Recent Updates and Articles
New Articles and Recent Updates
Santa Claus, Antichrist of the Season – New article on added on December 16, 2014 on Santa Claus, the false Christ and Antichrist invented by Satan to substitute for Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Pope Gregory XVII, The Pope in Red and The Siri Thesis Exposed – New article added on December 12, 2014
The Siri Thesis is a theory which some holds that actually Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was elected Pope, after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, but the newly-elected Gregory XVII, formerly Cardinal Siri, was put under grave duress or coercion – threatened and prevented from taking the Papal Chair (i.e. from publically proclaiming His Pontificacy) and illegally replaced by Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII). Whether Cardinal Siri was truly elected to be Pope or not, John XXIII’s election would have still been invalid (null and void) because John XXIII was a manifest heretic before his election, which is confirmed in his heretical teachings as an Antipope. It is possible Cardinal Siri was elected Pope and unlawfully forced to resign – thus invalidating the “elections” of John XXIII and Paul VI. But his failure to oppose the apostasy, stand up for his office and denounce the Antipopes in the decades following those fateful days preclude Catholics from holding that he remained Pope in the decades following the 1958 and 1963 conclaves. Cardinal Siri may have been paralyzed by fear, uncertainty and confusion about his status and what to do about it; nevertheless one cannot recognize that he remained Pope in the years following his elections because, at least in the external forum, he did not stand up for his office or oppose the Antipopes. In fact, Siri not only continued in communion with the Vatican II antipopes and called these antipopes “Popes”, but also consented to the heretical decrees of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore, we can only judge him to be a heretic by his external works, and condemn him as a heretic.
The Whole Truth about Fr. Leonard Feeney, Feeneyism, Feeneyites and the Supposed Excommunication of Fr. Feeney Explained and Exposed – New article added on December 12, 2014
Richard Ibranyi (RJMI), Mary's Little Remnant, johnthebaptist.us exposed – New article added on this dangerous heretic on December 12, 2014. We advice no one to read Ibranyi’s material since he is a dangerous and deceiving heretic. However, we have decided to compose a quick refutation against him and some of his outrageous beliefs, heresies and practices for the benefit of the people whom he have deceived and that has been exposed to his material and heretical thinking. (If someone have some questions or wonders about refuting something not yet addressed in the above article, please contact us and we will get back to you about it.)
Archbishop Thuc Bishops and Consecrations (The Thuc Line Bishops) – New article added on December 12, 2014:
Bishop Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc was born October 6, 1897 and died December 13, 1984. In 1938, at the age of 41, Father Thuc was chosen by Rome to direct the Apostolic Vicariate at Vinhlong in Vietnam. He was consecrated bishop on May 4, 1938, being the third Vietnamese priest raised to the rank of bishop. On November 24, 1960, John XXIII named Bishop Thuc “Archbishop” of Hué. He attended the robber’s Second Vatican Council (1964) and signed its documents, at which point he was known to be a notorious heretic with no office in the Church.
It is of the faith—therefore, epikeia cannot justify it—that a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic bishop cannot be a legal successor to the apostles, nor can he propagate a legal line by ordaining Catholic priests or bishops. People ordained by heretics or schismatics are valid priests and bishops, but their orders are unlawful and illicit, which means that they cannot exercise their order without sin.
All those consecrated by him or by others of his line (or by any other heretic or schismatic) lack the canonical mission which the Council of Trent dogmatically teaches to be necessary for a bishop to be a legitimate minister of the word and the sacraments: “If anyone say… that those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent [by the Church], but come from some other source [such as a heretical or schismatical source], are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Canon VII; Denzinger 967). Plainly no necessity, no claim of epikeia can override, even in an extreme need, an obligation derived, not from human law, but from Divine law infallibly proposed as such by the Church (such as the Divine Law that forbids Catholics to communicate in the sacraments with non-Catholics).
The sin of entering into active religious communion with non-Catholics is committed when a self-professed Catholic knowingly gets consecrated or ordained by a notoriously non-Catholic bishop. It is of the faith that a Catholic cannot arrive at a good by an evil means. The Church has already dealt with a similar situation in which there were no Catholic bishops in Armenia. An appeal was made to the Holy See to allow schismatical or heretical bishops to ordain Catholic priests. The Holy See rejected the appeal.
The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Clement VIII in his Instruction Sanctissimus of August 31, 1595, stated that those who had received ordination at the hands of schismatic bishops who apart from their schismatic status were properly consecrated—the necessary form having been observed—did indeed receive orders, but not the right to exercise them. In this he repeated the doctrine of the glossators. Benedict XIV in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis of May 26, 1742, confirmed this doctrine of Clement VIII. …Not only was the recognized validity of schismatic orders established, but further points were clarified. Schismatic bishops were not to be admitted for the conferring of orders or for the administration of any of the other sacraments. Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. An appropriate penance was to be imposed on them. If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed. Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had incurred. … [p. 105] On this same matter there was still another response of the Holy Office on November 21, 1709. No Armenian Catholic bishops were available for ordaining priests who were needed in Ispahan, and so it was asked whether sacred Orders could be received from schismatical or heretical bishops. The Holy Office replied that in no way could that be allowed, and that those who had been ordained by such bishops were irregular and suspended from the exercise of their Orders. …The prohibition to receive holy Orders at the hands of a schismatic bishop is contained in the general prohibition against active religious communication as expressed in canon 1258.1. There is also an implicit prohibition contained in canon 2372, wherein it is stated that those who presume to receive Orders from a notorious schismatic automatically incur a suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See.” (The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, A.B., J.C.L., Imprimatur +D Cardinal Dougherty, Phil., April 2, 1948, Catholic University of America Canon Law Series #264, The Catholic University of America Press, pp. 103-105)
By decreeing “in no way could that be allowed,” the Holy Office confirmed that it is a matter of faith that a Catholic may never knowingly be ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop by a heretic or schismatic. The Holy Office condemns the same excuse that some Thucites use for going to the notorious apostate and heretic Bishop Thuc to be consecrated bishops or ordained priests—they say, there are no Catholic bishops; therefore, we can go before a non-Catholic bishop to be consecrated or ordained. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2372, also condemns them by reaffirming the Holy Office’s 1709 decree.
1917 Code of Canon Law: “Canon 2372. Reception of Orders from Unworthy Prelates: All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, automatically incur suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such a man, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received until he obtains a dispensation from the prohibition.”
Even if a heretic or schismatic bishop lied to a candidate by hiding his notorious crimes of heresy or schism, and produced a forged papal mandate, that candidate, even though of good faith, upon discovering the fraud, cannot exercise his orders. That is not even the case with the Thucites, because Bishop Thuc’s notorious crimes could have been easily known upon a basic inquiry (he signed the Vatican II documents, for instance), and thus, all who received orders from him while knowing he was a heretic committed an act of communion in sacred things with a heretic, which is an act of bad faith. Either way, good faith or bad faith, their orders cannot be legally exercised. Those of good faith incur no mortal guilt; whereas, those of bad faith do, they become schismatics. Those of good faith would incur guilt if they continued to exercise their orders after discovering the bishop they received orders from was not eligible to legally confer orders.
The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] Persons ordained by schismatic bishops were, upon a proper rectification or amendment in their status, to be reconciled and absolved. … Before the ordained persons could exercise their Orders, it was necessary for them to receive from the Holy See a dispensation from the irregularity which they had incurred.”
These Thucites of bad will imply a good can come from an evil means: They violate the infallible Church law that forbids them to knowingly go before a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic bishop to be consecrated or ordained (Holy Office Decree, 1709 and c. 2372); they violate the infallible Church law that forbids active religious communication with non-Catholics (communicatio in sacris) (c. 1258, §1); they violate the natural law by scandal; and, they violate the divine positive law by endangering the Catholic faith of perversion.
As a result of their knowingly schismatic crime, God abhors them and places them, the obstinate sinner who refuse to convert, under the Romans’ One Curse. “For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.” (2 Pt. 2:20-21)
If illegal bishops and priests, such as the Thucites, want to enter the Catholic Church and have their sins forgiven, they must abjure by renouncing their schismatic crime and any heresies they believe in, along with the public crimes of schism and heresy of the non-Catholic bishop who consecrated or ordained them.
The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Holy Orders: “[p. 103] If they had embraced any errors, they had previously to abjure them; if they had not embraced any errors, they had nevertheless to renounce the schism of their ordaining prelate. The abjuration was to be made either publicly or secretly, as the facts in the case directed.”
If the crimes were public, the specific abjuration must also be public. Epikeia would apply for the penitent bishops or priests to abjure if proper Church authorities are impossible to access.
Una Cum Masses Exposed and The Te Igitur Prayer Controversy Explained – New article added on December 12, 2014:
Una Cum masses refers to masses in which the priest would mention the name of a person he considers to be his leader, such as John Paul II, Benedict XVI or, currently, Francis I, in the first prayer of the Canon.
The Te Igitur prayer of the Mass is the first prayer of the Canon. It is the passage in this prayer which requires the priest to pray for the reigning pope and bishop of the diocese in which the Mass if offered.
But the problem is this: The Church teaches that the laity assist actively at Mass, and in so doing, manifest their consent and moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the sacrifice. Indeed, moral unity with the priest is required to fulfill the Sunday obligation. This is a true form of active assistance or participation, and according to Catholic teaching constitutes “cooperation or common action with another in the prayers and functions of worship.”
