Chastity may he defined as the habit of regulating the use of the generative faculty according to the principles of reason and faith.
Are engaged people allowed any special liberties? Is it a sin to go to a somewhat objectionable or suggestive motive? When is kissing sinful? These are but a few of an almost endless stream of question proposed to priests at various times. The questioners always ask them with the hope of a brief, definite answer, and they perhaps seldom advert to the fact that these are among the most difficult questions to answer. The preceding chapters of this book should have indicated that such questions cannot be answered without taking into account a large number of factors. In the present chapter we are going to indicate as briefly, yet as adequately, as possible the main points that a priest always has to consider before he can answer such questions. In doing this, we shall formulate certain practical principles that must be applied to these various cases. This should help the reader appreciate some of the difficulty the priest faces, and at the same time it should be of some service in the solution of one's own problems.
In answering any question concerning chastity, the first point to be determined concerns the action itself. In this respect, it should already be clear to our readers that there are two quite district classes of actions. In the first class are those actions which of their very nature are so closely connected with the sexual appetite that they serve the single purpose of stimulating or promoting the generative function. Such are the actions spoken of in the last chapter: sexual intercourse; intimate, passionate kissing and embracing which form the natural preliminary to intercourse; unnatural acts, such as self-abuse or sexual intimacies with a person of the same sex. We may call these acts directly venereal (of or relating to sexual intercourse) because their one direct and exclusive effect is to stimulate or further venereal passion. These directly venereal actions are always unchaste for unmarried people. No "good intention" can make them right; for instance, a girl may not indulge in unchaste intimacies to avoid leading a lonely life or losing a man she loves, and so forth. The law of God in this matter is absolute, and to do such things for some so-called good purpose is simply to do evil in order to obtain some good. With these unequivocal notions in mind, we can formulate our first practical principle of extra-marital chastity:
FIRST PRACTICAL PRINCIPLE: "Every directly venereal action is against the law of God, and a serious sin of impurity.
Note: When we say that such things are mortal sins, we mean that they are objectively serious sins. That is, the matter is serious. As we know from our catechism, for a person to commit a full-fledged mortal sin, three things are necessary: (a) serious matter; (b) sufficient reflection; (c) full consent of the will. It happens now and then that an impure action is performed in a sudden burst of passion, or without forethought, or through ignorance of the real evil of the action, or when one is only half-awake, and so forth. In such cases, the second or third element for a subjective mortal sin is lacking, and one may incur little or no guilt before God. But such subjective excuses do not change the nature of the action.
Besides the actions that we have called directly venereal, there are almost countless other actions and situations in life which do frequently stimulate the sexual appetite, but which also serve another purpose entirely, distinct from in venereal stimulation. We are referring to such things as: the study of physiology or medicine; decent dancing; modest kissing and embracing, motion pictures, plays, and books containing an occasional suggestive scene or description; and so forth. Now, it is true that (as we said) these things often do arouse venereal passion to a greater or less degree; but they also and primarily serve another distinct purpose. The study of physiology or medicine provides useful or even necessary information; dancing, plays, and motion pictures provide recreation for the mind; the modest kiss or embrace is a sign of affection and so on. The venereal passion amused by these things may be called a by-product, and for this reason we label them indirectly venereal.
The moral problem involved in these indirectly venereal actions stay present itself in these two ways:
1) Before doing something, one is conscious that it will very likely be a source of sexual passion. For instance, a boy may know that if he dances with, or embraces, a girl he loves, his passions will be aroused; a girl may know that if she reads a certain book or magazine or thinks about he' future married life, the will be sexually disturbed; a young medical student (or a nurse) may realize that his studies win have a stimulating effect on him. The question that each must answer before acting is: May I dance, embrace, read, study, etc, without violating chastity?
2)While doing something one becomes conscious that the action is sexually stimulating He may not have thought of it before, but now he must answer the question. May I continue to dance, read, study, etc., without violating chastity?
In deciding whether such action its may be begun or continued, one must keep in mind that they are not like directly venereal actions; they are not necessarily wrong. They will be sinful or not sinful according to certain circumstances, and these circumstances may be reduced to three.
