July, 2019: Note from Ville Hietanen (Jerome): Currently, I have updated many of my believes to be more in line with Vatican II and I do no longer adhere to the position that Vatican II is heretical, or that Saints and adherents to Vatican II (and other canonized by Vatican II) such as Mother Theresa was heretical or damned – or that they are unworthy of this title. Why have I changed position? That is simply because damnation is something evil, and because Vatican II is more open for universal salvation, whereas the pre-Vatican II Church was not.
For more information on this topic, and why damnation is evil and why the Vatican II Church teaches something good with being more open to universal salvation, see this post:
July, 2019: Note from Ville Hietanen (Jerome): I have changed many of my old positions and do no longer adhere to the strict interpretation as expressed in many of our articles. Now I follow the Doctors, Saints and Theologians of the Church, my conscience, and the teaching of St. Alphonsus, which teaches us that it is the law of conscience that determines whether and uncertain action is lawful or not. Therefore, if you feel good in your conscience about approaching this or that priest (even a Vatican II priest) then you can do so. Therefore, if a position is uncertain or unclear to you (such as Baptism of Desire or Blood), do what you think is right according to your conscience. No one can force you to embrace an uncertain position under pain of sin, and therefore, do not worry about approaching a priest you feel good about approaching, if you feel you need to receive the consolations of mass and the sacraments from this priest.
Please read this article, which more fully explains the situation to another questioner:
Even though I said in the article above that the Vatican II priests are not validly ordained, I in fact am not sure that this is the case anymore. Therefore, you may have a different opinion, or you may share this position. Many in the traditional camp have varied positions on this topic, and no one can force the other to accept his or her position under pain of sin. Therefore, follow your conscience and do what you think is right.
So the the question as to where you should go to mass I answer: Go to any mass or priest that you feel good about approaching according to your conscience. If you feel it is right to go to this or that mass and receive the sacraments from this or that priest, then do so. Your conscience is clean, and that is all that matters.
Concerning our "group exposed" topic. This was the expression of my old beliefs, but is also the still current beliefs of my other old co-worker (or co-owner of the websites) that I have come to distance myself from. Even though the owner of the "prophecyfilm12" mail address still espouses those same views (the strict) I do not, and I would tell you that they are Catholics (those who believe in Baptism of Desire and Blood, NFP and Una Cum etc.) and that they can be approached for the sacraments and mass if you feel good about doing so and you believe this is the right and Catholic choice.
One will simply not become a heretic for embracing (even obstinately) Baptism of Desire or Blood when saints and even popes and the Church tacitly approves of it and even formally approves of it in its teachings (such as in Code of Canon Laws and Catechisms and Theological Manuals and Books). So the Church teaches baptism of desire and blood (but not perhaps dogmatically in the sense MHFM and others would like to have it), but we are heretics for believing in it? No, that is not true. If Pope Pius XII could believe in and teach Baptism of Desire and even NFP (which he did) then so can we. And it does not matter if we know better or have been "corrected" by others, such as by groups such as ourselves or MHFM, - for we are entitled to our own opinion on this matter if we desire to adhere to the teachings of the Saints and Pope Pius XII who all taught Baptism of Desire. Only when the Church has formally condemned Baptism of Desire and Blood or NFP (and such like controversial topics) and not given any more room for doubt, would it be unlawful to embrace those positions. But has this happened? Has Popes really condemned Baptism of Desire in name so that there are no arguments among Catholics about what is the truth? No, they have not! Why else all the arguments and differences in opinions? Popes such as Pius XII even spoke of BOD as Doctrine. So what does it tell us? That the Pope did not view the quotes as we (as in my old views) or MHFM does. It is easy to take a dogma or encyclical and just interpret it 100% strict and even dismiss all Saints and Theologians of the Church, but it is not wise to do so. When all the Theologians and Doctors of the Church teach Baptism of Desire and Blood, then we need to listen. If none of them interprets the dogmas as we or MHFM does, then we are free to accept their explanations and reject that of others. And it does not matter how convincing MHFM or anyone else is or however much they condemn you, - if you are uncertain (and you have aright to be and remain uncertain, for the Church does not teach that you must accept the explanation of random people) and your conscience feel good about adhering to Baptism of Blood or Desire (both of which are doctrines which the Church approved theologians teaches), you are free to adhere to their explanations. I suppose even you see the logic and reason in this position, i.e, that you are free to embrace the approved theologians' position on any topic that your conscience agrees with, and reject the position (or feel uncertain about without incurring sin) the position of non-approved sources, until the Church has formally and undeniably settled this matter.
If Thomas Aquinas (approved Saint and Doctor of the Church) could be saved believing in Baptism of Desire, then so can you, even if we or MHFM condemns you, since you are entitled to be unsure when the Church seems to contradict Herself by both teaching and condemning it, - if you now believe the doctrine could be condemned. Otherwise, the true explanation is that Baptism of Desire is not condemned, and that MHFM and others are over-interpreting the encyclicals and councils.
In conclusion: On topics that are uncertain and unsettled or sensitive (such as mass or the sacraments) follow your conscience and ask the advice of others, such as priests and friends, and do not only strictly follow the strict interpretations of online theologians that often over-interprets things.
You have a right to be uncertain and to adhere to something that you believe is true. Therefore, do not worry about going to a specific priest or mass if you desire to do this. If your conscience is clean on this topic, you are acting right.
June, 2019: Note: None of the teachings on our site must be deemed absolutely infallibly or true, and the reader must be advised to follow his own conscience. Even if our teachings proclaim this or that position to be true (according to our own interpretation), the reader must understand that this is our own private interpretation of saint quotes and church teachings: dogmas and encyclicals. Whatever the case may be, always follow what you think the church teaches on any matter; and do not trust blindly on what is taught on our site – even if our position may seem true and infallible (you may, however, follow what we teach blindly if you think this is the true position). If you have worries about any position, ask a knowledgeable friend or priest for guidance; and if you have further concerns, ask another priest or even several priests to see what he thinks about this or that position. No one can be forced to believe in any position that is uncertain, and the reader must be advised to follow his conscience. So if you think any position is uncertain according to your own conscience, make a reasonable judgment, and then ask for advice or continue to study the issue until you have made a right judgment – according to your conscience.
Even though Natural Family Planning, Sensual Kisses and Touches are condemned in this article as a mortal sin, this position is false, and I do no longer adhere to it. Both pre-and-post Vatican II theologians teach that such acts (Natural Family Planning & kisses and touches that arouses lust) are licit in marriage and the marriage act, and as a preparation for the marriage act, provided the acts are made with a good conscience and for the sake of love.
McHugh and Callan's Moral Theology (vol. II): A Complete Course, sec. 2510 e, p. 522: "Hence, the rule as to married persons is that venereal kisses and other such acts are lawful when given with a view to the exercise of the lawful marriage act and kept within the bounds of decency and moderation; that they are sinful, gravely or lightly according to the case, when unbecoming or immoderate; that they are venially sinful, on account of the inordinate use of a thing lawful in itself (85 a), when only pleasure is intended; that they are mortally sinful, when they tend to pollution, whether solitary or not solitary, for then they are acts of lewdness."
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Books 2-3, Kindle Locations 1151-1167: "25.—Quaeritur: II. Whether spouses are permitted to take delectation in the conjugal act, even if the other spouse were not present? The Salamancans (de matr. c. 15, p. 6, n. 90) with Navarre, Sa, Roncaglia, etc., (cited by Croix, l. 6, p. 3, n. 537) reject this when the delectation takes place with a commotion of the spirits, because they say such a commotion is not licit for spouses unless it were ordered to copulation. But Roncaglia and the Salamancans do not speak congruently, for they themselves admit (ibid. n. 84; Roncaglia tr. 12, p. 296, q. 6, r. 11 with St. Antoninus, Conc. Diana, and it is a common opinion, as we will say in book 6, de matrimonio, n. 933), that unchaste touches (which certainly cannot be done without a great deal of arousal) among spouses, provided the danger of pollution is absent, are licit, at least they are not gravely illicit, even if they are done only for pleasure and hardly ordered to copulation. I say, therefore, why is it not the same thing to speak about delectation? This is why I regard Busembaum’s opinion as probable, which says it is permitted for spouses to take delectation, even carnally, from carnal relations they have had or are going to have, as long as the danger of pollution is always absent. The reason is, because (exactly as the Salamancans say in tr. 9, c. 15, p. 6, n. 84 when speaking about unchaste touches) the very state of matrimony renders all these things licit; otherwise the matrimonial state would be exposed to excessive scruples. Besides, Bonacina, Sanchez, Lessius and Diana hold this opinion, with Busembaum (as above, n. 23, in fine), St. Antoninus (p. 1, tit. 5, c. 1 §6.), Cajetan, (1.2. q. 74, art. 8 ad 4), Coninck (d. 34, dub. 11, concl. 1), Croix (l. 6, p. 5, num. 337) with Gerson, Suarez, Laymann and a great many others; likewise Vasquez, Aversa, etc., cited by the Salamancans (ibid. n. 89 and 90), who think it is probable. St. Thomas also favors this opinion in question 15 of de malo, art. 2, ad 17, where he says that for spouses, just as sexual relations are licit, so also delectation from them."
One concerned reader wrote: "If your prior position really was that any and all kissing/touching between husband and wife was mortally sinful, that was clearly wrong and overly scrupulous, but the two excerpts cited make it clear that unchaste behavior between husband and wife isn't good. I suppose you were being bombarded with questions from unchaste people who became very worried about their sorry states, but you should clarify to them that just because something has become licit doesn't mean that it is now good. It is definitely possible to still commit mortal sin through kissing and fondling between husband and wife! You should make the danger of venial sin more clear to your readers. The husband is supposed to love his wife like Christ loves the Church. In making corrections you should not fall into the trap of human respect, you should correct your over-scrupulosity without catering to the lust-filled lecherous couples that may pester you."
Short answer: "I agree with that lustful kisses and touches can lead to lust and sinful behavior that goes against honorable love and a good conscience, and I will update the articles in the future to better express all concerns. However I do not agree with that it is a mortal sin since the Church explicitly teaches us these acts are lawful. Can something that is lawful become mortal? Only with a bad conscience, I suppose. (But even with a bad conscience, there may be no sin.) Otherwise, they should remain free of sin even if there is lust involved."
Many saints have made retractions or corrections of their mistakes, since they are only humans and have erred on many things. We are no saints, of course, not even close to it, but we wish to correct some mistakes we have made during the time of our conversion. Saint Augustine even wrote a whole book of corrections that corrected some of his views that he had held in his earlier life. This humility and recognition of one’s faults that all the saints had must always be manifested in a person who want to be saved. A person who teaches publicly (or even to a few people) are obliged to retract his or her erroneous teachings when he or she finds the proof that their opinions were wrong or heretical. Nowadays, it is really a shame that self-professed Catholics refuse to do this, and it is undoubtedly a great cause why so many are damned as their insufferable pride hinders them from retracting or admitting their faults, thus precipitating them into Hell. You can even understand from the law of charity and justice that you should publicly retract an error in order to not give those persons whom you have learned a falsehood to a false view of what the true faith is, or a false view of what you now actually hold. It is not enough to just change the view silently and then not publicly correct it if one have taught these same errors publicly. Many heretics teach contradictory things as heresy itself is a contradiction, and it is quite common to come upon different passages of heretics where they teach two directly opposing views; and in order for people to know that you are not such a heretic, you should make clear that you have renounced the old heretical view and now hold the Catholic view. Indeed, even if a person does not teach publicly, if one meets the person that one have taught falsehoods to and if one remember this fact when one meet him, one is still obligated to make clear to the person that one have changed views and adopted the Catholic view. Confessing one’s faults is always one of the greatest ways to receive grace from God, and Our Lord will always reward every act of humility, however small.
