corporis christi. Nullus enim impeditur a sumptione corporis christi nisi propter peccatum.

Sed nocturna pollutio accidit sine peccato, dicit enim Augustinus, XII super Gen. Ad litt., ipsa phantasia quae fit in cogitatione sermocinantis, cum expressa fuerit in visione somniantis, ut inter illam et veram coniunctionem corporum non discernatur, continue movetur caro et sequitur quod eum motum sequi solet, cum hoc tam sine peccato fiat quam sine peccato a vigilantibus dicitur quod, ut diceretur, procul dubio cogitatum est.

Ergo nocturna pollutio non impedit hominem ab huius sacramenti perceptione.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, in epistola ad Augustinum episcopum anglorum, si quis sua coniuge, non cupidine voluptatis raptus, sed tantum creandorum liberorum gratia utitur, ille profecto, sive de ingressu ecclesiae seu de sumendo corporis dominici mysterio, suo est iudicio relinquendus, quia prohiberi a nobis non debet accipere qui, in igne positus, nescit ardere.

Ex quo patet quod carnalis pollutio etiam vigilantis, si sit sine peccato, non prohibet hominem a sumptione corporis christi.

Multo igitur minus prohibet nocturna pollutio dormientis.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, nocturna pollutio videtur solam immunditiam corporalem habere. Sed aliae immunditiae corporales, quae secundum legem impediebant ab ingressu sanctorum, in nova lege non impediunt a sumptione corporis christi, sicut de muliere pariente, vel menstruata, vel fluxum sanguinis patiente, scribit beatus Gregorius Augustino anglorum episcopo.

Ergo videtur quod neque etiam nocturna pollutio impediat hominem a sumptione huius sacramenti.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, peccatum veniale non impedit hominem a sumptione huius sacramenti, sed nec etiam peccatum mortale post poenitentiam sed, dato quod nocturna pollutio provenerit ex aliquo peccato praecedenti sive crapulae sive turpium cogitationum, plerumque tale peccatum est veniale, et, si aliquando sit mortale, potest contingere quod de mane poenitet et peccatum suum confitetur. Ergo videtur quod non debeat impediri a sumptione huius sacramenti.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, gravius peccatum est homicidii quam fornicationis.

Sed si aliquis de nocte somniet homicidium perpetrare aut furtum, vel quodcumque aliud peccatum, non propter hoc impeditur a sumptione corporis christi. Ergo videtur quod multo minus fornicatio somniata, cum pollutione subsequente, impediat a susceptione huius sacramenti.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Levit. XV dicitur, vir a quocumque egreditur semen coitus, immundus erit usque ad vesperam.

Sed immundis non patet aditus ad sacramenta. Ergo videtur quod propter pollutionem nocturnam aliquis impeditur a sumptione huius sacramenti, quod est maximum sacramentum.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod circa pollutionem nocturnam duo possunt considerari, unum quidem ratione cuius ex necessitate impedit hominem a sumptione huius sacramenti; aliud autem ratione cuius non ex necessitate impedit hominem, sed ex quadam congruentia.

Ex necessitate quidem impedit hominem ab huius sacramenti perceptione solum mortale peccatum. Et quamvis ipsa nocturna pollutio, secundum se considerata, peccatum mortale esse non possit, nihilominus tamen, ratione suae causae, quandoque habet peccatum mortale annexum. Et ideo consideranda est causa pollutionis nocturnae.

Quandoque enim provenit ex causa extrinseca spirituali, scilicet Daemonum illusione, qui, sicut in prima parte habitum est, phantasmata commovere possunt, ex quorum apparitione pollutio interdum subsequitur. Quandoque vero provenit pollutio ex causa intrinseca spirituali, scilicet ex praecedentibus cogitationibus.

Aliquando autem ex causa intrinseca corporali, seu ex superfluitate sive debilitate naturae; seu etiam ex superfluitate cibi et potus. Quaelibet autem harum trium causarum potest et sine peccato, et cum peccato veniali vel mortali existere. Et si quidem sit sine peccato, vel cum peccato veniali, non ex necessitate impedit sumptionem huius sacramenti, ita scilicet quod homo sumendo sit reus corporis et sanguinis domini. Si vero sit cum peccato mortali impedit ex necessitate.

Illusio enim Daemonum quandoque provenit ex praecedenti negligentia praeparationis ad devotionem, quae potest esse vel mortale vel veniale peccatum. Quandoque vero provenit ex sola nequitia Daemonum volentium impedire hominem a sumptione huius sacramenti.

Unde legitur in collationibus patrum quod, cum quidam pollutionem pateretur semper in festis in quibus erat communicandum, seniores, comperto quod nulla causa ab ipso praecesserat, decreverunt quod propter hoc a communione non cessaret, et ita cessavit illusio Daemonum.

