Objection: St.

Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, in his Moral

Theology, Books 2-3, n. 1151-1167, teaches that acts such as kisses and touches
that arouses lust are licit in marriage and the marriage act, and as a preparation
for the marriage act, provided the acts are made with a good conscience and for
the sake of love:
"25.—Quaeritur: II. Whether spouses are permitted to take delectation in
the conjugal act, even if the other spouse were not present? The Salamancans
(de matr. c. 15, p. 6, n. 90) with Navarre, Sa, Roncaglia, etc., (cited by Croix, l.
6, p. 3, n. 537) reject this when the delectation takes place with a commotion of
the spirits, because they say such a commotion is not licit for spouses unless it
were ordered to copulation. But Roncaglia and the Salamancans do not speak
congruently, for they themselves admit (ibid. n. 84; Roncaglia tr. 12, p. 296, q.
6, r. 11 with St. Antoninus, Conc. Diana, and it is a common opinion, as we will
say in book 6, de matrimonio, n. 933), that unchaste touches (which certainly
cannot be done without a great deal of arousal) among spouses, provided the
danger of pollution is absent, are licit, at least they are not gravely illicit, even if
they are done only for pleasure and hardly ordered to copulation. I say,
therefore, why is it not the same thing to speak about delectation?
This is why I regard Busembaum’s opinion as probable, which says it is
permitted for spouses to take delectation, even carnally, from carnal relations
they have had or are going to have, as long as the danger of pollution is always
absent. The reason is, because (exactly as the Salamancans say in tr. 9, c. 15, p.
6, n. 84 when speaking about unchaste touches) the very state of matrimony
renders all these things licit; otherwise the matrimonial state would be exposed
to excessive scruples.
Besides, Bonacina, Sanchez, Lessius and Diana hold this opinion, with
Busembaum (as above, n. 23, in fine), St. Antoninus (p. 1, tit. 5, c. 1 §6.),
Cajetan, (1.2. q. 74, art. 8 ad 4), Coninck (d. 34, dub. 11, concl. 1), Croix (l. 6,
p. 5, num. 337) with Gerson, Suarez, Laymann and a great many others;
likewise Vasquez, Aversa, etc., cited by the Salamancans (ibid. n. 89 and 90),
who think it is probable. St. Thomas also favors this opinion in question 15 of
de malo, art. 2, ad 17, where he says that for spouses, just as sexual relations are
licit, so also delectation from them."

Answer: There are several clear reasons and proofs why St. Alphonsus's words
have been forged and manipulated by some evil person as we will prove. First,
there is clear evidence that St. Alphonsus's book Moral Theology has been
tampered with by a forger as we will prove beyond any doubt.
Second, when the forger quotes external sources he deliberately lies about these
quotes at the exact points where the forger strays from the real Alphonsus's
teaching. As we will see, we have found evidence of quotes of about half of the
authorities the forger cites in defense of his position that actually teach the exact
opposite according to numerous quotes we have found, and they totally
condemn all non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts in marriage, and many
of them even condemns other procreative sexual acts than the missionary
position, and if we could find quotes of the other less known authors, they
would in all likelihood teach the same, and it cannot be a coincidence that the
exact people who condemn this position of the forger is lied about of the forger
to defend his position.

All the theologians or saints who explicitly condemns non-procreative or

unnecessary sexual acts in marriage, or unchaste touches in marriage, are: St.
Thomas Aquinas, St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, Cardinal Cajetan,
Sanchez, Gerson, Lessius, and the Salamancans. The fact is that all these
authorities, except the Salamancans and Lessius, condemns even other
procreative sexual acts in marriage than the “missionary position.” Not that we
have found evidence that the Salamancans and Lessius teaches that other acts
than the missionary position are allowed, but we have found quotations that all
of these other authorities explicitly condemns even all other procreative acts
than the normal procreative sexual act.

What is probable to have happened is that the forger perverted a passage by the
real Alphonsus which condemned unchaste touches in marriage, which
originally quoted all these authorities, which the forger then just lied about and
told people that they instead held his own position. And as we will see in both
the real and forged version of Moral Theology that the real Alphonsus condemn
even other procreative sexual acts than the missionary position in marriage, as
well as all sensual kisses for both the married and unmarried alike, this is the
most logical conclusion.

Both the true book Moral Theology and even the forged copy of it directly
quotes this Papal teaching of Pope Alexander VII below in its beginning, which
totally condemns all sensual kisses for all, thus showing us that a forger, again,
has manipulated Alphonsus's teaching:
Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters #40, September
24, 1665 and March 18, 1666: “It is a probable opinion which states that a
kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible
delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and
 pollution is excluded.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander
VII. (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Book 1)

Indeed, in another place of even the forged Moral Theology, it directly

condemns all unchaste kisses and touches contrary to what the forger claims in
other places: “...and then the gravity of the object in confession must be
expressed, indeed what act he constituted in his individual act, as Filliuci,
Bonacina, Suarez (de poen. s. 22, s. 4, n. 36) ...Hence, kisses, touches,
unchaste words, etc. ...are one sin by number, as Navarre (c. 6, n. 17), Azor
(l. 4, qu. 6), and Filliuci, etc. teach.”

The text never says that it only speaks about the unmarried, which were a
superminority at that time, and it is very improbable that he should speak
generally without specifying that he is speaking about a very small group, and
anyone who are honest has to admit that even the forged Moral Theology
condemns all sensual kisses and touches for all, both the married and the
unmarried. The forger forgot to remove it and we will see how he stumbles over
himself over and over again.

Thus, when the forger refers to various authorities, one cannot trust him to
accurately reproduce what the authors wrote, and ultimately, apart from looking
up quotes as we have done, how to recognize if a false statement has been made
is if the teaching is against all of what Catholic and moral teaching says.

The fact that the Popes, Fathers, and Saints in their condemnation of sensual
kisses must be talking about both the married and the unmarried is clear, for
during their time, only very few people remained unmarried, and it is totally
unreasonable that they should speak generally about an issue which deals with a
very small part of the population (the unmarried) without specifying this fact in
their words. It is obvious that if a quotation speak generally about a sin, then it
speaks concerning all or the supermajority of people unless this is said in the
quotation.
These are facts of logic, truth, honesty, and historical accuracy that
cannot be refuted, and anyone who is honest will recognize this fact. If a text
does not specifically specify that it is speaking about some small part of the
population, it is unreasonable and dishonest to assume that he was speaking
about them and excluded almost all other people, just in order to defend one's
own warped understanding of what constitutes the sin of lust in marriage and
between married spouses.

No one would come to this false conclusion about their texts that they are only
speaking about the unmarried, (which is a superminority) unless this person
came to the text with a preconception that sensual kisses in marriage is allowed.
That is also why secular historians admit that these quotations apply to both the
married and the unmarried alike, for their agenda is not to try to explain away
the clear words but to read what they say. In truth, “There was almost universal
agreement, however, that [lustful] kissing and "indecent touching" between
married persons was sinful...” (Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval
Europe, By James A. Brundage, University of Chicago Press, 2009)

If a Church teaching or a text condemns getting intoxicated, it is ludicrous to

claim that this only applies to the unmarried unless it explicitly says that the
married are also committing sin if they get intoxicated. This is obvious, but
those who are deceived by lust have had their reason blunted by their lust, and
so, are able to lie and explain away all the evidence that shows that their
behavior is evil, condemned, and sinful. If the Popes, Fathers, and Saints
condemns sensual kissing, it is only reasonable to read that the words apply to
both the married and the unmarried alike. While several of the quotes in this
book explicitly mentions that sensual kisses in marriage are sinful, others
generally condemns this behavior for all people, but it is not lawful or honest to
explain away the words and claim that they do not apply to the married.

In this context, it is also important to note that the real St. Alphonsus' Moral
Theology teaches that all sexual sins are always mortal sins, that is, that “It is a
mortal sin by its nature”, thus making clear that even the below quote from
the forgery teaches that all other acts than the missionary position are mortally
sinful and unnatural, and even the forgery contradicts itself and has this
quotation:
“DUBIUM III: What is lust? 71.— Resp. Lust is a disordered appetite for
venereal pleasures, the use of which, since it was established by its nature for
the preservation of the human race, which is a great good for men and an
eternal one for God, hence someone who abuses it, wounds God and man. It is
a mortal sin by its nature.”

Thus, as sexual sins are mortal sins by nature according to even the forgery, that
is, they are intrinsically mortally sinful, the objection by the forgery which says
that unchaste touches are certainly allowed in marriage, contradicts itself since
it admits that unchaste touches in marriage could be a venial sin: “at least they
are not gravely illicit...”:
“...and it is a common opinion, as we will say in book 6, de matrimonio,
n. 933), that unchaste touches (which certainly cannot be done without a great
deal of arousal) among spouses, provided the danger of pollution is absent, are
licit, at least they are not gravely illicit, even if they are done only for
pleasure and hardly ordered to copulation. I say, therefore, why is it not the
same thing to speak about delectation?”

The truth is that even the forgery of Alphonsus' Moral Theology teaches that
even all other procreative sexual acts, except for the “missionary position”, are
mortally sinful and unnatural in marriage, since Alphonsus as we have seen
teaches that all sexual sins are mortally sinful, that is, “It is a mortal sin by its
nature”, and since even other procreative sexual acts are condemned by him, it
is obvious that all non-procreative sexual acts are condemned in marriage. The
forger could not remember what he taught in other places, and contradicted
himself, as so often happens to liars:
“It is asked, 2ndly, whether, and in what manner, married parties sin by
copulating in an unnatural posture? The natural posture is for the woman
to lie under the man, because this posture is better adapted for the effusion of
the man's seed, and its reception into the female vessel, for the purpose of
procreation. But an unnatural position is, if coition takes place in a different
manner, viz., sitting, standing, lying on the side, or from behind, after the
manner of cattle, or if the man lies under the woman; such coition, contrary to
the natural posture, some, with Sanchez, &c., generally condemn as mortal sin;
others maintain that only the two last modes are mortal sin, affirming these to
be repugnant to nature itself: but others commonly say that all these modes do
not exceed venial sin.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Book 6, n.
917)

It is so obvious that the forger contradicts himself. Pope St. Pius X testifies to
the impossibility of a pope’s inspection of every imprimatured book, even with
the help of the Holy Office, and also testifies that there were many bad books
that were given imprimaturs.

Pope St. Pius X, Pacendi Dominici Gregis, A.D. 1907: “51. We bid you
do everything in your power to drive out of your dioceses, even by
solemn interdict, any pernicious books that may be in circulation there.
The Holy See neglects no means to put down writings of this kind, but
the number of them has now grown to such an extent that it is
impossible to censure them all. ...Nor are you to be deterred by the fact
that a book has obtained the Imprimatur elsewhere... because this may be
merely simulated [that is, people lie and falsely claim that they have got
an imprimatur]...”
Also consider our Lady’s prophecy in the Church approved apparition of La
Salette: “Bad books will abound over the earth, and the spirits of darkness
will everywhere spread universal relaxation in everything concerning
God’s service...” (Prophecy of La Salette, 19th of September 1846) The
Catholic Encyclopedia's article, “Forgery”, also explains that: “Substitution of
false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the
Middle Ages.”

Third, the Popes teach that St. Alphonsus's teaching is free from a single error,
yet we will see the forgery deny clear Papal teaching over and over again, thus
proving that the copy of Alphonsus's works which the Popes had in their hands
when they judged his work free from a single error cannot be the same as the
forgeries which denies clear Papal teaching. We will also see how the real
Alphonsus quotes Popes which the forger then denies in other parts of the book,
thus proving that a forger has manipulated the book, and that he could not
remember what he taught in other part of the book.

Some noteworthy Church teachings of the Natural Law, which are thus
inexcusable, which the forger denies, is that all masturbation in marriage is
condemned, and that all onanism is also condemned, and we will also see the
real Alphonsus condemn the forger in regards to these heresies.

The Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII, also condemns all
masturbation in marriage, even when it is for a perceived good or necessary
cause, again proving that the books the Church had in Her hands when She
judged Alphonsus's books free from a single error, cannot be the same as the
forgeries which allows for all kinds of masturbation in marriage.

Pope Pius XII writes: "This being so, masturbation is entirely outside of the
aforementioned natural capacity of the full exercise of the sexual faculty,
and therefore it is also outside that connection to the end ordained by
NATURE. For that same reason, it is deprived of any designation as a
right, and also it is contrary to NATURE and the moral law, even if it is
intended to serve a usefulness which is just and not improper. ...
What has been said up to this point concerning the intrinsic evil of any full use
of the generative power outside the natural conjugal act applies in the same way
when the acts are of married persons or of unmarried persons, whether the full
exercise of the genital organs is done by the man or the woman, or by both
parties acting together; whether it is done by manual touches or by the
interruption of the conjugal act; for this is ALWAYS AN ACT CONTRARY
TO NATURE AND INTRINSICALLY EVIL." (Pope Pius XII, Address to
the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, Naples, France, 19 May
1956, AAS 48, pp. 472-473)

Both the real and forged version of Alphonsus's Moral Theology has this quote
below which totally condemns all masturbation of any kind, and this, of course,
totally shows us how the forger contradicts himself and could not remember
what he taught in other places:

Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 24), Sept. 24,
1665: “Masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate
species, and so it is enough to say in confession that one has procured a
pollution.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander VII. (St.
Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Book 1)

The Church's definition of sodomy have always been all non-procreative or

unnecessary sexual acts both inside and outside marriage:
“Theoretically, sodomy was a fairly general term for most types of crimes that
were deemed to be ‘against nature’. In effect, this meant sexual relations that
were non-procreative. By the middle ages, most jurists and theologians had
subdivided sodomy into four general categories: sex between men, sex with
animals, non-procreative sex between men and women, and masturbation.
However, in practice even procreative sex could be considered unnatural if it
was any position other than the missionary (face-to-face, man on top, woman
on her back). (Naphy, Sex Crimes From Renaissance to Enlightenment, p. 103-
104)
“On the one hand, historians confirmed sodomy’s capaciousness: it
means masturbation, several of forms of same-sex sexual behavior, bestiality,
non-procreative sex (oral or anal most commonly) between a and a woman,
or any form of sex in which conception was impossible.” (Crawford, The
Sexual Culture of the French Renaissance, p. 4)

In truth, both the real and forged Moral Theology quotes Blessed Pope Innocent
XI's teaching which condemns even the normal procreative sexual act unless it
is excused, and since even procreative sexual acts are condemned, it is obvious
that all non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts are even more evil and
condemned.
Blessed Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #9, March 4,
1679: “THE ACT OF MARRIAGE EXERCISED FOR PLEASURE
ONLY IS ENTIRELY FREE OF ALL FAULT AND VENIAL DEFECT.”
 – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI. (St. Alphonsus Liguori,
Moral Theology, Book 1)

Pope Pius IX also totally condemns the forgery which allows for Onanism and
contraception, thus showing us once again that the Church did not have these
forged documents in Her hands when She judged Alphonsus's books free from a
single error.