All should understand that I, [name withheld]; and I, Ville Veikko Hietanen, were raised as protestants, and have lived like pagans for most of our lives, piling mortal sin upon mortal sin. Our parents taught us a little about God, but they nevertheless allowed us to sin mortally without correction and sat us and our siblings in front of a TV, computer, or video game set, so it is easy to see how miserably we turned out to be, though this is of course no excuse for our many sins and mistakes. This protestant upbringing, or rather pagan upbringing, made us do many errors even at the time we had realized (or were beginning to realize) that the Catholic Church was the one true Church. We are from Sweden, and Sweden is one of the most atheistic and secular countries on the face of the earth, and so, our conversion to the Catholic Church’s laws and rules was badly made by us in the beginning, due to the lack of fear of God and the resistance from family and friends, the world and our own desires - that sought to draw us back into sin and the world.
In the beginning of our conversion from Protestantism, we held a mix of doctrines from Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as some other errors, and thus, it is easy to see why we made mistakes concerning doctrinal teachings of the Church since we were almost totally unaware of what the Church taught at that time. Nowadays, however, by God’s grace, we always base our teachings on the infallible Papal Magisterium in addition to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, the Fathers and the Saints of the Catholic Church. God requires exactness of those who teach publicly. For this reason, one is obligated under pain of sin to correct all past, grave public errors.
First, we wish to ask forgiveness for the many videos we made and posted on YouTube in the beginning stages of our first website (www.saintbirgitta.com) about eight years ago (2007). There were a couple of grave problems with those videos because of our lack of learning in Catholic virtue and dogma. Luckily most of those videos have been removed for a long time, but many are still out there which we cannot do anything about. The first sin that we made was that we allowed girls with improper makeup and tight and lascivious clothing and pants to appear in those videos. Some men was also improperly clothed and styled. There is no excuse for that, and we ask forgiveness of all, especially those who were offended or tempted. We were just not as attentive with those problems then as we are today, although this problem could obviously happen again, especially if one considers that most of the footage we use are borrowed from other sources, and are not originally our own. Unless one is extremely attentive when making videos, bad scenes might be included by mistake. We pray that it will not happen again.
There were also some problems that was not acceptable according to the Catholic Church’s laws. One video I ([name withheld]) posted contradicted that Jesus was born on the 25th of December, and that this custom of celebrating Jesus’ birthday on this day came from a pagan custom. Protestants sadly deceived me, and I recant such abominable lies.
In another video it was mentioned that the Sabbath was on the Saturday instead of the Sunday. This was of course an error since the Lord changed the Sabbath to the day of His Resurrection: Sunday.
Also, in many videos that I have posted (and made titles for), it was said by me that this or that person was a Christian or Catholic or that their actions were good Christian actions even though this was not known by me. Only a Catholic can properly be called a Christian, of course. And only a non-heretical Catholic can be called a Catholic. One must know that a person is a Catholic to call them a Christian or a Catholic, otherwise they have to be called “Christian” or self-professed Christian, or “Catholic” or self-professed Catholic. So this was an error that I made. I have made this error many times. Not only have I made this mistake, but my brothers have also failed in this both in videos and articles. The names of the videos that I recall having made this mistake in are named: “Christian Faces Death Sentence In North Korea Exposed”, “Crazy Christian Preacher Screaming Like A Fool On TV”, “Muslims Are Turning To Jesus Christ!”, “Why Korn Lead Guitarist Left The Band And Became A Christian”, “The Drug Dealer That Jesus Saved”. Another video about “Evel Knievel” presented him as a convert to Christianity. However, since Evel’s “conversion” was announced at a protestant “Church”, we have no reason whatsoever to conclude that he really became a Christian, and so we retract this too.
In another video I posted named “Most Authentic Supernatural Spirit Miracle Of Mary Crying”, I presented a supernatural miracle of a statue of Mary crying as authentic, even though I did not know that the miracle was authentic or from Mary, and since we now know that there are many false revelations from a false “Mary” that tries to defend the Vatican II sect, we cannot say that this miracle is from God. There can be many such and similar past videos or articles that we have posted presenting things as “Christian” or “Catholic” that in fact are not Christian or Catholic at all.
Another video called “Supernatural Miracle Of Angel Voices Caught On Tape Exposed” was also misnamed as we did not know that this was a real or actual miracle from God.
Other videos we posted made it look like as though aliens from another planet really existed and that they now live on that planet (Nibiru*) and that they soon will be returning. We did not understand that this is contrary to the Catholic Church. We are not aware of any dogma that proclaims that there are no other beings like aliens, but since the Church never have mentioned this as far as we know, it is reasonable to assume that this is wrong. We believe aliens, UFOs and things applied to such things are deceits from demons masquerading as aliens in order to make humanity believe that they were made by another race of beings instead of God. These demonic aliens have taught vile doctrines such as: that Hell does not exist, that man are gods, and that the bible is outdated, among other things. It is almost a new religion, connected with new age, that we see unfolding before our eyes. Satan seems to have some bigger plan behind this, but for now there are only speculations to give.
* Some old videos we had posted about this Planet Nibiru, or Planet X, in the past said that this planet would appear, or be visible, in or around the 2008-2012 time-frame (since this was what the people or "sources" said at the time...) Well, that never happened! We still believe this planet of doom could be true, since this Planet (or Comet) fits in so well with so many ancient prophecies concerning the last days. Whatever the case, the time-line obviously have been incorrect so far.
Another video I (Ville Hietanen) posted about 8 years ago (mid 2007), spoke of Our Lady of Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun, as though it was a hoax, and that the Miracle of the Sun really only was made by a UFO. This is of course wrong, and I who posted that video, now know differently. This particular video was about the topic of UFOs and that they are demons. This video was made by a protestant. I posted his video on my YouTube channel. At that time I had no knowledge of Fatima, or the Miracle of the Sun, or even the most basic teachings of the Catholic Church or history, so when the Fatima part in that particular video occurred, I thought nothing special about it. Now I know better, and I apologize to all those whom may have been deceived by that film, or by any other film I have carelessly posted during the past years.
We have also posted a lot of protestant movies on YouTube (and I, Ville Hietanen, even shared many of the same erroneous videos on file sharing sites), that teaches protestant theology, or heresies, such as Salvation by Faith alone, etc. Many of our videos have also presented the Vatican II “Church” as the real Catholic Church and its Antipopes as real popes, which was wrong.
We have also used bad music in many of our videos, all from hard rock snippets to psychedelic trance, since we were very worldly back then. We apologize for having used such ungodly music.
We have also (and may have used without being able to verify) many scenes and pictures in our films that have and may not have been real, that was presented as if it were real. The problem is that many of the things we made videos about (the paranormal, supernatural, ghosts, aliens, etc.) couldn’t be confirmed, so many errors may have been presented. Some images though in our films we know have not been real, but these images were not used in order to deceive people, but rather used for the purpose of having a good sensational thumbnail that would get millions of views compared with perhaps a few thousand. In the earlier days of YouTube, it was possible to get a thumbnail of your choosing by putting an image at certain spots in the video. This we took advantage off. By having done so, however, some images may have appeared to have been presented as if they were real even though they weren’t.
The number of errors or even heresies in the many videos we have posted from 2007 up to 2009 are too numerous for us to remember. (We have since stopped posting videos frequently and only now post videos rarely that hopefully, contain no errors.) Many of our videos can still be found on YouTube and other video sharing sites with our homepage in them, since other people have taken our videos and posted them on their channels as well. If you have any questions or remarks about a certain video you may have encountered not listed here, please feel free to email us about it. If we have done wrong, we will gladly tell you about it.
Note: All the videos we have made, edited and uploaded to our websites was made during the period of our life when we still watched videos. We do not watch videos anymore as we did before nor do we know if or when we will upload any new videos to our website, since it is in occasion of sinning to watch videos, youtube clips, movies, the television etc.
We wrote in our Spiritual Info article a while ago: “We ourselves do not watch any videos anymore except exclusively when for the sake of making videos [for our website]. We also try to avoid reading any secular news or other worldly websites. Now we only listen to audio, having all the movable images blocked. [See the Chrome/Opera/Vivaldi and Firefox/IceDragon sections on how to watch youtube while the video screen remains hidden (the video screen can still be activated easily with one click).] On youtube, when we watch something on youtube, we do not watch the videos but only listen to them by downloading them as audio (or video) and listened to them only in audio [as described in the links], or at least, by avoiding watching at the screen if we were watching it on youtube by scrolling down so that the player is not seen, or on other video sites [this was our approach before we learned that the video screen could be hidden with extensions]. Anyone who cares about virtue and about their eternal salvation and for those who fear not to offend God by viewing or seeing bad scenes or images, will of course do the same thing, since it’s almost impossible to watch anything today that does not contain immodesty or that will harm one’s virtue. Even purely Christian films, whether on tv or youtube, have many bad and unacceptable scenes, statues or images in them. What then could be said about more secular media, documentaries, or series?”
So if someone wonders how we could have made a film like “Are You Ready?” while at the same time teaching to others of the necessity of not watching dangerous media (most of this film's scenes were taken from evil secular movies) know that it was made in 2009 when we still watched media and were not as careful as we are now. And it was definitely not a good idea or lawful according to God's holy law to have made such a video by having scrolled through such dangerous movies and taking out all those scenes. The person who made this film also testified after the fact that he was deceived by the devil and that he saw many bad and tempting scenes while making the film. The latest public English movie we made, compiled and enhanced and uploaded to our website was the Antipope Francis film in 2014, but even religious videos and images cannot be 100% safe and hence could be an occasion of sinning. Because we know how dangerous the media can be, and because we became stricter on avoiding bad occasions as time went on, we generally avoid it all the time now even though we did not to this before. The same can be said about images.
Before when we were more stupid we did search for images in Google Images for our articles (even more secular articles) or automatically included the images contained in other peoples articles and did not always surf the internet in a general sense with images blocked, which is a highly stupid thing to do and an occasion of sinning since the internet is completely filled with immodesties and occasions of sinnings. (Sadly even most so-called traditional Catholics show such images or videos that contain immodesties on their websites – some showing more immodesties, some less.) But we don't do this any longer and we usually don't even care about having any images at all anymore for our articles.
Perhaps if we think some image have some necessity and is safe to look at we can include it or look at it, such as, for example, an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe that canbe viewed in the Our Lady of Guadalupe Wikipedia entry, which should be a more safe approach than searching for it in Google Images. Also some Windows 10 images have recently been used in the How to disable Windows 10 advertisements section and been searched for in Google Images in a safe way* or been borrowed from other articles, but only because such images generally ought to be safe, and hence they would be more “excusable” to look for when one have a necessity. One generally can assume what topics and images ought to be safe and not include any people or women in them, and if one don't have this assurance, one must be absolutely careful or even avoid it completely since this could be an occasion of sinning. *But even when an image or images are thought to be more safe or necessary, still, one should not look at such an image directly when searching for it or when opening it or enabling it with Wizmage: in order that one may not get exposed to anything immodest directly to one's face. It also helps me personally that I have poor near sight, since this means I can look outside my glasses in order to try to discern beforehand (with bad sight) whether the image or images are deemed safe or not and whether it is just a normal Windows image without any people or women in it etc. When one don't know that a webpage and image is safe, one must be very careful before enabling it and looking at it.
Yes, one needs to be careful if one wants to be saved, and those who are not careful about themselves and just expose themselves to all kinds of dangers (as almost all people do today, whether they be self-professed Traditional Catholics or not as detailed in this post) will not be saved, since they will be abandoned by God and fall into sin, as explained in another article.
Note carefully: A person who watches secular media (even religious media or movies can be, and many times are, unsafe to watch, as—to give only one example—the notoriously immoral religious film Becket shows!) or don't surf the internet with images blocked and with an ad blocker, can hardly be said to be “careful”, however “careful” he thinks he is, since he is exposing himself daily to occasions of sinnings and immodesties, which means that such a person will damned in the end since he will fall into some sin and be abandoned by God: “He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.” (Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #61, March 4, 1679). And “Brother Roger, a Franciscan of singular purity, being once asked why he was so reserved in his intercourse with women, replied, that when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221). Here we can see that a person who does not avoid the occasions of sinning cannot be absolved and hence cannot be saved, and that those who do not avoid dangerous occasions will be abandoned by God and infallibly fall into sin. Yet despite this Catholic truth, this is almost exactly how all people live today, whether they claim to be Traditional Catholics or not, as seen in this post and by their bad will and resistance to the truth. So what does this tell us? It tells us that few are saved indeed (Mt. 7:13), which is absolutely true,—and has been true in all ages,—but even more so today!