Thus, if you assist at an una cum Mass this means that you profess religious communion with heretics and participate in sin.
Furthermore, the Fathers of the Church, Pope Innocent III, and indeed Pope Pius XII himself in the Encyclical Mediator Dei, teach specifically that the faithful who actively assist at Mass ratify, assent to and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites, even though they do not vocally recite these prayers themselves.
Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, 3.6: “Not only do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention.”
In Mediator Dei, his great encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, Pius XII treats at great length the role that the laity play in offering the Holy Sacrifice.
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 93), November 20, 1947: “The people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with the prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and the same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 84), November 20, 1947: “Moreover, the rites and prayers of the Eucharistic sacrifice signify and show no less clearly that the oblation of the Victim is made by the priests in company with the people. For not only does the sacred minister, after the offering of the bread and wine when he turns to the people, say the significant prayer: ‘Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty;’ but also the prayers by which the divine Victim is offered to God are generally expressed in the plural number: and in these it is indicated more than once that the people also participate in this august sacrifice inasmuch as they offer the same.”
Thus there is no way for the sedevacantist to avoid it. The same active assistance at Mass required for fulfilling your Sunday obligation also inextricably joins you to the action of a priest at the altar. So, when the priest proclaims during the Canon that he offers the sacrifice together with Thy servant Francis, our Pope — the arch-heretic and false pope Bergoglio, the priest’s prayer is your prayer.
Read more: http://www.catholic-saints.net/una-cum/
Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and the Council of Trent – New article added on December 12, 2014. This important article thoroughly explains the Church’s teaching on the absolute necessity of Water Baptism for salvation and deals specifically with the Council of Trent and explains the reason for why the Council said that baptism, or the desire thereof, is necessary for salvation. We believe that the explanation found below finally settles the Council of Trent controversy once and for all; for, as St. Thomas explains it, for adults, baptism is not only necessary to be desired, but they must also receive it in order to have salvation; whereas for infants, no desire is necessary, and only to actually receive it is required. Hence that this explains why the Council spoke as it did, since it was making out different requirements for adults and infants. Adults need both (desire and sacrament), whereas infants only need the sacrament (water baptism). The most relevant parts are shown below.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious [of those held in original sin], how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION OR A DESIRE FOR IT, AS IT IS WRITTEN: UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD (JOHN 3:5)."
But why does Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is necessary for justification? Because it is referring to both adults and infants receiving baptism. Therefore, in this chapter Trent is dealing exclusively with those Catholics under the age of reason (infants) who have not committed actual sins, and for such infants receiving baptism only is necessary for justification; while for those above the age of reason (adults) who have committed actual sins, the desire for baptism (and godly contrition) in addition to actually receiving baptism is necessary for justification.
The Council of Trent explains this saving sorrow of mind that is necessary for adults "to attain to grace and justice" before receiving baptism.
The Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 1 on the necessity, and on the institution of the Sacrament of Penance: "Penitence was in deed at all times necessary, in order to attain to grace and justice, for all men who had defiled themselves by any mortal sin, EVEN FOR THOSE WHO BEGGED TO BE WASHED BY THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM; that so, their perverseness renounced and amended, THEY MIGHT, WITH A HATRED OF SIN AND A GODLY SORROW OF MIND, DETEST SO GREAT AN OFFENCE OF GOD."
The Council of Trent, Session 14, Chap. 4 on Contrition: "Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. THIS MOVEMENT OF CONTRITION WAS AT ALL TIMES NECESSARY FOR OBTAINING THE PARDON OF SINS..."
As we just saw infallibly defined by the Council of Trent: "Penitence was in deed at all times necessary, in order to attain to grace and justice, for all men who had defiled themselves by any mortal sin, EVEN FOR THOSE WHO BEGGED TO BE WASHED BY THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM; that so, their perverseness renounced and amended, THEY MIGHT, WITH A HATRED OF SIN AND A GODLY SORROW OF MIND, DETEST SO GREAT AN OFFENCE OF GOD." As we can see, they did not say that an adult can be saved without a godly sorrow of mind (or with imperfect contrition) even when being baptized, but rather said that this godly sorrow of mind (perfect contrition) "was in deed at ALL TIMES NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO ATTAIN TO GRACE AND JUSTICE... that so, their perverseness renounced and amended [their life]..." (Session 14, Chapter 1)
Concerning adults. That is why the chapter defines that justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the right desire for it. Both are necessary. Not only a godly sorrow for their sins is necessary, but also a right desire to actually receive baptism, is necessary.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180: "INTENTION - ... In the first place they [adults] must desire and intend to receive it…"
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 68, Art. 7: "Those who receive Baptism - Reply to Objection 2: If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form to be used should be: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee."
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 68, Art. 7: "Whether the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is required on the part of the one baptized? - According to the Church’s ritual, those who are to be baptized ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus they express their intention of receiving the sacrament. I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to Romans 6:4: "We are buried together with" Christ "by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life." Consequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, "will to repent of his former life"; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament."
Concerning infants. The Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic or have an intention contrary to the validity or effect of baptism. Hence, he cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a member of the Church.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: "If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema."
St. Thomas Aquinas also explains why infants does not need to have a desire for baptism and have contrition (or penance as it is also called) as adults always must desire baptism and have contrition in order to receive the full effect and validity of baptism.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Q. 113, Art. 3: "Whether for the justification of the ungodly is required a movement of the free-will? - Reply to Objection 1. Infants are not capable of the movement of their free-will; hence it is by the mere infusion of their souls that God moves them to justice. Now this cannot be brought about without a sacrament; because as original sin, from which they are justified [after receiving baptism], does not come to them from their own will, but by carnal generation [or from simply being born], so also is grace given them [not from their own will but] by Christ through spiritual regeneration [in baptism]. And the same reason holds good with madmen and idiots that have never had the use of their free-will."
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 68, Art. 9: "Whether children should be baptized? - I answer that, As the Apostle says (Romans 5:17), "if by one man’s offense death reigned through one," namely Adam, "much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ." Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which "passed upon all" on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage (Romans 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam [through no will of their own] so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ [also through no will of their own]."
This means that all baptized infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers, are made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one).
So, far from being in favor of baptism of desire, this chapter of the Council of Trent actually goes against it. It defines that justification of the impious cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it, and as we have seen, receiving water baptism is always necessary for justification for both adults and infants alike. We know this interpretation of this passage is correct, because if what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptumest)! But this passage is infallible and there is no contradiction contained therein. So let every baptism of desire supporter cease preaching that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 teaches that justification " can" be effected by water or desire to the exclusion of actually receiving water baptism, which is certainly not what the Council says. Let them cease preaching that John 3:5 is not to be taken AS IT IS WRITTEN: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Let them cease quoting the horrible mistranslation of this passage as it is found in Denzinger (which many of them continue obstinately to do after it has been pointed out to them). And furthermore, let not these people think that they justify themselves before the all-knowing God by ignoring the above facts and continuing to obstinately assert that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 definitely teaches baptism of desire for salvation to the exclusion of actually receiving water baptism. They cannot be justified asserting this even by quoting famous Church theologians, who were mistaken in good faith; for God did not give the charism of infallibility to theologians, however great, but to St. Peter and his successors (the popes) alone (Lk. 22:31-32).
SSPV (Society of St. Pius V), Bishop Clarence Kelly & The Daughters Of Mary Exposed – New article added on December 12, 2014
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio History, Facts, and Consequences – New article on the irrefutable and infallible evidence and bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV for the Sedevacantist position (added on December 12, 2014)
“Pope” Michael aka David Bawden Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices (vaticaninexile.com) – New article added on December 12, 2014. This guy actually claims to be the Pope. On July 16, 1990, six laymen people “elected” Bawden who took the name Pope Michael.
Gerry Matatics Facts, Beliefs, Heresies and Practices Exposed – New article added on December 12, 2014
Fr. Anthony Cekada Exposed Heresies Beliefs and Practices – New article added on December 12, 2014
Bishop Robert Mckenna Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices – New article added on December 12, 2014
Bishop Donald Sanborn Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices – New article added on December 12, 2014
Bishop Daniel Dolan Exposed (sgg.org and traditionalmass.org) – New article added to our website on December 12, 2014
Indeed, it is so obvious that St. Thomas really teaches that even spouses can sin in their lustful touches and kisses when they do them before, during or after the marital sexual act that he actually teaches that spouses can even commit mortal sin from simply performing an unsuitable or indecent sexual position while performing the marital, procreative sexual act!
St. Thomas Aquinas, In Libros Sententiarum, Chapter IV, Section 31, 2, 3: “Marital relations are contrary to nature when either the right receptacle or the proper position required by nature is avoided. In the first case it is always a mortal sin because no offspring can result, so that the purpose of nature is completely frustrated. But in the second case [of inappropriate sexual positions that are procreative] it is not always a mortal sin, as some say, though it can be the sign of a passion which is mortal; at times the latter can occur without sin, as when one’s bodily condition does not permit any other method. In general, this practice is more serious the more it departs from the natural way.”
