Cathinfo and Moderator Matthew Exposed (cathinfo.com)
Cathinfo.com is a SSPX and Bishop Richard Williamson supporting forum administered by a heretical Moderator named Matthew, who is a fierce enemy of sexual purity (as will be shown, he removes such posts from his website, calling it false doctrine) in addition to being an obstinate promoter of bad, evil and sensual commercials through his website.
Renzo, a cathinfo.com forum member writes concerning some of these ads:
"I hate some of the ads I see here, but I get a kick out of some of them. This one I like!"
Matto, another cathinfo.com forum member writes:
"My favorite Cathinfo ad was for a group of "Jews" who do not believe in God, but have religious services anyway."
On February 22, 2014 Matto posted a thread [the thread has since been deleted] about another evil ad that Matthew allowed to happen on his website. The advertisement went as follows:
"Got a Foot Fetish? [Images of sensual feet shown] Private Foot Sessions 90$/Hour"
On May 23, 2011 Raoul76 complained about "a woman in a bikini" and that Matthew "gotta do something about these ads":
Raoul76: "P.S. Matthew, you've gotta do something about these ads... Are you really making money off this site? There is a woman in a bikini down here, something called "Aria."
I have also personally myself, in the past, seen forum members complain and being disturbed about seeing extremly immodestly clothed women (some even in bikini’s as we’ve seen) in advertisements at his website, although I could not find all the threads where I read about this (Matthew frequently delete threads showing to him and complaining about bad commercials). I have also frequently seen commercials of makeup at his website. This, of course, is also totally evil since makeup is completely vain and sinful. In fact, all the saints and fathers of the Church unanimously condemns and oppose the use of makeup.
St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, Father of the Church (De Habit. Virg.): “I hold that not only virgins and widows, but also wives and all women without exception, should be admonished that nowise should they deface God’s work and fabric, the clay that He has fashioned, with the aid of yellow pigments, black powders or rouge, or by applying any dye that alters the natural features. . . They lay hands on God, when they strive to reform what He has formed. This is an assault on the Divine handiwork, a distortion of the truth. Thou shalt not be able to see God, having no longer the eyes that God made, but those the devil has unmade; with him shalt thou burn on whose account thou art bedecked.” (Quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, in the Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 169, Art. 2)
St. Anthony Mary Claret, Archbishop of Santiago and Missionary: “Now, observe, my daughter, the contrast between the luxurious dress of many women, and the raiment and adornments of Jesus… Tell me: what relation do their fine shoes bear to the spikes in Jesus’ Feet? The rings on their hands to the nails which perforated His? The fashionable coiffure to the Crown of Thorns? The painted face to That [of Jesus] covered with bruises? Shoulders exposed by the low-cut gown to His, all striped with Blood? Ah, but there is a marked likeness between these worldly women and the Jews who, incited by the Devil, scourged Our Lord! At the hour of such a woman’s death, I think Jesus will be heard saying: ‘Cujus est imago haec... of whom is she the image?’ And the reply will be: ‘Demonii... of the Devil!’ Then He will say: ‘Let her who has followed the Devil’s fashions be handed over to him; and to God, those who have imitated the modesty of Jesus and Mary.’”
Thus Matthew, by his evil action of obstinately allowing bad, heretical, sinful, sensual and vain advertisements free access to his website, sadly proves that he don’t really care about the good of the souls and of the people visiting his website, but only about making a profit.
Concerning the evil commercials at his website, Matthew said the following to me in an email:
"did you know that Google displays ads based on one's past Internet browsing behavior? At any rate, every time I hear about an immodest one, I add it to the block list."
By his response, Matthew is trying to indicate that people that sees bad commercials at his website sees them in large part because they surf bad websites. He said this in response to me after I complained to him and condemned him for obstinately permitting this evil filth to happen at his website to the harm of souls and the offense of God, and he told me that I must be surfing bad websites if I see bad ads. This assertion, however, is completely false and is easily refuted and is even shown to be false by his own testimony, as will be shown later on.
However, even though Matthew said above that he blocks the bad commercials as best as he can whenever he is made aware of them, still, as was shown above, he cannot really block them all or avoid them all to be shown at his forum and to his visitors since he, by his own choice, has obstinately decided to allow them (the commercials) free and largely ungoverned access to his website.
Now, in contrast to Matthew’s evil actions at cathinfo.com, consider the stern words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of Luke about people giving others a “scandal”, that is, those who give to others an occasion of sinning or of falling into sin:
Luke 17:1-2: “And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals [that is, temptations or encouragements to sin] should not come: but woe to him through whom they come. It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.”
As we can see here, Jesus says that it’s better to be drowned in the depths of the sea than to give “scandal” to anyone. Yet Matthew does the exact opposite and (obstinately so) gives to all people that are visiting his website a direct cause for “scandal” and an occasion of falling into sin through the immoral, vain and heretical internet ads that he permits and allows to be displayed there and, what is even worse, he does this even after he has been told not to do so and he even defends himself!
Raoul76: "Matthew, do you have no control over the banner ads that show up here? I didn't say anything about the Zoosk one, but tonight there's one that is popping up for something called Miracle Noodles that is potentially mortal-sin-inducing [due to an immoral, tempting image?]. Just a heads-up."
Matthew: "Yes, I do have control -- well, veto power at least. If you could give me the domain name the ad leads to, I could add it to the blacklist. So far, only ONE member has sent me several e-mails letting me know about bad ads [Editors note: Matthew is truly clueless if he actually thinks the forum users should do the work for him, when, in fact, he should not even allow the ads to be shown there even to begin with!]. I can't see them myself, I view the site too much and besides it's against the Terms and Conditions for me to view/click on my own ads. I encourage all members to let me know when immodest ads appear. Now I don't care about heretical ads -- they're not the least bit sinful unless you click on them AND respond to them ("You're right; I need to become a Mormon!") The only ads I will be blacklisting are ones with immodest attire. And please, don't complain about every woman in pants or woman that doesn't look like she came from a Traditional Catholic chapel -- I'm just talking about bikinis and essentially soft porn."
This statement is totally evil. It’s disgusting! He don’t care about heretical, soul slaying internet ads he says. Really? So Matthew don’t care about that all people who are visiting his website are being exposed to life or soul threatening dangers that will risk sending them to Hell for all eternity if they embrace the heresy -- so long as they don’t actually embrace the heresy!? No, they (the mortally sinful, evil, ungodly, blasphemous and heretical internet ads) are not even sinful, he says, so long as "you [don't] click on them AND respond to them". (And by the way, why did Matthew mention this statement: "You're right; I need to become a Mormon!" Is this an ad that has been shown and that he has permitted to be shown on his website?) This is so evil, for consider if an ex-Jew, ex-Mormon, an atheists, or someone else who genuinely was interested in learning about the Catholic faith visited his website and became deceived by a heretical ad promoting a different false religion, such as Judaism, atheism, or Mormonism. Wouldn’t that be totally evil, uncharitable and bad to be personally responsible for? Yet this is exactly what Matthew does and what he exposes his visitors too. Eternal Hell and insufferable torments will rightly and justly be the home of all those people who have such an empty love and no true charity towards their neighbor, and for all those who care more about a useless, temporal profit rather than then the good of souls, which are eternal.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, On the Sin of Scandal: “[Those] who by their bad example scandalized the people, that they were children of the devil, who was from the beginning a murderer of souls. "You are of your father, the devil: he was a murderer from the beginning." (John 8.44) … And, in reality, what other office do the authors of scandal perform, than that of a minister of the devil? If he were not assisted by such impious ministers, he certainly would not succeed in gaining so many souls. A scandalous companion does more injury than a hundred devils.”
Woe to the love of mammon, which is the beginning of all evil. “For the desire of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith, and have entangled themselves in many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10) Moderator Matthew’s own words absolutely proves that he 1) “have erred from the faith,” 2) that he couldn’t care less about the souls that are being harmed and that he permits to be harmed, and 3) that a filthy income is far more import to him than the good of souls that are being harmed and that he permits to be harmed with a full knowledge of the fact that this is happening (and yes Matthew has been rebuked many times and many people have also complained to him about bad commercials, as we have seen, but Matthew is sure to remove most of those threads and complaints and is even known to ban people (such as he banned me) for calling him out on this, among other things, and that he is a mortal sinner for spreading this filth on his forum to the destruction of souls and the offense of God—whom he claim to worship).