We also sometimes link to other people, such as MHFM or some supporters, or other useful articles or programs, but that does not mean, of course, that we necessarily agree with everything they are presenting on their websites or that we want people to surf those websites with images on (see note  below why this is so). We of course can't guarantee that anyone besides ourselves actually have the same understanding when it comes to blocking, editing out and removing even the slightest form of immodesty, which means that many things other people post will be unsafe or contain some immodesties; and every person must understand that he will be severely judged for everyone person he have ever had an effect on, either for good or bad. Also, one should not care so much about having images for one's articles or search for them, even for recreational or curiosity purposes, since this can be, or even is, an occasion of sinning; and that is especially more true if the article or topic is more secular in nature. Again, the videos and images on other peoples sites, even if they claim to be traditional Catholics, sometimes contain direct and even grave immodesties. For example, although MHFM's videos are mostly good they do sometimes include scenes and images that are immodest; that contains women in pants; women with a neckline that is not high enough; or women in general that are not covered up good enough according to Traditional Catholic clothing morality. MHFM sadly is not as careful as they should be when it comes to this, which is the reason for why they can include, and even show, immodest pictures such as the Apocalypse imagery of “the woman [harlot], and of the beast which carrieth her” (Apocalypse 17:7); and in another video they showed a nude and lascivious male sculpture in order to “expose” another person for having shown this! As always, we do not recommend anyone to surf various websites with images on or watch videos, and that they only listen to the audio even on films that they think are totally safe and acceptable.
See the article The Best Adblockers, Imageblockers and Flashblockers for more information on how to surf the internet with images blocked, with ad blockers, flash blockers and html5 blockers, and why these extensions are needed in order to surf the internet in a safe way, and why Google Chrome and Opera are the best and safest of the webbrowsers and why most people will have to use those webbrowsers and the extensions we mention.
 Lamentably, even so called Catholics nowadays have no clue about the Church’s teaching about abstaining from all occasions of sin, and the blindness concerning purity and modesty is almost total even among those who call themselves traditional Catholic, which we have sadly experienced over and over again, until we understood that we would be forced to not watch any motion picture at all, even by so called traditionals. Sad to say, many times it seems that the more “traditional” an organization or group claims to be, the less they have any clue about what true modesty and purity is. Indeed, even an organization like “Most Holy Family Monastery” which is viewed by most so called Catholics as an ultra-traditional and ultra-strict organization, has no clue about even normal decency, and posted a picture of a totally nude statue of a man which showed the genitals or private sexual parts. In the video called “Fr. Z’s...”, which no one is allowed to watch on the screen as it is indecent, (but it can be lawfully listened to without seeing the video, motion picture or screen) MHFM was critiquing another man who had posted the picture of a statue of a muscular and totally naked man that was very life like, and thus could tempt many women. MHFM were of course right in criticizing him for tempting women by this naked picture, but then, in a fit of diabolical stupidity, MHFM themselves reposted this indecent image in the video for the whole world to see.
Also a so called traditional writer of the website traditioninaction.org even diabolically defends himself in publicly posting nude, half nude or totally immodestly posing or dressed women, such as in bikini’s, on his website for the purpose of “exposing” the Vatican II corruption. This person actually compared himself – when publicly posting mortally sinful inducing images for the whole world to see – with “When a lawyer in a courtroom describes details of the sexual humiliation suffered by a victim of a pedophile priest, he is not doing so to promote immorality or induce the members of the jury to sin.” But this is a false argument since what is occurring behind closed doors (and that is not for the public) and for a legal purpose has no comparison with his own action of publicly posting immodest and mortally sinful inducing images for not only the whole world to see, but also for minors, youths, the married, the weak and even the old alike!
Also, it is an injustice to compare the current worldly and ungodly prosecuting system with the more honorable Catholic prosecuting system of old where more effort and weight was put on personal testimonies and oaths of that something actually took place without necessarily having to go into unnecessary, graphic details. (The moral standard was also much higher in the past.)
This devil–and in the following post a name was given: Atila Guimarães–and his accomplices (i.e., the whole TIA Staff) also said recently when he defended himself after being accused for posting pictures that could only be described as pornographic: “If we would have completely covered with black stripes the provocative parts [of the nude model] of those photos, many would say that they do not prove anything; perhaps you would be among those. Since we let our readers know who that woman the Pope embraced actually is – distorting as much as possible those photos without destroying the evidence – you jumped against us claiming that you are scandalized and accusing us of promoting sin.”
The person who accused TIA rightly objected that: “Graphic photos simply have absolutely no place among the faithful even in this context. St. Paul the apostle himself once stated in Ephesians 5: 11-12: “Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret.” If it is “shameful even to mention the things done by them,” then all the more it is shameful to show it to the faithful!…To view the porn that you published was not my intent and I exitted the screen immediately after beginning to view accidentally. The images of the flesh especially when presented in such a salacious manner as those poses, are intrinsically evil and powerful! To include them in your reporting is like providing crack cocain to the audience to pass around (or maybe even to inhale) in a presentation on drug abuse so they can verify that “Yes, the purpetrator was using this.” [A good comparison since lascivious images affects the body and mind in the same way as a drug affects the body and mind into sensuality.] The danger of increasing the abuse is even more likely in that the internet users such as myself typically take in the information while all alone, and if I wanted to I could easily keep some and no one would be the wiser.”
The article and images the reader was “accidentally” exposed to said this: “We reproduce some of the [nude] model’s poses below to brief our readers and allow them to evaluate the inconceivable moral abyss into which Francis is dragging present day Rome [by having embraced this woman]”.
No one ever needed to see such pictures to be able to understand truths of the Christian Faith, or in order to be saved. This is just a sinful excuse. Indeed, in a courtroom, when a criminal is being judged, for example, for possessing or selling drugs, the jury or judge does not try the drugs to see whether it is really drugs or not, but a single lab confirms this through a test, and the reason why not all in the courtroom does try it, is in part because all understand that drugs are harmful. This is a perfect example to sensual pictures. Since these pictures act like a drug on the man or woman who look at them: one must do all in one’s power to restrict access to these and similar things so that the weak may not fall and enter hell. So those who watch films or videos which they do not know with certainty has nothing lascivious in it, are committing the exact same act as a person who would say to another person: “Look, this pill may kill my soul, and place myself in the occasion of sinning, but I will have a taste and see whether it is evil or not!” Who but a madman would act in this way, and yet, this is exactly what most people do right now, when they tempt themselves or others by placing themselves in the occasion of sin.
Until our death, we are obligated under pain of mortal sin to avoid all occasions of sin. St. Alphonsus tells us in On Avoiding the Occasion of Sin: “Now, no one can receive absolution unless he purpose firmly to avoid the occasion of sin; because to expose himself to such occasions, though sometimes he should not fall into sin, is for him a grievous sin.” Indeed, “The catechist must explain that those who do not abstain from voluntary proximate occasions of grievous sin are guilty of a mortal sin, even though they have the intention of not committing the bad act, to the danger of which they expose themselves”. St Augustine’s Confessions reiterates this point: “I resist seductions of the eyes, lest my feet with which I advance on Your way be entangled; and I raise my invisible eyes to You, that You would be pleased to pluck my feet out of the net.”
When sensual pictures exist that shows us something we need to explain or expose to others, they must be described in text rather than in a picture, as the picture works in the same way as drugs on a drug addict. There can be no doubt that countless billions of souls have been damned because of lascivious acts in films as well as sensual pictures, and yet so called Christians are totally clueless to this truth that one can even understand from the light of natural reason. Thus, the only logical solution to our evil times, is to totally cut off watching all motion picture media.
This is truly the great challenge of our evil times: to be able to resist to watch media even though it is so delightful and fun to do so. Most people do not even try to cut off watching media or surfing the internet completely with images disabled, but are totally hooked on it like a drug addict, and this is undoubtedly a great reason, if not the greatest reason, why they will be damned. Since people nowadays do not resist their evil inclination to place themselves in the occasion of sinning, it is easy to see why so few nowadays possess any virtues, and why almost all are non-Catholic heretics. Simply said, one must choose whether one values one’s soul above the pleasure of watching a screen or seeing images for a little and brief moment in this short life. A person who is God-fearing and who fears hell and often meditates on death and the eternal punishment of the damned, will of course not hesitate one moment to cut of all occasions of sinning. Those, however, who presumptuously scorns to listen to these facts of both the Natural Law as well as the teaching of the Church and Her Saints, refusing to meditate on hell and the punishment of going against God’s Eternal Law, will experience eternal hell at the moment of death, but then it will be too late to amend.
 Even though this person said his intent was not to see such graphic pictures, still, he might not have been unaware of the fact what kind of images this website posts, and hence he should not have entered this article even to begin with (with images enabled) since this would have been an occasion of sinning. But even if this website only posted “lesser immodesties”, that would still not make it lawful to look at such images or watch such videos (and they post a lot of those also), of course. Many people sadly seem to think that only “graver immodesties” are to be avoided while “lesser immodesties” can be indulged in! But they who think like this are greatly mistaken and are deceived by the devil and will go to Hell for their lack of fear of God and for their willful occasions of sinnings unless they repent and stop exposing themselves, as explained by Bl. Pope Innocent XI, St. Alphonsus, and Pope St. Gregory the Great:
Bl. Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #61, March 4, 1679: “He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Mortification of the Eyes: “But I do not see how looks at young persons of a different sex can be excused from the guilt of a venial fault, OR EVEN FROM MORTAL SIN, when there is proximate danger of criminal consent. "It is not lawful," says [Pope] St. Gregory, "to behold what it is not lawful to covet." The evil thought which proceeds from looks, though it should be rejected, never fails to leave a stain upon the soul.” (The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, p. 221)
St. Bernard teaches that to preserve chastity, and, at the same time, to expose oneself to the proximate occasion of sin, “is a greater miracle than to raise a dead man to life.” In explaining the fifth Psalm, St. Augustine says that “he who is unwilling to fly from danger, wishes to perish in it.”
Most people who view and search for such immoral images, even for a “good” motive, obviously do this with a direct and secret “delight”; for if they did not like what they were doing they would obviously feel a deep horror over the fact that they are offending God and harming their own and other people’s soul, and that they are doing things that are contrary to God’s law of charity and morals etc., and if so, they would obviously seek a way so as not to expose themselves to this sinful occasion anymore; and if they do not feel any horror over the fact that they are offending God and harming their own soul and that of their neighbor, and if they do not seek a way to avoid putting themselves in this situation again in the future (such as by making a firm resolution not to view or search for such images anymore): it is a clear and infallible sign that they like what they are doing and hence they fall under the direct condemnation of Jesus Christ, and they commit a mortal sin since they have an “intention of persevering” doing this sin, for “the smallest sin, lusted after, is enough to damn anyone from the kingdom of Heaven, who does not repent.” (Jesus speaking to St. Bridget, Book 1, Chapter 32) It is a sin to put oneself in the occasion of sinning, hence that all those are damned who do this with a will to persevere in doing it:
“Moreover, know that just as all mortal sins are very serious, so too a venial sin is made mortal if a human being delights in it with the intention of persevering.” (The Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 7, Chapter 27)
It goes without saying, but no one may enter this website with images on or watch their evil image section (traditioninaction.org’s) “exposing” corruption since it is a mortal sin to behold such things and an occasion of sin; the same applies to novusordowatch.org and similar evil websites posting lascivious and nude images or directly links to them; but novusordowatch.org is worse since they have a function that pops up their other articles and related images to that article at the bottom of their website (or had at the time when the novusordowatch.org article was written), which means that any image may be displayed there according to their perverted standard, which means that even if you read a religious article with images on that you deemed safe, something immodest may be forced in your face against your will when scrolling down. This is why we stress that one must avoid having pictures on when surfing nowadays, for even the most so called traditional websites are totally clueless about what modesty and occasion of sin is. What then are one to say about more secular websites?