And St. Thomas Aquinas mentor, also a Doctor of the Church, taught:
St. Albertus Magnus the Great, Doctor of the Church, (c. 1206-1280): “Nature teaches that the proper manner is that the woman be on her back with the man lying on her stomach.” (Commentarii in IV Sententiarum (Dist. XXIII-L))
The above of course refutes the idea that St. Thomas does not teach that spouses can sin in their sexual acts by their unnecessary, lustful, or passionate acts or deeds—such as lustful kisses and touches—since St. Thomas even teaches that married spouses can commit the mortal sin of “passion” by merely performing another sexual position beside from the missionary position (man on top of woman), even though this act is procreative in itself.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 151, Art. 4: “I answer that, As stated above (Objection 2), "pudicitia" [purity] takes its name from "pudor," which signifies shame. Hence purity must needs be properly about the things of which man is most ashamed. Now men are most ashamed of venereal acts, as Augustine remarks (De Civ. Dei xiv, 18), so much so that even the conjugal act, which is adorned by the honesty [Cf. 145] of marriage, is not devoid of shame: and this because the movement of the organs of generation is not subject to the command of reason, as are the movements of the other external members. Now man is ashamed not only of this sexual union but also of all the signs thereof, as the Philosopher observes (Rhet. Ii, 6). Consequently purity regards venereal matters properly, and especially the signs thereof, such as impure looks, kisses, and touches. And since the latter are more wont to be observed, purity regards rather these external signs [i.e., looks, kisses, and touches], while chastity regards rather sexual union.”
Here we have another great evidence that kisses and touches for venereal pleasure was known very clearly to be sinful, shameful and contrary to purity even by the lay people of St. Thomas’ time. St. Thomas tells us that the virtue of “purity regards venereal matters properly, and especially the signs thereof, such as impure looks, kisses, and touches.” But he adds that the virtue of purity were “more wont to be observed” by the people of his own time in regards to these “impure” acts, thus confirming the fact that unnecessary sexual acts, such as kisses and touches for sensual pleasure, is a completely foreign concept to the Church and Her Saints that have been foisted on the modern man and woman through the diabolical media to be a cause of or even to be “love”, “affection”, or an integral part of the marital act, when it in fact is nothing but filthy lust! “The activities of marriage itself, if they are not modest and do not take place under the eyes of God as it were, so that the only intention is children, are filth and lust.” (St. Jerome, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, Book III, Chapter 5:21)
In truth, “filth” is the most suitable word that sums up the worth of every marital act that lacks a procreative purpose. Thus, “… when it [the sexual act] is from lust or for the sake of pleasure, then the coition is a mortal sin and the man sins mortally. … And these dicta assume that the man and his wife have sex according to the order of nature, for anyone who goes against nature always sins mortally and more seriously with his wife than with anyone else and should be punished more seriously… Note the difference between the two cases of husband-wife sex, for incontinence and for pleasure and lust… In the second case, he seeks to procure pleasure with hands or thought or passionate uses and incentives [such as sensual kisses] so he can do more than just have sex with his wife… [thus sinning mortally] because he acts as an adulterer when he burns like an adulterer even with his own wife.” (Gratian, On Marriage, Dictum Post C. 32. 2. 2) Thus, in contrast to the lustful spouses of our own times, the people of the former times were lucky enough to have this good “shamefacedness” that St. Thomas speaks about below that kept them from performing unnecessary and unlawful sexual acts “such as impure looks, kisses, and touches.”
St. Augustine also confirms the fact that it is utterly shameful to even think that one could use “kisses and embraces” for venereal pleasure: “... and you [the Pelagian heretic Julian] do not blush to say you think: ‘It is the more to be commended because the other parts of the body serve it [the reproductive member], that it may be more ardently aroused; be it the eyes for lusting, or the other members, in kisses and embraces.’” (St. Augustine, Against Julian, Book V, Chapter 5, Section 23) Indeed, the people of the modern world shamelessly do not blush to proclaim that kisses and touches for venereal pleasure is lawful and even good, just like the heretics of the early Church did! Since many of the heretics of our own times, like Julian, are Pelagians in their doctrine and rejects the Church’s teaching concerning Original Sin, they also fail to see the inherent evilness of unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts, (such as sensual kisses and touches) since they have chosen to call concupiscence or sexual desire “good” or a “gift from God” rather than a defect that arose from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. In addition to all of this evidence, this quotation also shows us that even the married are forbidden to perform unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts such as sensual kisses and touches. The Pelagian heretic Julian that St. Augustine is citing in this quotation, did not teach that sexual acts (such as sensual kisses and touches) could be performed by unmarried people, but that only the married were allowed to perform them, which shows us that it is shameful to even dare to suggest that the married can perform such acts. This fact, then, directly refutes those who claim that the Church and Her Saints only condemns kisses and touches for venereal pleasure for those who are unmarried.
This is also why St. Augustine teaches that all non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts (such as sensual kisses and touches) are sinful.
St. Augustine, On The Good of Marriage: “For 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, such as sensual kisses and touches] no longer follows reason but lust.” (Section 11, A.D. 401)
Thus, St. Augustine taught that the only lawful sexual act was the intercourse itself. This obviously excludes all other sexual acts that are not part of the normal and natural intercourse “for the begetting of children”. Notice that St. Augustine is also speaking about married people in this quotation, since he says that “necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage”, thus showing us that he is speaking about the married in this quotation, and not only the unmarried. The fact that he is speaking about the married, of course, totally refutes all who say that only the unmarried but not the married are forbidden by the Saints and the Church to perform unnatural, non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts—such as sensual kisses and touches. Thus, “as regards any part of the body [such as the mouth] which is not meant for generative [procreative] purposes, should a man use even his own wife in it [for sensual pleasure], it is against nature and flagitious [that is, atrociously wicked; vicious; outrageous].” (St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book 2, Chapter 35). Again, for those who would claim that only some non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts, such as masturbation of self or of spouse, oral and anal sex, or foreplay, are condemned by the Church and Her Saints, but not sensual touches or kisses, St. Augustine answers that “as regards any part of the body [such as the mouth] which is not meant for generative [procreative] purposes, should a man use even his own wife in it [for sensual pleasure], it is against nature and flagitious” in order to show us that no sexual act without exception that is non-procreative could ever be performed by married spouses without sin, and that all unnecessary sexual acts are “against nature” and condemned and utterly detested by God: “For 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, such as sensual kisses and touches] no longer follows reason but lust.” (On The Good of Marriage, Section 11)
Indeed, we know that St. Augustine even teaches that spouses who perform the normal, natural and procreative sexual act itself but without excusing it with the explicit motive of procreation, are committing a sin; and since this is so even though this act is procreative in itself, how much more must not those acts that are non-procreative be condemned by him?
St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book 1, Chapter 17, A.D. 419: “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.”
Therefore, it is patently absurd and illogical to claim that St. Augustine teaches that the normal, natural and procreative sexual act itself, but without excusing it with the explicit motive of procreation, is sinful to perform for the married; but then turn around and claim that he allows spouses to perform non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts, such as sensual kisses and touches.
The fact of the matter is that every shred of evidence from the Great Saint Augustine’s writings utterly destroys the heresy against the Natural Law which teaches that sensual kisses and touches are allowed or lawful for the married: “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...” (St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 19:28) Saint Augustine makes it perfectly clear that all sexual acts that “exceed the measure necessary for the procreation of children” are acts of “beastly excess”. Are sensual kisses and touches “necessary for the procreation of children”. Of course not! Only the most dishonest person would ever dare to claim such a thing. Thus, it is a fact that St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, condemns those who “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...” and anyone who denies this is simply said not being honest, sad to say!
In answering the question “Whether it is a mortal sin for a man to have knowledge of his wife, [that is, to perform the sexual act with his wife] with the intention not of a marriage good but merely of pleasure?” St. Thomas Aquinas explains that “the right answer to this question is that if pleasure be sought in such a way as to exclude the honesty [and chastity] of marriage, so that, to wit, it is not as a wife but as a woman that a man treats his wife, and that he is ready to use her in the same way if she were not his wife [and merely for fulfilling his own lust], it is a mortal sin; wherefore such a man is said to be too ardent a lover of his wife, because his ardor carries him away from the goods of marriage.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 49, Art. 6)
In another part of his Summa, St. Thomas speaks about the "shamefacedness," whereby one recoils from the disgrace that is contrary to temperance – which sadly is lacking in deviant lustful spouses – and he shows that acts such as “kissing, touching, or fondling” are contrary to the virtue of “purity.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 143, Art. 1: “… there are two integral parts of temperance, "shamefacedness," whereby one recoils from the disgrace that is contrary to temperance, and "honesty," whereby one loves the beauty of temperance. For, as stated above (Q, A, ad 3), temperance more than any other virtue lays claim to a certain comeliness, and the vices of intemperance excel others in disgrace. The subjective parts of a virtue are its species: and the species of a virtue have to be differentiated according to the difference of matter or object. Now temperance is about pleasures of touch, which are of two kinds. For some are directed to nourishment: and in these as regards meat, there is "abstinence," [from gluttony] and as regards drink properly there is "sobriety." [from drunkenness] Other pleasures are directed to the power of procreation, [that is, they arouse the sexual desire] and in these as regards the principal pleasure of the act itself of procreation, there is "chastity," [from acts of adultery, fornication or other unlawful sexual acts] and as to the pleasures incidental to the act, resulting, for instance, from kissing, touching, or fondling, we have "purity [from all such non-procreative sexual acts]."”