Matthew 6:24: “[Jesus said:] No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
It is also revealing that Matthew says he’s only opposed to “bikinis and essentially soft porn” and “immodest attire” (whatever that would be) at his website. Okay, so everything else goes? He said: “And please, don't complain about every woman in pants or woman that doesn't look like she came from a Traditional Catholic chapel...” So does this mean we should not complain to him about “every” commercial with women clothed after the world’s fashion with tight clothing and pants unless these ads displays something that is the equivalent of soft porn, bikini’s or whatever else he himself deems immodest?
If Matthew allows any kind of immodesty at his website – such as allowing ads that shows the so-called modern day women’s fashion that reveals the womanly figure by the wearing of pants and tight clothing in a revealing, sensual or immodest way – this would not only be immodest and immoral, but also completely evil and a mortal sin since such clothing has the direct and potential cause to incite a man’s lust and hence cause him – the visitors to his website – to commit the mortal sin of lust and adultery in their hearts.
Matthew 5:28: “[Jesus said:] But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Whatever the case, Matthew is still exposing all of his visitors at his supposed “Traditional Catholic” forum to fall into this grievous sin against God, their neighbor and their own soul since he perversely allows such ads even the possibility to be displayed at his website to begin with, though he perfectly knows and are perfectly aware of that some of the ads will be totally evil and mortally sinful inducing and immoral. He said: “The only ads I will be blacklisting are ones with immodest attire. … I'm just talking about bikinis and essentially soft porn. … At any rate, every time I hear about an immodest one, I add it to the block list.” So this proves in his own words that he knows this is happening.
St. Jean Eudes, Priest and Missionary and Founder of the Congregation of Jesus and Mary: “But there is perhaps nothing more striking than what is reported by St. Jerome, one of the four great Doctors of Holy Church, and which took place during his lifetime, in a house which he knew perfectly and in regard to a Roman lady of high condition, named Praetextate. She was sister-in-law of St. Paula, the spiritual daughter of this great Saint. St. Paula wishing to quit the city of Rome, to visit the holy places in Judea which the Savior had hallowed by His presence, left her daughter Eustochium, who also wished to consecrate herself to God, in the care of her aunt, Praetextate. This latter wished to frustrate the designs of the pious Paula upon her daughter, and by the advice of her husband, obliged the young girl to lay aside her simple, modest dress and assume a more sumptuous one, at the same time compelling her to wear her hair according to the latest fashion and to paint her cheeks. A fearful chastisement overtook the worldly woman; for, on the night following, an Angel sent by God spoke to her thus: "Thou hast dared to prefer the command of thy husband to that of Jesus Christ, and with sacrilegious hands to adorn after a worldly fashion the head of this virgin of God. Behold the punishment of thy crime! Thy hands which have done this deed shall become withered, so that they will never more serve thee, and in five months from now thou shalt be cast into hell. And if thou shalt continue in thy wickedness, thy husband and all thy children shall likewise die." All of which, says St. Jerome, was accomplished to the letter, and, at the end of five months, the unhappy woman died suddenly, without giving any sign of repentance.”
Our Lady of Fatima in the year 1917 also warned about the evils of modern day women’s fashion and about the sins of the flesh in deed and thought that is directly caused by this most evil sin:
Our Lady of Fatima: “The sins of the world are too great! The sins which lead most souls to hell are sins of the flesh! Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much. Those who serve God should not follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same. Many marriages are not good; they do not please Our Lord and are not of God.”
Yet according to modern-day “Catholics” who know nothing about the Catholic faith and the teachings of the saints, current modern-day fashion in which women dress like men or with revealing and tight clothing showing off their womanly form (even if modestly), is not offensive to God. Well, they are completely wrong.
St. Clement of Alexandria, Father of the Church, On Clothes (c. 198 A.D.): “Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily, and adhering as it were to the flesh, receives its shape, and marks out the woman’s figure. As a result, the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, although they cannot see the body itself.” (The Instructor or The Paedagogus, Book II, Chapter XI)
How did most Catholic women, and even pagans and infidels, dress before in time? The answer is that they all dressed more like how nuns are dressed, that is, they were using a long dress totally covering their behind, front and legs down to the ankle and up to the waist with no tight fitting, visible parts whatsoever below the waist. And above the waist were usually worn, not some insignificant, small, thin shirt or “covering” as most woman dress today showing of their whole womanly form, even if not revealing any flesh, but rather a significant, thick, long shirt that covers the womanly figure, the arms down to the wrist, shoulders and neck. Neither did these dresses or shirts end visibly at the waist, thus inviting curious immodest thoughts or revealing any flesh or worse as modern day shirts, dresses, skirts and pants do, but these skirts or dresses were usually one part of the whole dress, or worn in such a way as to invite no immodest thoughts. Such dresses are totally without guilt. Everything else will at least have some fault. In general, the more the clothing reveals flesh and the bodily form, the more sinful it becomes. Not only did most women dress in such a good way before in time, but most women, and especially the poorer, did not wear any makeup at all, and all women also wore a head covering in the Church, and a large portion of the women also wore it in everyday occasions.
Considering how most western woman dress today, it’s safe to say that many of them in fact dress in a mortally sinful fashion. A woman that does not desire to be lusted after by others and who do not want to give others an occasion of falling into sin, will of course never dress in a sensual or immodest way. Indeed, very few people today dress without any guilt at all. But amongst the few who do, most of them are definitely found amongst the pagans, infidels and idolaters, and especially in the poorer countries.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, On the Sin of Scandal: “"The wolf catches and scatters the sheep." (John 10.12) The wolves that catch and scatter the sheep of Jesus Christ are the authors of scandal, who, not content with their own destruction, labor to destroy others. But the Lord says: "Woe to that man by whom the scandal comes." (Matt. 18.7) Woe to him who gives scandal, and causes others to lose the grace of God. Origen says that "a person who impels another to sin, sins more grievously than the other." If, brethren, there be any among you who has given scandal, I will endeavor this day to convince him of the evil he has done, that he may bewail it and guard against it for the future. I will show, in the first point, the great displeasure which the sin of scandal gives to God; and, in the second, the great punishment which God threatens to inflict on the authors of scandal. …
“1. It is, in the first place, necessary to explain what is meant by scandal. Behold how St. Thomas defines it: "Scandal is a word or act which gives occasion to the ruin of one’s neighbor." (S. Theol. 2-2, q. 45, art. 1) Scandal, then, is a word or act by which you are to your neighbor the cause or occasion of losing his soul [such as by posting or linking to soul slaying material that will induce others to sin]. It may be direct or indirect. It is direct when you directly tempt or induce another to commit sin. It is indirect when, although you foresee that sinful words or actions will be the cause of sin to another, you do not abstain from them. But scandal, whether it be direct or indirect, if it be in a matter of great importance, is always a mortal sin. …
“3. But nothing can show the value which God sets on the souls of men more clearly than what the Incarnate Word has done for their redemption from sin and hell. "If," says St. Eucharius, "you do not believe your Creator, ask your Redeemer, how precious you are." Speaking of the care which we ought to have of our brethren, St. Ambrose says: "The great value of the salvation of a brother is known from the death of Christ." We judge of the value of everything by the price paid for it by an intelligent purchaser. Now, Jesus Christ has, according to the Apostle, purchased the souls of men with his own blood. "You are bought with a great price." (1 Cor. 6.20) We can, then, say that the soul is of as much value as the blood of a God. Such, indeed, is the language of St. Hilary. "Tam copioso munere redemptio agitur, ut homo Deum valere videatur." Hence, the Savior tells us that whatever good or evil we do to the least of his brethren, we do to himself. "So long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me." (Matt. 25.40) …
“4. From all this we may infer how great is the displeasure given to God by scandalizing a brother, and destroying his soul. It is enough to say that they who give scandal rob God of a child, and murder a soul, for whose salvation he has spent his blood and his life. Hence, St. Leo calls the authors of scandals murderers. "Quisquis scandalizat, mortem infert animae proximi." They are the most impious of murderers; because they kill not the body, but the soul of a brother, and rob Jesus Christ of all his tears, of his sorrows, and of all that he has done and suffered to gain that soul. Hence the Apostle says: "Now, when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ." (1 Cor. 8.12) They who scandalize a brother, sin against Christ; because, as St. Ambrose says, they deprive him of a soul for which he has spent so many years, and submitted to so many toils and labors. …
