Wet Dreams- Mortal Sin?

[Aelred_Minor]

I think the idea that the will is weakened does have merit here when we are talking about sleeping. One of the conditions of mortal sin is that one must have full consent of the will. If one’s will is weakened to the point that they do not have full consent of the will that they have while awake. For instance, if a person masturbates in their sleep but can not control it because they do not have control how can they be held accountable for that? They may never masturbate when they are awake but when they go to sleep no matter what they do it makes no difference because what happens when they are asleep they have little control over. Are they supposed to constantly feel guilty for something they have no control over? It’s like being drunk or under the influence of a drug. It would be unjust to condemn a person in that situation. Sin is only sin when we make a choice to do something contrary to God’s law. If there is no freedom of choice how can there be sin? But you are right that there is little thought to the morality as well as usually cognitive awareness is low. For instance, you think you are engaged in sex with some woman in your dream. Certainly your perception of reality is scewed.

I think a good discussion of this issue is found here. Pay attention to Fr. Farraher’s essay.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=484930

In the case of someone who is asleep, the will may not be involved at all. In the case of someone who is drunk, it is not their free will that is taken away but their faculties of sense and especially intellect. They still remain morally accountable for the choices of their wills within the context of what they knew was right and wrong at the time.

Regarding the essay, I have to say it is perhaps the most horrifyingly unhelpful thing I’ve ever read on the subject.

I’m sure the author means well, but his words could be extremely dangerous for those of us who are inclined to unscrupulosity, which is probably the majority of Catholics. All that is needed to commit a mortal sin is that the sin be bad enough, that we know it is wrong, and that we decide to do it anyway. While the language of “FULL 100 percent” this and that may be verbally correct, it gives entirely the wrong impression to people with normal or lax consciences, an impression that a mortal sin is very difficult to commit and that one can get away with sin by just not thinking too hard about it. The idea that masturbation while drowsy or simply while morally lazy is “at most a venial sin” is particularly dangerous for anyone struggling to overcome this sin. Such a person is clearly aware of the gravely immoral nature of the act, so any decision to commit it (whether or not the act is completed, and regardless of the strength of the temptation) would constitute a mortal sin.

The author does not even explain the case of foreplay prudently, as he does not make clear that the act must be a part of a normal, natural sexual act which is completed in the normal, natural way (and not subsequently continued in an unnatural way).

Also the focus on guilt and shame is misguided. Guilt and shame are neutral things. They can be bad if they are excessive or misplaced, but they can be good and natural if they are a humble and accurate appreciation our own moral faults. That’s why we have the capacity for those feelings in the first place. Our direct focus should not be to relieve a person of guilt and shame so they can be happier, but to encourage them to repent of the sins of which they are rightly ashamed so they can be holier, and ultimately happier.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I’m sure the author means well, but his words could be extremely dangerous for those of us who are inclined to unscrupulosity, which is probably the majority of Catholics. All that is needed to commit a mortal sin is that the sin be bad enough, that we know it is wrong, and that we decide to do it anyway. While the language of “FULL 100 percent” this and that may be verbally correct, it gives entirely the wrong impression to people with normal or lax consciences, an impression that a mortal sin is very difficult to commit and that one can get away with sin by just not thinking too hard about it. The idea that masturbation while drowsy or simply while morally lazy is “at most a venial sin” is particularly dangerous for anyone struggling to overcome this sin. Such a person is clearly aware of the gravely immoral nature of the act, so any decision to commit it (whether or not the act is completed, and regardless of the strength of the temptation) would constitute a mortal sin. ]

The conception that mortal sin is hard to commit is a valid hypothesis. The idea that it is easy to commit is also a valid hypothesis. Theologians are in disagreement on this.

Every priest I have talked to about this–several of whom were theologians and all of whom were orthodox-- has ruled out mortal sin on full consent of the will, saying that full consent is not possible while semi-conscious. While I respect your view, I am going to go with what appears to be the majority of priests on this subject: things done in a semi-conscious state lack full consent of the will.

 

[Matt_Collins]

Some people, including myself, periodically experience “lucid dreams” in which to varying degrees we are aware that we are dreaming and can control the dream at will. For this reason I’m more hesitant than most people about the idea that it is always impossible to sin while asleep. I personally have, to all subjective perceptions anyway, forced the desexualization of my dreams at least twice, once out of moral concerns and once out of fidelity to my then-girlfriend (who was not the subject of the dream).

Most people, however, never experience this degree of lucidity and control in their dreams, and even for those of us who do it is an unusual thing, with normal dreaming much more common. In these cases there is no opportunity for the kind of moral reflection and deliberate choice that are essential parts of committing a mortal sin. Indeed, I suspect that even in lucid dreams one’s consciousness may still be sufficiently impaired to reduce culpability to a venial sin.

I think those who believe they have lucid dreams should let go of their own judgment and go with the Church’s, which is that it is impossible to sin in your sleep. Period.

The Council of Trent was explicit and forceful in its teaching that we are obliged to confess only those sins which we are certain were serious matter, and committed with full knowledge and full consent.

It is clear to me, at least, that even in the case of so-called “lucid dreams”, there is the very real possibility that the impression the dreamer has that they are controlling the dream is in fact part of the dream itself. Thus, there will always be doubt about the dreamer’s ability to give full consent.