Everyone will readily see that if a boy kisses a girl in order to arouse his passion or in order to prepare the way for some directly venereal action, his act is against chastity. Even though the kiss be externally quite modest he is really turning it into an impure act. And so of other things, to read a book, to look at pictures, to attend plays in order to arouse or further venereal passion is to turn them into violations of chastity. This would hold whether the action is begun for that purpose or continued for that purpose; hence, we cone naturally to our:
SECOND PRACTICAL PRINCIPLE: "Any action is a serious sin against chastity when it is performed with the intention of stimulating or promoting venereal pleasure."
Perhaps what we have to say about the second circumstance maybe made clear by some examples, From our first two principles we know that these two things are always seriously wrong: (a) the performance of a directly venereal action; and (b) the intentional seeking or promoting of venereal pleasure. Now, let us suppose this case: A boy kisses a girl. Externally, the kiss is quite modest and when he kisses her, his intention is not impure Therefore, he does not violate either of the first two principles. Yet, let us suppose rather that the boy knows that this apparently chaste action generally leads him to go too far, for example, to try to perform some directly venereal action.
Or suppose another case: A girl reads a magazine. It is not a bad magazine, though it does contain a few parts that are sexually stimulating for her. However, we can suppose she does not read for that purpose, that she merely wants some information, or some recreation. Hence, she, too, avoids the violation of the first two principles. But in her case, too, we are making the further supposition that this seemingly justifiable reading generally leads her to lose control of herself; her good intention wavers and she consents to the venereal pleasure aroused by the reading.
These two examples illustrate the second, very important circumstance that must be considered when there is question of indirectly venereal actions. For both the boy and the girl referred to in our examples, these actions, though not wrong in themselves, involve what is termed the proximate danger of serious sin. In other words, in performing these actions they are practically certain to sin. Everyone must avoid danger like that one who knowingly courts such a danger is already showing a will to sin.
Situations that involve the proximate danger of sin are termed proximate occasions of sin. For instance, in the examples we have just cited, the apparently decent kissing is a proximate occasion of serious sin for the boy, and the reading of that particular type of magazine is a proximate occasion of serious sin for the girl. It is seriously wrong for one to expose oneself rashly to such dangers. Ordinarily, we are obliged under pain of serious sin to avoid such occasions. If the occasion cannot be avoided, as may happen in certain rather rare instances, then we must find some means which will fortify us against the danger. Expert counsel is usually required in such cases.
To a great extent, proximate occasions of sin differ with different individuals; hence, the difficulty of solving cases for a group. However, there are some things which are commonly and practically universally proximate occasions. For instance, the modern burlesque show is planned along such sexually stimulating lines that it is a proximate occasion for almost anyone. In fact, we may say, in general, that real obscenity usually constitutes a proximate danger of sin. The term, obscenity, is frequently used with a rather wide and vague meaning but with the moral expert it is very technical. Let us illustrate from things to which the term is especially applicable; namely, obscene 'literature" and theatrical productions. For such things to be obscene two elements are required: (a) their the me, or content, is of an impure or sexually-exciting nature; and b) their manner of presentation is such as to throw an attractive emphasis on that impure or sexually-exciting element. For instance, adultery is a sin of impurity; so when a book or play, not only centers about adultery, but portrays it in an attractive manner, such a play or book is obscene. Again, excessive nudity, and especially a women disrobing in the presence of a man, are commonly recognized as strongly stimulating to the sexual passions. Hence, when such things are alluringly emphasized and advertised as they are in most modern burlesque shows, the shows must be called obscene.