“7. "Woe to that man by whom the scandal comes." (Matt. 18.7) If the displeasure given to God by scandal be great, the chastisement which awaits the authors of it must be frightful. Behold how Jesus Christ speaks of this chastisement: "But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matt. 18.6) If a malefactor dies on the scaffold, he excites the compassion of the spectators, who at least pray for him, if they cannot deliver him from death. But, were he cast into the depths of the sea, there would be no one present to pity his fate. A certain author says that Jesus Christ threatens the person who scandalizes a brother with this sort of punishment, to signify that he is so hateful to the angels and saints, that they do not wish to recommend to God the man who has brought a soul to perdition. "He is declared unworthy not only to be assisted, but even to be seen." (Mansi. ch. 3, no. 4) …
“9. For the sin of scandal hell was created. "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." (Gen. 1.1) But, when did he create hell? It was when Lucifer began to seduce the angels into rebellion against God. Lest he should continue to pervert those who remained faithful to God, he was banished from heaven immediately after his sin. Hence Jesus Christ said to the Pharisees, who by their bad example scandalized the people, that they were children of the devil, who was from the beginning a murderer of souls. "You are of your father, the devil: he was a murderer from the beginning." (John 8.44) … And, in reality, what other office do the authors of scandal perform, than that of a minister of the devil? If he were not assisted by such impious ministers, he certainly would not succeed in gaining so many souls. A scandalous companion does more injury than a hundred devils. …
“11. Miserable wretches! the authors of scandal must suffer in hell the punishment of all the sins they have made others commit. Cesarius relates (Bk. 2, ch. 6) that, after the death of a certain person who had given scandal, a holy man witnessed his judgment and condemnation, and saw that, at his arrival at the gate of hell, all the souls whom he had scandalized came to meet him, and said to him: Come, accursed wretch, and atone for all the sins which you have made us commit [by your deeds and actions, such as by immodest forum posts, images and links that contains such images etc]. They then rushed in upon him, and like so many wild beasts, began to tear him in pieces. St. Bernard says that, in speaking of other sinners, the Scriptures hold out hopes of amendment and pardon; but they speak of those who give scandal as persons separated from God, of whose salvation there is very little hope. "Loquitur tanquam a Deo separati, unde hisce nulla spes vitae esse poterit." (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (nn. 2-4) taken from Ascetical Works, Volume XVI: Sermons for all Sundays in the Year (1882) pp. 152-173)
Email conversations, responses and discussions with moderator Matthew, exposing some of his lies, heresies, omissions, and scandals
After promoting Catholic sexual purity and condemning as a heresy and a mortal sin the evil practice of sexual foreplay and Natural Family Planning (or NFP) on his forum, this is what happened (my own email conversation with Matthew will be provided at the end):
Matthew said: "He was banned for being a duplicate account, and for heresy. He is the same man as "Heitanen" whom I banned a long time ago. Let's see -- AllMonks was a member for a week or two, and racked up 100+ VERY LONG posts on NFP. The man is OBSESSED WITH SEX. To be more precise, he is obsessed with puritanism and prudishness with regards to sex. It's like he sits there all day sexually frustrated and puts all his energy into posting. Or something. To sum up his heresy in a nutshell: Under his previous account, he expressed the belief that a lawfully married couple had to "take care of business" as expeditiously as possible, with the lights off, etc. and make sure to "think unpleasurable thoughts" during the whole 60-second encounter. He said that a couple must resist any pleasure that might arise, and/or pray during the experience. Sorry, but I've studied enough Catholic theology and Church History to know blatant heresy when I see it. I am aware of the heresies of Puritanism, the Manicheanism, etc."
Ladislaus said: "Perhaps "heresy" is too strong a word, Matthew. That word is thrown around on all sides way too casually. If he believes that sensible pleasure is intrinsically evil, well then yes he would be a Manichaeen / gnostic type. If, however, he's speaking to the fact that in our fallen state it's nearly impossible without taking such measures to subordinate the sensible pleasure to the intellect and the will, then he would be correct. Church Fathers would have characterized the insubordination of sensible pleasure over the will and intellect as a venial sin. At the very least it's an imperfection that can harm the soul. That's why even St. Paul says that virginity is ideal but that it's better to be married than to burn. Our Lord said that there would be no marriage in heaven, that we would become like the angels. So it would depend on what AllMonks (or his predecessor screen name) would have meant by these statements."
Matthew said in response: "It's a bit disturbing that you seem to be on "his side". I didn't read all of his voluminous posts, nevermind the dozen threads he posted in, but if I'm not mistaken you were siding with him. Having a puritan view of sex is *not* Catholic. Sex is good, holy, and beautiful. It's not for public consumption because it's sacred, not because it's dirty. It was designed by God, along with the pleasure and consequent chemically-induced psychological and emotional bonding that accompanies it. That's why the devil strives so fiercely to corrupt it. It's the easiest way to gain souls for hell. Bad marriages, bad companions, bad habits, broken families, lack of Catholic training, bad example, etc. More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh, etc. When a man starts distorting doctrine in ANY direction, the only Catholic response is revulsion. Therefore I have revulsion re: Heitanen's views. You seem to be interested in his views and have thought about them deeply, to the point that you agree with him (!) You know, there is a pretty strong pleasure attached to eating, too. But no one claims it's a sin to eat delicious food (rather than bland or even disgusting food), nor does anyone say we must eat only plain dry bread OR WE'RE GOING TO HELL. Or that if you can't scrape all the flavor off your food, you must sprinkle it with bitter herbs and hold your nose while eating it. But that's precisely Heitanen's view on sex. It's as wrong and perverted as the hedonists -- just in the opposite direction. Both are repulsive to anyone with a well-formed Catholic sense."
Forum user Aquinas wrote the following in response to Matthew’s accusations above (he was also banned by Matthew after posting this reply):
Aquinas: "I'm not sure of how much was actually represented accurately by you Matthew, for without providing the quotations on what was actually said, misrepresentations or slander happens easily.
Either way, I am surprised how you can call this a heresy. What is heretical in teaching that one should minimize or avoid pleasure/lust as much as possible? Or with teaching that one should pray during or before the marital act? Perhaps you did now know that this is the unanimous teaching of all fathers and the saints (and the bible) too? It is common knowledge that the Church has always had a negative view of sex.
All the Fathers and Saint viewed the lust connected in the marital act in a negative way, and they all taught that one should avoid seeking after pleasures of the flesh as much as possible and that if one chooses to have sex, it should only be done for the sake of procreation.
What is heresy with that? It's the precise Catholic position!
I'll admit that I totally agree with AllMonks teaching on sexual ethics that he presented in this forum, since it can backed up with the teachings of the fathers, saints and popes (something most modern theologians or laymen fail to do when giving license to their perversions).
Everyone can read for themselves what their position is on their website, and I encourage people to read their article if they wonder what the church's position is (yes, they use Catholic sources):
(And by the way, you may notice that many things of what Matthew claimed he taught in the below quotation is not fond on their website (at least as far I am aware of).)
Matthew said: "You know, there is a pretty strong pleasure attached to eating, too. But no one claims it's a sin to eat delicious food (rather than bland or even disgusting food), nor does anyone say we must eat only plain dry bread OR WE'RE GOING TO HELL. Or that if you can't scrape all the flavor off your food, you must sprinkle it with bitter herbs and hold your nose while eating it. But that's precisely Heitanen's view on sex."
I read some of his posts and I saw none of the things mentioned that you accused him of, Matthew.
I don't know what he posted in the past, but considering how he was misrepresented by some in the NFP discussions I read, I would not be surprised if this is the case here too.
From what I read, I think AllMonks made his position abundantly clear when he said that unlawful lusts was a mortal sin. He never said that lawful lust modestly indulged in was a sin.
So why do you claim his position was that it's a mortal sin and leads to Hell?
By the way, they make it clear on their website that those things (which you Matthew called mortal sins) are not mortal sins but that they nevertheless should be avoided or lessened for perfections sake. To teach purity and perfection is not a heresy (as you claim) provided one does not claim that lawful is unlawful—which they don't by the way (but that is what you claim.)