About 10 years ago until at least 7 years ago (2005- late 2008) (when we definitely understood it to be false and recanted this abominable heresy), we had some Gnostic tendencies about Gnostic theology, similar to the Manicheanism that St. Augustine held before he converted to the Catholic Church. We have also taught these Gnostic heresies to other people and (sadly) deceived them into Gnostic tendencies. Luckily, we never taught anything on our websites or in our videos about this heresy, although Ville remembers that he posted some things about Gnosticism on Swedish forums, and for all of that, we are of course very sorry. Linked to these Gnostic heresies was our criticism of the Old Testament. We both criticized all of the books of the Old Testament, and the God of the Old Testament, and said that the Old Testament books was false and inspired by the devil. We even at one point called the God of the Old Testament Satan, and that Satan created this world. This sadly happened because we interpreted the Holy Bible in our own prideful protestant way. We can only ask forgiveness for being deceived and being deceivers. This is another example why people shouldn’t be allowed to read the Bible unless it’s a correctly translated Catholic Bible (as the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible) with Catholic commentaries that explains all the passages according to the Catholic Church’s teachings, and that people otherwise could be interpreting wrongly if they read another Bible without these commentaries. Beware of the new modernistic Vatican II “Catholic” Bibles with commentaries, since many of them may contain heretical or erroneous teachings.
In the past, in 2011 or earlier, I (Ville Hietanen) also posted a heresy on cathinfo.com forum that I now wish to retract. At the time when I wrote on that forum, I wrote concerning the sinfulness of NFP and other sexual sins since most people who claim to be traditional Catholic, even in those so-called traditionally minded forums, sadly believe that this contraception method, and other sexual sins, are lawful to do. And in interpreting Pope Pius XI’s authoritative Encyclical Casti Connubii, paragraph 59 (which I tragically interpreted in a heretical and scandalous way) I falsely said that one could have sexual relations for the sole motive of quieting the concupiscence if one is troubled by it, rather than that it must always be performed first for the primary motive of having children, followed – if the spouses desire this end – by the secondary motive of quieting concupiscence. It is a heresy against nature to have as opinion that one can lawfully get oneself intoxicated just for pleasure or weakness in the same way that one cannot claim weakness or pleasure-seeking in justifying getting intoxicated by drugs, and the marital act must always be excused with the motive of having children just like the drug usage must always be excused with an absolutely necessary motive, such as an illness, otherwise the marital act will always be evil and a sin. This is also the teaching of the Church and of the Saints on this subject. It is thus a dogmatic fact of the Natural Law that “the generative [sexual] act is a sin unless it is excused.” (St. Bonaventure, Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1) It could not be more clear from the Natural Law as well as the teachings of the Church that “Coitus is reprehensible and evil, unless it be excused” (Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris, Sententiarum, 3, d. 37, c. 4) and that is also why all who commit the marital act without excusing it will always commit sin. “Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused...”. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 49, Art. 5)
In late 2010, a writer of ours, who by the way is a simple man and not a native English speaker, posted some serious errors and heresies in an article on the topic of “2012 End of the world”. This was an article about the various predictions of the 2012 phenomenon and some information of the cultures behind these predictions, that was posted at the time with the intention to gain visitors to our website. This person, unfortunately, was not so attentive as he should have been when he made this article. These errors was not written by himself, of course, but was information that he had compiled and that he had taken from other sources. For some reason, however, he must have thought that what he included was orthodox, even though it wasn’t, and if he would have had these errors explained to him, or if he would have properly understood the meaning of what he included, he would never have agreed with it or included it. The article was up at doomsdaytube.com for some month perhaps, before we noticed these errors and it was removed. The first error in the article presented by him as a fact was the following: “The Sumerian culture is the first recorded civilization on earth, then called Sumerian, today's Iraq.” This is contrary to the Bible. The first civilization on Earth was of course Adam and Eve and their immediate descendants. However, some say they lived around Iraq, so perhaps it is referring to the same thing? Another error in the same article casts doubt on the authenticity, infallibility and historical accuracy of the Bible: “The Hebrew version of the bible, known as the Old Testament, which is a much older version than the English translation, is derived from the stories of the Sumerian Culture. When we trace the origins of the Old testament we can see that it is also based on previous translations from subsequent older languages throughout history. The Sumerian culture... recorded stories that have been preserved through the modern day biblical passages found in the Old and New testament. The Sumerians had 7 sacred tablets that explained our creation. These stories preserved in stone, are now told to us in the form of the English version, “7 days of creation.”” This is a direct heresy against the Bible since the Bible originates wholly and entirely from the direct inspiration of God. The Bible therefore is not a book derived from the Sumerian culture as the article said, nor is it based on previous translations from subsequent older languages of other cultures. The truth of the matter is that all cultures originates from the same source: Adam and Eve and their descendants. Hence that all ancient cultures have a flood story, a creation account, or other similar stories as found recorded in the Bible. But this in no way means that the Bible “borrowed” from these cultures. That should go without saying. To the contrary, the mythology of these cultures, rather than being the source, was based on what actually took place and that is found recorded in the Bible of the Hebrew people that those ancient cultures had heard or known about. Over time, however, as each civilization become more and more isolated and corrupt, their accounts of what actually happened started to deviate more and more from the truth and hence turned more into “mythologies” and “fables”, as we can see clearly with the Sumerians, the Greeks and the Egyptians, who all believed and worshiped several gods (which is contrary to the Bible and the first faith) but nevertheless had many other accounts similar to that of the Bible.
On a Spanish article on the topic of creation, this same person also posted some errors. As with the English article above, here too he was not attentive or knowledgeable enough to understand what he was doing and including, and he somehow must have thought that the erroneous information that he included was orthodox, even though it wasn’t. When one does not know enough or understand much of a specific topic, mistakes can of course happen. The following errors in the Spanish article was translated by me using google translate: “The French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin appeared at a time when the old worldview assumed by the scholastic philosophy, the "perennial philosophy" gave clear signs of expiration. Facing misunderstanding, alienation and exile, Teilhard offered a new world view, evolutionary and dynamic. It was liberating to see that evolution is not opposed to faith and, of itself, give shelter to any philosophy. It is a fact that is discovered by science. The lowest common creed of all evolucionismos is this: there is a physical link between all living and, by extension, between everything real.” Now evolution is certainly opposed to the Faith as it was revealed by God through the Bible. Although one can be innocently mistaken on this topic, provided one does not deny that God created this “evolutionary” process, nonetheless, this belief in itself is still wrong, and in fact, a heresy. The article continues: “Intelligent and religious man, Teilhard considered illegitimate the schism that gradually, since the Renaissance, separates Christianity from the modern world. In his person and his work establishes a dialogue with the world evangelization. Returns to Christianity its cosmological sense and offers an evolutionary world the light of Revelation.” The article presented Teilhard as a “Catholic”, and as we saw above, as a “religious” that was misunderstood and unjustly persecuted. But the truth is that Theilard was a complete modernist and a heretic, so much so that the pre-Vatican II authorities and the popes constantly censored his heretical and controversial works and forbade him from teaching (an occupation he held before being forbidden to teach), even though he time and time again sought permission to publish his works. Pope Pius XII himself is even said to have called the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin “a cesspool of errors.” This is what one site summarized of Teilhard’s heretical teachings: “Besides denying the Church’s infallible Doctrine of Original Sin, he did not believe in the supernatural, angels, the devil or hell. De Chardin was also a pantheist, who claimed that everything is God. In addition, Teilhard was a monist, a collectivist, a secularist, founder of a new religion and a religious evolutionist. (cf. “The Truth About Teilhard”, by Msgr. Leo S. Schumacher).”
Another fault we have made is that we have had videos and articles promoting Most Holy Family Monastery and their homepage and had their links on various places on our sites without telling people that we did not agree with them on everything and without making it known to others what they (MHFM) believed wrong, thus indicating to others that we may have agreed with them or shared their beliefs. Peter and Michael Dimond are sadly heretics for obstinately holding to the position that a person is perfectly free to go to a heretical priest (whom they even know to be a heretical priest that crucify our Lord) for the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession. We have tried to correct them on this matter. We even wrote an entire article (also here; and a newer one here refuting their strongest arguments) refuting their false position, but they have not changed their position.
We also thought before (and taught this opinion to others) that a woman need to cover her hair at all times, but we now understand that this was only a commandment for when they are in the Church. We also understand that God wants women to cover their hair at all times, but this is not an absolute command that all have to follow under pain of mortal sin, as we before erroneously thought.
We also promoted Antipope John Paul II as a true “Pope” for a while on our homepage about 7 to 8 years ago (2008-2009). We wrote that he had proclaimed St. Bridget patron Saint of Europe. At that time we did not fully understand the depth of this current Vatican II apostasy and its consequences, or how the heresies of the last 5 “Popes” (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis the First) made them ineligible to hold the Papacy. Since they are/were Antipopes, whatever they do is not binding (valid) and therefore has no authority whatsoever. If you are unaware of the actual heresies of Vatican II or the Antipopes, please feel free to watch these videos and read these articles on our site exposing them. Only a liar can watch these films/read these articles and still claim that they are/were true popes.
We also said in our most recent Hell video on our homepage that those “who did not read the word of God daily” would go to Hell. This is true of course, in so far that those who refuse to seek God during their life will burn in the next life. But it should not be understood in an absolute sense, just like the Bible says that all have sinned, yet we know that Our Lord and Our Mother never sinned. The context was about obstinate people who refused to read the word of God, or other holy writings of Saints, and those people who read (or pray) very seldom, and who otherwise was very lukewarm in the service of God and in seeking Him during their lives. We hope no one misunderstood this.
Another fault we had made is that we, in the past, always condemned sexual relations (for any other motive than procreation) to be always mortally sinful and unlawful in the past up until about late 2010, which was when we learned about that it may not always be a mortal sin (but it could still be a mortal sin depending on the intention of the spouses), according to the teaching of the Church and the Saints.
For a husband and wife are allowed to quite the concupiscence as a secondary motive after the first motive of procreation. This is the Church’s teaching proclaimed by Pope Pius XI. This means to put down the flames of concupiscence and not to inflame it in any sinful way. The goal is to get the spouse to Heaven, to glorify God, and sanctify one self, and not primarily about pleasure. The gravity of sin when inflaming concupiscence depends on the thoughts and actual deeds that a couple consent to during the act of marriage. But husband and wife are never allowed to prevent the conception of a child in any way, either through contraceptives, or by withdrawal, or by the use of NFP. (See The unanimous consent of the Fathers unanimously teach that one must always desire to beget children in order for the marital act to be lawful).
We had also said that having marital relations only for the sake of lust was a mortal sin, but this is not clearly taught in any dogmatic teaching that we are aware of. For sure, committing non-procreative sexual acts or acts that are not necessary for conception to occur is a mortal sin, but if the act is natural, yet done for the sake of lust only, it seems to be at least a venial sin as the following Church teachings affirm:
Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters Condemned in a Decree (# 9), March 4, 1679: “THE ACT OF MARRIAGE EXERCISED FOR PLEASURE ONLY IS ENTIRELY FREE OF ALL FAULT AND VENIAL DEFECT.” (Denz. 1159) – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.
St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book 1, Chapter 17: “It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance.”
As we can see above, it is at least a venial fault, sin or defect to have marital relations only for lustful motives. This teaching of Blessed Pope Innocent XI, however, does not say that it is only a venial sin to perform the normal, natural and procreative marital act for pleasure only, but merely condemns the unnatural and selfish opinion and heresy that this vile lustful act performed for pleasure only “is entirely free of all fault and venial defect”. This teaching of Pope Innocent XI does not specify whether even the normal, natural and procreative “act of marriage exercised for pleasure only” is a mortal or a venial sin, and so, it is still possible that this act could be a mortal sin rather than a venial sin.