Pope Pius IX also condemned all onanism in marriage as a mortal sin against
the Natural Law, contrary to what we will see the forger teaching:
On the heretical objection, “It is permissible for spouses to use marriage
the way Onan did, if their motives are worthy.” Pope Pius IX answered that,
“The first proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural right
of matrimony.”
On the heresy that “It is probable that such use of marriage is not
forbidden by the natural law.”, the Pope answered that, “The second proposition
is scandalous, erroneous, and elsewhere implicitly condemned by [Pope]
Innocent XI: “Voluptuousness is not prohibited by the law of nature. Therefore
if God had not forbidden it, it would be good, and sometimes obligatory under
pain of mortal sin” [Condemned Statement by Innocent XI] (March 4, 1679).
On the third heresy, “It is never proper to ask married people of either sex
about this matter, even though it is prudently feared that the spouses, whether
the wife or the husband abuse matrimony.”, Pius IX answered that, “The third
proposition, as it stands, is false, very lax, and dangerous in practice.”, thus
making clear that not only is onanism contrary to the Natural Law, but that it is
a mortal sin against the Natural Law since it must be confessed, and no venial
sin has to be confessed. (Decisiones S. Sedis de Usu et Abusu Matrimonii,
Rome, 1944, pp. 19-20; May 21, 1851).

This shows us that onanism is against the natural law, and that confessors have
a duty to inquire about contraception if they have good reason to suppose that it
is being used. Many heretics, and the forger, during this time taught that if a
confessor thought that a person did commit a sin, but that they would not likely
give it up if they were taught that it was a sin, then they could avoid teaching
them that contraception was a sin. But the Church has always taught that
confessors are bound to see to it that their penitents must confess all sins or
heresies, and we will also see the real Alphonsus totally condemn this heresy of
the forger.

The forger also says that these unnatural sexual acts are allowed: oral sex, and
amplexus reservatus, which is the normal procreative sexual act, but without the
man ejaculating, and which we will then see the Popes and the real St.
Alphonsus condemn, and the forger even preposterously dares to claim that
unless a husband masturbates his wife if he ejaculates first, he sins! Not even
the most liberal so called “Catholic” says that these acts are obligatory, but the
forger contradicts his own forged book in addition to all Church teaching.

Both the real and forged Moral Theology totally rejects as unlawful that the
woman masturbates after the man has ejaculated if she has not climaxed
already, thus proving that we are dealing with a shameful forger and liar: “Then,
if the husband withdraws after climax, but before the climax of the wife,
whether it is possible for her to immediately excite herself with touches so as to
climax?”
Saint Alphonsus Liguori cites several authors answering “No”. He agrees with
this answer, explaining the reason: “The reason: because the climax of the wife
is not necessary to procreation; also, because this sexual pleasure of the wife,
in as much as they are separated, does not occur as one flesh with the husband.”
He then cites some authors who answer the question “Yes”, but he rejects their
answer, explaining that their reason is not persuasive: “This reason is not
persuasive, for if this is permitted to wives, it ought to be permitted also to
husbands.” (Moral Theology, On Matrimony, Book VI, Q. 919)

Both the real and forged work titled “Moral Theology” by Saint Alphonsus
Liguori in reality condemns all marital sexual acts which risk ejaculation
outside the vagina, such as oral sex, contrary to the forger, and he also says that
such an act is contrary to the Natural Law which thus means that no one can be
excused who performs such acts in marriage, whatever ridiculous excuses are
claimed to make such perverse acts necessary. The fact that a sane human being
could make an argument that placing a penis in the mouth is somehow
necessary is preposterous:
“Or whether it is always [a] mortal [sin], if the husband were to insert
[his] penis into the mouth of [his] wife?”
“But the truth is in the affirmative [that it is a mortal sin, citing several
authors]... not only because, in this act, on account of the warmth of the mouth,
there is proximate danger of pollution, but also because this [act] is
considered [to be], in itself, an abnormal type of pleasure against nature (as
has been said of any type of shameful sex).” (Moral Theology, On
Matrimony, Book 6, n. 491-492)

Saint Alphonsus asserts that this type of act, within marriage is a mortal sin for
two reasons. First, because there is always the danger of pollution, i.e. the risk
that the husband will climax, making the act a completed unnatural sexual act.
Second, because this type of act, even without climax, is “in itself … against
nature”, which means that it is an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral sexual
sin. And he asserts that the same is true of “any type of shameful sex”, that is to
say, any type of unnatural sexual act.

Then the Saint adds some commentary after his answer: “And besides,
whenever another orifice [or vessel] is sought by the husband, other than the
natural orifice, which has been ordained for copulation, it is considered [to be]
an abnormal type of [sexual] pleasure.” The term “vessel” [vas] in Latin texts of
moral theology refers to any orifice or receptacle used in a sexual act. The
natural vessel is the vagina of the wife. Unnatural vessels include any other
orifice or body part used to commit a sexual act (even if it is not strictly
speaking an orifice). So we see that the real St. Alphonsus condemns as
unnatural any act which does not include the man putting his penis inside the
vagina.

Again, in Book 6, Q. 916, both the real and forged work titled “Moral
Theology” by Saint Alphonsus Liguori in reality condemns all marital sexual
acts which risk ejaculation outside the vagina. In this question, Saint Alphonsus
rejects the proposition, so often asserted today, that the married couple may use
unnatural sexual acts, as long as the husband completes the act (i.e. climaxes)
only in a subsequent act of natural marital relations:
“Whether it is a mortal sin for the husband to begin copulating in a
disordered [or perverse] orifice, then afterward consummate the act in the
proper orifice?”
The answer given to that question is: “[Various theologians] deny it is a mortal
sin as long as there is no danger of pollution [ejaculation outside of the vagina]
because all other touches (as they say), even if sexual, are not gravely illicit
among spouses. But it is more generally and truly affirmed [to be a mortal sin]
by [various theologians]. The reason is that this manner of his sexual act (even
without climax) is truly sodomy, whether or not it is consummated, just as an
act of copulation in the natural orifice of another woman is truly fornication,
even if there is no climax.” (Moral Theology, On Matrimony, Book 6, Q. 916)

So the Saint states that the correct opinion, which was also the common opinion
of the theologians of his day, is that such acts are gravely immoral. Alphonsus
contrasts his own teaching with that of the heretics who is reported to have
falsely claimed that “all other touches (as they say), even if sexual, are not
gravely illicit among spouses”. So Saint Alphonsus Liguori rejected the idea
that unnatural sexual acts and sensual touches are moral to use as foreplay, as
long as the husband consummates only in a subsequent natural act. And yet this
rejected idea continues to be promoted today, mostly by “Catholics” who hide
behind the anonymity of the internet.

The forged Moral Theology contains such evil heresies against the Natural Law
that anyone with normal natural reason can understand that no Saint like the
true St. Alphonsus, who is a Doctor of the Church, which is the greatest honor a
theologian can receive in the Church, would ever teach such abominable
teachings. The forger says that one may help another commit murder as long as
you fear for your own life, thus giving the abominable and false rule that the
people who feared the Nazis and helped to get others killed, did no wrong at
all!:
“7. These which proximately [nearly or closely] assist in the sin, or
induce it, or are opposed to justice, even if of their genus they are indifferent,
e.g. to give a sword to one’s master for a murder, to show him the one he seeks
to kill, to strike the bell (still, without scandal) for a heretical sermon, a harlot,
even if conducted and provided for, to call her from the house to lead her to his
master, to steal a ladder to apply it, to give loan money to one waging an unjust
war, to sell a pagan to a heretical master, require the gravest cause, i.e. fear of
such an evil that according to the laws of charity no man is held to undergo
it to stop the other’s evil, e.g. if he would be killed otherwise. Laymann, cap.
13, n. 4.”

Some of these things you can do in the case of fear of death, such as stealing,
loaning, and giving away one's sword when threatened, but in another part of
the same forgery, this truth is denied: “Moreover, one may never give a sword
to a murderer because it is not lawful to kill an innocent man, and you should
avoid the death as Concina (tom. 7, p. 168) and the Continuator of Tournely
teach. See book 4, n. 697.”

However, guiding a person to the person he wants to kill is so contrary to the

Natural Law that it screams to heaven for vengeance, for this person exchanges
their life for another person's life and is doing something directly contrary to
justice and the golden rule. Sometimes one can do things which are only
incidentally causative in an evil action, such as giving away one's sword when
threatened, or open a door when one flees through it, and although this opens
the door for even the evil person, this is not your intention, and he could do this
himself. But in contrast, if you find the person for him so he could kill him, you
are doing something which without your active participation, he could not
perform the murder, and you are actively doing something as a willful act to
help kill another person.

Fourth, we will see historical evidence that in a large part of St. Alphonsus's life
people around him forged documents and then published them in his name, and
that this problem became so big that the Pope took away from Alphonsus the
control and rule of his own order since the Pope erroneously believed that
Alphonsus had manipulated his own writings as the forgers falsely claimed that
Alphonsus approved and wrote what they published. There is no end to how
many forged versions there are that can circulate out there, so if one finds things
which deny Church teaching or Alphonsus's own teaching, we can know that
forgers have been behind these falsehoods.

Catholic Encyclopedia's article about Alphonsus' life says that: “Alphonsus

being so old and so infirm — he was eighty-five, crippled, deaf, and nearly
blind — his one chance of success was to be faithfully served by friends and
subordinates, and he was betrayed at every turn. His friend the Grand
Almoner betrayed him; his two envoys for negotiating with the Grand Almoner,
Fathers Majone and Cimino, betrayed him, consultors general though they
were. His very confessor and vicar general in the government of his Order,
Father Andrew Villani, joined in the conspiracy.
In the end the Rule was so altered as to be hardly recognizable, the very
vows of religion being abolished. To this altered Rule or "Regolamento", as it
came to be called, the unsuspecting Saint was induced to put his signature. It
was approved by the king and forced upon the stupefied Congregation by the
whole power of the State. ...[Pope] Pius VI, already deeply displeased with the
Neapolitan Government, took the fathers in his own dominions under his
special protection, forbade all change of rule in their houses, and even withdrew
them from obedience to the Neapolitan superiors, that is to St. Alphonsus, till an
inquiry could be held. ...
So the Saint was cut off from his own Order by the Pope who was to
declare him "Venerable". In this state of exclusion he lived for seven years more
and in it he died. It was only after his death, as he had prophesied, that the
Neapolitan Government at last recognized the original Rule, and that the
Redemptorist Congregation was reunited under one head (1793).”
Historical fact makes it very clear that a long while during St. Alphonsus's life,
his followers abandoned him and started to forge documents and claimed that
Alphonsus himself held these words, and this problem became so big that the
Pope took away the rule from Alphonsus of his own order, as people around
him acted as if Alphonsus taught what they published:
“It is somewhat singular that the Pope, even while giving decisions
against Alphonsus and using the utmost severity towards him, never doubted his
sanctity. When Cardinal Banditi and Monsignore Bergamo endeavored to
exculpate him, the Pope remarked that it is not well to change the rule of a
Congregation without the sanction of the Holy See. These good prelates
explained that Alphonsus had made no change; the changes fraudulently
made by Majone were repudiated by him as soon as he heard of them; he
had since been making superhuman efforts to rectify the errors of the
treacherous consultor, and had, thanks to God, almost succeeded.”

Truly, St. Alphonsus' life was plagued with hardship, yet his wisdom seemed to
overflow the more hardship he had:
“The Redemptorists proved to be a quarrelsome congregation: their
formal establishment had been delayed by more than a decade because of
internal dissension. ...He was afflicted with severe rheumatism, and often could
barely move or raise his chin from his chest. In 1775 he resigned his see due to
his health, and went into what he thought was a prayerful retirement. In 1777...
by this point Alphonsus was nearly blind, and was tricked into giving his
approval to a revised Rule for the Congregation, one that suited the king and the
anti-clerical government. When Pope Pius VI saw the changes, he condemned
it, and removed Alphonsus from his position as leader of the Order. The
Redemptorists split into two congregations, both of whom rejected him.
This caused Alphonsus a crisis in confidence and faith that took years to
overcome. However, by the time of his death he had returned to faith and
peace.”

In truth, St. Alphonsus was surrounded by so many betrayers that all in his
order agreed together to manipulate the rules of the order and then lie about it to
St. Alphonsus. So much did these false brethren hate him, that St. Alphonsus
was expelled from his own order (CSSR). If so many people can agree together
to manipulate the whole foundation of the order, which is its rule, it is obvious
that such conscienceless individuals would not bat an eye and hesitate a second
to manipulate Alphonsus' Moral Theology. And as he was so sick a large part of
his life, he could do nothing since all around him betrayed him.
“As the years went on, Alphonsus experienced his personal share in the
Paschal Mystery of our Lord. “His austerities were rigorous, and he suffered
daily the pain from rheumatism that was beginning to deform his body. He
spent several years having to drink from tubes because his head was so bent
forward. An attack of rheumatic fever, from May 1768 to June 1769, left him
paralyzed. He was not allowed to resign his see, however, until 1775. In 1780,
Alphonsus was tricked into signing a submission for royal approval of his
congregation. This submission altered the original rule, and as a result
Alphonsus was denied any authority among the Redemptorists. Deposed and
excluded from his own congregation, Alphonsus suffered great anguish. But he
overcame his depression, and he experienced visions, performed miracles, and
gave prophecies. He died peacefully on August 1, 1787, at Nocera di Pagani,
near Naples as the Angelus was ringing.”

An honest person should count every single time this text refutes the forger, and
he will see very many examples that this is a forgery, and be able to recall how
many falsehoods there are in the forgery. One example would be enough for an
honest person, but only a person of bad will who hates the truth can read this
text and ignore all the evidence.

First, St. Alphonsus's book Moral Theology has clearly been tampered with by a
forger as we will prove beyond any doubt. The best evidence that a book has
been tampered with by a forger is that the true author's opinions has been
contradicted by the forger at some place in the book, because the true
Alphonsus and the forger are two different persons, and that is why the forger
does the mistake of teaching contrary to what the book he manipulates teaches.