Similiter etiam praecedentes cogitationes lascivae quandoque possunt esse omnino sine peccato, puta cum aliquis causa lectionis vel disputationis cogitur de talibus cogitare. Et si hoc sit sine concupiscentia et delectatione, non erunt cogitationes immundae, sed honestae, ex quibus tamen pollutio sequi potest, sicut patet ex auctoritate Augustini inducta.

Quandoque vero praecedentes cogitationes sunt cum concupiscentia et delectatione et, si adsit consensus, peccatum mortale erit, sin autem, veniale.

Similiter etiam et causa corporalis quandoque est sine peccato, puta cum est ex infirmitate naturae, unde et quidam vigilando absque peccato fluxum seminis patiuntur; vel etiam si sit ex superfluitate naturae, sicut enim contingit sanguinem superfluere absque peccato, ita et semen, quod est superfluitas sanguinis, secundum philosophum.

Quandoque vero est cum peccato, puta cum provenit ex superfluitate cibi vel potus. Et hoc etiam potest esse peccatum veniale vel mortale, licet frequentius peccatum mortale accidat circa turpes cogitationes, propter facilitatem consensus, quam circa sumptionem cibi et potus.

Unde Gregorius, scribens Augustino anglorum episcopo, dicit cessandum esse a communione quando ex turpibus cogitationibus provenit, non autem quando provenit ex superfluitate cibi et potus, praesertim si necessitas adsit. Sic igitur ex causa pollutionis considerari potest utrum nocturna pollutio ex necessitate impediat sumptionem huius sacramenti.

Ex quadam vero congruentia impedit quantum ad duo. Quorum unum semper accidit, scilicet quaedam foeditas corporalis, cum qua, propter reverentiam sacramenti, non decet ad altare accedere, unde et volentes tangere aliquid sacrum manus lavant; nisi forte talis immunditia perpetua sit vel diuturna, sicut est lepra vel fluxus sanguinis vel aliquid huiusmodi. Aliud autem est evagatio mentis, quae sequitur pollutionem nocturnam, praecipue quando cum turpi imaginatione contingit. Hoc tamen impedimentum quod ex congruitate provenit, postponi debet propter aliquam necessitatem, puta, ut Gregorius dicit, cum fortasse aut festus dies exigit, aut exhibere ministerium, pro eo quod sacerdos alius deest, ipsa necessitas compellit.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex necessitate quidem non impeditur homo a sumptione huius sacramenti nisi propter peccatum mortale, sed ex quadam congruentia potest homo impediri propter alias causas, sicut dictum est.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod coitus coniugalis, si sit sine peccato, puta si fiat causa prolis generandae vel causa reddendi debitum, non alia ratione impedit sumptionem sacramenti nisi sicut dictum est de pollutione nocturna quae accidit sine peccato scilicet propter immunditiam corporalem et mentis distractionem.

Ratione cuius Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., si panes propositionis ab his qui uxores tetigerant comedi non poterant, quanto magis panis qui de caelo descendit, non potest ab his qui coniugalibus Paulo ante haesere amplexibus, violari atque contingi. Non quod nuptias condemnemus, sed quod, eo tempore quo carnes agni manducaturi sumus, vacare a carnalibus operibus debeamus.

Sed quia hoc secundum congruitatem, et non secundum necessitatem est intelligendum, Gregorius dicit quod talis est suo iudicio relinquendus. Si vero non amor procreandae sobolis sed voluptas dominatur in opere, ut ibidem Gregorius subdit, tunc prohiberi debet ne accedat ad hoc sacramentum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in epistola supra dicta ad Augustinum anglorum episcopum, in veteri testamento aliqui polluti dicebantur figuraliter, quod populus novae legis spiritualiter intelligit.

Unde huiusmodi corporales immunditiae, si sint perpetuae vel diuturnae, non impediunt sumptionem huius sacramenti salutaris sicut impediebant accessum ad sacramenta figuralia. Si vero cito transeunt, sicut immunditia pollutionis nocturnae, ex quadam congruentia impedit sumptionem huius sacramenti per illum diem quo hoc accidit.

Unde et Deut. XXIII dicitur, si fuerit inter vos homo qui nocturno pollutus sit somnio, egredietur extra castra, et non revertetur priusquam ad vesperam lavetur aqua.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, licet per contritionem et confessionem auferatur reatus culpae, non tamen aufertur corporalis immunditia et distractio mentis ex pollutione consecuta.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod somnium homicidii non inducit corporalem immunditiam, nec etiam tantam distractionem mentis sicut fornicatio, propter intensionem delectationis. Si tamen somnium homicidii proveniat ex causa quae est peccatum, praesertim mortale, impedit a sumptione huius sacramenti ratione suae causae.