From this can be learned that a couple must have a reason for coming together during the marital act. Thus they may not just come together for whatever lustful reason they may come to think of, for that would be (at least, if not more than) a venial sin and defect, according to Catholic teaching. Faults, venial sins and defects open up the soul to graver sins, and that is why one must always guard oneself very carefully from falling into faults, sins and defects. A couple can only lawfully participate in the marital act (without any sin or defect) if it’s done for the primary motive or purpose of having children and, if the spouses choose this, followed by the secondary ends (such as the quieting of concupiscence). The secondary end of quieting concupiscence can follow the primary motive of having children if the spouses choose this, but the secondary end is not needed to lawfully complete the marital act in the same way as the primary motive of raising children, nor is the motive of quieting concupiscence meritorious even though it is allowed.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “THE PRIMARY END OF MARRIAGE IS THE PROCREATION AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN... For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
Since many couples today, and especially those who call themselves by the name of Catholic, inflame their lust to the fullest both before, during and after the procreative act just as they have been taught by their apostate Vatican II “church” and perverted evil “theologians”, we must condemn this idea in specific detail.
Notice the words of Pope Pius XI which says that the “quieting of concupiscence” is allowed. Those who thus commit acts which are non-procreative or not necessary for conception to occur absolutely commit sin, since they inflame their flesh in a totally sinful way. Therefore, the inflaming of concupiscence is condemned as sinful because it subordinates the secondary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the quieting of concupiscence) to other ends. It subordinates the secondary end of marriage to other things (lust), by deliberately attempting to avoid the normal primary procreative act as their first or only act of marriage while having marital relations. The inflaming of concupiscence therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend unnatural, unlawful, non-procreative forms of for-or-after-play outside of normal intercourse, because all of the arguments made by those who defend inflaming the flesh, focus on the concupiscence and lust within the marriage act itself, and not on the primary or secondary ends of lawful intercourse (the procreation and education of children; and the quieting of concupiscence).
So what these lustful couples then do by enhancing their pleasure during the marital act, is not the only lawful quieting of concupiscence that Pope Pius XI spoke about, but is the exact opposite, since they first inflame their lust and concupiscence before putting it out, and are therefore then, without a doubt, committing mortal sin. For if coming together only for normal lustful motives is at least a venial sin according to Catholic teaching - when spouses perform the normal, natural and procreative sexual act - what then would those unnatural and unnecessary acts be that these lustful people live out during the heat of their shameful lust?
St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 19:28 “But those who, giving the rein to lust, either wander about steeping themselves in a multitude of debaucheries, or even in regard to one wife not only exceed the measure necessary for the procreation of children, but with the shameless license of a sort of slavish freedom heap up the filth of a still more beastly excess...”
Various Errors on Moral Subjects, Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679: “THE ACT OF MARRIAGE EXERCISED FOR PLEASURE ONLY IS ENTIRELY FREE OF ALL FAULT AND VENIAL DEFECT.” (Denz. 1159) -Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.
Although a venial sin does not separate us from God as does a mortal sin, a venial sin can still (if practiced with the intention of persevering) lead a person to Hell since it might lead him into committing other sins and, since he did not care to stop doing what he knew was a danger to his soul, and even took great delight in it, though he knew it was offending God. To consent to faults and defects, or deliberate venial sins, is of course very bad. We can learn this truth from Jesus Christ himself in St. Bridget’s Revelations:
“Moreover, know that just as all mortal sins are very serious, so too a venial sin is made mortal if a human being delights in it with the intention of persevering.” (Jesus speaking to St. Bridget, Book 7, Chapter 27).
“For the smallest sin, lusted after, is enough to damn anyone from the kingdom of Heaven, who does not repent.” (Jesus speaking to St. Bridget, Book 1, Chapter 32).
So, to deliberately live in sins are truly a gateway to damnation and into committing more grave sins. An even more clearer demonstration of this can be seen in another chapter of St. Bridget’s revelations.
The Son of God speaks to the bride (St. Bridget): “What are you worried and anxious about?” She answered: “I am afflicted by various useless thoughts that I cannot get rid of, and hearing about your terrible judgment upsets me.” The Son answered: “This is truly just. Earlier you found pleasure in worldly desires against my will, but now different thoughts are allowed to come to you against your will.
“But have a prudent fear of God, and put great trust in me, your God, knowing for certain that when your mind does not take pleasure in sinful thoughts but struggles against them by detesting them, then they become a purgation and a crown for the soul. But if you take pleasure in committing even a slight sin, which you know to be a sin, and you do so trusting to your own abstinence and presuming on grace, without doing penance and reparation for it, know that it can become a mortal sin. Accordingly, if some sinful pleasure of any kind comes into your mind, you should right away think about where it is heading and repent...
“...God hates nothing so much as when you know you have sinned but do not care, trusting to your other meritorious actions, as if, because of them, God would put up with your sin, as if he could not be glorified without you, or as if he would let you do something evil with his permission, seeing all the good deeds you have done, since, even if you did a hundred good deeds for each wicked one, you still would not be able to pay God back for his goodness and love. So, then, maintain a rational fear of God and, even if you cannot prevent these thoughts, then at least bear them patiently and use your will to struggle against them. You will not be condemned because of their entering your head, unless you take pleasure in them, since it is not within your power to prevent them.
“Again, maintain your fear of God in order not to fall through pride, even though you do not consent to the thoughts. Anyone who stands firm stands by the power of God alone. Thus fear of God is like the gateway into heaven. Many there are who have fallen headlong to their deaths, because they cast off the fear of God and were then ashamed to make a confession before men, although they had not been ashamed to sin before God. Therefore, I shall refuse to absolve the sin of a person who has not cared enough to ask my pardon for a small sin. In this manner, sins are increased through habitual practice, and a venial sin that could have been pardoned through contrition becomes a serious one through a person’s negligence and scorn, as you can deduce from the case of this soul who has already been condemned.
“After having committed a venial and pardonable sin, he augmented it through habitual practice, trusting to his other good works, without thinking that I might take lesser sins into account. Caught in a net of habitual and inordinate pleasure, his soul neither corrected nor curbed his sinful intention, until the time for his sentencing stood at the gates and his final moment was approaching. This is why, as the end approached, his conscience was suddenly agitated and painfully afflicted because he was soon to die and he was afraid to lose the little, temporary good he had loved. Up until a sinner’s final moment God abides him, waiting to see if he is going to direct his free will away from his attachment to sin.
“However, if a soul’s will is not corrected, that soul is then confined by an end without end. What happens is that the devil, knowing that each person will be judged according to his conscience and intention, labors mightily at the end of life to distract the soul and turn it away from rectitude of intention, and God allows it to happen, since the soul refused to remain vigilant when it ought to have...”
(The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, Book 3, Chapter 19).
So, then, what does God think of the couple who comes together during the marital act in sinful lust and concupiscence and about the couple who works on the inflaming of their lust rather than the quieting of their lust?
“They seek the warmth and sexual lust that will perish and love the flesh that will be eaten by worms... When the couple comes to bed, my Spirit leaves them immediately and the spirit of impurity approaches instead because they only come together for the sake of lust and do not discuss or think about anything else with each other. But my mercy is still with them if they will be converted to me. Because of my great love, I place a living soul created by my power into their seed. Sometimes I let evil parents give birth to good children, but more often, evil children are born of evil parents, since these children imitate the evil and unrighteous deeds of their parents as much as they are able and would imitate it even more if my patience allowed them. Such a married couple will never see my face unless they repent. For there is no sin so heavy or grave that penitence and repentance does not wash it away.” (St. Bridget’s Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 26).
A couple may therefore then not do anything before, during or after the procreative act that is against the primary or secondary purpose of marriage: the begetting of children and the quieting of concupiscence. So, contrary to modern day notion and common opinion (even amongst those who dare to call themselves Catholic), a husband and a wife are never allowed to help themselves with their hands or do other things to enhance their lust, or in this way make themselves “ready” before the act (as they so call it and their sinful excuse is). If a couple really believes in God, they should pray to God before coming together, and God would hear their prayers and make them ready without any further need by the couple to inflame their lust in a sinful way. Lubricants are of course also acceptable and the non sinful way to use if there is a problem to complete the marital act. However, lubricants that increase sexual pleasure and that now are being manufactured and sold are of course totally unacceptable. Likewise, if a woman was not able to quiet her concupiscence before the fulfillment of the procreative act, it is unlawful for her (or her husband) to help herself afterwards. If husband and wife engage in unlawful activities such as masturbation, or any other unnecessary act, they commit a mortal sin. Barren couples and people with defects or old age still fulfills the primary end of marriage through normal intercourse by wishing for children and by not being against conception if it should occur. Husband and wife are forbidden to indulge in unnecessary acts, e.g. to masturbate themselves or their spouse or to fondle with their hands in improper, shameful places (like the genital and breast area) and in this way enhance their lust. Masturbation, foreplay, lewd or sensual kisses and touches is as forbidden during the procreative act as it is at any other time for any person. To avoid falling into mortal sin, a couple need to learn to pray to God for relief in their concupiscence and lust. If a couple really want help from God, He will help them and remove the concupiscence and lust from them. It would also help very much to offer up penances to God like fasting and eating less tasty food in order to acquire this goal. These small penances coupled with spiritual reading and prayer will help a couple stem their sinful inclinations as long as they stay out of mortal and venial sin.
It is of greatest importance that husband and wife are not influenced by the evil demonic teachings that is rampant in the secular world and even amongst those who call themselves “Catholic” or even “traditional Catholic”. These people will tell you things such as: “That almost nothing is wrong in the marital act so long as the primary purpose of the act was achieved at some point. Whatever happens before, during or afterwards, was part of that act and therefore licit and permitted.” — But this is clearly false and have been refuted with Catholic Dogma (Pope Pius XI), and Catholic teaching condemning the idea that the marital act - done for pleasure only - was without any fault, sin and defect (see below). Anyone therefore that listens to or follows these demonic peoples teachings or agrees with them will lose their souls, since they are rejecting the natural law God has imprinted on their hearts.
Various Errors on Moral Subjects, Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679: “THE ACT OF MARRIAGE EXERCISED FOR PLEASURE ONLY IS ENTIRELY FREE OF ALL FAULT AND VENIAL DEFECT.” (Denz. 1159) -Condemned by Pope Innocent XI.
St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book 1, Chapter 17: “It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance.”
There are also a couple of uncertainties we had with the old article “Natural Family Planning (NFP)” and “Sexual Pleasure is Lust” that we had posted on our sites that we now wish to discuss (the mere title “Sexual Pleasure is Lust” was of course wrong in it self, since lawful sexual pleasure is neither wrong, sinful or “lust” in the sinful sense). One thing we had written was that a man and a woman does not necessarily need to feel any physical pleasure or concupiscence during the procreative act. With other words, we said that a couple should strive to not feel concupiscence or pleasure during the marital act, and that they might be handed over to the devil if they did feel concupiscence. We said that God will grant this gift of not feeling concupiscence to a person desiring it and praying for it as long as the person was sincere, but this may not be correct since this special gift is probably given to only a very few people. It is true that a couple should strive as much as they can to minimize their sensual pleasures, but one is not handed over to the devil for feeling sexual pleasure or for not being granted the gift of not feeling sexual pleasure. It only makes it easier to be handed over to the devil. Many are handed over to the devil before, during, or after the marital act though, but this is only when they do more than what is necessary to complete the procreative act by performing acts such as oral sex or masturbation of self or spouse, or if their only purpose is to satisfy their lust, or if they consent to thoughts that are sinful. For we can clearly see how persons that are living in deliberate venial sins are handed over to the devil in St. Bridget’s Revelations.
Jesus speaking to St. Bridget: “Moreover, know that just as all mortal sins are very serious, so too a venial sin is made mortal if a human being delights in it with the intention of persevering... Therefore, know for very certain that as often as they daub their faces with antimony and other extraneous coloring [makeup], some of the infusion of the Holy Spirit is diminished in them and the devil draws nearer to them. In fact, as often as they adorn themselves in disorderly and indecent clothing and so deform their bodies, the adornment of their souls is diminished and the devil’s power is increased.” (St. Bridget’s Revelations, Book 7, Chapter 27).