The real St. Alphonsus starts his book, Moral Theology, with quoting Papal
statements concerning morality as an authoritative foundation for his
theological conclusions, and his own book affirms that we are obligated to
follow these papal statements, yet further on in the book, the forger directly
word for word, contradicts the real Alphonsus's words on how it is forbidden to
help others in the act of fornication. First, the real Alphonsus in his Moral
Theology quotes Pope Innocent XI's condemnation of any assistance of acts of
fornication, and even the forged version has this quote.
Blessed Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #51, March
4, 1679: “A male servant who knowingly by offering his shoulders assists
his master to ascend through windows to ravage a virgin, and many times
serves the same by carrying a ladder, by opening a door, or by
cooperating in something similar, does not commit a mortal sin, if he does
this through fear of considerable damage, for example, lest he be treated
 wickedly by his master, lest he be looked upon with savage eyes, or, lest
he be expelled from the house.” - Condemned statement by Pope
Innocent XI

But in the forged and fake copy of Moral Theology which has clearly been
manipulated by someone else than the real Alphonsus, the falsely so called
“Alphonsus” directly contradicts himself and Pope Innocent XI's teaching that
any help in another's sin of fornication is condemned, and this teaching is
clearly contrary to the Natural Law which says that we may never help in
another's sin:
“63.—4. Servants are excused from sin if, by reason of their servitude,
they furnish certain services which they could not refuse without grave
inconvenience; e.g. to clothe their master, to prepare the horse, to accompany
him to the brothel, to a courtesan [that is, a prostitute], to convey gifts to the
courtesan or open the door for her when she comes, because these stand
remotely to the sin and can be done by them without sin. Nevertheless, it does
not follow that it is licit for anyone else to furnish these things. Bonacina, p. 11,
cap. 26, Azor, t. 2, l. 12, c. ult., q. 8; Laymann l. 2, tr. 3, c. 13; Sanchez, l. 1,
mor. c. 7, n. 21. (But see what follows in n. 64). ...
64.—Quaeritur I. Could a servant, by reason of his servitude, accompany
his master to a brothel or prepare the horse? Busembaum affirms, with Navarre,
Man., etc. (cited by Sanchez, Dec. l. 1 cap. 7, n. 22). But more probably the
reason of servitude does not suffice, even if without the help of the servant the
master would go there; at least grave fear of loss would be required. So think
Sanchez, l.c., Viva (in prop. 51 Inn. XI, n. 5), the Salamancans (tract. 21 c. 8, n.
72) who rightly notice that it is never lawful, if the master would be rendered
more furious from the accompaniment.
Would it be lawful for a servant to lead a concubine to the house of his
master? Sanchez (l.c. n. 25, with Navarre and Man.) says that if there had
already been sexual relations between the master and the concubine then he
would be excused by reason of his servitude when the master already
committed the sin equally without the servant (otherwise he would not be
excused except by reason of fear of grave loss, as Sanchez says in n. 22). And
he says he same in n. 23, on a servant leading a concubine in a coach or
carrying chair.
But Cardenas and Milante, as well as Concina (t. 2, pag. 284 and 285)
rightly do not admit it. And it must so much the more not be admitted for a
servant calling a concubine to the house of his master, against Azor. And I say
the same thing about the coachmen and sailors conveying the harlot to her
lover, who can only be excused on account of grave fear of loss; see n. 75. ...
66.—Quaeritur III. Whether it were permitted for a servant to open the door for
a courtesan [prostitute]? Croix rejects this (lib. 2, n. 253) but the more common
opinion affirms it (the Salamancans d. cap. 8, n. 74; Laymann, de charit. c. 13
resp. 5; Tamburinius with Sanchez, Diana, Azor, Sa, Rodriguez, etc.).

The forger even quotes Blessed Pope Innocent XI's decree which clearly
condemns assistance in fornication such as opening the door for a whore, but
then tries to explain away the clear words with the ludicrous argument that
unless the servant does this act, someone else will do it, as if this somehow
makes this right. According to this perverse argument, the Nazis who killed
people could excuse themselves with the fact that unless they killed people,
someone else would do it. This has got to be one of the most stupid and weak
arguments in the history of the world.

The forger dishonestly tries to say that Pope Innocent XI's condemnation of
opening the door to a whore does not really mean open the door, but instead
beat the door in, but all that can read and that are honest can see that it says “by
opening a door”. The forger writes:
“Nor is this opinion impeded by Innocent XI’s condemnation of the 51
proposition, which says: “A servant who, after lowering his shoulders to
knowingly help his master ascend through the window to deflower a virgin, and
as many times as he would assist him by carrying the latter, opening the door or
some similar cooperation, he does not sin mortally if he does it from fear of
notable detriment, say, lest he would be treated badly by his master, should be
looked upon with fierce eyes, or lest he should be expelled from the house.” For
the “by opening the door” is, from the very context, understood about opening
accomplished by force, as the authors rightly say, for without him opening it,
another would be present to do so. (Roncaglia, de char. tract. 6, in reg. pro praxi
n. 4, post cap. 6; the Salamancans ibid. n. 74.”

The forger then contradicts himself and claims that one can lawfully beat down
doors to help others fornicate because you will lose something, which is a
ludicrous argument. A person losing money or a thing does not mean one can do
such a vile act, and anyone with common natural reason can understand such an
obvious fact:
“Quaeritur: IV. Whether it would be lawful for a servant, out of fear of
death or great loss, to lower his shoulders or to carry a ladder to his master
ascending to fornicate, or to open the door by force and similar things? Several
reject this, because, as they say, such actions are never permitted inasmuch as
they are intrinsically evil. (Viva, Milante in dict. prop. 51; Concina; t. 2, pag.
280; the Salamancans ibid. n. 75; Croix lib. 2, n. 244; and others). Yet, other
theologians oppose this, whose opinion after considering reason, seems more
probable to me. (Busembaum, infra n. 68; Sanchez, dict. c. 7, n. 22 and Lessius,
l. 2 cap. 16, n. 59).
The reason is because, as we recently said above, when you furnish an
action that is indifferent per se, viz., which can be good and evil, you are not
held except by charity to abstain from it lest another would abuse it to sin;
when, however, you fear otherwise grave harm, you can licitly permit the sin of
another; for on the one hand charity does not oblige you to avert his sin with
grave harm, and on the other the malice of the other man cannot change the
nature of your action so that from an indifferent act it intrinsically goes into
evil.
And the learned author of the Continuation of Tournely agrees with me
(de furto et restit. item de charit. sect. 7, punct. 1, § 3, Quaer. 1), saying: “I am
not held to suffer grave detriment to avert the sin of another, for rightly the
other man imputes his malice to himself.” Nor can it be said that the aforesaid
actions are evil in themselves because they cooperate with sinful sexual
relations; and it is proved from the very condemned proposition, where it is said
“or some similar cooperation.” For the response is, “by cooperation” it is not
understood on formal cooperation, but material, since the authors only spoke on
formal cooperation, and in such a sense the proposition was certainly
proscribed.
But not by the words, “if he would do it from fear of notable detriment,”
is fear of death understood, there it is declared that such fear as “to be treated
badly by his master, or to receive angry glances, to be expelled from the house,”
such evils certainly do not embrace the injury of death.”

Further on, the forger again in the same book contradicts himself and argues
that only in fear of death may such assistance be given even though he gave
several other reasons why this act could be performed just a few pages before.
This is probably the real St. Alphonsus's teaching which the forger has forgotten
to remove from the book, for if a man threatens our life, we can open doors or
do other things which are not in themselves sinful as it would be equivalent to
fleeing through a door to save one's life, and if one would flee through a door
and thus open it, and it opens the door also for the person threatening you, this
would be an act which would be incidental and not directly willed by you. But
this act could only be done in fear of death, just like the Great St. Alphonsus
says, for absolute necessity in many cases, not all, relieves one from laws which
commonly are part of the Natural Law:
“Still, because the aforesaid cooperation truly coincides with the sin of
sexual relations, although they only materially coincide with the sin of the
fornicator, I think no other fear excuses the one cooperating than that of
death, for otherwise, only on account of fear of the opportunity of loss or
infamy, it is not permitted to assist with the dishonor of deflowering a
virgin. See what is going to be said in book 4, n. 571, where we will say that it
is equally not lawful for you to give the ladder, or keys to a thief except on
account of fear of death or infamy, with the Continuator of Tournely.
Moreover, one may never give a sword to a murderer because it is not lawful to
kill an innocent man, and you should avoid the death as Concina (tom. 7, p.
168) and the Continuator of Tournely teach. See book 4, n. 697.
67.—Quaeritur: V. Whether it would be lawful for a servant, on account
of grave fear, to write or bring love letters to his master’s concubine? Whatever
others say, I think along the lines of several authors, that it is never lawful to do
this because they formally assist in the sin of the master, by fostering his sexual
lover. (The Salamancans, tr. 21, c. 8, p. 5, § 2, n. 68; Sanchez, n. 26, Viva, n. 5,
Laymann, Bonacina, Tamburinius, etc. with Croix, lib. 2, n. 273).
I also think it must be said with Sanchez and the Salamancans (loc. cit. n.
67, against Palaus and Reb., ap. Tamburinius, n. 18), even in doubt whether the
letters might contain amorous material, because when he is certain about the
sexual love, it is morally believed they contain indecent things. But if they only
contain signs of urbanity, a just cause is also required to excuse the servant,
beyond the obedience of servitude, as the Salamancans, Sanchez and
Tamburinius (ll. cc.) say.”

Thus, even the forgery admits that one cannot help in fornication, or send letters
to whores, but it then contradicts itself again further on:
“5. In regard to those works that stand closer to the sin or assist it, e.g. to
lower one’s shoulders or to bring up a ladder for one’s master to ascend through
the window to a concubine, to bring love letters to a courtesan, to accompany
him to a duel, etc., the common reason of the servant does not suffice, but
demands a greater necessity and cause to be done licitly, e.g. danger of grave or
at least notable damage, if they would commit detraction against him. Ibid.
(But, see what was just said in n. 66).”

The forger contradict himself over and over again on the same issue, because
we are dealing with a teaching of the true St. Alphonsus which has been
perverted by a forger.

The Church has always been clear that concubinage, which is the same as a
steady fornicating relationship, is condemned even though it may bring you
some physical benefit, and St. Alphonsus himself in his Moral Theology quotes
this teaching of Pope Alexander VII below, which then the forger contradicts
further on in the same book as we have seen, and even the forgery has this
quote in it, thus showing us that the forger could not remember what he quoted.
Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 41), Sept. 24,
 1665: “One living in concubinage is not bound to dismiss the concubine,
if she is very useful for the pleasure of him so living (in the vernacular,
“regalo”) provided that if she were missing, he would carry on life with
very great difficulty, and other food would affect him living in
concubinage with great loathing, and another maid servant would be
found with very great difficulty.” – Condemned statement by Pope
Alexander VII.

The real St. Alphonsus also teaches in his Moral Theology that sins of sexual
lust are always mortal sins, thus confirming the fact that all sexual sins he
condemns in his book are not venial but mortal sins, which will be repeatedly
denied by the forger as we move along, thus proving that we are dealing with a
forger, and even the forgery has this quote below which affirms that sexual sins
are by nature mortal sins, which shows us that the forger could not remember
what other parts of the book said:
“DUBIUM III: What is lust? 71.— Resp. Lust is a disordered appetite for
venereal pleasures, the use of which, since it was established by its nature for
the preservation of the human race, which is a great good for men and an
eternal one for God, hence someone who abuses it, wounds God and man. It is
a mortal sin by its nature. See book 2, ch. 1, d. 2, and below, book 4, tr. 4, c.
2. Resp. 2.
The daughters of lust, which follow, are a great many, they are eight, four
from the side of the intellect, and four on the side of the will. 1. Blindness of the
mind, when someone is so addicted to this foulness, that he will not think of
heavenly things. 2. Haste, whereby someone acts from the same cause without
counsel. 3. Inconsideration, when someone in a mode fails in a duty, acting
inconsiderately which detracts from his state or person. 4. Inconstancy, when
someone soon falls away from pious propositions by the same affect of desires.
5. Love of self, for such a man, on account of desires, directs his actions
to his own end, not to God. 6. Hatred of God, for a wanton man usually
shudders at divine things, nay more at God himself, as the avenger of sins. 7.
Affected for the present age; for love of carnal desires so affects the soul that he
would even be prepared, forthwith, to renounce eternal beatitude if he would
always be permitted to enjoy the present. 8. Horror of the coming age; when
one immersed in desires will fear death in a disordered way, and refusing to
think about it, is zealous to propagate his life by illicit means, etc.”

Thus, as sexual sins are mortal sins by nature according to even the forgery, that
is, they are intrinsically mortally sinful, the objection by the forgery which says
that unchaste touches are certainly allowed in marriage, contradicts itself since
it admits that unchaste touches in marriage could be a venial sin: “at least they
are not gravely illicit...”:
“...and it is a common opinion, as we will say in book 6, de matrimonio,
n. 933), that unchaste touches (which certainly cannot be done without a great
deal of arousal) among spouses, provided the danger of pollution is absent, are
licit, at least they are not gravely illicit, even if they are done only for
pleasure and hardly ordered to copulation. I say, therefore, why is it not the
same thing to speak about delectation?”

The real St. Alphonsus de Liguori also confirms that all sexual sins are mortal
sins in his The Four Principal Gates of Hell, On Impurity:
“Some will say that it is a trifling sin. Is it a trifling sin? It is a mortal
sin. ...The impure say, moreover, “God has compassion on us who are subject to
this vice, because He knows that we are flesh.” What do you say? God has
compassion on this vice? But you must know that the most horrible
chastisements with which God has ever visited the earth have been drawn down
by this vice. St. Jerome says that this is the only sin of which we read that it
caused God to repent of having made man, for all flesh had become corrupted
(Gen. 6:6-12). And so it is, St. Jerome says, that there is no sin which God
punishes so rigorously, even upon earth, as this. … Principally on account of
this sin did God destroy mankind, with the exception of eight persons, by the
flood. It is a sin which God punishes, not only in the other life, but in this also.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons for all the Sundays in the Year, Sermon 45, On
Impurity: “I will speak today of the vice of impurity, and will show, in the first
point, the delusion of those who say that this vice is but a small evil: and, in the
second, the delusion of those who say that God takes pity on this sin, and that
he does not punish it.
“1. Delusion of those who say that sins against purity are not a great evil.
“The unchaste, then, say that sins contrary to purity are but a small evil.
“Like the sow wallowing in the mire,” (2 Peter 2:22) they are immersed in their
own filth, so that they do not see the malice of their actions; and therefore they
neither feel nor abhor the stench of their impurities, which excite disgust and
horror in all others. Can you, who say that the vice of impurity is but a small
evil—can you, I ask, deny that it is a mortal sin? If you deny it, you are a
heretic; for as St. Paul says: “Do not err. Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor
the effeminate, etc., shall possess the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9) It is
a mortal sin; it cannot be a small evil. It is more sinful than theft, or detraction,
or the violation of the fast. How then can you say that it is not a great evil?
Perhaps mortal sin appears to you to be a small evil? Is it a small evil to despise
the grace of God, to turn your back upon Him, and to lose His friendship, for a
transitory, beastly pleasure?
“St. Thomas teaches, that mortal sin, because it is an insult offered to an
infinite God, contains a certain infinitude of malice. “A sin committed against
God has a certain infinitude, on account of the infinitude of the Divine
Majesty.” Is mortal sin a small evil? It is so great an evil, that if all the angels
and all the saints, the apostles, martyrs, and even the Mother of God, offered all
their merits to atone for a single mortal sin, the oblation would not be sufficient.
No; for that atonement or satisfaction would be finite; but the debt contracted
by mortal sin is infinite, on account of the infinite Majesty of God which has
been offended. The hatred which God bears to sins against purity is great
beyond measure. ...
But the unchaste are guilty of an unceasing torrent of sins, by thoughts, by
words, by looks, by complacencies, and by touches; so that when they go to
confession they find it impossible to tell the number of the sins they have
committed against purity. ...
Some of these blind miscreants go so far as to say, that fornication is not in
itself sinful. ...But fornication was always forbidden, under pain of mortal sin,
in the Old, as well as in the New Law. St. Paul says: “No fornicator or unclean
hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” (Ephesians 5:5) Behold
the impiety to which the blindness of such sinners carry them! From this
blindness it arises, that though they go to the sacraments, their confessions are
null for want of true contrition; for how is it possible for them to have true
sorrow, when they neither know nor abhor their sins?”