The only way one could claim they teach that lawful is unlawful is if one disagrees with the authority they present.
AllMonks made it clear that unlawful lust was mortal sin (i.e., lustful kisses, touches, thoughts etc. (also in marriage)) and he proved that this was the case by providing Catholic sources – St. Thomas Aquinas and Jaen Gerson.
If you read their article you will see that many Fathers believed the same. Pope Alexander VII also condemned kisses performed for lustful motives [for the married and unmarried] as a mortal sin.
So if you have a problem with this Matthew, then your problem is not with AllMonks teaching, but with the unanimous teaching of the Church, Popes, Saints and the Fathers.
Matthew said: "Having a puritan view of sex is *not* Catholic. Sex is good, holy, and beautiful. It's not for public consumption because it's sacred, not because it's dirty. It was designed by God, along with the pleasure and consequent chemically-induced psychological and emotional bonding that accompanies it. That's why the devil strives so fiercely to corrupt it. It's the easiest way to gain souls for hell. Bad marriages, bad companions, bad habits, broken families, lack of Catholic training, bad example, etc. More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh, etc."
Did you know that St. Thomas even teaches that it's a mortal sin for spouses to perform even an inappropriate position during the marital act – since this in many cases is a sign of passion? (See quote provided from their article below.) Would you call him a Manichean, Puritan or a heretic for that? I think not.
St. Thomas Aquinas, In Libros Sententiarum, Chapter IV, Section 31, 2, 3: “Marital relations are contrary to nature when either the right receptacle or the proper position required by nature is avoided. In the first case it is always a mortal sin because no offspring can result, so that the purpose of nature is completely frustrated. But in the second case [of inappropriate sexual positions] it is not always a mortal sin, as some say, though it can be the sign of a passion which is mortal; at times the latter can occur without sin, as when one’s bodily condition does not permit any other method. In general, this practice is more serious the more it departs from the natural way.”
And sex/lust as it is today Matthew was not how it was in the beginning. According to the Fathers, sexual pleasure or concupiscence is the result of the fall of man. It was thus not created by God in this way, but rather the result of Adam's and Eve's transgression – a defect from Original Sin.
And as some have already wonderfully pointed out in this thread[*]: sex/concupiscence is NOT Holy nor sacred. In fact, it is the direct opposite of holy, since it came from and originated from Sin and Disobedience against God. The Church has always viewed sex in a negative way, and even God in the old testament described it as a source of impurity.
[* Kreuzritter1945 said: "At any rate, the Magisterium has used a number of terms to describe the sexual act, but “holy” has never been one of them. The physical act involved in reproduction (as distinguished from the soul infused at conception) can no more be holy than eating a good meal can be holy. Both are bodily goods, but goodness and holiness are two different things—a distinction that has been lost in the general conflation of grace and nature in post-conciliar thinking. Further, the sexual act involves a dark mystery to which West is apparently oblivious. As Pope Pius XI observes in Casti Connubii, a classic statement of traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality: “the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity…” (Casti Connubii, n. 14). The sexual act, while of course not evil in itself, is nevertheless by the divine command an instrument for the transmission of death itself and the corruption of human nature on account of Adam’s transgression, even though it also results in the creation of an immortal soul. Then, of course, the sexual act is fraught with our inherited concupiscence... For these reasons alone, any attempt to declare the sex act “holy” is offensive to pious ears at best. And if “sex is holy” (as opposed to being a mere bodily good) why does the Catholic mind reel in horror at the thought of Our Lord or Our Lady engaging in even legitimate nuptial relations? Why is the celibate state exemplified by Christ Himself and the very Mother of God higher than the married state according to Sacred Scripture and all of Tradition? Why will there be no “holy sex” of any kind in heaven, if holy it is? The answer is that the sexual act is a lowly and passing thing of this world to which a penalty must attach because of original sin, and that in the divine plan it will never be anything but an ephemeral aspect of earthly existence having no part whatsoever in the life eternal of the blessed."]
Again, read their article for the Catholic teaching on sexual ethics: http://www.catholic-saints.net/sexual-pleasure-and-procreation/#Sexual-Pleasure-and-Lust
Matthew said: "Bad marriages, bad companions, bad habits, broken families, lack of Catholic training, bad example, etc. More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh, etc. When a man starts distorting doctrine in ANY direction, the only Catholic response is revulsion. Therefore I have revulsion re: Heitanen's views. You seem to be interested in his views and have thought about them deeply, to the point that you agree with him (!) It's as wrong and perverted as the hedonists -- just in the opposite direction. Both are repulsive to anyone with a well-formed Catholic sense."
Yes more souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh. That's precisely and exactly what AllMonks tried to make people aware of.
Yet you seem to think that the Catholic teaching is heresy, and that the heresy is Catholicism?
Tell me, do you agree with this statement by Jearn Gerson (that also was quoted by AllMonks)? If not, then perhaps you should consider Our Lady's statement a little more closely and seriously: More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh, etc.
Jean Gerson, Oeuvres Complétes: “Several doctors [of Divinity] maintain that willingly fostering wicked carnal thoughts in order to enjoy oneself is a deadly sin [also between spouses], even without doing the deed. Be sure, however, that kisses, gazes, and fondling, mainly caused by such wicked and lustful thoughts [that is, for the motive of lust or sexual pleasure], without anything more, is an even greater sin. … it is even worse if these kisses do not respect the honesty which is usually kept in public.
“… You have committed the sin of lust [also in marriage]: If you have fondled and stroked yourself on your shameful member until you obtain the dirty carnal pleasure. If you initiated such sins with others, by words, kisses, fondling, or other signs, or immodest paintings.… If you committed this sin differently from Nature ordered, or against the honesty that belongs to marriage.… If you wanted to be desired and lusted after for your beauty, your behavior, your clothes, makeup, dancing or dissolute gazes.
“… What a young boy should tell in confession: I sometimes stroked myself or others, urged by disorderly pleasure; I fondled myself, in my bed and elsewhere, something I would not have dared to do if people had been there. Sometimes the priest cannot absolve such fondling. If they are not confessed and the details given, whatever the shame, one cannot be absolved, and the confession is worthless: one is destined to be damned for ever in Hell. The action and the way it has been done must be told.
“… Is it a sin to kiss [also in marriage]? I answer that kisses between spouses who maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do them openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly [that is, for the motive of lust or sexual pleasure] that I cannot be more precise, it is an abominable deadly sin. If kisses are made between strangers and publicly, as a sign of peace, by friendship or kinship, without wicked thought, there is no sin. They could be dangerous between clerics, or people of the same sex or lineage, or in a secret place, and in a prolonged way.
“… The fifth commandment is: thou shall not kill. … They commit this sin who succeed, in whatever way, in preventing the fruit which should come from carnal intercourse between man and woman.… It is forbidden for two people, married or not, to do any kind of lustful fondling without respecting the way and the vessel Nature requires for conceiving children [that is, one cannot perform “extra” sexual acts not able to procreate or intended for procreation]. It is worse when it is outside of the natural way [unnatural sexual acts], either if it is out of wedlock or even worse, within it [that is, all unnecessary and non-procreative sexual acts within marriage are considered as worse sins than when they are committed outside of marriage].
“Is it permitted for spouses to prevent the conception of a child? No: I often say that it is a sin worse than murder. It is a sin which deserves the fires of Hell. Briefly, any way of preventing conception during intercourse is dishonest and reprehensible.”
Please also consider that exactly this kind of information (as quoted above by Aquinas) – that is, quotes from the saints, fathers and doctors of the Church on sexual morality (such as the Jean Gerson and St. Thomas Aquinas quotes above), and other information condemning NFP and promoting the need to always desire children during every marital act – is what Mathew systematically removed, deleted, banned and called it a heresy and near heresy. Incredible!