Here St. Thomas Aquinas is discussing temperance as a virtue as opposed to the “vices of intemperance”, and he says that the contrary species of the matter or object of “kissing, touching, or fondling” is purity. This means that “kissing, touching, or fondling” can be a means of impurity, and a vice of intemperance, and it shows us that St. Thomas, in this context (as in the other quoted above), referred to it as impurity.
Furthermore, we here see the fact we have already spoken about that spouses who have lost their temperance of “shamefacedness” that St. Thomas speaks about are able to perform such shameful acts as kisses and touches for venereal pleasure. Sad to say, but it is exactly their lack of shame and “shamefacedness” and their forgetfulness of God’s presence, and that God’s eyes sees them and all their unnecessary and lascivious acts, kisses and touches that are performed in connection to the marital act, or as an individual act separated from it—that are the reason for why they dare to perform these unlawful and shameful acts. “Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 15) and Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, (De Nat. Hom. xx)] say that "shamefacedness is fear of doing a disgraceful deed or of a disgraceful deed done."” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 144, Art. 2) And in Reply to Objection 1 of the same article, St. Thomas states: “Shamefacedness properly regards disgrace as due to sin which is a voluntary defect [of the will]. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 6) that "a man is more ashamed of those things of which he is the cause [of doing]."”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 144, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 2: “As stated above, shamefacedness is fear of baseness and disgrace. Now it has been stated (142, 4) that the vice of intemperance is most base and disgraceful. Wherefore shamefacedness pertains more to temperance [from the vice of intemperance] than to any other virtue, by reason of its motive cause, which is a base action though not according to the species of the passion, namely fear [from being shamed*]. Nevertheless in so far as the vices opposed to other virtues are base and disgraceful, shamefacedness may also pertain to other virtues.”
* “Now shamefacedness is inconsistent with perfection, because it is the fear of something base, namely of that which is disgraceful. … Therefore shamefacedness, properly speaking, is not a virtue, since it falls short of the perfection of virtue.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 144, Art. 1)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 144, Art. 4: “I answer that, As stated above (1 and 2) shamefacedness is fear of some disgrace. Now it may happen in two ways that an evil is not feared: first, because it is not reckoned an evil; secondly because one reckons it impossible with regard to oneself, or as not difficult to avoid. Accordingly shame may be lacking in a person in two ways. First, because the things that should make him ashamed are not deemed by him to be disgraceful; and in this way those who are steeped in sin are without shame, for instead of disapproving of their sins, they boast of them. Secondly, because they apprehend disgrace as impossible to themselves, or as easy to avoid. On this way the old and the virtuous are not shamefaced. Yet they are so disposed, that if there were anything disgraceful in them they would be ashamed of it. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 9) that "shame is in the virtuous hypothetically."”
Though they are not in themselves mortal sins when they are not performed for the sake of venereal pleasure, St. Thomas Aquinas clearly recognizes that kisses and touches come to be treated as such "ex sua causa," "because of a wicked intention," as the Blackfriars edition of the Summa renders it (cf. Summa Theologica 2a.2ae.154.4; 43: 220-21); kisses that are intended to arouse, to incite venereal pleasure, are properly called libidinous and are condemned as mortal sins.
In fact, the Angelic doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, defines lust in the following manner:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 153, Art. 3: “I answer that, The more necessary a thing is, the more it behooves one to observe the order of reason in its regard; wherefore the more sinful it becomes if the order of reason be forsaken. Now the use of venereal acts, as stated in the foregoing Article, is most necessary for the common good, namely the preservation of the human race. Wherefore there is the greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this matter: so that if anything be done in this connection against the dictate of reason’s ordering, it will be a sin. Now lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts. Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin.”
All of this absolutely proves that all unnecessary sexual acts like sensual kisses and touches are sinful! for according to St. Thomas, whenever spouses go beyond “the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts” during marital relations, they committed the sin of lust. Notice that St. Thomas says “that if anything be done in this connection against the dictate of reason’s ordering, it will be a sin.” He says that “anything” that is done “against the dictate of reason’s ordering” is sinful, and not only some things, (as many heretics of our own times claim), and that “lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts”, that is, exceeding that which “is most necessary for the common good, namely the preservation of the human race.” Since the venereal act “is most necessary for the common good, namely the preservation of the human race” it is a direct sin against nature to perform unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts. Thus, according to St. Thomas, since “the use of venereal acts” are permitted for the purpose of procreation, “there is the greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this matter: so that if anything be done in this connection against the dictate of reason’s ordering, it will be a sin. Now lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts. Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin.” Therefore, it is obvious from the Natural Law itself that sensual kisses and touches are “exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts” since they are unnecessary and not able to procreate children, which is the purpose of the marital sexual act, according to the teaching of the Church.
St. Thomas continues to expound on this teaching in the following question:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 1: “I answer that, As stated above (Question 153, Article 3), the sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason. … Reply to Objection 6. According to a gloss on this passage [Galatians 5:19] "lust" there signifies any kind of excess.”
What, then, is excess in the marital act? Again, let’s ask St. Thomas Aquinas.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 1: “Reply to Objection 5. As a gloss says on this passage, "uncleanness" stands for lust against nature… Reply to Objection 6. We may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates to certain acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth.”
Notice that St. Thomas even rejects as lascivious and unlawful “acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth” and so, it is clear that St. Thomas taught that all non-procreative and unnecessary sexual acts are sinful and against nature. And the infallible word of God of course agrees with this truth of nature, teaching us that: “The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury [lust]... Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19, 21)
The main point we can gather from this explanation of St. Thomas that he so eloquently gives to us is that kisses and touches for sensual pleasure is completely unnecessary for procreation of children and serves nothing but a shameful, selfish, sinful and condemned lust. They are therefore mortal sins and are unreasonable and unnatural.
People who are in a marriage should ask themselves these questions: “Whom do I love during the act of marriage: God and my spouse in all honesty and virtue, or my spouse’s body and the lust I derive from it?” “Have the thought of God or that He is present ever even entered my mind during marital relations?” “Have this absence of God’s presence in my mind also driven me into committing shameful sins by inflaming my concupiscence in unlawful ways?” In truth, those couples who doesn’t shut God out from themselves or their hearts during marital relations will undoubtedly be less likely to fall into other sins during the act of marriage. Saint Alphonsus, in his great book called the True Spouse of Jesus Christ, explains this crucial truth to us.
St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, On the Presence of God: “The Saints by the thought that God was looking at them have bravely repelled all the assaults of their enemies… This thought also converted a wicked woman who dared to tempt St. Ephrem; the saint told her that if she wished to sin she must meet him in the middle of the city. But, said she, how is it possible to commit sin before so many persons? And how, replied the Saint, is it possible to sin in the presence of God, who sees us in every place? At these words she burst into tears, and falling prostrate on the ground asked pardon of the saint, and besought him to point out to her the way of salvation.” (True Spouse of Jesus Christ, p. 497)
And Gratian says that: “Unbridled desire and shameful employment of marriage are licentiousness and impurity… Second [in Gal. 5:19], the works of the flesh are called "impurity," and "licentiousness," its companion, is included with it. In the Old Law, the Scriptures generally include these among those horrible crimes committed in secret, which are said to be so filthy as to pollute the mouth that speaks of them, or the ears that hear of them. It says [Lev. 15:31], "You shall teach the children of Israel to take heed of uncleanness," including in this passage all unbridled desires, even those acts within marriage that are not performed as though God were present, with shame and modesty, for the sake of children. Such are called licentiousness and impurity.” (Gratian, Medieval Marriage Law, Case Thirty-Two, Question IV, Part 4, C. 12)
If it’s God we love the most, then it must naturally be Him that we are seeking to please, and not ourselves, our flesh, or our spouse. Our Lord God Jesus Christ Himself taught us this specific truth in the holy gospels, saying: “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37)
Good and virtuous spouses always remember that God is present with them, and that is also why they do not stoop to the evil and unnatural sexual sins that so plague humanity today.
Footnote 359 to The Shepherd of Hermas: “‘To the pure, all things are pure;’ but they who presume on this great truth to indulge in kissings and like familiarities are tempting a dangerous downfall.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage, To Pomponius (c. A.D. 249): “Assuredly the mere lying together, the mere embracing, the very talking together, and the act of kissing, and the disgraceful and foul slumber of two persons lying together, how much of dishonour and crime does it confess!” (The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXI)
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book II, Chapter XX (c. 199 A.D.): “Socrates accordingly bids ‘people guard against enticements to eat when they are not hungry, and to drink when not thirsty, and the glances and kisses of the fair, as fitted to inject a deadlier poison than that of scorpions and spiders.’” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 2, p. 613)
Indeed, the argument that sensual kisses and touches are sinful because they are intoxicating like a drug is just one of the three main arguments against it, the other two being that they are shameful and non-procreative. If one wants to read more about these two arguments and why they refute all those who perversely claim that one may perform kisses and touches for sensual reasons (or any other unnecessary or non-procreative sexual act), one can read more about them in the beginning of Part 2 of this Book, which is named “Sexual Pleasure, Lust, And The Various Sexual Acts In Marriage”.
