Yes, thoughts and desires can be sins, you still make a decision to think that way. Maybe not for feelings.
But dreams are a different matter, you are unconscious, not thinking.
Are nocturnal emissions/wet dreams sinful?
- Thread starter TheSurveyor
- Start date
But dreams are a different matter, you are unconscious, not thinking.
That's not the understanding I have from my priest. Subconscious or conscious they are still your thoughts and if they are of some evil act, you should ask for forgiveness.
I can understand the argument that lucid dreaming may constitute a sin, as you may have some control of your actions in a lucid dream, but for 99.9999% of dreams, the dreamer is not in control. Therefore you cannot commit a sin.
There is no biblical reference on whether dreams constitute a sin, that I know of, so I wont make a sin up, where one has never been mentioned.
There is plenty of verses in the bible about whether dreams act as a conduit for god to communicate, but this is stated as rare.
Conversely, we all know that if you do something good in a dream, you will get no reward for it in the waking world, as it is not real. Save a little girls cat from a tree in a dream, you get no thanks when you wake up. Act in a sinful nature in a dream, when you wake up, nothing has happened.
Now you may feel shame or remorse when you wake up, but that is purely on you, nothing else.
I appreciate everyones diverse views on this, but I cannot conceive of you committing a sin, when you have no control over the situation.
Imagine a married man in a coma, a woman comes and manually manipulates their penis, causing an erection, then climbs on and rides the poor coma victim until they ejaculate. The coma victim, unfortunately, is aware of everything that happens (as frequently occurs in comas). Is the coma victim an adulterer, a sinner? Of course not, as they had no control over the situation, just as you have no control over a dream, when you dream.
People are sinners, and they sin enough without having to go looking for anymore sins.
If it was a sin, it would be mentioned somewhere in the bible.
Forgive me, but there are some things that are taken as sins that are not mentioned in the Bible explicitly.
I'm pretty sure drinking a woman's breast milk isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible explicitly, but it is considered sinful...for instance.
Well, as a child, that wouldnt be a sin.
As an adult, that would no doubt be a form of lustful behaviour and therefore a sin.
There are plenty of activities that are not mention explicitly in the bible, but you can make a moral judgement, and determine what they are and why they are a sin. For example, years ago I read a news story about a man in Scotland who was charged with the crime of having sex with a bicycle. He was in a hotel room when a hotel employee came into the room and found the man mid act. Now, ignoring the fact that having sex with a bicycle happens so often in Scotland that they have a specific law against it, we can look at what happened and say that whilst having sex with a bicycle is not explicitly prohibited in the bible, it is something that would be lust based and therefore a sin.
The issue of dreams is, there are biblical verses showing how when a person is innocent, or incapabale of making a moral judgement themselves (for whatever reason), that they cannot commit a sin in those particular circumstances.
You cant be responsible for something you cannot control. How would you even be able to be responsible and seek forgiveness for a dream based sin when most people dont remember the vast majority of their dreams.
To me, the idea of dreams being sins, seems to be driven by people, who are overly judgemental of themselves and others (this is the best way I can think to say this) and is not rooted in biblical knowledge or divine truth.
I think its like the previous posters here who talk about talmudic laws prohibiting various "sins". Jesus and his disciples were very clear about the ending of most, if not all, talmudic prohibitions. And yet, people still say they are sins you have to atone for. Why? Its in the bible, my priest told me, etc. Well, Jesus said the opposite.
Your culpability in dreams (non-lucid) is not as clearcut, obviously, however, I believe that the biblical references to innocence, and not being responsible when you have no control or choice can be linked to people in dream states, as in that state, you have no control, and nothing real happens.
Last edited:
Forgive me, but it seems like trying to rationalize something that may be beyond our understanding.
Your interpretation of divine truth is what you are justifying to say it's not a sin.
This is not in line with Church Tradition.(at least from my understanding with communication via my Arch Priest).
I may not have the writing skills to correctly convey my thinking here.
Im not trying to rationalise the situation, more describe my thinking.
St. Thomas Aquinas says that dreams are not sinful as you do not have the ability to make a choice on whether to commit the sin.
Specifically with "nocturnal emissions" he states that they may be caused by various factors:
1. They come from your imagination
2. They are a bodily function (excess semen being excreted)
3. Thinking directly of sex when you fall asleep
4. Demonic influence
Now you can argue a bit about 1 and 3, but St. Thomas reiterates that you do not have the ability to reason when asleep, therefore cannot commit a sin.
If you think it happened because you, for example, looked at a woman lustfully during the day or engaged in gluttony (lust and gluttony go hand in hand), or if you were thinking inappropriate thoughts while trying to sleep, or if you did none of that but it makes you feel filthy, I don't think there's any harm in confessing it and praying about it.
Personally, I've never had a wet dream that wasn't thoroughly disgusting and which did not make me feel like I agreed to it in some way. None that I remember, at least. I would argue for a yes, but it doesn't seem to be very clear-cut as it's true that you usually don't have much if any control over your actions in a dream unless you're lucid dreaming, and I think people very rarely lucid dream unless they do some borderline if not outright occult stuff to try and induce that state.