The following is Matthew’s pathetic response and actions to Aquinas post above:
Matthew said: "He is the same as "Heitanen" and "AllMonks", or at least of the same mind. I won't have people on this board that are obsessed with sex. Especially not those who are obsessed with sex AND near-heretical in their views about the morality of it. And to Heitanen -- since you're obviously reading this: Go away and stay away. Go get married or something. Maybe the stay-at-home "monastic" life wasn't for you after all. As St. Paul said, better to marry than to burn. And you burn with an obsession about a very, very small part of human life. Do I even need to point this out -- hasn't EVERYONE noticed as well? You posted for HOURS about the very same topic, for days on end. It's all you study, think, or "know" about (though I would say you are in error, not knowledgeable, but I digress)"
First, consider the fact that most people go to Hell because of sins of the flesh (as revealed by our Lady of Fatima). Second, also consider the fact that almost everyone today commits some form or another of sexual mortal sin, such as foreplay, and lustful kisses and touches (whether inside or outside of marriage), and that this occurs whether they call themselves “protestant”, “Catholic”, or “traditional Catholic”, or even atheists, infidels or pagans etc. So it is not without reason that we focus so much on, and promote so sternly, the sexual morality that is required in order to be saved when the whole world is fallen in it, as will be demonstrated as we move along on this article.
In fact, even some people at his own forum sadly believes in, and performs these mortal sins and heresies, such as foreplay, and believe that it is right to do this within a marriage (I pointed this fact out to Matthew, and the thread in which this heresy was discussed was later deleted). So this is just further proof of why we spend time teaching people about sexual morality, since even those who claim to be “traditional Catholic” and who should live like angels, are fallen into this mortal vice. Yet even though this information is so crucial and important for the salvation of souls, the demonic moderator Matthew at cathinfo.com removed every single post and quotation that forum user AllMonks had posted from the saints, fathers, popes and theologians of the Catholic Church dealing on this very issue that could have helped people (like those described above) to come out of their heresy and mortal sin. It is evil.
Matthew said: "I don't know why he keeps bothering us here on CathInfo -- is it to convert us? No. How can I say that? Because he doesn't act like the Saints did. The saints were zealous and fervent in their love of souls, the truth, and sinners. They strove day and night to convert them. But they didn't try to catch flies with vinegar. And they spent plenty of time in PRAYER, FASTING, and CORPORAL PENANCE to convert sinners. That is how sinners are converted. Read "The Soul of the Apostolate" for more information. We do have to resort to words, actions, and writings -- but they are given unction and efficacy ONLY by ourselves or someone else offering up prayers and penance. That is how the economy of salvation works. Not by armchair lay theology, ceaseless arguing, calling names (especially cuss words), and other human and base behavior. Sorry, such a person doesn't pass my Catholic "smell test". St. Francis de Sales knew when to give up and move on to fasting and prayer for an incorrigible sinner. But that's only if a person is TRULY interested in God and the salvation of souls. If he's interested in himself, "winning" an argument, or some other base motive (such as obsession with a given topic) -- then he'll behave differently..."
As should be clear from his above post, Matthew is a clear mortal sinner and a slanderer since he (and not infrequently must be added) presumes to know other people’s intentions and why they do something. For as we can see above, he emphatically declared that my intention was not to help or to convert people. That is a direct lie. Do he really think he can make such false judgments and escape severe judgment in Hell? Now, does Matthew know that any of his accusation are true? Of course not! Yet the mortal sinner Matthew actually dares to make such evil judgments about others without any actual proof of this, and he solely does this on his own evil authority, judgments and conclusions.
Sadly, as we will now move along towards Matthew’s and mine’s email conversations, we will see even more clearly how he is completely fallen and sunken into this mortal sin of rash and false judgments. Only an inherently evil and prideful person that doesn’t fear God or His judgments one bit and who wants to defend himself at all cost rather than stand firm in justice, would ever dare to make such false and evil judgments as Matthew does – or ever dare to think that he knows the other person’s actual intentions or motives better than the actual person himself! Who but a complete and satanic pervert would dare to declare another persons motives and intentions as evil, sinful or false without any evidence of this? Yet this is exactly what the mortal sinner Matthew does all the time, as will be shown even more clearly below.
See our section On False Judgments and Slander available on our website. It is very important for one’s salvation to learn not to slander others or think evil about them with slight or no evidence. Doing otherwise, that is, making evil and false judgments or conclusions about others, is a mortal sin.
An email conversation between Hietanen and Matthew, showing some of his past evil actions (such as twice banning me after calling him out on his perverse, evil ways for allowing evil ads to be displayed on his website); furthering addressing some of his lies, falsehoods, dishonesties, and his resistance and apparent hatred of Catholic teaching on sexual morality
The following response was sent to Matthew’s email; it was also posted on his forum with some modifications. (This is the response as it was posted on his forum.) However, after making this post on his forum, it was almost immediately removed and the forum account banned.
However much Matthew tries to hide this truth from you, he will be exposed and his evil actions will come to light...
Hietanen said: "I don't know why you banned Aquinas, but one thing is clear, you are a prideful evil person that can't take a single inch of criticism against your false, preconceived thoughts.
It's also despicable how you continue to call the Catholic view on sex "puritan" or "heresy" or near heresy. And worse is that you do so despite being corrected by many; even after having read quotations of Saints, Fathers and Catholic theologians backing up this position refuting yours. That makes you a heretic rather than those whom you falsely accuse of embracing it.
Considering how you accuse/act against previous posters on this topic, No doubt, but if a Saint Jerome or any of the Fathers would have expressed many of their own views on sex or marriage in your forum today, they would perhaps have been immediately banned by you and accused of "Puritanism" too? Yet St. Jerome. St. Thomas Aquinas, Jaen Gerson among others are all renowned, well known, respected Doctors, Theologians or Saints of the Catholic Church! You claim to know the faith, yet seem oblivious to the fact that Tradition all agrees with the very position you resist and ban; that it teaches strictness and the great importance of sexual purity; and that it condemns your false condemned view of "Sacred" or "Holy" sex.
You also did not answer Aquinas question on whether you agreed with Jaen Gerson and Saint Thomas Aquinas view on the topic of sexual morality (both of whom by the way agreed with AllMonks view, which you falsely called a heresy). If you do not agree with their view, which is the position of the Catholic Church, then you are a mortal sinner and a heretic (but we already know you are for the reason of the evil advertisements that you freely allow on your website (see further below for proof of why this is; and he has been corrected many times)).
I find it interesting that you did not answer this questions and that you constantly delete Catholic theologians or the saints teaching on what moral virtuous sexuality is; and [that you] remove their quotes unanimously condemning excessiveness or lustfulness (such as lustful kisses, thoughts and touches etc.) as mortal sins – whether within or without of marriage.
You are clearly an enemy of virtue and morality. For the true Catholic teachings concerning this most important topic – that almost universally everyone today are mortal sinners in – you delete, reject, ban and spit upon. You thus encourage the damnation of souls by keeping from them the information that could help them and save them; and help them out of their sexual mortal sins/and or heresy.
You even removed the post directed at a user asking about this very topic on a thread, that is: what the Catholic position on sexual ethics was. This was shown her, yet you removed it for you don't care about truth being taught...
You are thus an enemy of the Church, the Tradition and of Jesus Christ who all universally taught these things. (Also see a repetition of the Jean Gerson quote you refused to answer when being asked about it by Aquinas below; namely if you agreed with catholic theologian Jean Gerson's view on sexual ethics that he expresses below).
You are also an obstinate mortal sinner for perversely and evilly allowing filth and evil commercials to be displayed on your website. I have told you for years about this (and you have banned me twice in the past for expressly and harshly calling you out on this one and for criticizing you regarding it), yet you don't care nor have you made any changes. You don't care one bit about that every single person who enters your website is or are becoming tempted by these evil, filthy, immodest, sensual looking commercials that you allow to be displayed on your website for evil gain – woe to mammon! and you cannot serve both it and God!
You also perhaps don't know that the ads differs from every country's IP that enters your site. Thus, you can never have control of the ads displayed on your site. American IP's ads difference from Chinese, etc. But even if you can have more control, it is still evil, for you know that many bad commercials appear often and regularly despite all of your efforts to the contrary. Thus, you are just totally evil, for you allow this to happen to the damage of souls despite perfectly being aware of it and knowing about it.
Luke 17:1-2 condemns you: "And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals [that is, temptations or encouragement to sin] should not come: but woe to him through whom they come. It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones."