This rather lengthy discussion of the meaning of proximate danger was necessary for our purpose. We can now summarize it in our
THIRD PRACTICAL PRINCIPLE: "It is mortal sin for one to expose oneself freely and knowingly to the proximate danger of performing a directly venereal action or of consenting to venereal pleasure
In the first three principles we have indicated the three possible sources of mortal sins against purity: (a) impure action; (b) impure intention; (c) willful proximate danger of either. One who guards against these three things avoids mortal sin. However, that does not necessarily mean that he avoids all sin. It is possible to commit a venial sin in this matter by acting without a relatively sufficient reason. This statement calls for a brief explanation; then we can formulate it into a practical principle. In the second principle we stated that one commits a mortal sin if his intention is impure. This implies that to avoid mortal sin one must have some reason for acting which is not impure. Now, evidently such "pure" reasons are very numerous and they vary in value. A school teacher who must read a mystery story that contains some sexually-disturbing passages surely has a better reason for reading than a person who reads the same story merely for recreation. Engaged people have a better reason for decent affectionate embracing than have those who are nott engaged, A medical student has a better reason for reading a medical treatise then a person who is interested in medicine merely as a hobby or who is just curious to know the contents of the book. Again, consider the third principle. In it we considered the case of proximate danger, and we explained this as referring to a situation in which one generally loses control of himself and commits an impure action or fully consents to venereal passion. For instance, John knows that when he reads his father's medical books, he suffers violent temptations and generally gives in. The direct opposite of proximate danger is remote danger; which may be explained as referring to situations in which one generally does not lose self-control. For example, James reads the same books, is very little disturbed by them, and they seldom or never prove a source of sin to him. Everyone should see that between the two extremes (proximate and remote) there lies a wide zone which might be termed intermediate danger. For example, Joseph also reads the medical books. He cannot say they are a proximate occasion of sin for him, nor can he say simply that the danger of sin is thoroughly remote. In other words, he does occasionally lose control of himself. Now, the point we wish to make here is a simple one: Joseph is obliged to exercise more caution in regard, to this reading than is James. For Joseph takes some risk, James practically none. And the cases of Joseph and James are only examples. They illustrate the point that some actions or thoughts need a greater reason for perfect justification than do others. In other words, for an indirectly venereal action to be perfectly justifiable, that is, not even venially sinful, one must have a relatively sufficient reason. Without such a reason he takes a needless risk and is guilty of some negligence or insincerity. Obviously, the determination of what constitutes a sufficient reason is not a question of mathematics. Nevertheless, the normal rule is about as follows: The more stimulating the thought or action, the stronger must be the reason, because usually the danger of sin and insincerity increases with the vehemence of passion. Usually, this lack of a sufficient reason constitutes a venial sin. Examples might be: curious and imprudent looks and reading; delaying on dangerous thoughts through idle curiosity; unduly prolonged or repeated kisses by lovers, even though they intend no passion; kissing from frivolous motives and so forth. In such cases there is no outright willful impurity, and no mortal sin, but there is a lack of due caution or some degree of insincerity. These cases can all be comprised under this:
FOURTH PRACTICAL PRINCIPLE: "It is a venial sin to perform an indirectly venereal action without a relatively sufficient reason
(Note in this last principle we have not referred to those cases in winch there is really a complete fundamental lack of sincerity. But it does happen at times that people merely deceive themselves in the matter of impurity. They want venereal pleasure, but they do not like to admit it, even to themselves. Hence, they read strongly stimulating things; dwell on stimulating thoughts-always with a certain pre tense that they have some other motive. In reality, they violate the second principle, but rationalize themselves out of guilt, at least serious guilt. It is often difficult to estimate these cases, as mental quirks develop easily in one who is not sincerely devoted to chastity)
The four preceding principles have taken care of anything that might be sinful in regard to chastity. It remains merely to indicate what is sinless. Practically speaking, our actions are sinless when they are reasonable. In other words, when we have a good reason for our thoughts or actions, we may think or act, and ignore the sexual stimulation that may accidentally result. Thus, necessity permits the intimate actions of a medical examination. The acquisition of useful or necessary knowledge permits young doctors, nurses, theologians, and instructors to study things which might at times be strongly stimulating. Normal recreation is sufficient to justify things which are only slightly stimulating (as some people may notice regarding dancing, slightly suggestive motion pictures lures, generally decent picture magazines, and so forth). Hypersensitive people, that is, those who are bothered by things which do not disturb others and greatly bothered by things which only slightly disturb others, may live as others do in this matter, so long as their intention is good. Sometimes it is better for them to live as others do; sometimes the more advisable course is to lead a more careful life. They need sound personal direction. What we have said about sinlessness can now be summarized in our:
FIFTH PRACTICAL PRINCIPLE: "Indirectly venereal actions are not sinful if one has a good and sufficient reason for beginning or continuing such actions."