The Church’s teaching on the impossibility of sinning in one’s dreams is clear, simple, straightforward, and common sense. There is no need to muddy the waters with worries about whether or not one can control one’s dreams, and to do so is to doubt the Church’s wisdom, experience, and mission.

Even you, Aelred, in the comments I highlighted in bold, express doubt about whether or not the control you thought you had in your dreams was real. Keep in mind that “full consent” means full. Not 99%. And “certain” means certain, i.e., without doubt. So if someone is not certain that they were able to give full consent, then they have no reason to hold back from receiving Holy Communion out of fear they have committed a mortal sin. Likewise, they have no strictly binding obligation to confess the sin, although it certainly would not be a bad thing to do so they can express remorse for whatever culpability they do have, and to seek the advice and counsel of the priest.

The best thing to do in the situation described by the OP is to make a perfect act of contrition, and to rely on the Church’s judgment and experience in these matters, go to Holy Communion even if it is before you can get to confession, and when you do go to confession, discuss the matter with the priest in sufficient detail (but not too much!), and submit to his judgment and advice. And in the meantime, trust in the mercy and love of God.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Let me just clarify for the sake of the last two posters that I agree it is highly unlikely, probably even impossible, for someone to commit a mortal sin in their sleep even in the case of a lucid dream. While the experiential reality is that of consciousness that one is dreaming and control over the dream, the person is likely still in more of an altered state of consciousness than they think at the time.

On the nature of mortal sin, it requires full consent, which means a deliberate decision to do something. I maintain that giving full consent to a decision is extremely easy while awake. We do it almost nonstop every day in every conscious choice we make. An example of partial consent would be the kind of half-conscious reactions we often have to things. For example while driving or walking most of our little actions, like turning here or stepping around something, will be of this nature. While it can sometimes be difficult to judge in others, a self-aware person can usually very easily distinguish whether a decision of their own was a fully conscious and deliberate one or not.

What is more debatable is what constitutes full knowledge of the immoral nature of the act. I personally don’t buy that a person needs to be able to write a doctoral dissertation on the nature of grave sins and on why a particular action qualifies as one before he can be morally culpable for it, but this is indeed a difficult question. What I’m concerned about is that people with normal or lax consciences can potentially be talked into regarding their mortal sins as venial by people with a charitable but misapplied desire to think the best of others and to comfort the spiritually suffering.

With regard to certainty, we must remember that the Council of Trent was held in a time in which mortal sin was seen as common and pop-psychology had not muddied the waters with regard to moral responsibility for one’s actions. For a person who suffers from scrupulosity the focus on certainty is still usually going to be a good one, but for people prone to unscrupulosity if you are uncertain whether something was a mortal sin chances are it was and your doubt is just you trying to escape that reality. In such a case confession is going to be the best course of action.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

[snip]

The best thing to do in the situation described by the OP is to make a perfect act of contrition, and to rely on the Church’s judgment and experience in these matters, go to Holy Communion even if it is before you can get to confession, and when you do go to confession, discuss the matter with the priest in sufficient detail (but not too much!), and submit to his judgment and advice. And in the meantime, trust in the mercy and love of God.

Agreed, since he stopped the action as soon as he was conscious of it. If all transpired exactly as he describes there is no reason to suspect that a mortal sin was committed.

 

[Matt_Collins]

Let me just clarify for the sake of the last two posters that I agree it is highly unlikely, probably even impossible, for someone to commit a mortal sin in their sleep even in the case of a lucid dream. While the experiential reality is that of consciousness that one is dreaming and control over the dream, the person is likely still in more of an altered state of consciousness than they think at the time.

On the nature of mortal sin, it requires full consent, which means a deliberate decision to do something. I maintain that giving full consent to a decision is extremely easy while awake. We do it almost nonstop every day in every conscious choice we make. An example of partial consent would be the kind of half-conscious reactions we often have to things. For example while driving or walking most of our little actions, like turning here or stepping around something, will be of this nature. While it can sometimes be difficult to judge in others, a self-aware person can usually very easily distinguish whether a decision of their own was a fully conscious and deliberate one or not.

What is more debatable is what constitutes full knowledge of the immoral nature of the act. I personally don’t buy that a person needs to be able to write a doctoral dissertation on the nature of grave sins and on why a particular action qualifies as one before he can be morally culpable for it, but this is indeed a difficult question. What I’m concerned about is that people with normal or lax consciences can potentially be talked into regarding their mortal sins as venial by people with a charitable but misapplied desire to think the best of others and to comfort the spiritually suffering.

With regard to certainty, we must remember that the Council of Trent was held in a time in which mortal sin was seen as common and pop-psychology had not muddied the waters with regard to moral responsibility for one’s actions. For a person who suffers from scrupulosity the focus on certainty is still usually going to be a good one, but for people prone to unscrupulosity if you are uncertain whether something was a mortal sin chances are it was and your doubt is just you trying to escape that reality. In such a case confession is going to be the best course of action.

Excellent post. I would not change a word.

 

[sepgs2004]

Confessing this is better than being in confusion.

One tip my friend used to say to avoid these subconscious triggers. When ever this happens the night, the immediate next day, do some penance that causes you to remember more than that act itself. As a result, our mind will connect the bad trigger to this painful penance.
For example, my friend would fast the next day or give up something that he likes for a week. He mentioned, the next time, when the same thing happened even when he was asleep, he was immediately remembering the pain of fasting or sacrificing and quiet ok immediately after without continuing on that act.

Wishes