This proves that you don't care one bit about souls and that indeed, you are a mortal sinner. you are tempting people and encouraging people to commit mortal sins of impurity in deed and thought against both God and Heaven (and how many have actually fallen into this sin because of you? thank God for adblocks and for the ability to disable all images for all websites), yet you absolutely do nothing to hinder it from taking place and even banns people for [harshly] calling you out on this one. You are thus purely evil, and therefore, I am not surprised at all that you are such an fierce enemy of sexual purity and sexual temperance when your soul is already so rotten and corrupted to the core; neither am I surprised that you removed the Catholic teaching that was presented in the various threads on this issue (all of whom you deleted to the harm of souls) and that was backed up with the actual Catholic teaching tradition from the Fathers and the Saints; and the teaching of the Church.
Ask your priest what he thinks about it, that is, that you by your own perverse free will allow bad, immoral ads that tempts people to sensuality to be displayed on your website, and if he thinks this is a good thing to do against others (against other people's eternal souls). Perhaps he would tell you to stop with it. Since you refuse to listen to me (and perhaps others who have told you about it), perhaps he could talk some sense in your obstinate, evil, sinful head.
Also tell him how filthy these ads really are and that they indeed tempt people and probably have tempted many into actually committing mortal sin of impurity (whether in deed or thought) and that they (your ads) thus have been a direct cause for this sin against God and Heaven – whom you claim to worship. Don't make it out to be less or appear less evil than what it truly is. This is horrible, and evil; it is a mortal sin! and the fact that you don't see the problem or evilness with it [absolutely] proves the spiritual blindness and darkness you are living in – and it totally proves the evilness of sexual sins and immorality and hatred for Catholic Tradition and truth and obstinacy otherwise.
Perhaps if you came out of your mortal sins first it would be easier for you too humble yourself and see the truthfulness of previous posters statements and finally agree with the Catholic position on sexual morality (which you falsely call heresy).
In your blindness you call heresy Catholicism and Catholicism heresy! That's a total and evil inversion of the truth! "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." – Isaiah 5:20
And for those arguing that all we care about is sex, The issue is not about sex, but rather about mortal sin and immorality in general (as should be obvious from what has been written above). I concentrate on the issue that most people today fall in, and that I think many people should be able to agree with me on when proof is presented. It is also not without reason I do this, for Our Lady specifically warned about that most Catholics go to Hell for sins of the flesh; She also said that many marriages are not good etc.
Our Lord also foretold in the New Testament that in the last days, people would be lovers of pleasures more than God; and that no faith would be left on earth (clearly indicating that most if not all people would be heretics against the natural law (and many sexual sins are direct heresies against the natural law)).
Please see our website and this article concerning these things:
But for many people in here these warnings or prophecies seems as of no importance, and many act as if everything is just fine or as if everything is just as ordinary or as normal as ever. But is it? I tell you again, if you do not agree with catholic theologian Jean Gerson's statements below, it proves the truth of my assertion. For you then have been/or still are a mortal sinner or heretic (heresy is to believe mortal sin is not mortal sin or that it's lawful to commit mortal sin [or venial sin]).
Matthew (and all on this forum), I sincerely hope for your conversion (and that the rest of you will be/are/have always been Catholic) and I hope you will not remove this thread cowardly and avoid my statements (or other people's responses) as you have done so far, but that you will do something about it.
I will pray for you.
And now the important quote of Jean Gerson
… [quote omitted since it was already shown above, but in summary, what was condemned here was this (and all of this applies as much to the married as well as unmarried, and it applies also before, during and after the marital act): Contraception, NFP, lustful kisses and touches, foreplay, masturbation, abortion, illicit enhancements of sexual pleasure, and all other sexual acts not able to procreate or intended for procreation, as well as “fostering wicked carnal thoughts in order to enjoy oneself” and “kisses, gazes, and fondling, mainly caused by such wicked and lustful thoughts [that is, for the motive of lust or sexual pleasure], without anything more, is an even greater sin”; and so, all of these things were condemned as mortal sins] …
Again, Jean Gerson, I think, summarizes why the world has been totally (and rightly) abandoned by God and explains the reason behind this and why almost all Catholics have lost the Faith (and consider his statements in light of the prophecies already mentioned, and in light of Our Lady of Fatima's warning: that most people go to Hell because of sins of the flesh; and that many marriages are not good; and that certain fashions displeases God very much and that all Faith would be lost in the last days (if you dress as people dressed 200 years ago (or as nuns dress), then it is safe; everything else might have at least a fault; and in general, the less clothing, the more sin. Make up/vanity is also a sin)."
Matthew's totally evil response:
No one else sees those filthy Google ads -- did you know that Google displays ads based on one's past Internet browsing behavior?
At any rate, every time I hear about an immodest one, I add it to the block list. But they don't come up often -- because most people don't browse the kind of sites you do! (hahaha)
I thought you were obsessed with sex before -- now you've given me near-proof of it!
You know it's wrong to read filthy literature, watch filthy movies and porn, or read lewd websites -- so you do the only "acceptable" thing a sex-obsessed Catholic can do as an outlet: you totally focus your studies, reading, and preaching on sex. Nice excuse. But I know the real reason -- you're obsessed with sex.
You're not married, or a priest. Of what concern is sex to you, a single, home-alone "monk"? It's none of your business. I think you missed your vocation. St. Paul: "Better to marry than to burn."
You are still a protestant who likes to "privately interpret" the Church Fathers, just as all protestants privately interpret the Scriptures to their own damnation."
The following is my response to Matthew (I had to send this response with another email account since he blocked me):
Hietanen: "No, your quite wrong. I never surf any such sites. Contrary to you, I at least seem to fear God enough to understand to avoid such things; to surf with the web without images on, etc; and always use an adblock; and to help [other] people do the same. [Addendum: See this link for the information on how to surf the internet without images on and with an adblock (and yes, it is a sin to refuse to follow this advice since it is virtually impossible to escape bad and immodest images and commercials of men or women tempting you every day when surfing the internet). Only a condemned person not fearing God or sin at all would refuse this good advice that helps him avoid falling into sexual temptations and sins everyday: http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/#How-to-control-your-eyes]
If you think you can make such judgment [about others]… without any actual proof you are guilty of the mortal sin of slander too. [He said: "But they [immodest ads] don't come up often -- because most people don't browse the kind of sites you do! (hahaha)… You know it's wrong to read filthy literature, watch filthy movies and porn, or read lewd websites -- so you do the only "acceptable" thing a sex-obsessed Catholic can do as an outlet: you totally focus your studies, reading, and preaching on sex. Nice excuse. But I know the real reason -- you're obsessed with sex."] In fact, I often choose not to watch even lawful movies with beautiful people in them since God have given me the grace to be disturbed even by seeing faces. Yes, I try to avoid the world. Even If I am a miserable monk, that is my ultimate goal--to achieve total obedience and self-mortification (which is the hardest part for me). (See more on the ads and how they work further below.)
Yes I am unmarried. So was in general all the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church I am aware of (if not all, perhaps 97-99% ?). Thus, that I am unmarried perhaps makes me even more fit (and unbiased) when talking about this issue -- about sexuality and sexual sins -- since I don't want to excuse my self or justify evil, sinful behavior.
If you wonder why I focus so much on sex and sexual sins -- which obviously, unless one is a liar, is easy to understand that [because] the whole world essentially is fallen in [this sin] considering the testimonies of our Lady and our Lord -- [and as an example demonstrating this fact] consider this thread on your forum:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sexual-Impurity-Need-advice [it has since been removed]
This (in the thread) is exactly the kind of mortal sin/heresy against nature I wanted to save people from and make them aware of. Notice that he who asked the question even seems to doubt if it [that he ejaculated by sexual foreplay] was a sin. (And that is without even considering that they were practicing sexual foreplay--which always is a mortal sin in it self by the way--but that was not the issue here and he didn't even ask if that was a sin (foreplay), but just if it was a sin for him to have an orgasm outside of the marital act.) Notice how some evil people told him it is not necessarily a sin. Others claimed it is only a sin if one touches the genitals but not necessarily if other body parts are touched. Other points out correctly that such things always are wrong or should be avoided although in rather weak terms. --- Well, except for those who think or said it's wrong, they are all wrong. Foreplay and all forms of it, and all lustful kisses and touches etc are always mortal sins. To doubt that it is always a mortal sin is heresy, for impurity is dogmatized quite clearly by the Church and the Bible (and the Natural Law too) to be a mortal sin. And to say that it is only wrong to touch the genitals for the motive of lust but not others parts [of the body or other objects] for the same lustful reason is also wrong, and a heresy (foreplay, whatever form of it, is a mortal sin--and lust evidently doesn't stop to be a mortal sin in marriage! as is quite clear from the teaching authority I had already presented on the matter, and which you so far have not given me an answer on). All lustful kisses and touches, as I proved to you already by the Fathers, Saints, Popes, St. Thomas Aquinas and Jean Gerson, is a mortal sin.