The sixth commandment commands us to be pure in our external actions and forbids all action against purity. Therefore, in terms of what is sinful or not sinful it may be visualized as follows:
Mortal Sin: All directly venereal actions. (Principle I)
All other actions performed for the purpose of stimulating or promoting venereal pleasure. (Principle II)
All actions involving the proximate danger of performing a directly venereal action or of consenting to venereal pleasure. (Principle 1 II)
Venial Sin: Indirectly venereal actions performed without a relatively sufficient reason. (Principle IV)
No Sin: Indirectly venereal actions performed with a relatively sufficient reason (Principle V)
In this summary we give only the points that pertain to one's personal chastity It should not be forgotten that if others are concerned in these external actions, charity demands that we consider them; also, at times other factors mrust be considered, such as the special obligations of one's state of life, as indicated before.
The ninth commandment prescribes chastity of thought, and forbids unchaste thoughts. In this matter of thoughts, some preliminary explanation is necessary before formulating our summary, because the question of sinful thoughts is frequently misunderstood. In the first place, it should be clear to everyone that a thought which is not willfull cannot be sinful. We have no absolute control over our imaginations; they frequently retain disturbing images, no matter what we try to do about it. There is simply no question of sin when that occurs.
It should also be clear (though it frequently is not) that not all willful thinking about sexual matters is sinful. Thoughts differ vastly from external actions in this. There are some kinds of external actions (directly venereal) which may never be done by unmarried people; there is no action which may not be thought about. For instance, in studying or reading a book of this kind, one necessarily thinks about many impure actions. The mere thinking about them does not make them sinful. The one thing which is absolutely wrong in regard to thoughts is to think about a sinful action, with approval of what is sinful. In general, this might be done in three ways; and a few examples should illustrate the point clearly:
John thinks about the sin of fornication, with the willful desire or intention of committing it. In this case he gives his approval of sin by desiring or intending to commit it.
Mary once committed the sin of fornication, and now she thinks about that action, and willfully rejoices over the fact that she committed it. In other words, Mary, instead of having sorrow for the sin, as she should have, here and now goes over it again in her mind with willful approval of what she did.
James also thinks about the sin of fornication. He has no intention of actually performing the external action; he is not approving of anything he did in the past, but here and now he willfully delights in imagining that he is performing the act. James is giving his approval of a sinful act by willfully taking complacency in the thought of doing it.
Note that in each of these cases the sin consisted in willfully approving of an act which it would be sinful to perform. If one should approve of an act which is riot sinful for him to perform, then such approval would not be sinful. For instance, marital relations are certainly not sinful for married people hence; they may desire them beforehand and rejoice over them afterwards. It might be dangerous for even married people to dwell long on such thoughts because they might prove strongly stimulating to passion and bring about temptations to self-abuse; but the thoughts of approval would not be wrong for them because the acts they think about are permissible for married people.
Note that we have stressed the point that thoughts are sinful when they express willful approval of evil (willful desires, willful complacency, willful rejoicing). This is quite different from the involuntary sense of approval or desire that comes upon almost anyone who has to think of various sexual acts. Such things are naturally attractive to the lower appetites hut that mere natural urge is not an act of the free will. With this preliminary explanation of the particularly difficult points concerning thought, we can now summarize our principles as they apply to the ninth commandment:
Mortal Sin:
a.) The willful approval of unchaste actions. (Foregoing explanation and Principle I).
b) The willful entertaining of any thoughts for the purpose of stimulating or promoting venereal passion. (Principle II-This kind of thinking is about the same as self-abuse)
c) The willful harboring of thoughts which involve the proximate danger of performing an unchaste action, approving of such an action, or consenting to venereal pleasure. (Principle III)
Venial Sin:
Thinking about sexually-stimulating things without a sufficient reason. (Principle IV)
No Sin: Thinking about sexually-stimulating things with a sufficient reason. (Principle V)
We have already suggested great numbers of particular applications of the principles. However, there are certain cases that are so frequently proposed that we think it might be of some help to the reader to show how the principles may be applied to the cases.
In some cases, the application of the principles is clear; in others, it is extremely difficult. It should be clear, for instance, that in the following cases, kissing and embracing are seriously sinful: (a) if immodest intimacy is involved; (b) if the motive of one or both patties is impure; (c) if the proximate danger of something seriously sinful is involved, e.g., the parties know from experience that even modest acts generally lead to a loss of control on the part of one or both.