Again, the real St. Alphonsus writes: “My brother, do not say, as many do, that
sins against chastity are light sins, and that God bears with them.” (St.
Alphonsus Liguori, The Ascetical Works Volume XV, Preaching: Letter to a
Religious, Letter to a Bishop, the Exercises of the Missions, Instructions on the
Commandments and the Sacraments, pp. 469-470)

It is also crucial to point out that the very forged quotation contradicts itself
when it first says that unchaste touches are certainly allowed in marriage, but
then admits that it could be a venial sin even though we have repeatedly seen
the real St. Alphonsus teaching that all sexual sins are mortal sins:
“...and it is a common opinion, as we will say in book 6, de matrimonio,
n. 933), that unchaste touches (which certainly cannot be done without a great
deal of arousal) among spouses, provided the danger of pollution is absent, are
licit, at least they are not gravely illicit, even if they are done only for
pleasure and hardly ordered to copulation. I say, therefore, why is it not the
same thing to speak about delectation?
This is why I regard Busembaum’s opinion as probable, which says it is
permitted for spouses to take delectation, even carnally, from carnal relations
they have had or are going to have, as long as the danger of pollution is always
absent. The reason is, because (exactly as the Salamancans say in tr. 9, c. 15, p.
6, n. 84 when speaking about unchaste touches) the very state of matrimony
renders all these things licit; otherwise the matrimonial state would be exposed
to excessive scruples.”

As we saw, the real St. Alphonsus teaches that sexual sins are always mortal
sins, and even the forgery contradicts itself and has this quotation:
“DUBIUM III: What is lust? 71.— Resp. Lust is a disordered appetite for
venereal pleasures, the use of which, since it was established by its nature for
the preservation of the human race, which is a great good for men and an
eternal one for God, hence someone who abuses it, wounds God and man. It is
a mortal sin by its nature.”

The amount of errors that we now will examine is shocking in how bold this
liar and forger is. It is also important to note that unless a person can refute all
the arguments in this text, they are obligated under pain of mortal sin to change
their opinion. Heretics always concentrate on what they falsely think they can
refute, but ignore what they cannot refute because their seared conscience can
withstand ignoring crucial evidence, in contrast to the honest soul, who always
conscientiously answers and deals with all the evidence for and against his own
position. In Hell, the heretics will confess how they hid and ignored what
refuted them, but then it will be too late to confess, for one must follow all the
truth in this world, wherever it may take you.

Second, when the forger quotes external sources he deliberately lies about these
quotes at the exact points where the forger strays from the real Alphonsus's
teaching. This cannot be a coincidence but is irrefutable proof that a person
willfully lied to defend his heretical forgery, and then dishonestly placed St.
Alphonsus's name on the book. The forger in the quote below claims that all
kinds of authorities agrees with his perverted teaching, but he quotes none
because when these authorities will be examined, as we will see, they contradict
this bold forger and liar.

Over and over again we will see that the exact authorities which he claims to
cite actually directly condemns his opinion. The probable reason why this is in
the falsely so called “Moral Theology” is that the real St. Alphonsus quoted
them in the real original book when he condemned all unnecessary sexual acts
in marriage, and that the forger just changed the words and claimed that all
these authorities agreed with him. And we will also see further on that the real
St. Alphonsus condemn all sensual kisses and touches in marriage, as well as
even other procreative sexual acts than the missionary position, which confirms
this fact.
The forged and fake Moral Theology writes that:
"This is why I regard Busembaum’s opinion as probable, which says it is
permitted for spouses to take delectation, even carnally, from carnal relations
they have had or are going to have, as long as the danger of pollution is always
absent. The reason is, because (exactly as the Salamancans say in tr. 9, c. 15, p.
6, n. 84 when speaking about unchaste touches) the very state of matrimony
renders all these things licit; otherwise the matrimonial state would be exposed
to excessive scruples.
Besides, Bonacina, Sanchez, Lessius and Diana hold this opinion, with
Busembaum (as above, n. 23, in fine), St. Antoninus (p. 1, tit. 5, c. 1 §6.),
Cajetan, (1.2. q. 74, art. 8 ad 4), Coninck (d. 34, dub. 11, concl. 1), Croix (l. 6,
p. 5, num. 337) with Gerson, Suarez, Laymann and a great many others;
likewise Vasquez, Aversa, etc., cited by the Salamancans (ibid. n. 89 and 90),
who think it is probable. St. Thomas also favors this opinion in question 15 of
de malo, art. 2, ad 17, where he says that for spouses, just as sexual relations are
licit, so also delectation from them."

A perfect example that this quote above is made by a willful liar is that the
alleged quote above from De Malo of St. Thomas, does not state what is
claimed because it says absolutely nothing about spouses consenting to sexual
pleasure apart from the normal marital sexual act, or that spouses can perform
unchaste touches in marriage, as this liar above claims, and the fact, as we will
see, is that St. Thomas actually refutes this teaching in Question 15, saying that
spouses can even sin if they perform the normal sexual act and that all
unnecessary sexual acts in marriage are condemned, contrary to what the forger
lies and says. This is the true text the forger falsely alleged backed up his lies:

St. Thomas, De Malo, Question 15, Article 2, Objection 17:

Objection 17: “What is a mortal sin for one person is not a mortal sin for
another. But consent to pleasure is not a mortal sin for a man who is having
intercourse with his wife, since the act itself is not a mortal sin for him.
Therefore, neither is consent to pleasure in sexual lust a mortal sin for others.
Therefore, not every act of sexual lust is a mortal sin.”
Answer to Objection 17 by St. Thomas Aquinas: “As the Philosopher says in
the Ethics, the goodness or wickedness of pleasures results from the activities
that are pleasurable. And so as copulation is not a mortal sin for the married but
is for the unmarried, there is also a like difference between the pleasure in
copulation and consent to the pleasure. For consent to a pleasure cannot be a
more serious sin than consent to the act, as Augustine makes clear in his work
On the Trinity.”

The answer by St. Thomas to the objection does not even remotely say that
spouses can consent to sexual thoughts away from their spouse, or that they can
perform unchaste touches in marriage. The objection and answer are very clear
that they are speaking about consent to pleasure in the normal sexual act, not
away from the spouse: “But consent to pleasure is not a mortal sin for a man
WHO IS HAVING INTERCOURSE WITH HIS WIFE, since the act itself is
not a mortal sin for him.”

The quote by St. Thomas is very clear that he is only speaking about consent in
connection to the normal marital sexual act, contrary to what the forger says.
Both the objection “But consent to pleasure is not a mortal sin for a man who is
having intercourse with his wife” and the answer of St. Thomas shows us that
he is speaking about consenting to sexual pleasure in the normal sexual act.
“And so as copulation is not a mortal sin for the married...”
The objection is speaking about a fornicating couple and compares them to a
married couple, and says that “Therefore, neither is consent to pleasure in
sexual lust a mortal sin for others”, but this is not St. Thomas's words but the
objection which St. Thomas refutes as we can see. However, even the objection
makes it clear that it is only speaking about consent in connection to the normal
sexual act: “But consent to pleasure is not a mortal sin for a man WHO IS
HAVING INTERCOURSE WITH HIS WIFE, since the act itself is not a
mortal sin for him.”
A person that is married and have normal procreative sex can consent not only
to the normal sexual act but also to the pleasure. That is all it is saying.

He is only saying that the act of an illegal copulation and consent to its pleasure
in the mind are two different things and that the first is more evil, “For consent
to a pleasure cannot be a more serious sin than consent to the act” but he never
says that consent in the mind to an act of copulation is not evil or sinful. Instead
he makes it clear that this act is also sinful, although not as serious a sin as
actually copulating illegally. He actually makes it clear that it is also a serious
or mortal sin, “For consent to a pleasure cannot be a more serious sin than
consent to the act” although it is not as evil and serious as actually copulating
illegally.
There is not a whiff of proof that St. Thomas was speaking about spouses
consenting to sexual pleasure away from their spouse in the normal marital
sexual act, and the forger knows this as he quotes nothing. Neither is there in
this quotation any evidence that St. Thomas taught that spouses could perform
unchaste touches in marriage as the quote of the forgery says is allowed.

What is really abominable and dishonest of this liar and forger is that in the
very chapter that is falsely alleged to back up his lies, spouses are condemned
by St. Thomas for all kinds of non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts in
marriage as we will see.

First, it is important to point out that St. Thomas uses the word “fornication” in
this quotation of De Malo to refer to all sexual sins, and while the word
“fornication” have taken on a meaning in the English language of only illicit
sexual acts for those who are unmarried, the word that comes from the Latin
that St. Thomas uses refers to all unlawful sexual acts.

St. Thomas very clearly teaches that married people can be fornicators, by using
the word “fornication” to refer to all unlawful sexual acts, whether in marriage
or out of marriage, as we can see in this example: “If the husband [refuses to
pay the marital debt without a just cause] . . . then he sins, and his wife’s sin,
should she fall into FORNICATION [adultery, impure thoughts or
masturbation] on this account, is somewhat imputable to him.” (St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 1)

When St. Thomas speaks about a sexual sin that is exclusively between two
unmarried persons he calls this “simple fornication” (Summa Theologica,
Q154: The parts of Lust) while he many times refers to all sexual sins as just
“fornication”. This fact is important to remember since “fornication” in the
English language means only the sin of the unmarried, while St. Thomas
encompasses all sexual sins by the term of “fornication.”

Frans Jozef van Beeck also confirms that St. Thomas's definition of “simple
fornication” is sex between two unmarried partners, showing us that St.
Thomas's words “"simple fornication" (Fornicatio simplex), i.e., sexual activity
between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman” is obviously speaking
about the sexual sin of two unmarried partners. (Frans Jozef van Beeck, God
Encountered)

Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447) also decreed in The Council Of Florence that one
spouse could separate from a spouse who committed fornication. According to
the Church's terminology at this time concerning fornication, this could mean
any sexual sin, such as adultery, masturbation or sodomitical acts: “Although,
moreover, there may be a separation of the marriage couch by reason of
fornication, nevertheless, it is not permitted to contract another marriage, since
the bond of a marriage legitimately contracted is perpetual.” (Decree for the
Armenians, From the Bull "Exultate Deo," Nov. 22, 1439)

St. Thomas writes on the issue “Into what parts is lust divided?” in his Summa,
making very clear that when he is speaking about only sex between two
unmarried persons, he uses the term “simple fornication”: “Now this same
matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways. First, because it is
inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way, as hindering the
begetting of children, there is the "vice against nature," which attaches to
every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering
the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is "simple
fornication," which is the [sexual] union of an unmarried man with an
unmarried woman.” (Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q.
154, Art. 1)

So we can know that in the following quotation, St. Thomas must be speaking
about the sexual sins of both the married and unmarried when he uses the word
“fornication”, and the quote in De Malo is clearly mentioning marital sexual
sins in the context of this quote from St. Thomas. In the context, he mentions
that a man sins “who out of disordered desire has [normal] intercourse with his
wife” and that “there is a sin of sexual lust only because of the disorder of the
desire, for example, when one has intercourse with one's wife lustfully” and that
it is a mortal sin “to have intercourse with his wife, or even another woman,
contrary to the law of marriage”. He also says that “every use” of the sexual act
that is non-procreative or unnecessary is sinful, making perfectly clear that
“every such act” are totally condemned as mortally sinful.

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo Question 15, On Sexual Lust:

“First Article, Is Every Act of Sexual Lust a Sin?: Sexual lust is a sin
contrary to temperance insofar as temperance moderates desires for things
pleasurable to touch regarding sex, just as gluttony is contrary to temperance
insofar as temperance moderates desires regarding things pleasurable to touch
in food and drink. And so sexual lust indeed chiefly signifies a disorder by
reason of excess regarding desires for sexual pleasures. And such disorder can
belong either to internal emotions alone or also in addition to external acts that
are of their very selves disordered and not only because of the disordered
desires from which they spring. For it belongs to disordered desire that, because
of a desire for something pleasurable, one does something intrinsically
disordered. ...
We should say the like about sexual lust. For sexual lust indeed
sometimes signifies only the disorder of internal desire, as is evidently the case
regarding one who out of disordered desire has [normal] intercourse with
his wife, since the very act is disordered [in the intention] only because it
springs from disordered desire and is not disordered [externally] as such. And
sometimes the disorder of desire is also accompanied by a disorder in the
very external act as such, as happens in every use of the genital organs
outside the [normal, procreative] conjugal act. And every such act is
evidently disordered of its very self, since we call every act that is not properly
related to its requisite end [procreation] a disordered act. …
And the end of using genital organs is to beget and educate offspring, and
so every use of the aforementioned organs that is not related to begetting and
properly educating offspring is as such disordered. And every act of the
aforementioned organs outside the [normal procreative] sexual union of a man
and a woman is obviously unsuitable for begetting offspring. ...Therefore, every
act of sexual lust is a sin either because of the disorder of the act or even
because of the disorder of the desire alone, which disorder primarily and
intrinsically belongs to sexual lust. ...
We can speak in two ways about acts of sexual lust being contrary to
nature. We can say this in one way absolutely, namely, because they are
contrary to the nature of every kind of animal. And then we say that every act of
sexual lust outside the [normal] sexual union of male and female is contrary to
nature insofar as the act is not related to begetting, which the sexual union of
the two sexes effects in every species of animal.
Second Article, Is Every Act of Sexual Lust a Mortal Sin?
1. The Apostle says in Gal. 5:19: "The deeds of the flesh, which include
fornication, sexual impurity, shamelessness, sexual lust, are manifest," and he
then adds (v. 21): "Those who do such things will not possess the kingdom of
God." But only mortal sin excludes one from the kingdom of God. Therefore,
every act of sexual lust is a mortal sin. 2. Mt. 5:28 says: "Anyone who looks
at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in desire." And so
such a person sins mortally. But of all the acts of sexual lust, the first and
least is the act of gazing lustfully at a woman. Therefore, much more are all
other acts of sexual lust mortal sins.
Answer: As I have said before acts of sexual lust can be disordered in two
ways: in one way only because of the disorder in the desire; in a second way
also because of the disorder of the very [external] act. Therefore, when there is
a sin of sexual lust only because of the disorder of the desire, for example,
when one has intercourse with one's wife lustfully, we need to make a
distinction. We need to make the distinction because the disorder is sometimes
such as to exclude the ordination of one's ultimate end. For example, such is the
case when a man desires sexual pleasure to such a degree that he would not
abstain from it because of God's precept and would will to have intercourse
with his wife, or even another woman, contrary to the law of marriage. And
then there is mortal sin, since the desire for sex is not kept within the bounds of
marriage. ...
But if acts of sexual lust are sins because of the very disorder of the
[external] acts, namely, because the acts are not properly related to the begetting
and rearing of offspring, then I say that they are always mortal sins. ...And so
it is clear that every such act of sexual lust is a mortal sin by reason of its kind.
And since an interior desire derives its goodness or wickedness from the object
desired, it follows that even the desire for such a disordered act is a mortal sin if
the act be fully desired, namely, with the deliberation of reason. [Thus, even
desiring to perform non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts are mortally
sinful] ...We understand by the commandment "Thou shalt not commit
adultery" that every illicit use of the genital organs, which is a mortal sin by
reason of its kind, is forbidden.
Objection 14. Obviously, the begetting of offspring cannot result from
intercourse with a sterile and somewhat old woman. But there can sometimes
be such intercourse in the state of marriage without mortal sin. Therefore, even
other acts of sexual lust from which no begetting or requisite rearing of children
results can be without mortal sin.
[St. Thomas answers Objection 14] General laws are laid down
regarding general conditions, not accidental particulars. And so we say that an
act in the genus of sexual lust is contrary to nature if begetting offspring
cannot result from the act by reason of the act's species, not if begetting
offspring cannot result from the act because of an accidental particular such as
old age or infirmity.
Objection 18. Acts of sexual lust also include touches, embraces, and
kisses. But such things do not seem to be mortal sins. For although the Apostle
in Eph. 5:3-4 had said: "Let not fornication or sexual impurity or greed or
obscenity," which things consist of embraces and kisses, as a gloss says, "or
foolish talk or scurrility even be mentioned among us," he then adds (v. 5):
"Every fornication or sexually impure or greedy person has no inheritance in
the kingdom of Christ or God." He thereby omits obscenity and foolish talk and
scurrility. Therefore, it seems that the latter such things are not mortal sins
excluding one from the kingdom of God.
[St. Thomas answers Objection 18] Touches, embraces, and kisses,
insofar as they are ordained for acts of fornication, result from consent to
fornication, and insofar as they are ordained only for the pleasure in them,
result from consent to the pleasure, which consent constitutes a mortal sin.
And so they are mortal sins in both cases. But because such things are not
specifically mortal sins [if they are not lustful], like [the normal sexual act of]
fornication and adultery, but only mortal sins because they are ordained for
something else, that is, the aforementioned consents [of sexual lust], the Apostle
does not repeat mention of obscenity and scurrility and foolish talk but only of
things that are as such mortal sins.
Third Article, Are Fornication, Adultery, Incest, Seduction of a Virgin, Rape,
and Sins Contrary to Nature the Species of Sexual Lust?
As I have said before, sins of sexual lust can be disordered... regarding
the [external] acts themselves, which are of themselves disordered, and then
there is always mortal sin. And so we understand the aforementioned species of
lust in the latter regard whereby the sins are more serious. And so acts of
sexual lust are disordered because the acts cannot result in the begetting of
offspring, and then there are sins contrary to nature, or because the acts
cannot result in the proper rearing of offspring, namely, in that the woman is
not bound to the man so as to be his by the law of marriage.”