Yet when you hinder me from spreading these CATHOLIC truths and even deleting the very posts on the matter -- the very teaching of the Church on this issue and the Catholic saints, fathers and theologians actual opinions (and which you falsely call private interpretations, which is such an outrageous dishonesty because they all teach the same thing and are unambiguously clear) you are helping and encouraging those people--such as mentioned above--and that I wanted to help, to stay in their darkness, mortal sin, and heresy. You are thus helping them to be damned for your apparent hatred or resistance of the Catholic truth and Catholic position of moral sexual ethics.
What is your opinion of Jean Gerson? You have still not answered! Or about Thomas Aquinas who taught that even an inappropriate sexual position was a mortal sin (in most cases)? Or about that the Church even views a kiss as a mortal sin if it is performed for lustful motives? Or that they teach exactly the same of sensual touches, etc? This, of course, totally condemns foreplay as so many people, "catholic" or not, actually seem to believe is okay to do... well, it is not; and they who believe it is right to do such depraved things [or any kind of foreplay or lustful acts except for what is inherent in the normal, natural and procreative marital act itself] are in Hell already and will go there the moment they die unless they be converted from their deadly errors before the time of their deaths.
MORE ON THE ADS
And even if, as you say, such ads come more often if one actually surf bad sites, that in no way excuses you for allowing such filth to be displayed for such sinful people on your self-professed Catholic forum. Perhaps they want help and save their souls? but you instead allow them to die spiritually by furthering giving them options for falling away and commit mortal sin! You are thus totally evil--for you admit to me that you know this is happening yet allows it to happen!
The ads often corresponds to the threads too.
And I tell you again, the ads doesn't work as you think they do. I never surf such sites you falsely accused me of (and you committed a mortal sin of slander by the way for you not merely asked if this was the case, but said boldly and clearly that I did these things and that you now understand, etc., why or why not I acted in such or such a way). So confess this sin also, in addition to asking your priest about the evil ads on your site.
I have also seen other people on your forum complain about bad/filthy/sensual ads; perhaps you accuse them of surfing [bad websites or reading about sex]… too?
Try enter your site on a new browser with cleared cookies and different country ips and you will see what it displays. It is totally not as you think it is.
And you have no excuse since you know this is happening. You are thus helping people to commit mortal sin.
Mostly I never see ads at your sites since I have them blocked, I am talking mostly from past experiences and from other people's testimonies. Also, I did a quick test some week ago; the ads popping up was a site for men looking for single women, etc; also a site for women looking for men I saw too. Often sites of makeup I have seen too. This is totally vain and useless and invitation to sin."
On May 11 2014, gooch, a cathinfo.com forum member posted a thread asking a question on Matthew's forum. He did this after having read the section on Lustful Kisses and Touches found on our website, and after having quoted the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas' own words with our commentary, he asked the question what people make of this. Matthew having seen the thread on May 12, deleted all the vital information concerning the unlawfulness of indulging in illicit sexual pleasure.
The following is Matthew's evil, lying, slanderous, mortally sinful and heretical reply to gooch's post about the information that he posted with our commentary:
"That site was created by a banned member (who was banned for a very good reason!)
He is a puritan heretic [that's a direct lie since the position we're advocating is the same as the Catholic Church's, the saints, the fathers and the theologians that we are quoting]. He is an ex-protestant (the ex- part is debatable) who claims or pretends to be Catholic, yet is filled with errors [according to Matthew, the teaching of the Church -- some of which has already been quoted above -- is erroneous]. In particular, he is obsessed with sex and foreplay (don't get too excited now -- he's AGAINST it [of course we are against foreplay but we are not against lawful procreative marital sexual relations, and so must you and everyone else if they want to save their soul from eternal hell-fire. Yet Matthew's response, actions and deeds otherwise -- and by his evasion to answer simple questions concerning this sinful deed -- all seem to suggest that he is not opposed to it, sadly]...) He is also addicted to putting his own bizarre opinions on the level of Catholic dogma [if we did not back up anything of what we said with any Church teachings or quotes from the Popes, Saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Matthew's comment would make more sense. But since we do provide the quotations and their teachings, this proves that he is just a faithless heretic "pretending" this is our own position rather than the Church's even though he knows and are perfectly aware of that all the quotes on this issue (many of which he has seen) supports us. Yet he forgets about it all since he don't want to think about it, evil as he is].
To keep things rated G, let's just say he believes that things must be kept to a bare minimum [no, what we believe -- and what the Church teaches -- is that the only thing that is permitted by itself is the natural and normal sexual act itself and what is inherent therein. All other sexual acts performed for lustful reasons not intended for procreation or necessary for procreation or able to procreate, is a mortal sin]. No need for a sit down restaurant; a handful of acorns picked up on the way to work and a dry crust of bread will "get the job done" (maintaining life), so seasonings, flavors, variety, dedicated mealtimes, etc. is unnecessary and therefore sinful "gluttony". Oh, and in case you enjoy acorns or dry bread, you should plug your nose (so you can't taste anything) just to be safe from danger of hell-fire [St. Thomas Aquinas taught:“the sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason...” and “lust there signifies any kind of excess” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1). The “excess” that St. Thomas and the Church condemns as a sin are all sexual acts except for what is inherent in the normal, natural and procreative marital act itself. All other sexual acts are by their own nature inexcusable and a sin against the Natural Law. In truth, “We may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates to certain acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1). Notice that St. Thomas even rejects as lascivious and unlawful “acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth” and so it is clear that St. Thomas taught that all non-procreative and unnecessary sexual acts are sinful and against nature. This is also why the Natural Law and the Church teaches that even sensual kisses performed “for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss” is condemned as a mortal sin for both the married and the unmarried people alike (Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Morals Condemned in Decree #40, September 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666, Denz. 1140)].
He spends hours each day thinking about and writing about sex [no we don't. We only write about it when necessity requires it (such as writing an article or teaching on a forum)]. He's like a man who checks out a Moral Theology book and skips to the chapter on "6th and 9th" -- what he might call "the good stuff". He has no mandate or excuse to think about, write about, or focus on such a prurient topic. He's just a pervert in disguise [according to Matthew, we have no "mandate" or "right" to help save souls come out of mortal sin and hell-fire by teaching them -- and showing them -- the Church's actual teachings from of the popes, fathers and saints and firmly adhering to their teachings! In reality, Matthew is just a faithless heretic "disguising" himself as a Catholic whereas, in truth, he is a mortal enemy of God and a hater of the Catholic religion].
The last time I spoke with him (after banning his latest account) he sent me an angry e-mail recommending me for Hell in about a dozen different ways [justly so; and by the way, he still allows advertisements on his website to the destruction of souls; nor has he corrected anything and he even continues to lie and slander even though he was rebuked for exactly this, as we could see above].
Anyhow, my main problem with this man comes from his own website: He was "inspired" to put himself out as a teacher of men (with a large website) when his life as a Catholic was measured in MONTHS [notice how Matthew focuses on absolutely everything else except for actually proving his own position. He is just out to slander us and making us look bad. That is how all deceivers and liars deceive people. And by the way, we have been familiar with Catholic teaching, dogma, the saints and Church fathers for several years! Matthew is just a slanderer who have no fear about what he writes and he seems to think that he can write and make up whatever he like about us without considering the fact that he will have to render the strictest account for every word that he has ever made]. It's a classic case of the blind leading the blind [we will see in the day of judgment who is deceiving and killing souls; whether we teach the truth or not with the quotes that we present; and whether you are right in resisting it with your all strength]!
Anyhow, you can safely ignore this lunatic. Stick to more reputable Catholic authors -- those with suffixes after their names, those with actual Theology training, as well as those whose names start with "Fr.", "Msgr." or "His Excellency" and you'll be fine [that is exactly what we quote! but Matthew rejects and forgets about it all! How about "St." Thomas Aquinas, "Pope" Alexander VII, innumerable other "saints" and "fathers", or Jean Gerson, who "was the most popular and influential theologian of his generation"].