Objection: How can you say that the only motive that can excuse the marital act is the procreation of children? It is not against the Natural Law or the Law of the Church to excuse intercourse for the sake of pleasure, health, or love. You are wrong when you say that one must perform the marital act for the purpose or motive of begetting children, and that the procreation of children is the only primary purpose or motive that a couple can use to excuse the marital act. There are many primary purposes or motives of marriage that excuse the marital act from being sinful. One can perform the marital act for many primary reasons such as for the sole purpose or motive of health, satisfying the fleshly lust, quenching concupiscence, mutual help, paying the marital debt, as well as for cultivating mutual love and unitive purposes. Any one of these purposes or motives are enough to perform the marital act in a lawful way, and this proves that spouses can perform sexual acts that are not intended or able to procreate in themselves.
Objection: The Bible doesn’t condemn birth control. Modern birth control methods were unknown in Bible times, and the Bible is, therefore, silent on the matter. The closest that Scripture comes to condemning birth control is Genesis chapter 38, the account of Judah’s sons Er and Onan. Onan’s motivation was selfish; he used Tamar for his own pleasure, but refused to perform his legal duty (from Deuteronomy 25:5-10) of creating an heir for his deceased brother. This passage (in Genesis 38) is often used as evidence that God does not approve of birth control. However, it was not the act of contraception that caused the Lord to put Onan to death as you say; it was Onan’s selfish motives behind the action. God did not kill Onan for practicing contraception but because he refused to obey the Law from Deuteronomy 25:5-10 that instructed brothers to raise up seed for his dead brother. This fact proves that God doesn’t directly condemn contraception in the Bible. Contraception, by definition, is merely the opposite of conception. It is not the use of contraception that is wrong or right. As we learned from Onan, it is the motivation behind the contraception that determines if it is right or wrong. Ultimately, a couple’s motives for delaying childbearing, using contraception, or even having numerous children, are between them and God. Therefore, we can find no biblical admonition against the use of birth control in and of itself.
Question: On what authority does the protestant sects deny the biblical, Apostolic and Patristic teaching that all marital acts must be excused with the motive of procreation?
Question: Why are these and other verses from the Book of Tobit or Tobias that you cite not found in my bible?
The Holy Bible, Tobias 6:22; 8:9 “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 mayest obtain a blessing in children… [Tobias said:] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.”
Question: I want a child, but my spouse does not. What do I do?
Question: What is marital modesty? And is it absolutely necessary for two married spouses to be modest towards each other in their dress, conversations and acts?
Question: What is concupiscence and how does it effect us?
Question: Why do you say that the marital sexual act must be excused with the motive of procreation? Eating does not need to be excused, and therefore, neither does the marital act need to be excused. This argument also shows that one can lawfully perform non-procreative forms of sexual acts, such as sensual kisses and touches, that are not able to procreate in themselves, since one does not need to excuse an act just because it is pleasurable, as in the case of eating.
Question: Does the Church allow the married to demand the marital debt on holy days?
Question: How can you teach that sensual touches, kisses and various lustful acts are sinful when the Bible allows it? The biblical books called “The Song of Songs” and “Proverbs” directly teaches that sensual touches, kisses and acts are allowed, so you are not right in condemning these acts.
Question: Are vanity and sexual desire connected to each other in any way?
Section: All people that dress immodestly or tempt others into lasciviousness, whether by their dress, paintings, or by providing or recommending to others bad movies with unacceptable, bad scenes in them, or by linking to websites (such as news articles) that contains immoral and lascivious images, or worse, by posting such images on their own website or forum posts, even if they are posted for a so-called “religious motive”, are guilty of the mortal sin of scandal
Question: Is it a sin to willfully look at persons or things that one are sexually attracted to and that arouse one’s sexual desire? Is it permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor?
Question: Why are sexual sins harder to confess and less likely to be repented of than many other sins?
Section: All who through shame hide or omit their sins in confession are damned: "St. Alphonsus speaks in great detail in the section "On the Ruin of Souls who through Shame omit to Confess their Sins", concerning the shame that is inherent in confessing and how this shame makes many people commit sacrilegious confessions, and he shows quite clearly how all those who fall for this sin of omission are damned..."
Section: Sacrilegious confessions leads to Hell: "In another part of the same work, in "Of Persons Who Have Made Sacrilegious Confessions", St. Alphonsus gives us some very horrifying examples of the death and damnation of those people who hide or omit their sins from the priest and God in the sacrament of confession..."
Question: In what detail must one confess to a priest the sins of impurity or other sins that one have committed? When you quote Jean Gerson, you say that one must confess every single detail, but I don’t agree with this.
Jean Gerson, Oeuvres Complétes: “What a young boy should tell in confession: I sometimes stroked myself or others, urged by disorderly pleasure; I fondled myself, in my bed and elsewhere, something I would not have dared to do if people had been there. Sometimes the priest cannot absolve such fondling. If they are not confessed and the details given, whatever the shame, one cannot be absolved, and the confession is worthless: one is destined to be damned for ever in Hell. The action and the way it has been done must be told.”
This is not justice and the Church does not teach this, and God does not require such details to be given, since the one confessing could think that his confession will tempt the priest, or that this priest is a pedophile, or that the priest will tell the sin to others, or he could forget his sins, or many other reasons, and so, one is not obligated under pain of sin to confess all the details.
Question: How great must one’s purpose of amendment in confession be in order for a person to be forgiven his sins? Many times, I confess thinking that it is certain that I will fall again.
Objection: You are not right in teaching that Mary was completely chaste during her whole life since the Bible teaches that Jesus had brothers during his life.
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”
Objection: You are not right in teaching that specific acts of virtue increases our own or other people’s chances of reaching heaven. There’s nothing in the Bible that teaches this. My Bible does not even have the verse that teaches this: “But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.” (Matthew 17:21)
Objection: The Church does not teach that a priest or a deacon must remain chaste after their ordination since the Quinisext Council in A.D. 692 declared that they were allowed to continue in the normal marital state.
Objection: Saints Peter, Paul and Barnabas is confirmed by Paul himself to have had women with them during their travels. This proves that God does not approve of priestly or clerical chastity since the Apostles was not living in complete chastity.
St. Alphonsus, On avoiding the occasions of sin: “Some also believe that it is only a venial sin to expose themselves to the proximate occasion of sin. 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. … It is necessary to inculcate frequently the necessity of avoiding dangerous occasions; for, if proximate occasions, especially of carnal sins, are not avoided, all other means will be useless for our salvation.” (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol 15, pp. 351-355)
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.
Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #62, March 4, 1679: “The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.
Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #63, March 4, 1679: “It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.
Here we see that the Church confirms that the opinion that “It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor” is directly condemned. And this condemnation is about those who “seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning” for a good cause, rather than for a selfish cause. But most people in this world do not even watch or listen to evil, worldly and ungodly media for a good cause but rather for the sake of pleasure or for other unnecessary reasons, and it is certainly not necessary “for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.” This shows us that the Church and the Natural Law absolutely abhors and condemns the opinion that one can watch or listen to media that can tempt a person to sin. Indeed, not only the occasions of sin, like evil, worldly and ungodly media, but also the “the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor” must be totally rejected and shunned if one wants to attain salvation.
People who reject this advice and continue to put themselves in a proximate or near occasion of sin will undoubtedly lose their souls, since God will allow the devil to fool them in some way since they rejected the Word of God, and chose to put themselves in the way of temptation. Many there are, indeed, who presumptuously claim that they won’t get tempted by watching or listening to worldly media, or that they will be able to control it, but here we see in the condemnations of Blessed Pope Innocent XI that one may not even put oneself in “the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor”. God will undoubtedly leave a person who is presumptuous and prideful, and the Church and Her Saints have always condemned such individuals that trusts in their own strength. As a matter of fact, one can even understand from the light of natural reason that one is not allowed to put oneself in the occasion of sin, so those who do this act will have no excuse whatsoever on the day of judgment. In addition, a person who watches bad, worldly or ungodly media, tempts his fellow man to watch these evil things also, and thus, by his bad example, puts both himself and others in the way of damnation by his selfishness and presumption. So in addition to damning himself if he obstinately continues in such a course of life, such a person also actually tries to damn others by his bad example, trying to drag others with him into the eternal darkness and fire of hell. This is a kind of evil that is breathtaking to behold! It is thus a fact “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)
The pitiful and unreasonable addiction to media by so many “Catholics” or “Christians” today is something new, and almost no one before the 20th century was so miserably addicted to it as the weak and bad willed population of our own times! The amount of pitiful and pathetic excuses that we have had to hear from bad willed people who try to excuse their act of putting themselves in the proximate or near occasion of sin is, simply said, almost endless. Even though they understand that they are not allowed to endanger their souls, they just couldn’t care since they are hooked on the media, just like a drug addict, who need his daily “fix” to endure the day. For about a hundred years ago, almost no media existed as compared to today, and people thrived and the crime rates was as nothing when compared to today. So the unreasonable addiction to media cannot be excused, for man does not need media at all to survive, and putting oneself in the near or “the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor” is directly condemned by the Church.