Also, it should be clear that two people eligible for marriage and genuinely in love do not sin by manifesting their love in a modest and moderate fashion, with a reasonable assurance of controlling themselves should passion be unintentionally aroused. Again the kiss or embrace which is according to a recognized convention of good people is not sinful. Generally speaking, such things do not arouse passion; or, if they do, it is slight and easily controlled.
Numbers of other cases are not so easily solved in a sentence or two. Certain quasi-conventions are creeping in among us that present difficulties. The kiss is coming to be a way of saying, "thank you"; also, "I like you," instead of "I love you." In particular, there is the case in which a boy kisses a girl good-night instead of shaking hands. That these things are acceptable established customs may be doubted.
Certainly, they have a tendency to cheapen the traditional meaning of the kiss, and experience shows that they give rise to dangerous situations. Nevertheless, though we deprecate the tendency to set up such a custom and though we warn against the dangers, we must admit that, according to the strict application of our principles, moderate kisses or embraces of this quasi-conventional kind are not sinful for those who guard against the dangers.
Kissing or embracing out of mere general sex interest is rarely, if ever, wholly justifiable. There is usually an element of uncertain danger involved. When such acts are prolonged and accompanied by strong passion, this is a fairly good sign that the real motive is physical attraction. Even genuine lovers have to be moderate. When their embraces are repeated and ardent, even after physical passion has been considerably aroused, there is good reason to suspect that the affection they are manifesting is conjugal, that is, that it includes the physical sphere. This would he seriously wrong.
As we mentioned, many of these cases are hard to answer in a general way. To give more definite answers for concrete cases, one has to know more of the frequency of the acts, the temperament of the parties, their virtue, and so forth, hence, the need of personal direction.
Before trying to apply our principles to reading, let us call attention to two points:
First, reading is practically the same as thinking, and it is solved on the same principles. However, there is this important difference: Reading offers new and novel food for thought, sometimes very attractively phrased; hence, it is frequently more dangerous than mere thinking.
Secondly, there are certain kinds of reading That are forbidden by the Church and such things may not be read without permission. Forbidden reading in the matter of chastity includes: (a) books or articles that attack the Catholic teaching on chastity; (b) books or articles that are professedly obscene. These prohibitions include books and articles that defend artificial birth control, free love, divorce with remarriage, and so forth, also, novels and stories that specialize in sexually exciting scenes portrayed in an alluring manner. They also include the pseudo-scientific trash printed today which is really nothing but a sugar-coated allurement to vice and perversion. In forbidding all such reading, the Church is simply exercising her solemn commission to safeguard the sacred moral teaching of Christ and to protect her children against grave moral dangers. The reading of such hooks without permission is seriously sinful, even for an individual who feels that he would not be harmed by them. He must obtain permission from his bishop. Such permissions are given only with the greatest caution; and, of course, even one who permission to read has forbidden books is not exempt from the divine law as enunciated in our principles.
Supposing that there is no prohibition by Church law, we can now apply our moral principles to reading. Here again, we find certain clear cases of mortal sin: (a) if one reads about sinful things and approves of them (thoughts); (b) if one reads even good things, eg., a physiology book, for the purpose of exciting venereal passion; (c) if the reading involves the proximate danger of harboring seriously sinful thoughts or desires, of doing something seriously sinful, or of consenting to venereal pleasure.
Also, there are some clear cases in which no sin is involved Those who have a serious reason for reading, e.g. doctors, nurses, spiritual directors, teachers, young people about to be married who need some instruction regarding the physical side of marriage do not sin, even though they should be strongly excited, provided that they control their wills. Even mere entertainment justifies one in ignoring occasional slight motions of passion caused perhaps by a few suggestive pictures or passages in books or magazines that are otherwise decent.
But mere entertainment is not usually a complete justification for reacting things that one finds strongly stimulating even in an otherwise decent book or magazine. There is no reasonable proportion between mere amusement and strong temptation; hence, negligence manifested by delaying over such passages would be venially sinful. In fact, if one indulges in this kind of "amusement" repeatedly, especially, if he forms the habit of curiously going back over stimulating scenes, he might have reason on to suspect the sincerity of his motive. At the minimum, a habit of this kind is very dangerous.