This man likes to quote various authors, including Scripture and St. Thomas Aquinas, but the "good part" (or what backs him up) is always what is added by him in brackets. Not the words of St. Thomas Aquinas himself. Like I said: private, ignorant interpretation all the way."
As we have seen, the amount of lies and falsehoods in his above post is, simply said, shocking and mind blowing.
What's most tragic with this Matthew person is that he frequently make good posts on his forum against slander, calumny and detraction from various Catholic writers, yet he seems totally oblivious to the fact that he himself is totally sunken and fallen in this mortal and deadly vice. That's because he don't fear God enough or seriously considers the eternal ramifications of all his words, lies, and actions.
Please pray for Matthew and for his conversation and that he will stop being such a fierce enemy of sexual purity; and that he will stop promoting and advertising evil, immoral commercial at his website for the destruction of souls.
Now, concerning what Matthew said about “the "good part" (or what backs him up) is always what is added by him in brackets. Not the words of St. Thomas Aquinas himself. Like I said: private, ignorant interpretation all the way...” -- just as if he had "forgotten" all the other quotes on the same subject already quoted (and that he had deleted) -- we will simply let the reader decide for themselves whether St. Thomas Aquinas is agreeing with us or not in the below quotation or whether this is just our "own invention", as suggested by the heretic Matthew.
St. Thomas Aquinas condemns lustful kisses and touches for married and unmarried people alike as mortal sins
Now we shall look at what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say about kisses and touches.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 4:
“Whether there can be mortal sin in touches and kisses?
“Objection 1: It would seem that there is no mortal sin in touches and kisses. For the Apostle says (Eph. 5:3): "Fornication and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints," then he adds: "Or obscenity" (which a gloss refers to "kissing and fondling"), "or foolish talking" (as "soft speeches"), "or scurrility" (which "fools call geniality---i.e. jocularity"), and afterwards he continues (Eph. 5:5): "For know ye this and understand that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is the serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God," thus making no further mention of obscenity, as neither of foolish talking or scurrility. Therefore these are not mortal sins.”
“[St. Thomas Aquinas] Reply to Objection 1: The Apostle makes no further mention of these three because they [kisses and touches] are not sinful except as directed to those that he had mentioned before [i.e. fornicators, unclean and covetous people (married people can of course also be unclean and covetous too as we have seen)].”
“Objection 2: Further, fornication is stated to be a mortal sin as being prejudicial to the good of the future child’s begetting and upbringing. But these are not affected by kisses and touches or blandishments. Therefore there is no mortal sin in these.”
“St. Thomas Aquinas] Reply to Objection 2: Although kisses and touches do not by their very nature hinder the good of the human offspring, they proceed from lust, which is the source of this hindrance: and on this account they are mortally sinful.”
Notice that St. Thomas here said that kisses and touches was mortal sins in the general sense if “they proceed from lust”, and that he did not say that “it depends on whether they occur in the context of marriage/fornication or not” or that “this is what decides or determines whether it becomes sinful.” Thus, it is totally clear from this definition of St. Thomas that he views the lustful intention when performing these acts as the source of the mortal sin itself, and not simply because they occur in context of marriage or not (as we shall also see further down).
That is why St. Thomas even rejects in Q. 154, Art. 1 as lascivious and unlawful “acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth”. St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “We may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates to certain acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1) And so it is clear that St. Thomas taught that all non-procreative and unnecessary sexual acts are sinful and against nature.
“[St. Thomas Aquinas general reply to all the objections:] On the contrary, A lustful look is less than a touch, a caress or a kiss. But according to Mat. 5:28, "Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." MUCH MORE THEREFORE ARE LUSTFUL KISSES AND OTHER LIKE THINGS MORTAL SINS.”
This means that St. Thomas views lustful kisses “and other like things” as worse sins than adultery or fornication! This is probably due to the fact that St. Thomas views sexual sins that cannot serve for procreation as worse sins than those that can.
“Further, Cyprian says (Ad Pompon, de Virgin., Ep. lxii), "By their very intercourse, their blandishments, their converse, their embraces, those who are associated in a sleep that knows neither honor nor shame, acknowledge their disgrace and crime." Therefore by doing these things a man is guilty of a crime, that is, of mortal sin.”
“I answer that, A thing is said to be a mortal works/sin in two ways. First, by reason of its species, and in this way a kiss, caress, or touch does not, of its very nature, imply a mortal sin, for it is possible to do such things without lustful pleasure, either as being the custom of one’s country, or on account of some obligation or reasonable cause. Secondly, a thing is said to be a mortal sin by reason of its cause: thus he who gives an alms, in order to lead someone into heresy, sins mortally on account of his corrupt intention. Now it has been stated above [I-II, Q. 74, A. 8], that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act, but also to the delectation [or pleasure] of a mortal sin. Wherefore since fornication is a mortal sin, and much more so the other kinds of lust  it follows that in such like sins [that is, sins of lust] not only consent to the act but also consent to the pleasure is a mortal sin. Consequently, when these kisses and caresses are done for this pleasure [lust] it follows that they are mortal sins, and only in this way are they said to be lustful. Therefore in so far as they are lustful, they are mortal sins.”
. “and much more so the other kinds of lust…” i.e., lust committed both inside and outside of marriage. And by the way, St. Thomas also views sexual sins committed within a marriage as worse sins than those committed outside of marriage, as we shall see further on.
And for those objecting that St. Thomas was referring only to the unmarried people here since he mentioned the word “fornication” in some instances (but not others), we will provide the following quote by him refuting this argument:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 64. Art. 1, Reply to Objection 3: “If the husband [refuses to pay the marital debt without a just cause] . . . then he sins, and his wife’s sin, should she fall into FORNICATION [adultery, impure thoughts or masturbation] on this account, is somewhat imputable to him. Hence he should endeavor to do his best that his wife may remain continent.”
Hence, it is totally clear from above that when St. Thomas was mentioning the word “fornication,” he was using it to refer to the sins of the unmarried and married people alike. And we know that this is the case, for when St. Thomas condemned lustful kisses and touches above as mortal sins – in the Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 4 – we know that he was referring to both, since, as he said, all fornicators, all unclean people and all covetous was included in this category of mortal sinners (see objection 1 and reply to objection 1).
“We may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates to certain acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1). Notice that St. Thomas even rejects in as lascivious and unlawful “acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth” and so it is clear that St. Thomas taught that all non-procreative and unnecessary sexual acts are sinful and against nature. This is also why the Natural Law and the Church teaches that even sensual kisses performed “for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss” is condemned as a mortal sin for both the married and the unmarried people alike (Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Morals Condemned in Decree #40, September 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666, Denz. 1140)].
The main point we can gather from this explanation of St. Thomas that he so eloquently gives to us is that kisses and touches for sensual pleasure is completely unnecessary for procreation of children and serves nothing but a shameful, selfish, sinful and condemned lust. They are therefore mortal sins and are unreasonable and unnatural.
Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters #40, September 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666: “It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander VII. (Denz. 1140)
Jean Gerson, Oeuvres Complétes: “Several doctors [of Divinity] maintain that willingly fostering wicked carnal thoughts in order to enjoy oneself is a deadly sin, even without doing the deed. Be sure, however, that kisses, gazes, and fondling, mainly caused by such wicked and lustful thoughts, without anything more, is an even greater sin. … it is even worse if these kisses do not respect the honesty which is usually kept in public.
“… Is it a sin to kiss? I answer that kisses between spouses who maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do them openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly [and lustfully] that I cannot be more precise, it is an abominable deadly sin. If kisses are made between strangers and publicly, as a sign of peace, by friendship or kinship, without wicked thought, there is no sin. They could be dangerous between clerics, or people of the same sex or lineage, or in a secret place, and in a prolonged way.
Athenagoras the Athenian, A Plea for the Christians (c. 175 A.D.), Chapter XXXII, Elevated Morality of the Christians: “On behalf of those, then, to whom we apply the names of brothers and sisters, and other designations of relationship, we exercise the greatest care that their bodies should remain undefiled and uncorrupted; for the Logos again says to us, “If any one kiss a second time because it has given him pleasure, [he sins];” adding, “Therefore the kiss, or rather the salutation, should be given with the greatest care, since, if there be mixed with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us from eternal life.””