Personally, I've never had a wet dream that wasn't thoroughly disgusting and which did not make me feel like I agreed to it in some way. None that I remember, at least. I would argue for a yes, but it doesn't seem to be very clear-cut as it's true that you usually don't have much if any control over your actions in a dream unless you're lucid dreaming, and I think people very rarely lucid dream unless they do some borderline if not outright occult stuff to try and induce that state.
This is hilarious!
I think a saved person can count on God's forgiveness for things that occur in dreams, if we even remember them. Like the verse in my signature says, there is therefore now no condemnation...
Obviously we must repent of our sins, and walk after the spirit, not after the flesh, but if we are doing that, then we are under no condemnation. Not for things we do in dreams. Not even for things we do awake.
Last edited:
I would have to take your word for it as I've not read the particular passage from St. Augustine. But... We also recognize that there are some topics saints speak to that are more accepted vs other topics which are not embraced.
For reference, the author is speaking of communion.
From the Rudder
CANON IV As for those men who involuntarily become victims of nocturnal emission, let them too be guided by their own conscience as to whether to indulge or not, and decide for themselves, whether they have any doubt about this matter or not, as also in the case of foods, “he that hath any doubt is damned if he eat” (Romans 14:23). And let everyone be conscientious in these matters, and out spoken, in accordance with his own inclination, when he approaches God. In honoring us (for you know you are, dear) by asking these questions, you have taken us to be like-minded, as indeed we are, and you are making us partners in your decision. As for me, it is not as a teacher, but as one who deems it fitting for us to talk with each other with all simplicity, that I have set forth my own conception of the matter for our common benefit. After finding that this conception of the matter.
Interpretation
In the present Canon the Saint is speaking about involuntary emission, or what is more commonly called a wet dream, which occurs during our sleep; and he says that all men who suffer this should make their own conscience the judge. For if the wet dream resulted without any obscene imagination and erotic thought, and furthermore without overeating and over-drinking, and instead nature alone did this of herself, as if it were a natural superfluity in the way of excrement, they are not prevented from coming to communion. But if it resulted from the causes above mentioned – that is to say, from imagination and erotic thought, or from excessive eating and excessive drinking, they ought to be forbidden communion, on the ground that they are not pure, not because of the emission itself of the semen (since this is not unclean, seeing that it is a natural product, precisely as neither the flesh is unclean in itself, of which the semen is an excretion), but because of the wicked contemplation and imagination which polluted the mind. Such men as these, then, are not conscientious, and accordingly they are not outspoken, owing to the wicked contemplation and imagination they give rein to. Hence, both as doubters and as being convicted or reproved by their conscience,
How can they approach God and the Mysteries? For if they approach while thus doubting, they are rather condemned, and not sanctified, just like one who is condemned for eating the common and unclean animals forbidden to Jews, if he doubts and hesitates about these, as the Apostle says.
Canon XII of Timothy is in effect a more detailed explanation of the present Canon. For it interprets this reproof of the conscience of one who has had a wet dream. Accordingly, if he is reproved and convicted of having had this happen to him as the result of a desire for a woman-or, in other words, an erotic thought and imagination-he must not partake; but if it was the result of the influence of demons that this happened to him, he may commune. Since, however, it is difficult for one to discern when the cause of his wet dream is traceable to the enviousness and influence of demons, without his providing any occasion for it himself, the safest way is not to commune. For a wet dream may result from either overeating or over-drinking or oversleeping, and from negligence and repose, and from languor of the body, and from pride, and condemnation, and aspersion, and from some illness of the body, and from a wicked habituation to fornication, and from toil and the drinking of cold beverages. Oftentimes it is due to fear of having a wet dream, according to Symeon the modern Theologian (and see the reply No. S of Anastasios the Sinaite, and Philokalia on page 908). For this reason too the Faster in his c. VI forbids one who has polluted himself in sleep from communing for one day. John of Citrus and Balsamon in Reply No. 1 likewise excludes priests and laymen for a day if they have had a wet dream, with the sole exception that in case of danger a layman may partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord, or a priest may celebrate Divine Liturgy, even though he has had a wet dream. So say also Symeon of Thessalonica in his replies No. 14 and 15, and the Lausaicum in the discourse concerning Dioscoros, and Barsanuphios the great one among Fathers.
From the Rudder
CANON IV As for those men who involuntarily become victims of nocturnal emission, let them too be guided by their own conscience as to whether to indulge or not, and decide for themselves, whether they have any doubt about this matter or not, as also in the case of foods, “he that hath any doubt is damned if he eat” (Romans 14:23). And let everyone be conscientious in these matters, and out spoken, in accordance with his own inclination, when he approaches God. In honoring us (for you know you are, dear) by asking these questions, you have taken us to be like-minded, as indeed we are, and you are making us partners in your decision. As for me, it is not as a teacher, but as one who deems it fitting for us to talk with each other with all simplicity, that I have set forth my own conception of the matter for our common benefit. After finding that this conception of the matter.