By conversation we mean taking part in a conversation. We shall add a word later about merely listening. Conversation, as we are considering it now, is like thinking in that it is an external expression of one's thoughts, it is like reading insofar as it is a way of receiving the thoughts of others; and it is like external actions in the sense that it usually means the physical presence of at least two people.
As in the other applications, so in regard to conversation, there are certain cases in which serious sin is evident: (a) when one simply gives external expression to impure thoughts, e.g., sinful desires, boasting about sins committed, approving sins committed by others, (b) when it is equivalently a method of mutual stimulation, as may be the case in really obscene conversation., or in strongly suggestive conversation between a boy and a girl; (c) when the motive of one or other party is impure. e.g. seeking to arouse passion or to induce the other to sin; (d) and finally, when the proximate danger of so me serious sin against purity is present.
Serious conversation about sexual topics is, of course, permissible when there is a sufficient reason for it and proper precautions are taken. Today, sex is talked of much more freely than formerly. Some of this talk is too free, but it is difficult to give a mechanic al rule for such situations. One has to judge of the propriety and danger for oneself.
What about jokes? If they are merely vulgar, e.g. concerning the wants of nature, there is usually no offense against chastity. Sometimes such things offend charity by wounding the reasonable sensibilities of others. Also, at times, because of the association of ideas or because of the circumstances in which such stories are told, e.g., between opposite sexes, there may be real dangers to chastity. If so, there is no justification for such conversation.
The so-called "humorous" stories with sexy content present a more difficult problem. It should be noted that these stories are at least supposed to be funny, not obscene; and they derive their entertainment value from the combination of humor and natural interest that people are apt to have in things pertaining to sex. As a general rule, they are to be discouraged, but the question of the sinfulness of them cannot be dismissed by simply saying, "Better not tell them."
Certainly, many people tell such stories without subjective sin. They are not bothered by them, and the thought of sin does not disturb their minds. But in this matter, they have to assume some responsibility for their listeners. Things like this can easily give scandal. The best we can do hare is indicate some rather general norms for judging scandal, norms which may be open to many exceptions in concrete cases. In a group composed of mature people of the same sex, it is quite likely that such stories do little or no harm. In a mature mixed group the danger is more likely. When adolescents are concerned, the danger is very great, because they are highly imaginative and the sexual content of the story is apt to return again and again in the form of severe temptation. It is hard to excuse an adult who exposes adolescents to this danger from the serious sin of scandal, because the very fact that an older person tells the story impresses it the more strongly on a young mind. As for young people who tell such stories among themselves, we can say only this; it is hard to give a definite rule for mortal sin. But such things are rarely, if ever, completely without sin, because the mere fun of telling a story is never a justifying reason for the uncertain danger of temptation practically always present
What about merely listening? Sometimes people listen to such stories because there is nothing else they can do about it. Under such circumstances, they do not sin. At other times, the listening is willful, i.e., the party could either leave or change the trend of conversation. In these circumstances, one must, of course protect oneself, even by leaving if that is necessary. Also, charity demands that we protect others if we can reasonably do so. Hence, if the conversation is really dangerous, one should change the subject, if possible. Some can do this very gracefully; others do more harm than good by trying it. Occasional laughs at things that sound funny are not sinful, but one should be careful to avoid furthering dangerous topics in this way
As a final practical help, we consider certain situations which occur fairly frequently and which are apt to be a source of great annoyance if one does not know the principle which must guide him in such circumstances. We refer to the question of sexual thoughts and sensations which are entirely involuntary, which arise, for instance, from fatigue, from some local irritation, from nervousness or some glandular condition, and other such things. In other words, they are more or less spontaneous, and do not arise from any action which is under our control and which can be measured by the principles already explained in this chapter.
Sometimes these thoughts and sensations are merely transitory, as is the case in passing thoughts or sensations aroused by inadvertent glances. In such cases, the best thing to do is to pay no attention to the thoughts of physical reaction.
At other times, especially when these involuntary sexual disturbances arise from physical causes like those mentioned above, they are apt to be very prolonged and to be the source of very severe temptation. They frequently become especially bothersome when one is trying to rest. They may begin very suddenly, or they may be a sort of climax to a two- or three- day period in which one realizes that he is particularly responsive to sexual stimuli. For trying times like these, keep the following rules in mind.