In addition, St. Thomas also affirms (as St. Augustine) that even married
spouses sin in their normal, natural and procreative sexual acts if they do not
excuse them; and this proves that he utterly rejects all non-procreative sexual
acts as unlawful.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., Q. 49, Art. 5: “Whether

the marriage act can be excused without the marriage goods [that is,
procreation, sacrament, and fidelity]? On the contrary, If the cause be
removed the effect is removed. Now the marriage goods are the cause of
rectitude in the marriage act. Therefore the marriage act cannot be
excused without them. Further, the aforesaid act does not differ from the
act of fornication except in the aforesaid goods. But the act of fornication
is always evil. Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil unless
it be excused by the aforesaid goods. … Consequently there are only two
ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all,
namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt. Otherwise
it is always at least a venial sin.”

Since St. Thomas condemns as sinful even the normal, natural and procreative
sexual act when it is not excused – even though this act is still procreative in
itself, – how much more must he not utterly reject the notion that non-
procreative sexual acts, such as sensual kisses and touches, are allowed for
spouses to perform? To deny this obvious truth is simply said to be dishonest!

As we have seen, married people can of course also be unclean and covetous
according to St. Thomas’ teaching concerning the sexual acts of married people,
“since the man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the good of
marriage if he use her indecently, although he be not unfaithful, he may in a
sense be called an adulterer; and even more so than he that is too ardent a
lover of another woman.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second
Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 8)

This of course totally destroys the thesis of those who claim that the Church
allows non-procreative sexual acts in marriage. Notice in this quote that St.
Thomas held sexual sins within marriage to be worse than adultery, because the
act occurs within marriage. Therefore, unnatural and non-procreative sexual
acts, such as sensual kisses and touches, do not become permissible when these
take place within marriage. Instead, unnatural sexual acts are made even
more sinful when they take place within marriage because they offend not
only against nature and a Holy Sacrament, but also against God and the
Law written in our hearts.

The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of all theologians of all
time, is very clear that only the normal missionary position is allowed in
marriage, and that even other procreative sexual acts are forbidden:

St. Thomas Aquinas, In Libros Sententiarum, Chapter IV, Section 31, 2, 3:

“Marital relations are contrary to nature when either the right receptacle
[the vagina] or the proper position required by nature is avoided. In
the first case it is always a mortal sin because no offspring can result, so
that the purpose of nature is completely frustrated. But in the second case
[of inappropriate sexual positions] it is not always a mortal sin, as some
say, though it can be the sign of a passion which is mortal; at times the
latter can occur without sin, as when one’s bodily condition does not
permit any other method. In general, this practice is more serious the
more it departs from the natural way.”

In the first case, St. Thomas Aquinas condemns as “a mortal sin” against the
Natural Law all sexual acts which are not in themselves procreative, which thus
means that all “excess of sensuality”, such as sensual kisses and touches, or
foreplay, which Pope Pius XII condemns, is judged to be a sin against the
Natural Law “because no offspring can result, so that the purpose of nature is
completely frustrated”.

Since all non-procreative sexual acts are mortal sins against the Natural Law
according to St. Thomas, no one can be excused through ignorance of this
teaching since all know instinctively that such non-procreative and unnecessary
sexual acts are evil and sinful. It is also noteworthy to remark that St. Thomas is
speaking about the sexual acts of the married in this quotation, which directly
refutes those persons who claim that the Saints do not condemn unnecessary
sexual acts in marriage.

In the second case, St. Thomas discusses other procreative sexual acts than the
“missionary position” and concludes that such acts “can occur without sin” if
illness hinders spouses from performing the normal marital act. But he gives no
permission to healthy spouses to perform even such procreative sexual acts. So
St. Thomas says that even a procreative sexual act can be a “sign of a passion
which is mortal”, thus making clear that healthy people are forbidden from
performing any other act than the “missionary position.”

St. Thomas Aquinas’ mentor, St. Albertus Magnus the Great, also a Doctor of
the Church, taught that to depart from the “natural position” for human
intercourse, the husband on top of his wife, was to become like the “brute
animals.” (Albert the Great, On the Sentences, 4.31.24) This shows us that St.
Albert teaches that not only is non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts
sinful, but that they are sins against the Natural Law. St. Albert the Great
discusses in detail four forbidden positions: lateral (side by side), seated,
standing, and anal sex, and totally condemns all of them, thus showing us that
no other act is allowed to be performed than the “missionary position” and that
even all procreative sexual acts are forbidden except for the normal marital act.

Christian moralists, canonists, and theologians from the patristic period onward
commonly maintained that only one posture was appropriate and natural for
human sexual intercourse.

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)

St. Thomas Aquinas elaborated on that concept, teaching that: “by not
observing the natural manner of copulation [that is, by not performing only the
normal procreative marital act], either as to undue means, or as to other
monstrous and bestial manners of copulation,” the married couple commits sin
by going “contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the
human race.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I:II, q. 154, art. 11)
Since St. Thomas even condemns a procreative sexual act other than the normal
marital act, even though it is totally procreative in itself, who but a madman
or liar would refuse to admit that the Saint also condemns sensual kisses and
touches in marriage, because such acts are not even procreative, and must
therefore be infinitely more sinful.

St. Thomas is perfectly clear that all non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts
are not only sinful, but that they are sins against the Natural Law which thus
means that no one can be excused who commits such an act. “Marital relations
are contrary to nature when either the right receptacle or the proper position
required by nature is avoided.”

That is why St. Thomas even rejects as lascivious and unlawful “acts
circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so
forth”: “We may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates to certain acts
circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so
forth.” (Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 1)

Continuing on with the topic of “Whether there can be mortal sin in touches
and kisses?”—St. Thomas Aquinas’ general refutation of, and reply to all the
objections against the Church’s moral teaching that there can be mortal sins in
sensual kisses and touches also for married people, utterly destroys the notion
that one may perform these acts.

Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 4 [continued]:

“On the contrary, A lustful look is less than a touch, a caress or a kiss.
But according to Mat. 5:28, "Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust
after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." MUCH
MORE THEREFORE ARE LUSTFUL KISSES AND OTHER LIKE
THINGS MORTAL SINS.”

This means that St. Thomas views lustful kisses “and other like things” as
worse sins than adultery or fornication! This is probably due to the fact that St.
Thomas views sexual sins that cannot serve for procreation as worse sins than
those that can. Notice also that St. Thomas says that “A lustful look is less than
a touch, a caress or a kiss” in order to show us that the main sin is in the
intention when we lust against our reason and consent to committing
unnecessary, intoxicating and shameful acts; but that external acts, such as “a
touch, a caress or a kiss” aggravate the guilt of the act, and that these are
therefore worse mortal sins than just the lustful look and thought.
Thus, if even St. Thomas condemns as mortally sinful a lustful look, in addition
to teaching that married people’s sexual sins are worse than adultery, “MUCH
MORE THEREFORE ARE LUSTFUL KISSES AND OTHER LIKE
THINGS MORTAL SINS.” Spouses may not consent to sexual thoughts of
their spouse unless they intend to perform the marital act, and any consent to
sexual thoughts outside of the normal marital act will always be a mortal sin
since it is unnecessary, selfish, intoxicating, shameful, and non-procreative.

In addition, it is very important and of worth noting that St. Thomas, in the
context of this quotation, referred to the marital sexual act, by using the words
“the conjugal act” as well as “of marriage,” which directly refutes one of the
principle objections of the heretical objectors to the condemnation of sensual
kisses and touches by the Church and Her Saints (that is, that the quotes doesn’t
apply to marriage or the marital act):

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.”

Though kisses are not in themselves mortal sins when they are not lustful,
Aquinas discerns in the Summa theologiae, kisses come to be treated as such
"ex sua causa," "because of a wicked intention," as the Blackfriars edition
renders it; "kisses that are intended to arouse, to incite venereal pleasure, are
properly called libidinous and are condemned as mortal sins" (Summa
theologiae 2a.2ae.154.4; 43: 220-21).
Earlier, St. Peter Damian ("The Jerome of our times," according to
Bernard of Constance) had written in his Liber Gomorrhianus that "whoever is
found in a kiss alone ... will be justly subjected to the whole range of
ignominious discipline" ("qui solo osculo... omnibus illis probrosae disciplinae
confusionibus merito subjacebit"). The comprehensive and influential
Penitential of Cummean (seventh century) regards kissing, either "simpliciter"
or in various degrees of erotic involvement, among sodomitical acts to be
censured.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains, “A sin is called mortal by what sort of action it is
in itself and by what it is caused by. On the first count, kisses, embraces, and
caresses signify no mortal sin. They can be done without libidinousness
[sensual lust] according to the custom of the country or from some fair need or
reasonable causes.
On the second count there can be mortal sin because of a wicked
intention, for instance alms-deeds as an inducement to heresy. Now we have
noticed already that consent to the pleasure, not merely the act, of a mortal sin
is itself a mortal sin. And therefore, since fornication is itself a mortal sin - and
other acts of lechery [sexual excess] much more so - to consent to its pleasure is
to be gravely wrong. Consequently when kisses and embraces and so forth
are for the sake of this [sensual] pleasure they are mortal sins. Then only are
they called libidinous, and to be treated as mortal sin.” (Summa Theologica,
2a.2ae.154.4; 43: 220-21)

It is utterly unbelievable and directly dishonest to claim that St. Thomas or

anyone else was not referring to the married, when almost all in his time got
married. Anyone who is honest must confess how directly improbable it must
be that St. Thomas was only speaking about the unmarried, even though he does
not make this assertion himself. It is just desperation and a willingness to distort
the evidence at hand that can lead a person to the conclusion that St. Thomas
was excluding the super majority of people, that is the married, in his
statements that condemns kisses and touches for venereal pleasure.

As we have seen, it is not only in one or two writings that St. Thomas
condemns sensual kissing in marriage. St. Thomas's commentary on St. Paul's
biblical book of First Thessalonians makes clear that lust and a “passionate
kiss” in marriage or out of marriage is unlawful, and the context is crystal clear
that St. Thomas is also speaking about the sexual sins of married couples:
“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from
immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in
holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not
know God... For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. ...
[Saint] Paul first teaches [in First Thessalonians] them to beware of lust in
regard to a woman who is not their wife; secondly, in regard to one’s own
wife (4:4). Therefore Paul insists, that you abstain from immorality, for it is
God’s will to abstain from immorality. Therefore, it is a mortal sin, for it is
contrary to the commandment and the will of God. “Beware, my son, of all
immorality” (Tob. 4:12).
But also with regard to your wife, deny yourself honorably; that each
one of you know how to take [his vessel], that is his wife, in holiness,
denying yourself pleasure for a time, and in honor, not in the passion of
lust, that is, do not let passion be the stimulus; like heathen, for it is
characteristic of heathens to desire immediate pleasures instead of those of
the future life. ...Finally, Paul adds certain familiar admonitions as when he
urges prayer: pray; and mutual peace: greet all the brethren with a holy kiss, not
a treacherous kiss as that of Judas (Matt. 26), nor a passionate kiss like that of
the lustful woman in Proverbs (7:13)." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary On
Saint Paul’s First Letter To The Thessalonians, 1969)

The forged “Moral Theology” writes that:

"This is why I regard Busembaum’s opinion as probable, which says it is
permitted for spouses to take delectation, even carnally, from carnal relations
they have had or are going to have, as long as the danger of pollution is always
absent. The reason is, because (exactly as the Salamancans say in tr. 9, c. 15, p.
6, n. 84 when speaking about unchaste touches) the very state of matrimony
renders all these things licit; otherwise the matrimonial state would be exposed
to excessive scruples.
Besides, Bonacina, Sanchez, Lessius and Diana hold this opinion, with
Busembaum (as above, n. 23, in fine), St. Antoninus (p. 1, tit. 5, c. 1 §6.),
Cajetan, (1.2. q. 74, art. 8 ad 4), Coninck (d. 34, dub. 11, concl. 1), Croix (l. 6,
p. 5, num. 337) with Gerson, Suarez, Laymann and a great many others;
likewise Vasquez, Aversa, etc., cited by the Salamancans (ibid. n. 89 and 90),
who think it is probable. St. Thomas also favors this opinion in question 15 of
de malo, art. 2, ad 17, where he says that for spouses, just as sexual relations are
licit, so also delectation from them."