Interpretation
In the present Canon the Saint is speaking about involuntary emission, or what is more commonly called a wet dream, which occurs during our sleep; and he says that all men who suffer this should make their own conscience the judge. For if the wet dream resulted without any obscene imagination and erotic thought, and furthermore without overeating and over-drinking, and instead nature alone did this of herself, as if it were a natural superfluity in the way of excrement, they are not prevented from coming to communion. But if it resulted from the causes above mentioned – that is to say, from imagination and erotic thought, or from excessive eating and excessive drinking, they ought to be forbidden communion, on the ground that they are not pure, not because of the emission itself of the semen (since this is not unclean, seeing that it is a natural product, precisely as neither the flesh is unclean in itself, of which the semen is an excretion), but because of the wicked contemplation and imagination which polluted the mind. Such men as these, then, are not conscientious, and accordingly they are not outspoken, owing to the wicked contemplation and imagination they give rein to. Hence, both as doubters and as being convicted or reproved by their conscience,
How can they approach God and the Mysteries? For if they approach while thus doubting, they are rather condemned, and not sanctified, just like one who is condemned for eating the common and unclean animals forbidden to Jews, if he doubts and hesitates about these, as the Apostle says.
Canon XII of Timothy is in effect a more detailed explanation of the present Canon. For it interprets this reproof of the conscience of one who has had a wet dream. Accordingly, if he is reproved and convicted of having had this happen to him as the result of a desire for a woman-or, in other words, an erotic thought and imagination-he must not partake; but if it was the result of the influence of demons that this happened to him, he may commune. Since, however, it is difficult for one to discern when the cause of his wet dream is traceable to the enviousness and influence of demons, without his providing any occasion for it himself, the safest way is not to commune. For a wet dream may result from either overeating or over-drinking or oversleeping, and from negligence and repose, and from languor of the body, and from pride, and condemnation, and aspersion, and from some illness of the body, and from a wicked habituation to fornication, and from toil and the drinking of cold beverages. Oftentimes it is due to fear of having a wet dream, according to Symeon the modern Theologian (and see the reply No. S of Anastasios the Sinaite, and Philokalia on page 908). For this reason too the Faster in his c. VI forbids one who has polluted himself in sleep from communing for one day. John of Citrus and Balsamon in Reply No. 1 likewise excludes priests and laymen for a day if they have had a wet dream, with the sole exception that in case of danger a layman may partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord, or a priest may celebrate Divine Liturgy, even though he has had a wet dream. So say also Symeon of Thessalonica in his replies No. 14 and 15, and the Lausaicum in the discourse concerning Dioscoros, and Barsanuphios the great one among Fathers.
Genealogist
Catholic
Excellent contribution, thank you, but the link seems to be broken.
Genealogist
Catholic
The short answer is "No". St. Thomas even addresses it in the Summa. Whatever occurs in sleep cannot be sinful in itself. Yet it may be sinful in its cause if, before sleeping, a person is guilty of thoughts, desires, or deeds that are lustful, he is at least partly responsible for impurities that subsequently occur during sleep.
Last edited:
Genealogist
Catholic
Would this extend to blood transfusions?
Not as I understand it. The argument is...There is a difference between a medical procedure and food.
This is an interesting argument, and I think it holds a lot of weight. The rules against eating blood were an exception to the fact we are otherwise free of the dietary restrictions under the law. To say they were just a temporary expedient to help Jews and Gentiles get along in the new church makes sense.
Besides blood and strangled animals, food sacrificed to idols is also banned in Acts 15. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians that idols are nothing, and so it is nothing to eat food sacrificed to idols. However, he says he will abstain to avoid being a stumbling block. You could easily say that food made with blood is OK, and the only reason to avoid it is to avoid offending the sensibilities of others.
On the other hand, the prohibition of sexual immorality is lumped in with the dietary restrictions in Acts 15, and that prohibition is as firm as ever. Strange that they listed temporary rules in with a firm and unchanging rule like that.
Yes, I don't know what to make of all of this. It is a strange thing that God has worked through an entire age (long, long time) dealing with "sexual immorality" that has produced a lot of children. This dovetails back to the hardest idea to deal with, which is keeping the world going or dying out. I know this world is passing away, but it seems to be a pretty big part of life to take all of these women out of family formation and child bearing years. If it's God's providence, or working through it is, so be it, but I don't see much beyond absurdity in it (and just because I see that or feel that way of course doesn't mean anything, necessarily). If women are that easy of a target, it seems to be a huge foil or design flaw when we see what we see. Since family and children are such an important part of life, it's just hard to see how such a thing can be so easily gone in as short period of time, and even I can only go so far with the "apparently life in this world doesn't matter all that much" ...
Short answer: no.