Most couples who sin in the marriage act undoubtedly also fall for the sins of vanity, immodest clothing, and use of makeup condemned by Jesus Christ above, since these people really are lovers of the flesh, and not of God. However, in the above statement, we can clearly see how those people who commit deliberate venial sins are in fact diminishing their love of God, and beauty of soul, and that these people in fact are handed over to the devil for their sins: “some of the infusion of the Holy Spirit is diminished in them and the devil draws nearer to them.” This is an important point to remember. For as often as a couple goes farther than what is licit or permitted (non-sinful) in the procreative act, they always commit a sin (at least venially), and will thus as a necessity be drawing closer to the devil (unless repentance is followed). Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that you learn to control your lust. Risking eternal damnation for a momentary, deliberate venial or mortal pleasure or sin is not worth it, and is a horribly bad choice to make.
Jesus Christ speaking to St. Bridget: “Therefore, two holes will be opened in him. Through the first there will enter into him every punishment earned for his least sin up to his greatest, inasmuch as he exchanged his Creator for his own lust. Through the second there will enter into him every kind of pain and shame, and no divine consolation or charity will ever come to him, inasmuch as he loved himself rather than his Creator. His life will last forever and his punishment will last forever, for all the saints have turned away from him.’ My bride, see how miserable those people will be who despise me and how great will be the pain they purchase at the price of so little pleasure!” (St. Bridget’s Revelations, Book 2, Chapter 9).
So, the more pleasure and sensual gratification a person seek to derive from the sexual act, the more will the devil’s power over him be increased, and the more the sin is increased (with the intention of persevering), the more the devil’s power over him is increasing also, until what was a venial and pardonable sin, becomes a mortal and damnable sin. Therefore, if you already understand that you live in deliberate venial sin with respect to sexual pleasure, you need to learn controlling your lust immediately, keeping it within the range of what is licit and permitted within a marriage, and not going any further. If you follow these things put down in this article, and in the updated Sexual Pleasure and Lust article, you will be keeping the marriage duty within the range of licit marital relations.
A couple then, when coming together, should not be concerned about the momentary pleasure they derive from the act, or be working on enhancing it in unusual ways, but should rather be focusing their mind on God and to love Him and please Him, by feeling close to Him. Consequently, if a couple wish to be perfect, they should pray to God to keep them from sinning during the act, and that they may produce offspring to the honor and glory of God, and that He might minimize the amount of pleasure they will feel during the act, so that they may not grow attached to it. God might grant this prayer to a couple if they so wish, but if they are not granted this gift (the begetting of children or the minimizing of pleasure), they should still be focusing their pleasure and love towards God, and not on themselves. God demands of us to not forget Him during the procreative act. People usually tend to forget about God when they have too much attention on themselves, or on their spouse, or the pleasure derived from different acts. We can read the following important points regarding this in the book of Tobias: “For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.” (Tobias 6:17).
Notice the word “from their mind”, in the mind (or heart) are usually all our thoughts, and God wishes us to have Him there. The best thing then, and which God demands of you, is to think about Him and to love Him during the whole procreative act, and husband and wife should not be ashamed of doing so. Is not God better or more worthy of being desired or lusted after than your husband or wife will ever be? The more a person loves God, the more will that person desire to be close to God, during all times. One of the greatest mistakes many couples undoubtedly do during the procreative act is that they strive to be close with their spouse rather than with God (who knows everything and sees everything), or that they rather think of pleasing their spouse more than pleasing God (who created them and redeemed them, yes even died for them). The primary reason, however, why people choose to forget about God during the marital act is precisely because they want to live out their sinful lusts to the fullest, and so they do not want to be “burdened” with the thought of that God beholds all their impieties.
“Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God today, and tomorrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock. For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that know not God.” (Tobias 8:4-5)
The word of God and Holy Scripture further teaches that one should not consummate the marriage immediately after one has been married, but that one should wait for three days while praying earnestly to God to bless their marriage, “because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock.” (Tobias 8:4) The Holy Archangel Raphael, acting as God’s messenger, instructs husbands and wives to always wait three days in prayer before consummating the marriage.“But thou when thou shalt take her, go into the chamber, and for three days keep thyself continent from her, and give thyself to nothing else but to prayers with her.” (Tobias 6:18)
These words shows us that spouses must remember their bond with the Lord first and foremost and that the fleshly or physical part of the marriage must always come secondhand. By this highly virtuous act of abstaining from marital relations for three days, the devil’s power over married couples is undoubtedly thwarted and diminished. Holy Scripture thus advices spouses to be “joined to God” for three days in prayer before performing the marital act. Not only that, but spouses should always fervently pray to God before every marital act and ask Him to protect them from falling into sin, and also after the marital act in order to ask Our Lord to forgive them if they committed any sin during the act. This is the safe road of the fear of God that every righteous man or woman should follow if they wish to enter Heaven.
Tobias 6:18, 20-22 “[St. Raphael said to Tobias:] But thou when thou shalt take her, go into the chamber, and for three days keep thyself continent from her, and give thyself to nothing else but to prayers with her.… But the second night thou shalt be admitted into the society of the holy Patriarchs. And the third night thou shalt obtain a blessing that sound children may be born of you. And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.”
Jesus tells us of the necessity of praying always (Lk 18:1). We are never to cease praying (1 Th 5:17). Thus, Christian married couples will always have marital relations in the context of prayer. Tobias’ prayer before relations with his wife is an example of this (Tb 8:4-8). In prayer, we express our weakness and God’s power (2 Cor 12:9) to rectify sinful problems in marital relations.
Praying the Rosary before, during and after intercourse is highly recommended since it is the most powerful prayer ever given to mankind. Granted, it might be hard to pray during the act, at least in a worthy and proper manner, but spouses should do their best to at least acknowledge the presence of God Almighty and His Mother and loving Them deeply during the act, by expressing loving words to God and His Blessed Mother, supplicating Them for Their help to resist sinful inclinations. Husband and wife should not be ashamed of having recourse to the Blessed Virgin and Our Lord during intercourse. In contrast, what better thing can there possibly be for a couple then to always have God and the thought of loving God in their minds during all times?
We can read the following interesting points of the importance of loving and thinking about God during the procreative act in St. Bridget’s Revelations:
The Mother of God speaks to St. Bridget about Her parents: “When an angel revealed to them that they would give birth to the Virgin from whom the salvation of the world would come, they would rather have died than to come together in carnal love; lust was dead in them. I assure you that when they did come together, it was because of divine love and because of the angel’s message, not out of carnal desire, but against their will and out of a holy love for God. In this way, my flesh was put together by their seed and through divine love.” (St. Bridget’s Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 9).
Although you will not be spared from feeling lust or concupiscence as it happened to Anna and Joachim, this should in no way hinder you from loving and desiring God during the procreative act, and should be the primary purpose along with love of children for a couple rather than desiring or lusting at your spouse. Most couples, however, choose to think about themselves or their spouse in an inordinate way and consequently to love themselves or their spouse during the procreative act. Anna and Joachim, however, clearly chose the best part by loving and thinking about God. If we think about God during the act, then our love will be directed towards Him, which is the best part. God’s love never dies! So it’s clearly a great mistake to seek love from a fleshly object that will rot and be eaten by worms in the grave rather than seeking it from God, who lives and reigns forever and ever! Husband and wife should thus love their spouse, their own, and their children’s souls, and not their bodies that will rot and be eaten by worms in the grave. This is an advice to those couples who wish to be perfect, as Anna and Joachim were perfect.
St. Jerome: “Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his God and wife].”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 8: “And since the man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the good of marriage if he use her indecently, although he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer; and even more so than he that is too ardent a lover of another woman.”
Gratian, Medieval Marriage Law: “Also, Jerome, [in Against Jovinian, I]: C. 5. Nothing is more sordid than to make love to your wife as you would to an adulteress [that is, for mere passion and lust]. The origins of love are respectable, but its perversion is an enormity. §1. It gives no respectable motive for losing one’s self control. Hence, the Sentences of Sixtus says, "He is an adulterer who is too passionate a lover of his wife." Just as all passion for another’s wife is sordid, so also is excessive passion for one’s own. The wise man should love his wife reasonably, not emotionally. The mere stimulus of lust should not dominate him, nor should he force her to have sex. Nothing is more sordid than to make love to your wife as you would to an adulteress [that is, for mere pleasure and without any reasonable cause].”
As we can see above, he who loves his wife and the lust of the flesh too much, or in other words, he who loves his wife more than he loves God, is in fact an adulterer of his God and of his wife. Tell me, dear reader, whom do you love during the act of marriage, God, or your spouse? Have the thought of God or that He is present ever even entered your mind during intercourse? Have this absence of God’s presence in your thought also driven you into committing shameful sins by the inflaming of lust in unlawful ways? Indeed, those couples who doesn’t shut God out from themselves or their hearts during intercourse, will less likely fall into other sins during the act of marriage. For if it is God, and our wife in God, that we love during intercourse, then it is him we are seeking to please, and not ourselves or our spouse.
“He who has more love for his father or mother [or wife] than for me [Jesus] is not good enough for me; he who has more love for son or daughter than for me is not good enough for me.” (Matthew 10:37)
It is also evident that the offspring of holy and devout parents will receive a great many graces and benefits because of the parents’ holiness, and that according to many saints, lustful parents will effect their children in a negative way, inflicting sinful impulses upon them. Every parent who love their children or their future children should do their utmost to live in holiness, knowing that every act they will ever do can have an effect on their children, for better or for worse. Only in Hell will bad parents understand how their acts effected their children, but then it is sadly too late.
“Sometimes I [Jesus] let evil parents give birth to good children, but more often, evil children are born of evil parents, since these children imitate the evil and unrighteous deeds of their parents as much as they are able and would imitate it even more if my patience allowed them. Such a married couple will never see my face unless they repent. For there is no sin so heavy or grave that penitence and repentance does not wash it away.” (St. Bridget’s Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 26).
We can read in the Revelations of St. Bridget (as we’ve read further above) that the parents of The Blessed Virgin Mary was excluded from concupiscence and pleasure during the marital act (which then led to the Blessed Virgin), but we now think that this was a singular privilege that Anna and Joachim were given because of their holiness and because they where chosen by God to bring forth Our Lady, free from Original Sin (The Immaculate Conception), and that no other human beings except Anna and Joachim, will perhaps ever be granted this gift during the act.
Most people must thus as an evil product from the fall feel sexual pleasure and concupiscence during the procreative act, which may or will be tempting them to inflame their lust. The inflaming of concupiscence or lust almost always begins as a venial and pardonable sin, but often ends in mortal sin. After the fall, human offspring is produced by man and wife through human concupiscence and pleasure. But we certainly think that a couple can minimize their concupiscence or pleasure-seeking by following our advice in the updated NFP and Sexual Pleasure and Lust articles.
For a person to be Saved, he needs above all to love his God with all his mind, and with all his strength, and with all his heart (cf. Luke 10:27). If any person fails to do this (that is, that he loves something more than he loves God, whatever it may be or however small it may be), he will not be Saved. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that people really start to do everything in their might and power to acquire and foster the love of God in their hearts, by loving God very deeply always and at all times, and by praying to God for help in loving Him worthily. If a person can have deep love for their husband or wife, or for their children, by having a desire for them constantly, then, likewise, should a person have no problem in growing an even greater love and longing for God in his heart, if he only so wish and desires. We can read the following important words of loving and desiring God in context of marriage in the wonderful Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden:
“For that reason, I [Jesus] wish to turn to the spiritual marriage, the kind that is appropriate for God to have with a chaste soul and chaste body. There are seven good things in it opposed to the evils mentioned above: First, there is no desire for beauty of form or bodily beauty or lustful sights, but only for the sight and love of God. Second, there is no desire to possess anything else than what is needed to survive, and just the necessities with nothing in excess. Third, they avoid vain and frivolous talk. Fourth, they do not care about seeing friends or relatives, but I am their love and desire. Fifth, they desire to keep the humility inwardly in their conscience and outwardly in the way they dress. Sixth, they never have any will of leading lustful lives. Seventh, they beget sons and daughters for their God through their good behavior and good example and through the preaching of spiritual words.