The false claim that St. Antoninus and Cajetan allows for the married to
perform unchaste touches or consent to sexual pleasure away from the normal
sexual act, is also proven to be a bold lie with not a whiff of evidence to back it
up, and as we will see, these authorities actually condemns all non-procreative
or unnecessary sexual acts in marriage, and they even condemn chaste acts in
marriage if they tempt spouses to ejaculate, and it is a scientific fact that all
willful lustful actions risk that ejaculation happens.

The fact of the matter is that the Papal Magisterium as well as the Fathers,
Saints, and Doctors of the Church unanimously condemns sensual kisses and
touches in marriage and between two married spouses not only because they are
intoxicating, unnecessary, selfish, shameful, and non-procreative, but also
because they risk that sperm or pre-ejaculatory or preseminal fluid are
discharged, which contain several tens of millions of sperm.

Wikipedia confirms this, teaching that, “The fluid is discharged during arousal,
masturbation, foreplay or at an early stage during sexual intercourse, some time
before the man fully reaches orgasm and semen is ejaculated”, and this pre-
seminal fluid is also called “pollution” in the Church's teaching along with the
normal ejaculation, for both of these acts ejaculates millions of sperm, each of
which has the possibility to become a real human being with a soul in the
future:

“He [Sanchez] asks if married persons may indulge in “embraces, kisses,

and other touchings customary among spouses to show and to foster
mutual love,” even though there is a foreseen risk of ejaculation. He
exclaims: “How many teachers have I seen asserting it to be mortal
among those for whom there is risk of pollution”. He names the
authorities [who condemn kisses and touches in this situation]... who
include the more liberal as well as the more conservative theologians of
the past; among them are Palude, On the Sentences 4.31.3.2.17; St.
Antoninus, Summa theologica 3.1.20; Angelus, Summa, at “Deitum,”
26; Sylvester, Summa at “Debitum,” 7; Cajetan, Little Summa, at
“Matrimonium” and at “Questions for Confessors,” 6; Soto, On the
Sentences 4.31.1.4; Navarrus, Enchiridion 16.42; Peter de Ledesma, The
Great Sacrament of Matrimony 49.6. [Sanchez, The Holy Sacrament of
Matrimony, 9.45.37].” (John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of
Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists)

It is a scientific fact that all willful lustful actions risk that ejaculation happens
and Wikipedia confirms this, teaching that the preseminal fluid is “discharged
during arousal, masturbation, foreplay”. Anyone who denies this scientific fact
that spouses risk that premature ejaculation happens when they perform non-
procreative and unnecessary sexual acts, even though they know that this
happens countless of times each day and hour over the whole earth, is just of
bad will and rejects both science and the teaching of the Church.
In truth, many spouses on this earth each and every day of the week ejaculate in
a full ejaculation by mistake outside of the woman's vessel, and this
undoubtedly happens countless of times each day by different people that lives
on the earth, and there can be no doubt that the cause of this is in almost every
case, the fact that they performed non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts,
such as sensual kisses and foreplay.

This quote by Noonan does not even say that the spouses intended to perform
lustful acts, but asked “if married persons may indulge in “embraces, kisses,
and other touchings customary among spouses to show and to foster mutual
love,” even though there is a foreseen risk of ejaculation.” One can perform
kisses and touches without intending to become sexually aroused, and this
quote only mentions that such chaste acts are mortally sinful if they risk
ejaculation, and ejaculation according to science involves pre-ejaculatory fluid
which contain several tens of millions of sperm as we have seen.

So, according to the common teaching of the Church according to Noonan's

book, even if an act was not intended to arouse sexual desire with one's spouse,
it is still a mortal sin if it arouses a person since it is an occasion of sin and
ejaculation can happen. Thus, since even chaste acts that are not willfully
performed for a lustful motive is sinful if one or both of the spouses knows that
these acts will or can arouse their sexual desire, how much more must the
willful sensual kisses and touches which they perform with each other be
infinitely more evil and sinful?

Liberal historians like John T. Noonan, Jr. - who are a bit more honest than
today's people and who are not dishonestly trying to hide the fact that the
Church and Her Fathers and Saints have always unanimously condemned
sensual kisses in marriage and between two spouses - can admit that the
teaching that sensual kisses in marriage are lawful is a complete novelty, but
those who do not care a whiff about honesty and truth boldly and without
conscience declares that the Church and Her Fathers and Saints have always
allowed sensual kisses in marriage. The bad will is mind boggling!

Archbishop St. Antoninus of Florence and Cardinal Cajetan both totally

condemns even chaste kisses and touches if they risk that spouses procures a
pollution or ejaculation outside the lawful vessel, and it is obvious that all
unchaste touches directly risk that spouses has a pollution in marriage.

St. Antoninus and Gerson is falsely lied about to teach that unchaste touches are
allowed in marriage, but we will see that they condemns all contraceptive, non-
procreative, and unnecessary sexual acts in marriage, and that they only allows
the missionary position in marriage. We will also see that both St. Albert the
Great and St. Thomas Aquinas, (both Doctors of the Church which is the
highest honor a theologian can receive,) teaches that spouses must perform the
missionary position in marriage, and that St. Bernardine agrees with this:
“The phrase "sin against nature" contains within itself the objection to the
act to which it refers. This phrase has been seen to be the standard designation
for any marital intercourse resulting in extravaginal ejaculation. Here is a
sample of the writers after 1250 who so apply the term: in the thirteenth
century, Peraldus (Summa 2.3-4, "The Species of Lechery"); in the fourteenth
century, Astesanus (Summa 2-46, 8.g) and Peter de Palude (On the Sentences
4.31.3.2); in the fifteenth century, John Gerson (Compendium of Theology,
"The Vice or Sin of Lechery," and The Commandments of the Decalogue 11),
St. Antoninus (Confessional 3.1 and Summa theologica 3.1.20), Trovamala
(Summa, "Debt," 11), Nider (Moral Leprosy 1.4), and Angelus (Summa,
"Lechery"). ...
As St. Bernardine put it, the sin was committed by an act of semination
"wherever" and "in whatever way" "you cannot generate" (Seraphic Sermons
19.1). ...Similarly, in the vernacular Bernardine says, "Each time that you have
joined yourselves in such a way that you cannot conceive and generate children,
there has always been sin" (Le Prediche Volgari, Milan, 1936, p. 433). The sin
is against nature in three respects: it is against the nature of the individual,
against the nature of the rational species, against the nature of the animal genus
(Bernardine, The Eternal Gospel 15, "The Frightful Sin Against nature," 1.1).
Such an act was a sin because the inseminating function of the genital act was
frustrated; it is this function which is indicated by "nature" in this context.
An objection may be raised to this analysis of the sin against nature, since
the term was also applied to departure from "the fit way instituted by nature as
to position" (St. Thomas, On the Sentences 4.31, "Exposition of text"; Summa
theologica 2-2.154.11). The "fit way" was with the woman beneath the man.
Theologians following Aquinas attacked deviation from this position as
unnatural and as mortal sin. [that is, they even condemned all other procreative
sexual acts in marriage than the missionary position.] (Peraldus, Summa 2.36;
Monaldus, Summa, "The Goods of marriage," fol. 136; Astesanus, Summa 8.9,
favoring this opinion as "safer"; John Gerson, Opusculum tripartitum, De
praecceptis decalogi, c. 11, and Compendium theologiae 8, "The Sin of
Lechery," both in Opera, Antwerp, 1706, vol. I; [Saint] Bernardine, The
Christian Religion 17.1.1, in Opera omnia (Quaracchi. 1950), vol. l.
A milder opinion was that a change from this position to that of "brute
animals" was "a sign of mortal concupiscence" (St. Albert, On the Sentences
4.31.24). ...If there is a reason for change - such as bodily size... the change is
justified. This milder view, which still takes one position as "natural," was
followed by Peter de Palude, On the Sentences 4.31.3; St. Antoninus, Summa
theologiae 3.1.20.) This doctrine appears to refute my account of what the
scholastics meant by "nature." Here is a teaching which insists on a particular
order in sexual intercourse, although insemination does not seem at issue. ...It
was adopted because it had become embedded in the theological discussions of
married sexuality. It also reflected a belief in the natural superiority of man to
woman. Yet there is in this standard, so obviously derived from a special
tradition, some connection with the primary insistence on insemination.
As dispassionate a scientific observer as [Saint] Albert, in his biological
work, taught that with the woman in a lateral [sideways] position the seed
reached her matrix with difficulty, and that when she was above the man, her
matrix was "upside down" and "what was in it was poured out" (Animals 10.2).
The essential doctrine was as old as Avicenna and consequently as widespread
as the Canon of Medicine. With the woman above the man "retention of the
seed in coition is extremely poor"; moreover, the increased "labor in ejection of
the seed" causes genital injury. (Avicenna, Canon of Medicine 3.20.1.10,
"Harmfulness of Coitus, Its Arrangements, and the Evil of Forms.")
In the light of this kind of medical opinion, the scholastic insistence on
natural modes was a second safeguard or outer bulwark for the teaching on
insemination. Nature, it was believed, protected the inseminating function by
special postures it had set for human beings. To dispense with this protection
was to sin against nature. (Magnino of Milan repeats Avicenna's doctrine that
genital injury will result from the changed position, and he also calls change of
position "against law and custom" (contra legem et mores). ...(Regimen for
Health 3.33) ...
The givenness of the generative process was supported by the assertion
that the generative use of sexuality is what "nature has taught all animals."
...Where the natural posture in intercourse is at issue, human behavior is
contrasted with animal behavior, and "animal" becomes a dirty word. To desert
the natural position, says St. Albert, is to assume "that of brute animals" (On the
Sentences 4.31.24). The unnatural positions are "animal, not human," says
Astesanus (Summa 8.9). St. Thomas himself chooses the word "bestiality" to
characterize modes of copulation that depart from the rational norm of position
(ST 2-2.154.11). ...
"Would the husband have intercourse with his wife even if she were not
his wife?" If so, he was guilty of too ardent love. This... test... was set out by
William of Auxerre, Summa 4 (fol. 287v). It was adopted by Alexander of
Hales, Summa of Theology 2-2.3.5.2.1.3.2; [Saint] Bonaventure, On the
Sentences 4.31. 2.3; Astesanus, Summa 8.9; Durand of St. Pourcain, On the
Sentences 4-31.4; [Saint] Antoninus, Confessional, "Interrogatory" 3.1...A less
clear-cut but instructive example occurs in the Confessional of Antoninus,
which distinguishes intercourse "outside the vessel" from that "within the
vessel," where, however, insemination is avoided by the seed's not being
received ("Interrogatory" 3.1). ... St. Antoninus puts it even more distinctly in
his book for confessors, "A man with a man, a woman with a woman, or a man
with a woman outside of the fit vessel, is called the sodomitic vice"
(Confessional, "Interrogatory" 1.6). ...
Another report on reserved sins of this kind is furnished by Antoninus of
Florence. Having defined "the sodomitic vice" to include marital intercourse
outside the vagina, he noted that this sin was reserved by "some bishops"
(Confessional, "Interrogatory" 1.6). This kind of sanction went beyond the
ordinary sacramental discipline. ...The theologians and canonists proclaimed
that nonprocreative marital intercourse, including coitus interruptus, was a form
of the sin against nature. Peter Cantor, John Gerson, Bernardine, and
Antoninus assimilated such intercourse to the even uglier category of
sodomy. ...
Inquiry is also recommended by the Confessional of St. Antoninus, who
is a much more cautious authority on sexual sins than St. Bernardine. ...In a set
of interrogatories developed for particular states of life, Antoninus has, under
the heading "The Married," these questions: "First, if he has used marriage
beyond the fit vessel. If he did something to avoid offspring. If in an undue
[inappropriate] way, although in the due [appropriate] vessel, and how"
(Confessional, "Interrogatory" 3.1 ). [Thus, St. Antoninus is very clear that even
if spouses performs any other procreative sexual act than the missionary
position, they must confess this, thus proving once again that he condemns all
non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts in marriage, such as sensual kisses
and touches.]
St. Antoninus' book was the most popular manual for confessors for the
next hundred years. (Pierre Michaud-Quantin, Sommes de casuistique et
manuels de confessions au moyen age, XII-XVI siecles, Louvain, 1962, p. 75)
In a more local work by a more famous man of the next generation, Girolamo
Savonarola, the same position is found: "You are to ask about this sin . . . if it
was in the vessel, or in an unfit vessel, or outside of any vessel" (Confessional,
"Sins against the Sixth Commandment"; "Things Which Are Done in
Matrimony"). (Savonarola, Confessionale pro instructione confessorum, Venice,
1524) ...
At the close of the fifteenth century, the Confessional of St. Antoninus
was the most popular guide for confessors. This work, along with the summas
of Trovamala and Angelus, was recommended to the clergy by episcopal synods
of the Empire down to the middle of the sixteenth century. More ancient works
were also in use: St. Raymond's Summa for Confessors was printed in the
sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, not for reasons of historical
scholarship but as a guide to usage. Works like those of Trovamala and Angelus
assumed that the confessor would have to deal with contraception. Works like
St. Raymond's and St. Antoninus' directed him to inquire about the sin.
Confessionals of somewhat later date continued this tradition. I have
already remarked on questions about intercourse in Savonarola's Confessional
under the heading "Things Which Occur in Matrimony" and in Cajetan's Little
Summa of Sins under the headings "Interrogations of the Penitents by
Confessors" and "The Sin of Matrimony in Regard to the Vessel."” (John T.
Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic
Theologians and Canonists Enlarged Edition)

“What is meant here [by sodomy] is clearly indicated by St Anthony of

Florence (1389–1459) in his manual for father confessors (Interrogatorium): “A
man with a man, a woman with a woman, or a man with a woman outside of the
fit vessel, is called the sodomitic vice.”” (Contraception: A History, Robert
Jütte, Polity, 2008)

“A fifteenth-century handbook for confessors prepared by [Archbishop Saint]

Antoninus, a fifteenth-century Dominican friar, includes male and female
homosexual and heterosexual intercourse "outside the fit vessel" in its
definition of sodomy. (Bullough, 1976:381)” (The Construction of
Homosexuality, David F. Greenberg, University of Chicago Press, 2008)