Always surf without images on. Don’t be a fool by rejecting this advice of the Popes and Saints of the Church concerning the unlawfulness of putting oneself in the proximate occasion for sinning and of looking on things that are unlawful to covet or behold and that are a danger to one’s salvation. If you want to see images on some site, then allow the images only temporarily and afterwards block it again so that you do not continue surfing the internet with images on.
And yes, it is a sin to refuse to follow this advice since it’s virtually impossible to escape bad and immodest images and commercials of men or women tempting you every day when surfing the internet (and the same of course applies to watching most media too, which is why we recommend people never to watch movable images and that they only listen to the audio). Only a condemned person not fearing God or sin at all would refuse to follow this good advice that helps him avoid falling into sexual temptations and sins everyday.
We ourselves do not watch any videos anymore except exclusively when for the sake of making videos. Now we only listen to audio, having all the movable images blocked. On YouTube, when we still watched YouTube (we now have it blocked), we did not watch the videos but only listened to them by downloading them as audio (or video) and listened to them only in audio, or at least, by avoiding watching at the screen if we were watching it on youtube, or on other video sites. 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?
That so much naked religious images have been made, spread and depicted even in churches! during the last 700 years or so is undoubtedly a sign of the gradual falling away from God and the corruption of morals within and without the Church by the people, and indicates why God ultimately abandoned the Church to what it is has become today.
Also consider that it is very easy to sin in one’s thought. In fact, one consent to an evil thought is enough to damn a person to burn in Hell for all eternity! and all the bad scenes one sees in all the films, television, movies, series etc. tempts one to commit exactly this sin against God.
St. Alphonsus: “Listen to this example: A boy used often to go to confession; and every one took him to be a saint. One night he had a hemorrhage, and he was found dead. His parents went at once to his confessor, and crying begged him to recommend him to God; and he said to them: "Rejoice; your son, I know, was a little angel; God wished to take him from this world, and he must now be in heaven; should he, however, be still in purgatory, I will go to say Mass for him." He put on his vestments to go to the altar; but before leaving the sacristy, he saw himself in the presence of a frightful spectre, whom he asked in the name of God who he was. The phantom answered that he was the soul of him that had just died. Oh! is it you? exclaimed the priest; if you are in need of prayers, I am just going to say Mass for you. Alas! Mass! I am damned, I am in hell! And why? "Hear," said the soul: "I had never yet committed a mortal sin; but last night a bad thought came to my mind; I gave consent to it, and God made me die at once, and condemned me to hell as I have deserved to be. Do not say Mass for me; it would only increase my sufferings." Having spoken thus, the phantom disappeared.” (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol 15, p. 167)
“O eternity, eternity! The saints tremble at the mere thought of eternity; and ye sinners, who are in disgrace with God, you do not fear? You do not tremble? It is of faith that he who dies in the state of sin goes to burn in the fire of hell for all eternity!” (Ibid, p. 108)
Scripture teaches that few are saved (Mt. 7:13) and that almost the entire world lies in darkness, so much so that Satan is even called the “prince” (John 12:31) and “god” (2 Cor. 4:3) of this world. “We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness.” (1 John 5:19)
Why are most people damned? Most people are damned because they don’t care enough about God nor fear Him enough to avoid all sin and the occasions of falling into obvious sin, nor do they love Him more than they love their own perverse will or self-love—which is the direct reason for their indifferent lifestyle; neither do they care enough about God so as to avoid even what they obviously know will lead them into possible sin. The great St. Ambrose said concerning this: “True repentance [and thus love of God] is to cease to sin [all sin, however small].”
That of course means that one must do all in one’s power to avoid not only mortal sin, but also venial sin. It also means to in fact never even have a will to commit even the slightest sin that one knows to be a sin culpably or with full consent against the all good God — and now we may deduce already why most people in fact are damned.
Hence that most people are damned and always have been. So the only reason it would be hard for someone to be forgiven his sins and be saved is if he don’t love God enough, fear God enough, nor trust God enough with his whole heart—trust and love, such as believing in Him and that He will forgive you if you do what you must—and that He hears all your prayers and grants all your prayers that are good for you, such as all prayers for the grace of attaining forgiveness and salvation. Therefore, it is only hard to be saved for the bad — and not for the good souls.
Generally, one of course cannot know whether a film, documentary or show that one watches or desires to watch will have any bad images or scenes in them—before having already watched it. (There are some sites that offers warnings of immodesty, bad language, nudity etc., but their warnings probably are not enough, nor will they, in all likelihood, include a warning against the so-called modern day women’s fashion in which women show of their womanly figure by pants or revealing and tight clothing since this is how every one dress today (which in itself would be bad enough to forbid watching these shows entirely), and of course, the modern day “Catholic” or “Christian” standard of modesty is not enough and is even evil in many cases.) Therefore, it is playing with fire to watch movable images and risk one’s soul; and as we have seen, God will ultimately abandon a person that willfully put himself in danger of falling. Again, remember what St. Alphonsus said: “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.”
We recommend that no one watch videos or even audios at all (unless perhaps strictly religious things), but if you want to watch more secular things (such as news clips, documentaries or whatever else, even religious films) then listen to audio only. This means that you should turn the television around or put something over the screen. If on the internet, it means that you should avoid watching the video that is playing; or download vlc player and disable video in preferences, and download the videos instead of watching them on the internet, and listen to them only as audio through vlc player or some other video player. You can also download videos and convert them to mp3 or download an extension or program that does it automatically for you. This is a good youtube video downloader that we recommend:
You can set settings 360P and mp4 for easiest configuration that takes not too much space and yet is good quality, and just download the video you want to hear instead of watching it on youtube. If you enter youtube videos, you should disable auto play so that videos do not play automatically for the same reason (the flashblock addons linked to above does the trick). You can also disable youtube comments in channel settings. Many of them are pure evil, filthy and spiritually distracting anyway. But the comments vary in badness depending on the video you are watching or entering. But just so you know, it is possible to disable seeing them.
Images must also be blocked when surfing on youtube! The number of bad, immodest and mortally sinful inducing images I myself have seen on youtube, and especially in the related videos while watching a video, or after it ended, is almost innumerable! (and no, I don’t watch sensual material and anyone who has spent any time on youtube will know from experience that related thumbnails can be pure evil and filthy regardless of what videos you are watching, be it a news clip or a religious video, and the latter example is especially true if it concerns a moral subject). Having images blocked goes for all websites that have any bad images in them, even wikipedia, unless the article is deemed safe. (For the same reason, it is evil and a sin to link to articles that one knows contains any bad images. Yet many people, even traditional so-called Catholics, frequently, and without any scruple, link to such articles all the time just as if they thought they will not receive a judgment for every person that has becomes affected or aroused sensually by what they posted, linked to or were personally responsible for.) Also, on Firefox, never watch a youtube video to the end, or, if you do, scroll down before the film ends, since the related video images on Firefox—that are shown in the video screen—sadly doesn’t get blocked by having images disabled. I have seen not a few evil images because of that, sadly. Now I know better, and that one must avoid seeing this and falling into this devilish trap (but happily, we don’t even watch videos anymore and we encourage all to follow this same advice).
Considering the quotes of St. Alphonsus on avoiding occasions of sin and about how God demands more of certain souls that He has given more graces: it is highly important for one’s salvation to not watch media or expose oneself to dangerous occasions (such as by surfing the internet with images on).
Among other early condemnations of birth prevention and unnatural sexual acts are the first century Letter of Barnabas, the holy Apostle and Saint of Jesus Christ who was born in Cyprus and died in Salamis in around 61 A.D., which denounces the wicked practice of “those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth [oral sex] with the body through uncleanness” (Barnabas X, 8) and of having intercourse while making conception impossible. Another important writing concerning this topic is the mid-second century Apology of St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.) who describes the marital problems of a young Christian convert. Her evil husband tried to satisfy his sexual urges by copulating with her “against the law of nature and against what is right.” Her family prevailed on her to remain with the man for a while, but finally she could not tolerate his morals and left him. Justin praises her conduct in refusing to participate in the man’s “impious conduct” (Apologia II, 1).
In the canons of John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, we find that:
“If someone commits sodomy upon his wife, he is penanced for eight years, eating dry foods after the ninth hour, and doing two hundred prostrations.” (The Canons of John the Faster, Canon 35, Interpretation, A.D. 580)
Another translation reads:
“If any man perform arseneocotia upon his wife, he shall be penanced for eight years, faring the while with xerophagy after the ninth hour and doing two hundred metanies daily.” (Ibid)
“Arseneocotia” is a term used quite often in the ancient canons to refer to male homosexual behavior (oral and anal sex), but here it refers specifically to such acts being performed upon a wife. Compare this to the penance for bestiality from John:
“If any man lie with a beast many times, when he has a wife, he shall be penanced eight years; but if he had no wife, and did so only once or twice or three times at the most, he shall be penanced three years, with xerophagy [or, more explicitly speaking, with only bread and water] after the ninth hour and doing three hundred metanies.” (Ibid)
The penance for committing sodomy on the wife is greater than for an unmarried man to commit bestiality! That really tells you how the Church views this vile act. It is totally degrading to the wife, making her a beast, or even less than one.