“They preserve their faith undefiled when they stand outside the doors of my church where they give me their consent and I give them mine. They go up to my altar when they enjoy the spiritual delight of my Body and Blood in which delight they wish to be of one heart and one body and one will with me, and I, true God and man, mighty in heaven and on earth, shall be as the third with them and will fill their heart. The worldly spouses begin their marriage in lustful desires like brute beasts, and even worse than brute beasts! But these spiritual spouses begin in love and fear of God and do not bother to please anyone but me. The evil spirit fills and incites those in the worldly marriage to carnal lust where there is nothing but unclean stench, but those in the spiritual marriage are filled with my Spirit and inflamed with the fire of my love that will never fail them.”
 “But people in this age are joined in marriage for seven [evil] reasons: First, because of facial beauty. Second, because of wealth. Third, because of the despicable pleasure and indecent joy they get out of their impure intercourse. Fourth, because of feasts with friends and uncontrolled gluttony. Fifth, because of vanity in clothing and eating, in joking and entertainment and games and other vanities. Sixth, for the sake of procreating children but not to raise them for the honor of God or good works but for worldly riches and honor. Seventh, they come together for the sake of lust and they are like brute beasts in their lustful desires.”
(St. Bridget’s Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 26)
Only ungodly couples who would want to gratify their fleshly lust to the fullest during the act of marriage, without even once thinking about God, would wants to shut God out from their hearts or their minds. God is always present for every action we will ever make. Let’s get this concept imprinted on our minds.
“I am one God in three Persons, and one in Divinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Just as it is impossible for the Father to be separated from the Son and the Holy Spirit to be separated from them both, and as it is impossible for warmth to be separated from fire, so it is impossible for these spiritual spouses to be separated from me; I am always as the third with them. Once my body was ravaged and died in torments, but it will never more be hurt or die. Likewise, those who are incorporated into me with a true faith and a perfect will shall never die away from me; for wherever they stand or sit or walk, I am always as the third with them.” (St. Bridget’s Revelations, Book 1, Chapter 26).
Again, Jesus demands of us that we love Him even more than we love ourselves or our wife or our children:
“He who has more love for his father or mother [or wife] than for me is not good enough for me; he who has more love for son or daughter than for me is not good enough for me.” (Matthew 10:37)
“but I alone was all their good and pleasure and perfect delight.” (St. Bridget’s Revelations, on Adam and Eve before the fall – Book 1, Chapter 26).
The meaning of the immediate above passage isn’t that a couple couldn’t delight in or feel pleasure in/from God anymore, but rather that before the fall, God was the only delight and pleasure man ever felt and desired. After the fall, God had to compete with human concupiscence and fleshly lust. God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5), and he wants us to love and desire Him above everything else. So to love God during all times, even during intercourse, is an advice to those couples who wish to be perfect, and for those couples who ardently longs and desires to be united with God through love. Consequently, those people who choose to despise and disregard what’s been covered here, seek then not to be united with the eternal, incorruptible God who lives and reigns forever and ever, but with a fleshly worthless object that will rot and be eaten by worms in a grave.
The Demon of Lust.
In the Book of Tobit or Tobias, we can clearly see that there is a demon of lust and that this demon hath power over individuals who come together for various lustful reasons during the marital act: “Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.” People who thus shut God out from themselves and their hearts, and who do things during, before or after the marital act which they normally wouldn’t do if they really believed that God were present with them, over them the devil hath power. If concupiscence and lust is not controlled and in some sense fought against, it will almost always end in mortal sin, because all control is lost. “Go not after thy lusts, but turn away from thy own will.” (Eclcus. 18:30)
Many have also thought that Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii teaches that one may have marital relations lawfully during the wife’s pregnancy. We have also expressed uncertainty about what he teach on this topic and have said that this teaching from him is not clear and that this act (of having sex during pregnancy or menstruation) is not necessarily a sin, depending on how Casti Connubii is to be interpreted. But it seems from Tradition that this uncertainty have been completely wrong, as we will see. We will quote the passage from Pope Pius XI in question:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who, in the married state, use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
As we can see, Casti Connubii teaches that spouses can perform the marital act during those times when “new life cannot be brought forth”, and this is interpreted by some to give permission for spouses to perform the marital act during a woman’s pregnancy, but the Pope then goes on to state that this action is only lawful “SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END [THAT IS, PROCREATION OF CHILDREN]” and so, this last sentence seem to teach that one may not perform the marital act during the pregnancy of the woman, since the primary end and motive of procreation is already fulfilled.
There is no official and dogmatic Papal Church teaching, as far as we know, that directly teaches that marital relations during a pregnancy is a sin, but that does not mean that it is not a sin, and especially so since the Popes, Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church throughout the ages opposed marital relations without the intent to procreate. This thus seems to be the Catholic Tradition from the beginning.
There are however, many quotations that address this question directly from the Fathers and early writers. All the quotes from the Holy Fathers and Church Tradition that we’ve found on the subject unanimously teach that sexual activity during the infertile period of pregnancy as well as menstruation is to be avoided at all times since it is unnatural and unreasonable to sow one’s seed when one “awaits the harvest.”
Athenagoras the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “After throwing the seed into the ground, the farmer awaits the harvest. He does not sow more seed on top of it. Likewise, to us the procreation of children is the limit of our indulgence in appetite.” (A Plea For the Christians, Chapter XXXIII.--Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage)
Nature itself tells us through our inborn instinct that it is unreasonable and unnatural to sow a seed in the same place where a seed is already growing.
In reference to the same issue, St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 A.D.) writes: “To...a spiritual man, after conception, his wife is as a sister and is treated as if of the same father.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book VI, Chapter XII) St. Augustine, in his book On The Good of Marriage (A.D. 401), likewise agreed with the Church’s tradition that performing the marital act during pregnancy is unreasonable and unnatural since “necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity [of begetting children] no longer follows reason but lust…” (Section 11) He also taught that marital relations during pregnancy is “the sin of the persons, not the fault of marriage.”
St. Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, Section 5, A.D. 401: “There are also men incontinent to that degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant. Therefore whatever that is immodest, shameless, base, married persons do one with another, is the sin of the persons, not the fault of marriage.”
“Above all, no one should know his wife when Sunday or other feasts come around. Similar precautions should be taken as often as women menstruate, for the Prophet says: ‘Do not come near to a menstruous woman.’ [Ezech. 18:6]… Truly, brethren, if animals without intellect do not touch each other except at a fixed and proper time, how much more should men who have been created according to God’s image observe this? What is worse, there are some dissolute or drunken men who sometimes do not even spare their wives when they are pregnant. Therefore, if they do not amend their lives, we are to consider them worse than animals. Such men the Apostle addresses when he says: ‘Every one of you learn how to possess his vessel in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who have no hope.’ [1 Thess. 4:4-5]” (St. Caesarius of Arles [c. 468-542 A.D.], Sermon 44:7)
Two activities recommended by some heretical NFP teachers are having sex during menstruation and during pregnancy, both of which the earliest extant Church Canons, the Apostolic Constitutions (c. 375 A.D.), specifically reject: “When the natural purgations do appear in the wives, let not their husbands approach them, out of regard to the children to be begotten; for the law has forbidden it, for it says: "Thou shalt not come near thy wife when she is in her separation." [Lev. xviii. 19; Ezek. xviii. 6.] Nor, indeed, let them frequent their wives’ company when they are with child. For they do this not for the begetting of children, but for the sake of pleasure. Now a lover of God ought not to be a lover of pleasure.” (The Sacred Writings of Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Book V, Chap. XXVIII.)
St. Clement of Alexandria, On Marriage and Procreation (c. 198-203 A.D.): “Right from the beginning the law, as we have already said, lays down the command, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife,” [Ex. 20:17] long before the Lord’s closely similar utterance in the New Testament, where the same idea is expressed in his own mouth: “You have heard that the law commanded, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ But I say, ‘Thou shalt not lust.’” [Matt. 5:27-28] That the law intended husbands to cohabit with their wives with self-control and only for the purpose of begetting children is evident… For this reason you could not point to any place in Scripture where one of the ancients approached a pregnant woman; later, after the child is born and weaned, you might find that marriage relations of husbands and wives were resumed. You will find that Moses’ father kept this principle in mind. After Aaron’s birth three years passed before Moses was born. [Ex. 7:7] Again, the tribe of Levi observed this law of nature given by God, although they were fewer in number than any others which came into the promised land. [Num. 3:39] For a tribe does not easily grow to great numbers if their men have intercourse only within the legal marriage relationship and then wait until the end not only of pregnancy but also of breast-feeding.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book III, Chapter XI, Section 71, 72)
The primary end of marriage is of course the procreation and education of Children:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
But Pius XI did not teach that a couple could designedly restrict the marriage act only to the infertile periods to avoid a pregnancy, as in the mortally sinful practice of Natural Family Planning. When a deliberate plan is made in having relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding having relations during the known fertile periods, the mortal sin of contraception occurs.
For instance, it was forbidden and a capital offense for spouses to have marital relations during the wife’s infertile monthly cycle during the Old Covenant era.
Leviticus 20:18: “If any man lie with a woman in her flowers, and uncover her nakedness, and she open the fountain of her blood, both shall be destroyed out of the midst of their people.”
We read in the Old Testament that God had forbidden the marital act by separating the wife from her husband during the infertile monthly menstrual cycle of the woman. Leviticus 15:19: “The woman, who at the return of the month, hath her issue of blood, shall be separated seven days.” Haydock Commentary explains further: “Days, not only out of the camp, but from the company of men.” As soon as a woman shows signs of infertility, intercourse would cease. “Thou shalt not approach to a woman having her flowers: neither shalt thou uncover her nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:19) Haydock Commentary adds: “Saint Augustine believes that this law is still in force. [On Leviticus 20:18] This intemperance was by a positive law declared a mortal offence of the Jews.”
This wondrous law from God not only diminished the time a couple could have marital relations, but it also prohibited the women from the company of men, and this certainly includes her husband. What was God’s reason for separating the woman from her man you might ask? In truth, God who knows more about human weaknesses and sins than all of humanity combined ordained this so that the temptation to violate His laws and have marital relations during this period would not happen. For most temptations work like this: as long as you take away the source of the temptation, it will always be easier to control.
Another reason why God made this wondrous law was so that a couple would have marital relations less frequently, which in turn would help them get stronger in resisting and conquering sexual temptations of different kinds. For as we have seen already, those who indulge in the marital act too often or unreasonably commits a sin of gluttony of sorts in the marital act, and will fall more easily into other sins since they do not order their actions in accordance with right reason, instead perversely choosing to order their actions in accordance to their unmortified and sensual desires like animals or brute beasts without any reason.
Thus, St. Ambrose (c. 340-397) could rightly declare that it is shameful to continue to have sexual relations after pregnancy, and that those people who do this act “contaminate the former [the child] and exasperate the latter [God]”: “Youths generally assert the desire of having children and think to excuse the heat of their age by the desire for generation. How much more shameful for the old to do what is shameful for the young to confess. For even the young who temper their hearts to prudence by divine fear, generally renounce the works of youth when progeny [offspring] have been received. And is this remarkable for man, if beasts mutely speak a zeal for generating, not a desire for copulating? Indeed, once they know the womb is filled, and the seed received by the generative soil, they no longer indulge in intercourse or the wantonness of love, but they take up parental care. Yet men spare neither the embryo nor God. They contaminate the former and exasperate [irritate or provoke to a high degree; annoy extremely] the latter. "Before I formed you in the womb," He says, "I knew you and sanctified you in your mother’s womb." [Jer. 1:5] To control your impatience, note the hands of your Author forming a man in the womb. He is at work, and you stain with lust the secret of the sacred womb? Imitate the beast or fear God. Why do I speak of beasts? The land itself often rests from the work of generating, and if it is often filled with the seeds thrown by the impatient eagerness of men, it repays the shamelessness of the farmer and changes fertility to sterility. So even in the elements and the beasts it is a shame to nature not to cease from generating.” (St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, Exposition of the Gospel According to St. Luke 1:43-45)
St. Clement of Alexandria, On Marriage and Procreation (c. 198-203 A.D.): “Far more excellent, in my opinion, than the seeds of wheat and barley that are sown at appropriate seasons, is man that is sown, for whom all things grow; and those seeds temperate husbandmen ever sow. Every foul and polluting practice must therefore be purged away from marriage; that the intercourse of the irrational animals may not be cast in our teeth, as more accordant with nature than human conjunction in procreation. Some of these, it must be granted, desist at the time in which they are directed, leaving creation to the working of Providence.” (The Stromata or Miscellanies, Book II, Chapter XXIII)
Origen (c. 184-254), Homilies on Genesis, Homily V, Section 4, On Lot And His Daughters: “Let the married women examine themselves and seek if they approach their husbands for this reason alone [for having children], that they might receive children, and after conception desist. For those women... when they have attained conception, [rightly] do not later assent to copulation with a man. But some women, for we do not censure all equally, but there are some who serve passion incessantly, like animals without any distinction, whom I would not even compare to the dumb beasts. For even the beasts themselves know, when they have conceived, not to further grant opportunity to their males. The divine Scriptures also censures such when it says: "Do not become like the [sterile] horse and the mule who have no understanding," [Ps. 31:9] and again, "They have become stallions." [Jer. 5:8] But, O people of God, "who love Christ in incorruption," [Eph. 6:24] understand the word of the Apostle in which he says: "Whether you eat or drink or whatever else you do, do all to the glory of God." [1 Cor. 10:31] For his remark after eating and drinking, "whatever else you do," has designated with a modest word the immodest affairs of marriage, showing that even these acts themselves are performed to the glory of God if they are attended to with a view to posterity [offspring] alone.”