And so much does St. Antoninus despise unnecessary sexual acts in marriage
that he says that a person can separate from a spouse who commits such acts:
“In his Summa theologica (1440- 54), for example, [Saint and
Archbishop] Antonino of Florence lists sodomy as one of the four subcategories
of the overall category of the vitium contra naturam [sin against nature] (the
others are masturbation, innaturalitas — presumably, heterosexual anal
intercourse and oral sex — and bestiality). ... Accordingly, [Saint] Bernardino
even advises priests who have heard the confession of a wife sodomized by her
husband to report the case to the bishop so that she may be able to separate
from that husband with the blessing of the Church. ...Bernardino raises the topic
of sodomy (along with masturbation) as grounds for separation in the later Latin
treatise De horrendo peccato contra naturam...:
“Quaestio. But can a wife dismiss her husband because of this crime? —
The Gloss responds, XXXII, quest. 7, in the canon Omnes on the word
"sodomite," saying: "It seems that a husband can be dismissed because of
sodomitic activity; XXXII, quest. 7, Adulterii; there it is said that that crime is
greater than adultery. — Likewise: What do you say, if he pollutes his own wife
outside of the cloister of shame, or if he pollutes himself with his own hand?
Can he be dismissed because of this? It seems so because the word 'adultery'
refers to all illicit intercourse and all illicit use of the members, as per XXXII,
quest. 4, Meretrices, and the following canon; this Laurentius [Hispanus]
concedes. ...The first opinion is held by Huguccio and Raymundus in his
Summa, under the article concerning the number of witnesses.” ...
[Archbishop Saint] Antonino of Florence... unambiguously allows for
divortium (that is, separation) in this case. Bernardino certainly suggests
separation as a possibility, and that mere suggestion is sufficient to impress
upon his readers the enormity of this "crime" in his and the Church's eyes.”
(The Preacher's Demons: Bernardino of Siena and the Social Underworld of
Early Renaissance Italy, Franco Mormando, University of Chicago Press, 1999)

“If we look a bit further afield in late-medieval confessional materials beyond

specifically English ones, we see that sodomy also denotes mutual masturbation
between males, according to Gerson, and unnatural intercourse with one's wife,
according to Saint Antoninus of Florence.” (Getting Medieval: Sexualities and
Communities, Pre- and Postmodern, Carolyn Dinshaw, Duke University Press,
1999)

“Antoninus of Florence accepts the traditional formula when he condemns

someone who “is carried to the conjugal act with such inordinate affection that
even if it were not one's wife or one's husband one would still perform the
carnal act with her or with him.”” (Sin and Confession on the Eve of the
Reformation, By Thomas N. Tentler)

Cardinal Cajetan also condemns even all procreative sexual acts in marriage
than the missionary position, contrary to what the forger says:
“Tommaso de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan, in the sixteenth century reiterated
that any non-reproductive sex was sinful and he rejected positions that impeded
conception. Hence, man on top, woman underneath, lying down was the only
unproblematic position. Bishops could grant exceptions with respect to position
because of physical ailments, but again, only if the couple insisted on their
reproductive intentions...The revitalized clergy used their enhanced status to
make the confessional vigorous in the pursuit of sexual sin. Confessors inquired
about positions, the timing of sex acts, and the intentions behind them, even
among married couples. Non-vaginal sex was never excused, but some
exceptions (such as obesity) could be made for women on top in coitus [that is,
other procreative sexual acts than the missionary position could be allowed if
illnesses hindered spouses].
[Saint] Jean Eudes explained that confessors should ask a couple if they
had committed any lewd acts before they married, if anything ''impure'' had
occurred since the marriage was consummated, if either partner had violated
marital fidelity, and if they had maintained a proper attitude toward the other.
Eudes listed four principal sins of married couples: disobedience of the wife,
impeding generation, spilling seed, and ''that execrable sin, which takes its
name from that abominable city,'' which refers to sodomy. (Jean Eudes, Le bon
confesseur, Paris, 1666, 286–89)” (European Sexualities, 1400-1800, Katherine
Crawford, Cambridge University Press, 2007)

Gerson also directly condemns all non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts in

marriage, contrary to what the forger says. Master Jean Charlier de Gerson (13
December 1363 – 12 July 1429), French scholar, educator, reformer, and poet,
Chancellor of the University of Paris, a guiding light of the conciliar movement
and one of the most prominent theologians at the Council of Constance, who
“was the most popular and influential theologian of his generation”, had the
following interesting things to say about lustful kisses and touches in
marriage between two married spouses, contraception and about sensually
arousing oneself:

Jean Gerson, Oeuvres Complétes: “Is it a sin to kiss? I answer that kisses
between spouses who maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at
church, or who do them openly, are without sin. If they do them so
immodestly [and lustfully] that I cannot be more precise, it is an
abominable deadly sin. If kisses are made between strangers and
publicly, as a sign of peace, by friendship or kinship, without wicked
thought, there is no sin. They could be dangerous between clerics, or
people of the same sex or lineage, or in a secret place, and in a prolonged
way.
“… Is it a mortal sin to eat and drink in order to carnally arouse
oneself? Yes, if it is out of wedlock, and even with one’s spouse, if it is to
enjoy a pleasure which is not required in marriage.
“… The fifth commandment is: thou shall not kill. … They
commit this sin who succeed, in whatever way, in preventing the fruit
which should come from carnal intercourse between man and woman
[such as by NFP, contraception or abortion]. … It is forbidden for two
 people, married or not, to do any kind of lustful fondling without
respecting the way and the vessel Nature requires for conceiving children
[that is, one cannot perform “extra” sexual acts not able to procreate in
themselves or that are not intended for procreation]. It is worse when it is
outside of the natural way [unnatural sexual acts], either if it is out of
wedlock or even worse, within it [that is, all unnecessary and non-
procreative sexual acts within marriage are considered as worse sins
than when they are committed outside of marriage].
“Is it permitted for spouses to prevent the conception of a child?
No: I often say that it is a sin worse than murder [hence that contraception
or NFP is equivalent to murder]. It is a sin which deserves the fires of
Hell. Briefly, any way of preventing conception during intercourse is
dishonest and reprehensible. ...
I maintain that one should not kiss or hold anybody in a secret
place, male children as well as women, married or not; and that a child
must refuse to be held and kissed. ...If you ask what a honest kiss is, I
answer that it is such as if it was given publicly or in a convent.”

Here we see the very obvious truth of the Natural Law that spouses are
committing “an abominable deadly sin” when they kiss each other for sensual
or venereal pleasure. “Is it a sin to kiss? I answer that kisses between spouses
who maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do them
openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly [and lustfully] that I
cannot be more precise, it is an abominable deadly sin.” Thus, it is clear that
anyone who either performs acts of kissing or touching for venereal pleasure or
who thinks that these acts are moral acts are sinning against nature, which
means that they are in a state of damnation since acts or heresies against nature
can never be excused since no one can be a “material heretic” or in “ignorance”
in regards to such things.

Anyone with even a speck of decency and morality in their soul can understand
from the Natural Law that “It is forbidden for two people, married or not, to do
any kind of lustful fondling without respecting the way and the vessel Nature
requires for conceiving children...” and “It is worse when it is outside of the
natural way [unnatural sexual acts], either if it is out of wedlock or even worse,
within it.” This shows us that non-procreative sexual acts occurring in marriage
are far worse sins against God than those committed out of wedlock, since they
offend not only against the Natural Law but also the Holy Sacrament of
Marriage.

The fact is that Gerson only allows the missionary position in marriage,
contrary to what the forger lies and says:
 “John Gerson (1363-1429), chancellor of the University of Paris, defines
sodomy to include both copulation with a person of the same sex and
semination "in a vessel not ordained for it"; a reference to coitus interruptus
which shortly follows this passage seems to assimilate it as well to sodomy
(Moral Rules 99) . ...An objection may be raised to this analysis of the sin
against nature, since the term was also applied to departure from "the fit way
instituted by nature as to position" (St. Thomas, On the Sentences 4.31,
"Exposition of text"; Summa theologica 2-2.154.11). The "fit way" was with the
woman beneath the man. Theologians following Aquinas attacked deviation
from this position as unnatural and as mortal sin. (John Gerson, Opusculum
tripartitum, De praecceptis decalogi, c. 11, and Compendium theologiae 8, "The
Sin of Lechery," both in Opera (Antwerp, 1706), vol. I) ...
The theologians and canonists proclaimed that nonprocreative marital
intercourse, including coitus interruptus, was a form of the sin against nature.
Peter Cantor, John Gerson, Bernardine, and Antoninus assimilated such
intercourse to the even uglier category of sodomy. Aliquando proclaimed that
the users of contraceptives were adulterers. Si aliquis condemned them as
homicides. Bernardine labeled spouses frustrating insemination "the killers of
their own children." ...Almost a century later, Gerson, preaching at the French
court, says if one spouse seeks something "indecent" in intercourse, the other is
to resist "to death" ("Sermon Against Lechery," Works [Antwerp, 1706], III,
916). ...
Although the canonists were in disagreement, the theologians seemed
confident that separation would be granted on this ground. "One can proceed to
divorce for the sin against nature," says [Saint] Thomas (On the Sentences
4.35.1.1, reply to obj. 4). If something "indecent" is practiced in marriage, a
spouse "may complain, first secretly to her priest or her friends, then to the
judge, if she does not find other remedy," says Gerson in the fourteenth century
("Sermon Against Lechery," Works, III, 916). ...
John Gerson makes a point against contraceptive behavior, with heavy
emphasis on the Roman-law punishment of death by burning for sodomy. (By
decree of the Emperor Valentinian in 390, sodomy was to be punished by death
by fire, Theodosian Code 9.7.6) Sins preventing insemination in marital
intercourse are assimilated by Gerson to sodomy (above p. 226). Preaching
against lechery, he attacks the "indecencies and inventions of sinners" in
marriage; these acts "sometimes deserve the fire and are worse than if done
with women not one's own."
He continues, "May a person in any case copulate and prevent the fruits
of the marriage? I say that this is often a sin which deserves the fire. To answer
shortly, every way which impedes offspring in the union of man and wife is
indecent and must be reprobated" ("Sermon against Lechery for the Second
Sunday in Advent," Works, III, 916).
Another sermon, reportedly given before Charles VI at Paris, is on
marriage. The goods of marriage are set forth, including, of course, the good of
offspring. Gerson continues: "Against this good is the prevention of children,
either before conception, by abusing marriage, or after, by causing an abortion
through clothes, dancing, blows, potions, or otherwise" ("On the Sunday Within
the Octave of the Epiphany").” (John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History
of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists Enlarged Edition)

The fact is that both St. Antoninus and Gerson totally condemns all non-
procreative sexual acts in marriage as sodomy:
“Indeed, the purpose of this concept seems to me to be twofold. On the
one hand — and Noonan placed too little stress on this — it is polemical: it is a
question of persuading those accustomed to practicing sterile acts that these acts
are a form of sodomy, condemned by St. Paul on the basis of Old Testament
texts and considered by him as contrary to nature. ...
And further on: "The theologians and canonists proclaimed that
nonprocreative marital intercourse, including coitus interruptus, was a form of
the sin against nature. Peter Cantor, John Gerson, Bernardine, and Antoninus
assimilated such intercourse to the even uglier category of sodomy. In the
ranking of sins of lechery, the sin against nature was said by Adulterii malum to
be worse than incest. Gratian's ordering was maintained by the standard works
of theology. In Thomas' Summa theologica, the sin against nature, including the
sin in marriage, is the greatest of sexual vices, being worse than fornication,
seduction... incest, or sacrilege..." (pp. 260-61). ...
In principle, canon law shows more concern. It sets forth three penalties
for husbands guilty of deceiving nature: denial of the conjugal bed, separation
or divorce "a toro" and annulment of the marriage. ...During the early Middle
Ages, the penance imposed for such sins is known to us through the
penitentials. Noonan, who studied twenty of them dating from the sixth through
ninth centuries, shows us that all penitentials, save one, were concerned with
one or several contraceptive measures. Not only "poisons creating sterility" —
apparently connected with the crime of sorcery — but two sorts of unnatural
intercourse were considered grave sins by all those mentioning them. (These
unnatural acts were oral intercourse (seminem in ore) and anal intercourse (a
tergo) the first of which is encountered in five, and the other in nine of the
eighteen penitentials. See Noonan, Contraception, pp. 162 and 164) …
St. Thomas wrote: "Whoever, therefore, uses copulation for the delight
which is in it, not referring the intention to the end intended by nature, acts
against nature." (St Thomas Aquinas, On the Sentences, 4.33.1.3., quoted by
Noonan, Contraception, pp. 241-42.) …Some considered the search for
pleasure [only in the normal sexual act] in marriage to be a mortal sin: others a
venial sin. (These are [the theologians who considered search for pleasure only
as a mortal sin], for example, St Raymond (Summa, 4.2.8) and Monaldus
(Summa, fol. 136 r) in the twelfth century; St. Bernardine of Siena (Seraphic
Sermons, 19.3) in the fifteenth: as well as the unknown summist used by
Chaucer in his "Parson's Tale" (authors quoted by Noonan, Contraception, p.
250).
Noonan (Contraception, p. 250) quotes, [Theologians who considered it a
venial sin] for example, Alexander of Hales, St Thomas Aquinas, St
Bonaventure, William of Rennes, Durand of Saint-Pourgain, Peter de Palude,
John Gerson, and St Antonius of Florence.) ...Noonan (Contraception, p. 251)
cites, for example, William Auxerre, Alexander of Hales, St Bonaventure,
Astesanus, Durand of Saint-Pourcain, St Antonius of Florence, Albert the Great
and St. Thomas Aquinas liken overly ardent love to "using one's wife as a
whore," as Benedicti does here.” (Sex in the Western World: The Development
of Attitudes and Behaviour, Jean Louis Flandrin, S. Collins, Taylor & Francis,
1991; Biology of man in history: selections from the Annales, économies,
sociétés, civilisations, Robert Forster, Orest A. Ranum, The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1975)

Sanchez which is lied about above from the forger of “Moral Theology” to
allow either consent to sexual pleasure away from the normal sexual act, or
unchaste touches with one's wife, totally condemns this, and as we will see only
allows for the married the missionary position and condemns even other
procreative sexual acts as mortally sinful and contrary to nature.

Another good evidence from an external source that St. Alphonsus's book
Moral Theology has been manipulated is the fact that in it the forger teaches
that Thomas Sanchez teaches that spouses may do all kinds of non-procreative
sexual acts, such sensual kisses and touches, while in reality the actual teaching
of Sanchez is that only the missionary position is allowed and that all other acts
in marriage, even procreative sexual acts, are mortally sinful and contrary to
nature.

A good evidence that Sanchez's book has been misrepresented concerning his
teaching on sexual pleasure is found in the book “Goya: The Last Carnival”,
which is about paintings and their meanings, and quotes original sources, thus
utterly proving how his teaching has been suppressed by liars:
 “This misfortune is nothing to do with obesity, as one might at first
suspect (at the time, obesity was still a sign of prosperity), but with the
disgraceful pregnancy, the product of a reversal of positions during the sexual
act, long anathematized by the Church. Zapperi recalled how the polemic
surrounding male/female coital positions came up against that of the more
general theme of on top and underneath. Indeed in Spain, the erotic horse was
condemned expressis verbis in the treatise by the Jesuit Thomas Sanchez
entitled De sancto matrimonio sacramento, where the only position considered
to be natural was mulier succuba, vir autem incubus. Sanchez condemned the
reversed position as a mortal sin:
“This way of going about things is absolutely contrary to the laws of
nature because it prevents the seed from the male ejaculation from being
received and retained by the female vase. Moreover, it is not only the position
of the person that is being reversed but also their condition: and it is in the
nature of things that the male should perform and the female submit. The very
fact that the male places himself underneath makes him passive while the
woman by putting herself on top becomes active. Who could deny seeing that
nature is filled with horror at such a turning upside down?” (De sancto
matrimonio sacramento, IX, XIV, I)” (Victor I. Stoichita, Goya: The Last
Carnival, Reaktion Books, 2000)

So not only is Sanchez condemning non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts,

but also other procreative sexual acts than the missionary position. It is of
course a clear cut mortal sin of lying and giving false testimony to claim that a
person teaches something which he have never taught, and only a person who
has no conscience and is in mortal sin could ever do such a shameful thing.
If one publishes or spreads a book, if one desires to add one's own commentary
to a book, one must make it clear that the additions are done by someone else
than the original writer, in order to avoid giving false testimony and fooling
people that another person said what you do not have evidence that he said. It is
sad that so many vile teachings concerning sexual pleasure have become more
common the last 200 years, but it is undoubtedly a great reason why almost all
who call themselves Catholic fell into apostasy since they rejected the Natural
Law.