The Interpretation (by Nikodemus) of The Canons of John the Faster (580 A.D.) explains this fact in further detail: “Note that in the Canons of the Faster, from a manuscript codex which was found, sodomy has the following divisions: sodomy is of two types, either committed upon women, when men fall with them into that which is against nature, or committed upon men. Another division is that, among men, one commits the act, while the other suffers the act, while another both commits and suffers the act. The worst sin is for someone to both commit and suffer the act. And for someone to commit the act upon a woman that is not his wife is worse than committing it with men. But for someone to commit it upon his own wife is worse than committing it upon a woman who is not his wife. For these things then, we conclude that, the married couple which falls into that which is against nature, is penanced more heavily than a sodomist committing it upon another man or upon a woman who is not his wife.”
Other testimonies of the truth that sodomitical acts are damnable and inherently sinful and even comparable to the crime of murder, is found in Canon 7 and 87 of the Canons of St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379 A.D.), and it shows us how the Church views such perverted sexual acts:
St. Basil the Great, Bishop, Confessor and Doctor of the Church: “Sodomists and bestialists and murderers and sorcerers and adulterers and idolaters deserve the same condemnation… for they have surrendered themselves to Satan...” (The Canons of St. Basil the Great, Canon 7)
St. Basil the Great, Bishop, Confessor and Doctor of the Church: “But how many other forms of impure passions the school of demons invented, but Holy Writ does not even refer to, being averse to sullying its fair character by naming shameful things, but merely alluding to them in general terms, as St. Paul the Apostle says: "But fornication, and all other filth, or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints" (Eph. 5:3), comprehending under the noun "filth" the unspeakable doings of sodomy and those of females too, so that silence does not by any means afford a license to lovers of pleasures. As for me, however, I say that the Legislator did not even remain silent concerning these matters either, but in fact very vehemently prohibited such things.” (The Canons of St. Basil the Great, Canon 87)
The Interpretation of Canon 7 states: “As for adultery, sodomy [anal and oral sex], and bestiality, the Fathers canonized these sins doubly more than fornication, or, more expressly, each of them eighteen years, because the sin involved in them is also double. … As for sodomy, on the other hand, and bestiality (or sexual intercourse with beasts), in these too besides the unlawful pleasure they afford, there is an actual injustice done to what is strange or unnatural, or, more explicitly speaking, they violate the laws of nature, in that they are sins contrary to nature. The number of years for each of these sinful deeds has likewise been economically fixed like those for fornication, but doubly as many: that is to say, in other words, adulterers are to spend six years in weeping outside the church, and so are those guilty of sodomy and of bestiality; they are to listen for six years, and to kneel for six years more, and then they are to commune.”
The anus or mouth is clearly not intended for procreation. Such acts are against the nature of sex itself – oral or anal sex serves no purpose of nature – it cannot lead to the begetting of a child. Its only purpose is for base, filthy, physical pleasure. Such acts do not in any way fit into the nature of the Christian who has undergone the washing of regeneration and has given himself to the natural end that God originally intended for us – to be glorified and united with Him. Such acts, as the Canons show, make us like animals and keep us mired in merely physical pleasures. They are against nature in every way.
Since people are so degraded and consumed by sins of impurity nowadays, most of them do not know that the word “Sodomy” actually refers to all non-procreative sexual acts. Wikipedia explains that “Sodomy is generally anal or oral sexual activity between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity. … Sodomy laws in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well. In the Western world, however, many of these laws have been overturned or are not routinely enforced.” Indeed, since the western world have become so degraded in their morals in the last 50 years, the millennial teaching of the Natural Law that non-procreative sexual acts are banned and sinful had to go – in order to satisfy the perverts.
Contrary to many perverted “Catholics” who claim that only anal sex is sodomy and that this act alone is banned by the Church (or that this act is only forbidden if it is consummated in that way), while other sodomitical acts, such as oral sex, are lawful to perform—this definition of sodomy also proves that even the western world considered not only anal sex an evil and sodomy, but also other sexual acts that were not able to procreate in themselves. Only in this end time apostasy did God allow the formerly Christian people to fall into such a diabolical mind frame that they even dared to claim that non-procreative sexual acts are actually allowed by God and His Church!
Merriam Webster’s Dictionary also confirms that Sodomy is “Noncoital carnal copulation [that is, all sexual acts apart from the normal, natural and procreative marital act]. Sodomy is a crime in some jurisdictions. … Other sodomy laws proscribe a variety of other forms of sexual contact and apply even to married couples. No such regulations are found in the law codes of Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden, The Netherlands, or Switzerland, among other countries. The Wolfenden committee in Britain and the American Law Institute recommended abolition of criminal penalties for sodomy, except in cases involving violence, children, or public solicitation. This position was adopted in England in 1967 and has been adopted in many U.S. states as well.”
It is a sad thing that the world and so called Catholics have fallen into such a state of degradation that one is even forced to have to remark on such obvious truths from the Natural Law that all people know about. In marriage the husband and wife face the ever-present temptation to sin by seeking sexual pleasure with each other. However, as we have seen, the Catholic Church have always condemned the evil perversity of all unnatural sexual acts within or without marriage. Because the Church’s members understood the evil of such acts in former times, it was more common to see holy pictures depicting the fact that those wretched people who committed “sins of lust within the holy state of Matrimony” were especially guilty of the brutal scourging and crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. A good example demonstrating this was pictures of a Roman soldier beating Jesus with a whip with the caption saying that: “Christ expiated sins of the flesh by enduring the merciless scourging at the pillar.” And that: “Sins of lust within the holy state of Matrimony play their cruel part in these sufferings of our Divine Savior.” In truth, married people are especially guilty for the torture and crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ since their sin is not only against the Natural Law, but also against the Holy Sacrament of Marriage instituted by Our Lord.
St. Alphonsus, Precepts of the Decalogue, Chapter VI, The Sixth and Ninth Commandments: “I will only observe here, in general, that it is necessary to confess not only all the acts, but also improper touches, all unchaste looks, all obscene words, especially when spoken with pleasure, or with danger of scandal to others. It is, moreover, necessary to confess all immodest thoughts. Some ignorant persons imagine that they are bound only to confess impure actions: they must also confess all the bad thoughts to which they have consented. Human laws forbid only external acts, because men only see what is manifested externally; but God, who sees the heart, condemns every evil thought: “Man sees those things that appear; but the Lord beholdeth the heart.” (I Kings, xvi. 7.) This holds good for every species of bad thoughts to which the will consents. Indeed, whatever it is a sin to do, it is also in the sight of God a sin to desire.” (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol 15, pp. 466-469)
Simply said, women or men are not toys, playthings, or “bunnies” from which to derive sexual stimulation. When women or even one’s own wife are used in sexual fantasies, they are sexually abused, even if they are untouched. Many men rape many women each day and commit adultery, fornication and illicit sexual acts without laying a hand on them. Women also rape men and commit adultery, fornication and illicit sexual acts in this way. These rapes, fornications, illicit sexual acts and adulteries are not marked by physical violence but by psychological warfare. Because a person is often unaware of being used and abused, and because the abuser often does not fathom the real extent of the severity of his crime, this makes these mental and visual rapes/abuses/sexual crimes seem less devastating. Nevertheless, grave sin with all its degradation and death is being committed.
The Canons of John the Faster teaches that “Anyone having committed masturbation is penanced forty days, during which he must keep himself alive by xerophagy and must do one hundred metanies every day.” (Canon 8) The Interpretation of this canon explains that: “The present Canon decrees that anyone who is guilty of masturbating at any time is obliged to refrain from communing for forty days straight, passing these with xerophagy, [the practice of eating dry food, especially food cooked without oil] or, more explicitly speaking, with only bread and water, and doing every day metanies to the number of one hundred each time. As concerning masturbators and fornicators, St. Meletius the Confessor asserts that they are making a sacrifice of their semen to the Devil, which semen is the most precious part of their body.”
The word Metanie means “A reverent physical movement indicating repentance (Greek: metanoia), made by making the sign of the cross with the right hand and either bowing at the waist and knees until the hand on its downward final stroke touches the ground (small metanie), or lowering the whole body onto the knees and bowing down fully until the forehead touches the ground (great metanie). Metanies are prescribed at specific liturgical times, particularly during the Lenten prayer of Ephrem the Syrian, but are proscribed from Pascha through Pentecost. They are a part of personal prayer and are an integral element of monastic training. Metanies are distinct from the still kneeling position, and also from the bowing of clergy to one another known as the schema.”
St. Alphonsus: “Hear, my Brethren: the Lord pardons the sins of him who repents of them; but he does not pardon him who has the will to commit sin. See for how many years God has borne with you, and is saying to your heart: Cease, my child; amend your life; offend me no more! And what have you done? Always the same thing: you have confessed, you have promised; yet you have always begun again to sin, you always continue to offend God! For what are you waiting? That God may take you from this world and cast you into hell? Do you not see that God cannot bear with you any longer?” (Exhortations, The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol 15, p. 101)
“What do you say? What do you resolve to do? Yes or no; do you desire no more to offend God? Who knows whether it is not the last appeal that the Lord addresses to you? Hasten to take a resolution. Do you wish to wait until God puts an end to your disorders by casting you into hell without the least hope of ever remedying your misfortune? Go, my dear Brethren, enter your homes, and reflect on what you have heard this evening; recommend yourselves to the Blessed Virgin, and ask her to enlighten you.