“In fact, a good Christian should not only observe chastity for a few days before he communicates, [that is, before he receives the Holy Eucharist] but he should never know his wife except from the desire for children. A man takes a wife for the procreation of children, not for the sake of lust. Even the marriage rite mentions this: ‘For the procreation of children,’ it says. Notice that it does not say for the sake of lust, but ‘for the procreation of children.’ I would like to know, dearly beloved, what kind of a harvest a man could gather if he sowed his field in one year as often as he is overcome by dissipation and abuses his wife without any desire for children. If those who are unwilling to control themselves plowed and sowed repeatedly their land which was already sown, let us see in what kind of fruit they would rejoice. As you well know, no land can produce proper fruit if it is sown frequently in one year. Why, then, does a man do with his body what he does not want done with his field?” (St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 44:3)
It must also be made perfectly clear that natural infertility during pregnancy on the part of the woman is not a reward for the spouses to have “great sex” because they were “good” in fulfilling the marital duty (the procreation and education of children), as so many people today nowadays actually (and falsely) seem to believe.
It is reasonable to conclude that if women were not infertile during pregnancy, many bad husbands would be endangering the life of their wives by exposing them to too many childbirths at too short time intervals. Consequently, if women were not infertile during pregnancy, many more mortal sins would be committed by married and unmarried men since they then would be inclined to seek relief of their fleshly lusts in other ways or by other women, so as not to endanger the life of their own wife or mistresses.
Indeed, to St. Jerome and the rest of the Saints and Fathers of the Church, the indulgence permitted in the marital act was not something good or praiseworthy because it only acts as a relief valve to avoid a greater evil: “Thus it must be bad to touch a woman. If indulgences is nonetheless granted to the marital act, this is only to avoid something worse. But what value can be recognized in a good that is allowed only with a view of preventing something worse?” (St. Jerome)
The main difference between Natural Infertility due to old age, or due to defects, compared with the infertility during pregnancy, is that in the first two, if God so wills, He may open the womb of the infertile due to old age, or due to defects, as we can read happening many times in the Bible. But in the third case, when a wife is pregnant, she cannot become pregnant again - according to the natural order God has established - and that’s really the main difference between the two. However, it’s a fact that it was ordained in the Old Testament for couples to abstain from each other during the wife’s menstrual or infertile period and that for “this reason you could not point to any place in Scripture where one of the ancients approached a pregnant woman” (St. Clement of Alexandria). St. Augustine even thought this law still applies to us today. The obvious right choice in this question is of course to remain chaste during the wife’s pregnancy, since there is no chance of her becoming pregnant again.
Now Anne Catherine Emmerich had the following interesting points to say about marital relations during pregnancy:
“It was explained to me here that the Blessed Virgin was begotten by her parents in holy obedience and complete purity of heart, and that thereafter they lived together in continence in the greatest devoutness and fear of God. I was at the same time clearly instructed how immeasurably the holiness of children was encouraged by the purity, chastity, and continence of their parents and by their resistance to all unclean temptations; and how continence after conception preserves the fruit of the womb from many sinful impulses. In general, I was given an overflowing abundance of knowledge about the roots of deformity and sin.” (Anne Catherine Emmerich, Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary)
Many lustful people will not agree with what Anne Catherine Emmerich said above, and some may even be offended by it. This is so because these people want to deceive themselves into thinking that there is nothing wrong at all about lust or concupiscence, even though it’s a known fact that it leads countless of souls to Hell. It’s just a fact that the sexual lusts and the sexual temptations that urges people into committing sins of the flesh is an evil product from the fall, and of Original Sin. In other words, it was not originally intended to happen in this way according to God’s perfect plan for mankind, but it ended up in that way because of Adam’s and Eve’s transgression. St. Augustine explains it thus: “… lust, which only afterwards sprung up as the penal consequence of [original] sin, the iniquity of violating it was all the greater in proportion to the ease with which it might have been kept.” (City of God, Book XIV, Chapter 12). Thus, if a person is honest with himself, he will understand that this is true. However, most people want to deceive themselves and therefore choose to overlook this fact.
Another instance of the truth that marital relations during pregnancy is bad can be found in The Revelations of St. Bridget Book 9 or appendix. St. Bridget asks a man (whom in fact was her own husband) that is now in purgatory about the specific reasons why he escaped eternal hell. This is the third reason why he escaped hell: “The third [reason] is that I obeyed my teacher who advised me to abstain from my wife’s bed when I understood that she was pregnant.”
Thus, it is totally clear from above that those who have marital relations during pregnancy are endangering their own and their child’s spiritual welfare, as the above passages clearly indicates.
It is not a sin of contraception to engage in the marital act during the known infertile period provided the known fertile period has not been deliberately frustrated in order to prevent conception, either by inhibiting it by the use of birth control pills or some other contraception method or avoiding it by the use of Natural Family Planning. If the spouses know conception cannot take place, and they did not deliberately plan to prevent conception, they can perform the marital act without committing any sin of contraception provided they desire having children. This does not rule out other sins that can occur during the marital act, such as using it to excite or inflame lust instead of quelling lust, or using it in an unnatural and abusive manner. These sins can be committed even when childbearing is a goal of the marital act.
Therefore, even when the spouses engage in the marital act to quell concupiscence during known infertile periods, they must still desire and hope to have children if God wills they should have children. The act must still have as its primary goal the conception of children, which means to be open to all new life and not hindering it from taking place in any way, even though the spouses believe conception cannot occur. In this way the quelling of concupiscence is subordinate to the primary end of the act, which is childbearing.
One must really marvel over how the members of the Christian Church, (who should be more virtuous than the people of the Jewish Old Testament religion), have fallen into this degraded and filthy custom of having marital relations during a woman’s pregnancy or menstrual period. The Old Law was only a shell and a sign of the future things in the New Law, and even the Old Law forbade marital relations on many more occasions than the New Law does. The reason of why the Old Law forbade many things that now are not sinful is because in the New Law, Our Lord wants us to do many good things, not because we are forced to do it, but only because we know that they are good in themselves, which is a more virtuous and meritorious act. Christian spouses should act more virtuously than those who lived in the Old Law, since all Christians have received more graces and knowledge of Our Lord than those in the Old Law, and it is really a blemish on the Christian community that this is not happening. The amount of graces that will be lost because of these filthy acts of lustful spouses is, sad to say, immeasurable and inestimable.
Lust is indeed bad. St. Augustine even goes so far as to call concupiscence evil and a disease (although not evil in the generative aspect). Yes, he even shares a point we have thought could be true, namely, that Original Sin is transmitted through Lust.
St. Augustine: “Wherefore the devil holds infants guilty [through original sin] who are born, not of the good by which marriage is good, but of the evil of concupiscence [lust], which, indeed, marriage uses aright, but at which even marriage has occasion to feel shame.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence Book 1, Chapter 27).
St. Augustine: “This disease of concupiscence is what the apostle refers to, when, speaking to married believers, he says: ‘This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication: that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the disease of desire, even as the Gentiles which know not God.’ (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). The married believer, therefore, must not only not use another man’s vessel, which is what they do who lust after others’ wives; but he must know that even his own vessel is not to be possessed in the disease of carnal concupiscence.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence Book 1, Chapter 9).
Adultery, fornication and masturbation are examples of bad and damnable lust. Lust is also an evil in marriage, and can easily turn into something damnable if husband and wife goes too far (as sadly happens with most couples today, even by those who call themselves Catholic). Just because it’s licit to perform the marriage act for procreative purposes in marriage, does not make the lust caused thereof good or praiseworthy. St. Augustine explains this point further:
“Forasmuch, then, as the good of marriage could not be lost by the addition of this evil [lust]... Since, therefore, marriage effects some good even out of that evil, it has whereof to glory; but since the good cannot be effected without the evil, it has reason for feeling shame. The case may be illustrated by the example of a lame man. Suppose him to attain to some good object by limping after it, then, on the one hand, the attainment itself is not evil because of the evil of the man’s lameness; nor, on the other hand, is the lameness good because of the goodness of the attainment. So, on the same principle, we ought not to condemn marriage because of the evil of lust; nor must we praise lust because of the good of marriage.” (St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence Book 1, Chapter 8).
Sexual temptations during lawful procreative relations can also be a cause of sin since it may drive a husband and wife to go farther than what is necessary or licit, either during, before or after the marital act, and this, of course, is also a great evil. These temptations, as we have seen, does not turn into something “good” just because a person is married, for he is still tempted into committing sins. This is one of the very reasons why lust and sexual temptations are bad, also in marriage, for they are still defects, and are still occasions of sin and an evil product from the fall, a product from original sin.
Temptations are thus not something good, but are truly “unclean temptations” as described above by Anne Catherine Emmerich, and the sexual lust are obviously not something good either, but the “evil of concupiscence” or “this disease of concupiscence” as stated above by St. Augustine. If a person understands these concepts and agrees with them (that a couple’s sensual behavior during their child’s pregnancy could effect their child in a negative way, inflicting sinful impulses upon the child) only then will he or she be able to understand and agree with what Anne Catherine Emmerich said above. The wisdom by Anne Catherine Emmerich is worth quoting again:
“It was explained to me here that the Blessed Virgin was begotten by her parents in holy obedience and complete purity of heart, and that thereafter they lived together in continence in the greatest devoutness and fear of God. I was at the same time clearly instructed how immeasurably the holiness of children was encouraged by the purity, chastity, and continence of their parents and by their resistance to all unclean temptations; and how continence after conception preserves the fruit of the womb from many sinful impulses. In general, I was given an overflowing abundance of knowledge about the roots of deformity and sin.” (Anne Catherine Emmerich, Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary)
The sensuality that thus will be aroused during pregnancy is a great evil that will be affecting both husband and wife, and their future child. Relations during pregnancy can also sometimes be dangerous to the child, and could lead to a premature birth. So however one looks at it, the right choice is of course to practice abstinence. And if a person claims that he cannot do this, how then will he manage when either one of the spouses dies?
If spouses wishes to nurture virtue, and if there is a mutual consent for abstaining from marital relations, then both husband and wife can separate from each other any amount of time they decide, in order to cultivate virtue and evangelical perfection. We pray and beg that all may consider to do this from time to time. With all these facts in consideration, the most prudent thing is obviously to remain chaste during the whole duration of the pregnancy, in order to nurture virtue in yourself and your future children.
With that being said, this article will be updated again if we ever notice any other faults that we may have taught. And if we are wrong on something, please do not hesitate to contact us about it. We will gladly change and submit to the teaching and authority of our Holy Mother Church, whenever we are in contradiction with Her. For to err is human, but to continue to err after correction, is demonic.