1. Such involuntary notions become mortally sinful only when one makes them perfectly voluntary by deliberately promoting them or deliberately approving of and enjoying them.
2 They are not sinful at all if one does what he reasonably can to be rid of any temptation involved in them.
Such reasonable efforts differ with individual eases. In general, everyone should adopt such simple schemes as the following: Make a brief, calm act of the will, "I don't want it"; say a little aspiration for grace; try to divert the mind to something else that is interesting, especially to something humorous; make a brief change in external occupation, if possible. Such simple devices can be employed by most people without any nervous strain, and for people who are accustomed to controlling themselves, these means generally suffice to protect the will against sin. Those who have allowed themselves to fall into a habit of sin may often have to be more strenuous in their opposition and must, at this time especially; recall the strongest motives they know for keeping chaste.
People who are accustomed to lead a chaste life and who are suffering these temptations merely because of some physical condition should keep in mind that it is neither obligatory nor prudent to deprive themselves of sleep or do things which will augment a nervous condition in order to show that they don't want these sensations. They show that sufficiently by one of the simple devices mentioned above. So long as they safeguard their will by such things, the involuntary sexual passion is no more sinful then a headache.
Evidently, things which take place while one is sleeping cannot he sinful. A more difficult situation occurs when one is half-awake. In general, unless one is fully awake, he has not sufficient self-control to commit a serious sin; but sometimes there occur doubtful cases in which one is not sure whether he was fully awake or not, whether he consented or not, and so forth.
The presumption is that people who try constantly to lead a chaste life do not sin at these times, on the other hand, the presumption is against those who ordinarily lead an impure life arid are in the habit of giving in to temptations.
The confession of sins of impurity involves points of the utmost delicacy. Both confessor and penitent will be helped a great deal if the following rules are observed.
1. If you have real mortal sins to confess, than your must tell what you did and how often you did it. This is God's law, not man’s. A confessor may not give absolution till he knows the kind of sin and the number of times. This does not mean that one must give a detailed description of his thoughts or acts; such details are entirely unbecoming in the confessional. But he must frankly state the kind of sin (self-abuse, immodest embracing, fornication, adultery, and so on) and the number of times each sin was committed. A wholesome frankness relieves the confessor of the burden of asking many questions that are distasteful to him and embarrassing to the penitent. When a confession is made frankly, then a confessor need ask only such questions as he judges necessary for helping the penitent.
2. If you are confessing sins of impurity, and you mean only venial sins (for example, negligence in regard to thoughts, lack of sufficient reason in external acts), or mere temptations (for example, imaginations or feelings that were not willful), then indicate this to the confessor. Otherwise, he may think you mean mortal sins.
If you wish to confess doubtful sins (for example, you doubt about consent, or whether you confessed the matter before), then mention your doubt. Strictly speaking, doubtful sins do not have to be confessed, though it is better to do so unless your confessor judges otherwise. Nor does one have to abstain from Holy Communion when he merely doubts whether he has sinned. Before Communion, however, one should make an act of perfect contrition. Scrupulous people should do what their confessor tells them to do. They are unable to judge their own cases.
A parenthetical word about the "lax conscience". A person is said to have a lax conscience if he easily and habitually excuses himself from sin when he has no valid excuse; he makes venial sins out of mortal sins, and he is inclined to see no sin at all in things that normally careful people recognize as venial sins. Some authorities hesitate to allow lax people the benefit of any doubt. Perhaps the most correct way of stating the rule for lax persons is this: If they really and sincerely doubt, they are allowed the same 'benefit of the doubt" that normal people enjoy. It is, therefore, a matter of sincerity. The lax should remember that they are strongly inclined to "doubt" about their guilt when it ought to be rather clear to them that they are guilty. If they want to get over their habit of laxity (as they are obliged to do), it is usually necessary for them to lean to the side of strictness.
Finally, all who have difficulties in regard to chastity should have a regular confessor. This holds true for those who have formed a habit of sin; also, for those who do not sin, but have trying temptations; also, for those who are inclined to be scrupulous. As a general rule, it is a good thing for all people to have a regular confessor, but it is especially necessary for those we just mentioned to get a sympathetic confessor and go to him regularly.