“Sinner, thou art foe of heaven, And thou tremblest not with fear? Cease those sins, my child, ah! leave them, Death advances, hell is near. … Listen to me this evening: you are now the enemies of God, it is true, since you have offended him much; but he is ready to pardon you if you wish to amend your life. Courage, then, my dear Christians come to the mission, go to confession, and renounce sin; hasten to give yourselves to God, who is still waiting for you, who is still calling for you; do not anger him any more.
“… O sinners! what more do you wish God to do? Do not, therefore, lose confidence, hope; but hope and tremble: if you wish to amend your life, hope; if you wish to continue to have God as your enemy, tremble yes, tremble that the present appeal may not be the last one for you; if you do not resolve to give yourselves to God, perhaps this very evening God will abandon you, and you will be damned!
“… The Lord could make you die and send you to hell the moment that you offend him; yet, see the great mercy which he now shows you: instead of punishing you, you see him coming to you with this holy mission, in order to pardon you; he comes himself to seek you, to make peace with you; it will suffice if you repent of having offended him, and if you promise not to offend him any more.
“He saith: “Poor child, from sin depart; Rest thee within thy Father’s heart; Turn to thy Shepherd, wandering sheep.” Now what do you say? how do you respond to the appeal that the Lord addresses to you? Ah! do not delay any longer, cast yourselves at his feet; come to the church, and make a good confession.” (St. Alphonsus, Exhortations, The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol 15, pp. 102-105)
“… the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
"It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."
Everyone knows in their conscience that the consuming of mind altering drugs such as smoking marijuana or taking LSD or ecstasy is a mortal sin just like getting drunk is a mortal sin, because when “a man willingly and knowingly deprives himself of the use of reason, whereby he performs virtuous deeds and avoids sin... he sins mortally by running the risk of falling into sin. For [Saint] Ambrose says (De Patriarch. [De Abraham i.]): "We learn that we should shun drunkenness, which prevents us from avoiding grievous sins. For the things we avoid when sober, we unknowingly [or knowingly] commit through drunkenness." Therefore drunkenness, properly speaking, is a mortal sin.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 150, Article 2. Whether drunkenness is a mortal sin?)
We have also seen on the “Novus Ordo Watch” website that they post immodest and evil pictures and even videos to the destruction of souls and of morals and the offense of God as do the “Tradition In Action” website. I of course had images blocked – so I couldn’t see any immodesty – but I read some of texts that they posted warning their readers describing things such as: (red coloring, bold and underlining is that of their own)...
Among other things covered: It has recently come to our attention that the Tradition In Action website frequently post mortally sinful inducing and incident images all to the destruction of souls and of morals and the offense of God and that they even damnably defend themselves while doing this. In truth, every person who has been led to commit the mortal sin of lust and adultery in their hearts through their website will rightly and justly demand that God executes his righteous vengeance on them on the day of judgment since they tempted them into lustful thoughts! This same judgment of course applies to any possible venial sin committed and all other temptations that has been aroused in others because of their evil and satanic postings.
“One of the most common reasons for that so many people choose to deny the overwhelming evidence against communicating with heretics is because they don’t believe that God will forgive them their sins without an absolution, or when it is not available. Many people obviously have many misconceptions about the Sacrament of Confession, Penance, Absolution and Contrition and what actually is necessary for obtaining salvation. The fact of the matter however, is that The Council of Trent’s decree on Justification and the Sacrament of Penance never say that perfect contrition is “so hard” or “impossible” to receive from God (for those who desire it) as many other false and fallible statements make it out to be. It also never actually said anything about that one can be saved with only imperfect contrition with an absolution. Rather, all it said is that this attrition (imperfect contrition) helps to dispose a man to receive forgiveness (perfect contrition) in the Sacrament of Confession...” (On the Sacrament of Penance and Contrition and about Receiving Forgiveness without an Absolution)
“Most of the near death experiences are false, deceptions of the Devil. The purpose is to convince people of universal salvation (that those outside the Catholic Church can be saved (which is heresy)).”
See especially the updated and newly added sections on:
“This book [on Hell] endeavors to give the reader the tools needed to conquer every temptation of our adversary the devil. It should be used both by the individual as well as the preacher in the pulpit, as the topics of hell, death and judgment are without a doubt the most effective topics to help the sinner come back to his senses and repent in perfect contrition.”
See especially the section on:
“Since almost the whole world today have fallen into this mortal vice of judging falsely, it is necessary to speak briefly about it in order to make people aware of that evil thoughts, judgments or conclusions about other people – thinking negatively, evil or bad about them, calumniating their intentions, character or meanings with slight or no proof – is a mortal sin.”
St. John Vianney: “If you want to be able to recognise them [your sins; and especially the sin of envy “since the sin of envy is more difficult to know”], my dear brethren, you must ask the Holy Ghost for His light. He alone will give you this grace. No one could, with impunity, point out these sins to you; you would not wish to agree nor to accept them; you would always find something which would convince you that you had made no mistake in thinking and acting in the way you did. Do you know yet what will help to make you know the state of your soul and to uncover this evil sin hidden in the secret recesses of your heart? It is humility. Just as pride will hide it from you, so will humility reveal it to you.” (2014-04-20)
See especially the section on many new quotes added from Councils, Church Fathers and Saints condemning gambling:
It should go without saying, but when images are necessary or needed for what one is doing, then it is lawful to surf with them on for as long time as it is necessary — provided it is not a danger to one’s soul and the site is not bad. But how often do we need to see images at all times? Never. Only at a particular time or occasion, such as for a work, or when reading some article, but other than that we have no reason or necessity to have them on, and therefore, they must be off.
And yes, it is a sin to refuse to follow this advice since it is virtually impossible to escape bad and immodest images and commercials of men or women tempting you every day when surfing the internet (and the same of course applies to watching most media too, which is why we recommend people never to watch movable images and that they only listen to the audio). Only a condemned person not fearing God or sin at all would refuse to follow this good advice that helps him avoid falling into sexual temptations and sins everyday.
“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)
Now, many people claiming to be Catholic and worshiping God and desiring forgiveness of their sins and enter Heaven strangely don’t care anything about this advice, and even chose to ignore it because of their perverse and evil will and attachment to images. Now if they really wanted forgiveness for their sins and cared anything about God, and to please Him, and not to offend Him, they obviously would not surf the internet with images on and thus expose themselves to innumerable bad images of sensual women or men tempting them everyday to fall into occasions of sin against the all good God.
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.
(Please see this section for some more quotes on the issue and on the help and steps on how to block images in your web-browser and surf the internet with an adblock: http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/#How-to-control-your-eyes)
“A person who uses a drug that makes him intoxicated needs an absolutely necessary reason (such as a grave illness) to excuse his usage of the drug from being a sin, and when he does not have such an absolutely necessary excuse to excuse his drug usage, he commits the sin of drug abuse. A sick person is allowed by God’s permission to take drugs in order to lessen his pain. But when this sick person uses more drugs than he needs in order to get intoxicated and for mere pleasure, or continues to use the drug after he gets well, he commits the sin of drug abuse. This is a perfect example of those who use drugs for the mere sake of pleasure. They are gluttonous or overindulgent in their sensual appetite, and are thus sinning against their reason and the Natural Law. For “the sin of lust [or pleasure seeking] consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason...” and “lust there signifies any kind of excess.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 1)”
See especially this new important section with many new quotes added:
ALL MAJOR UPDATES DURING THE 2013 PERIOD SHOWN BELOW
Some of the newly added categories (left and right menus) are still empty. They will not be listed below. Only those categories with some information currently in them will be listed below. All other newly updated categories/articles will be notified at the top of this article.
- Life After Death
- What is Prayer
- Little Peter
- Aliens & UFOs
- Protestantism Refuted
- Eastern "Orthodoxy"
- False Religions
- Antipope Francis
- Catholic & Life Issues
- Kisses and Touches
- Sexual Thoughts and Fantasies
- Gay Marriage
- Death Penalty
- Corporal Punishment
- Illuminati and New World Order Conspiracy
- Learn Catholicism
- Catholic Mass
- Catholic Prayers
- Catholic Booklets
- Jesus Christ
- - Why Jesus is God according to the Bible
- The Holy Spirit
- The Holy Trinity
- - Why Hell is Eternal
- Traditional Catholic Issues and Groups
- The SSPX
- - Marcel Lefebvre
- EWTN, Mother Angelica and the Charismatic Movement Exposed
- No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church
- Prophecies / Doomsday / End Times / Antichrist
- The Whore of Babylon
- End of the World Predictions
- Nostradamus Predictions
- Albert Pike's Amazing Predictions of Three World Wars 
- False Religions
- - Muslims
- - Quran
- - The Bible teaches that Jesus is God
- - Buddha
- Why Jesus is God according to the Bible
- - Salvation is Not by Faith Alone
- "Christian" Sects
- Seventh Day Adventism
- Occult Conspiracy
- Aliens & UFOs
- Ghosts, Spirits & Demons
- Exorcism & Demonic Possession
- Ouija Board
- Infidels & Atheists
- Richard Dawkins
- Stephen Hawking
- Joyce Meyer
- Joel Osteen
- Benny Hinn
- John Calvin
- Martin Luther