Thomas Sanchez forcefully condemns all non-procreative sexual acts in

marriage and allows of the procreative sexual acts only the missionary
position, and he says that the deluge killed the whole earth because the spouses
did not perform the missionary position:
“In short, the behaviour of married persons is systematically contrasted
with that of lovers; the former are connected with procreation, the latter with
the search for sterile pleasure. Similarly, the "natural" manner of intercourse is
contrasted with unusual ones, which are called unnatural and are suspected of
being sterile. Indeed, the positions of sexual intercourse are a traditional subject
for theological discussions. "Unnatural" positions have never been condemned
on the basis of a personalist view of marriage, in which the individual is
supreme, but in the name of the age-old marriage rite, which has at its
foundation certain notions regarding the relationship between a man and
woman that exclude the idea of excessive pleasure, and which shows concern
for procreation.
(For all theologians there is, indeed, a single, natural position for
intercourse. All the interrogations of confessors on this matter begin with the
question of statement, "You know the natural position. ..." The thing is so
obvious that almost no one ever says why that position is natural, except when
they are attacking those which are not. We are faced with a custom whose
origin must be sought in prehistoric times; it is connected, I imagine, with the
ritual gesture of the plowman, although no text permits me to support this
supposition. In any case, it seems clear to me that marital intercourse is a ritual,
a fertility rite.
Indeed, Thomas Sanchez... begins his chapter by an explanation: "We
must first of all establish what is the natural manner of intercourse as far as
position is concerned. As for the latter, the man must lie on top and the woman
on her back beneath. Because this manner is more appropriate for the effusion
of the male seed, for its reception into the female vessel and its retention. . . ."
Sanchez' genius lies in explaining everything promptly. However, when it
comes to condemning unnatural positions, the question of pure ritual does not
escape him: "It is an abuse of the sacrament of marriage, and it is evident that it
is a perversion of the usage and also of the ritual ... and that it is a sacrilege
worthy of hell" (De Sancto matrimonii sacramento [Antwerp, 1607] bk. 9,
dispute 16, q. 1).
The position which theologians call "retro" [from the back] and which
Brantome calls "more canino" had been denounced from the early Middle Ages
on as lowering man to the level of the animal. Here it is not a question of
intercourse between two partners, but of the honour of the human species. On
this subject Sanchez wrote: "... Since nature has ordained this method for
animals, the man who develops a taste for it becomes like them." However, the
position "mulier super virum" [woman above husband] appears more serious,
and Sanchez attacks it much more vigorously:
"4) This method is absolutely contrary to the order of nature since it
stands in the way of the man's ejaculation and the retention of the seed within
the female vessel. Also, not only the position, but the condition of the persons is
important. Indeed, it is natural for the man to act and for the woman to be
passive; and if the man is beneath, he becomes submissive by the very fact of
this position, and the woman being above is active; and who cannot see how
much nature herself abhors this mutation?
"5) Because in scholastic history (ca. 31 super Genesium ex Metodio) it
is said that the cause of the Flood was that women, carried away by madness,
used men improperly, the latter being beneath and the former above. ... St. Paul
said to the Romans: 'Their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature,' and he places this sin among the deadly ones."
The association of these unusual positions with the condemnation of
overly ardent loves is invariable. Though excerpts from theological treatises
make this apparent only rarely, many proofs are to be found. Among the lay
writers, for example, Brantome returns to the subject on several occasions,
fascinated as he seems to be by "Aretino's positions": "In addition these
husbands, which is worse, teach their wives, in their own bed, a thousand
obscene things, a thousand whorish acts, a thousand twists, convolutions, new
ways, and practise upon them those outrageous positions of Aretin; so that from
one glow of passion in their body a hundred are generated, and thus they are
turned into whores".) ...
"Whoever reads this passage will find there a great number of abuses
which husbands commit upon their wives. He [that is Benedicti, in Summa
Benedicti, when he speaks about other procreative sexual acts in marriage] also
says that "quando mulier est ita pinguis ut non possit aliter coire" [When the
woman was so fat they cannot have sex] in any other position, that in such a
case "non est peccatum mortale, modo vir ejaculetur semen in vas naturale." [it
is not a mortal sin as long as the seed is ejaculated in the natural vessel.] Others
say that it would be better for husbands to abstain from intercourse with their
pregnant wife, as do the animals, than to sully their marriage by such outrages.”
...
Nevertheless, when discussing the conjugal versus nonconjugal context
of these relations, they condemned contraception with special vehemence when
it occurred within marriage. For example, John Gerson, writing at the
beginning of the fifteenth century, notes briefly: "And this sin is more grievous
the further one strays from the natural law: be it outside marriage or — which is
even worse — within marriage..."
And several sixteenth-century theologians insisted upon the fact that
unnatural intercourse is more serious when committed by husband and wife
than by two persons not united in marriage. In the latter case, the crime against
the potential life is compounded by that of fornication or adultery, if one of the
sinners is married. But when they are husband and wife, it is a double adultery.
Thus Cajetan, Soto, Azor, and Sanchez, all important theologians, prescribe
that the confession should state the aggravating circumstance "that the sin was
committed with one's own spouse."
The role of men and women in sexual intercourse
Equality of rights over one's spouse's body in no way implied the
defining of sexual roles, nor even equality in the physical relationship.
According to Viguerius, "in the marital act, the man is active [agens] and the
women passive [patiens] and therefore the man's [role] is the most noble."
These different sexual roles were considered natural, in other words, desired by
God. Adopting the opposite sex's role was therefore sacrilegious, a "crime
against nature", a perversion of God's work. This comes across clearly in
theological discussions of positions used by married couples during intercourse.
"The natural position consists of the woman lying on her back and the
man lying on top of her, making sure to ejaculate into the vessel intended for
that purpose". This position is appropriate, explains Sanchez, not only "because
it most favours the ejaculation of sperm as well as its being received and
retained in the female vessel", but also because it "conforms better to the nature
of things that the man act and the woman accept". On the contrary, "when the
man is underneath, by the very nature of the position, he accepts and when the
woman is on top, she acts. Who cannot see how horrified nature is by this
aberration?" In addition, "Methodius, in his commentary on the book of
Genesis, said that the cause of the Flood was that the women, overcome with
madness, had misused the men, the latter being underneath and the women on
top."
According to Sanchez, St Paul confirmed this when writing to the
Romans: "Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural".” (Sex in the
Western World: The Development of Attitudes and Behaviour, Jean Louis
Flandrin, S. Collins, Taylor & Francis, 1991; Biology of man in history:
selections from the Annales, économies, sociétés, civilisations, Robert Forster,
Orest A. Ranum, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975)

The truth is that Sanchez even condemns the normal procreative missionary
position unless it is excused, and how much more must he then condemn non-
procreative and unnecessary sexual acts in marriage:
“There is a qualification: "Is conjugal use for pleasure alone a sin?"
Sanchez asks, and he answers that such intercourse would be "a perversion of
order"; that is, pleasure, which is a consequence of an act, would be treated as
an end. The sin would be venial (Sanchez, De sancto matrimonii sacramento
9.11)” (John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the
Catholic Theologians and Canonists Enlarged Edition)
The fact that forgeries was made up by heretics during this time is also
confirmed by the fact that forged copies of Sanchez's book have been put on the
index of forbidden books. The Catholic Encyclopedia's article about Thomas
Sanchez explains that:
“Sanchez belongs to those who are much abused on account of their
works. The chief work of Sanchez and the only one which he himself edited, is
the "Disputationes de sancti matrimonii sacramento". ...The work had an
extraordinary fate, inasmuch as some editions of the third volume have been
placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, the grounds being not the doctrine of
the author, but the perversion of the work and the suppression of what the
author taught.”

We have seen that the occurrence of bad willed people to maliciously change or
manipulate a person's original book or work is more common after the 16th
century, and with the advent of the internet, this kind of practice is rife among
heretics. In order to give some kind of legitimacy to their heresies, many
heretics boldly and without conscience change, subtract, or add things to books
and literary works of writers of different kinds, some even daring to pervert
works by Saints in order to make people believe that their teaching must be true
since a Saint teaches it.

Pope St. Pius X testifies to the impossibility of a pope’s inspection of every

imprimatured book, even with the help of the Holy Office, and also testifies that
there were many bad books that were given imprimaturs.

Pope St. Pius X, Pacendi Dominici Gregis, A.D. 1907: “51. We bid you
do everything in your power to drive out of your dioceses, even by
solemn interdict, any pernicious books that may be in circulation there.
The Holy See neglects no means to put down writings of this kind, but
the number of them has now grown to such an extent that it is
impossible to censure them all. ...Nor are you to be deterred by the fact
that a book has obtained the Imprimatur elsewhere... because this may be
merely simulated [that is, people lie and falsely claim that they have got
an imprimatur]...”

Also consider our Lady’s prophecy in the Church approved apparition of La

Salette: “Bad books will abound over the earth, and the spirits of darkness
will everywhere spread universal relaxation in everything concerning
God’s service...” (Prophecy of La Salette, 19th of September 1846)

The Catholic Encyclopedia's article, “Forgery”, explains that: “Substitution of

false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the
Middle Ages. In the chapter Dura vi, "De crimine falsi", written in 1198, (pars
decisa), [Pope] Innocent III relates that he had discovered and imprisoned
forgers who had prepared a number of false Bulls, bearing forged signatures
either of his predecessor or of himself. To obviate abuses, he orders under pain
of excommunication or suspension that pontifical Bulls be received only from
the hands of the pope or of the officials charged to deliver them.
He orders bishops to investigate suspicious letters, and to make known, to all
those having forged letters, that they are bound to destroy them, or to hand them
over within twenty days, under pain of excommunication. The same pope
legislated severely against forgery and the use of forged documents. In the
chapter Ad falsariorum, vii, "De crimine falsi", written in 1201, forgers of
Apostolic Letters, whether the actual criminals or their aiders and abetters, are
alike excommunicated, and if clerics, are ordered to be degraded and given over
to the secular arm.
Whoever makes use of Apostolic Letters is invited to assure himself of their
authenticity, since to use forged letters is punished in the case of clerics by
privation of benefice and rank, and in the case of laymen by excommunication.
The excommunication threatened by Innocent III, and extended to the forgery
of supplicas or pontifical dispensations, was incorporated in the Bull "In Cœna
Domini" (no. 6), and passed thence with some modifications into the
constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis", where it is number 9 among the
excommunications latœ sententiœ specially reserved to the pope. It affects "all
falsification of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of Briefs, and supplicas
concerning favours sought or dispensations asked for, which have been signed
by the Sovereign Pontiff, or the vice-chancellors of the Roman Church or their
deputies, or by order of the pope", also all those who falsely publish Apostolic
Letters, even those in the form of Brief; lastly, all those who falsely sign these
documents with the name of the Sovereign Pontiff, the vice-chancellor or their
deputies. ...
Leitner ("Præl. Jur. Can." lib. V, tit. xx, in a note) gives two examples of
fraudulent reproductions of this nature. [King] Frederick II of Prussia forged a
Brief of [Pope] Clement XIII, and dated it 30 January, 1759, by which the pope
was made to send his congratulations and a blessed sword to the Austrian
Marshal Daun, after the battle of Hochkirch. A Bull purporting to be by [Pope]
Pius IX, dated 28 May, 1873, modifying the law in vigour for the election of a
pope was forged, with the connivance at least, of the Prussian Government.
Another false document, published by many newspapers in 1905, authorized the
marriage of priests in South America, but no one placed any credence in it.”
The forged and false copy of St. Alphonsus's book claims that sensual kisses are
allowed in marriage, but other copies of St. Alphonsus's true teaching directly
contradicts this, thus utterly proving that forgers have changed the real St.
Alphonsus's words:
“Catholic theologians have written at enormous length on what is and
what is not permitted to the faithful in marriage. ...Thus, many theologians hold
that it is a mortal sin for a married couple to have sexual relations on Sunday, or
a Holy Day; even St. Augustine... mentions Christmas — of all times — as a
day when it is sinful. ...and this when the couple are married. Even kissing may
become a mortal sin! Thus Father Debreyne — all these orders are to the
married: “A simple kiss on the mouth may become a mortal sin if it is
prolonged with pleasurable delight, or if the tongue is inserted.” [Saint
Alphonsus] Liguori considers that a kiss on the breast may become a mortal sin,
and in any case is very dangerous!” (T. Clifton Longworth, A Survey of Sex,
2003, p. 131)

In addition to the fact that the forged copy teaches that sensual kisses are
allowed in marriage, the true teaching of the authentic Alphonsus confirms the
Papal teaching which condemns as a mortal sin all sensual kisses both inside
and outside marriage, and the true book Moral Theology and even the forged
copy of it directly quotes this teaching below in its beginning, thus showing us
that a forger, again, has manipulated Alphonsus's teaching:

Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters #40, September

24, 1665 and March 18, 1666: “It is a probable opinion which states that a
kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible
delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and
pollution is excluded.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander
VII.

Indeed, in another place of even the forged Moral Theology, it directly

condemns all unchaste kisses and touches contrary to what the forger claims in
other places:
“...and then the gravity of the object in confession must be expressed, indeed
what act he constituted in his individual act, as Filliuci, Bonacina, Suarez (de
poen. s. 22, s. 4, n. 36) ...Hence, kisses, touches, unchaste words, etc. ...are one
sin by number, as Navarre (c. 6, n. 17), Azor (l. 4, qu. 6), and Filliuci, etc.
teach.”

The text never says that it only speaks about the unmarried, which were a
superminority at that time, and it is very improbable that he should speak
generally without specifying that he is speaking about a very small group, and
anyone who are honest has to admit that even the forged Moral Theology
condemns all sensual kisses and touches for all, both the married and the
unmarried. The forger forgot to remove it and we will see how he stumbles over
himself over and over again.

The fact is that the Church and Her Saints have always condemned sensual
kisses in marriage. St. Bernardine of Siena, a great miracle worker, who was
one of the greatest and most famous preachers of the 15th century, also
condemns sensual kisses in marriage along with St. Vincent Ferrer, Archbishop
St. Antoninus, and Brother Girolamo Savonarola, and they are clear that not
only are sensual touches forbidden in marriage, but also sensual kisses and any
excessive sexual stimulus:
          “St. Bernardino, on the other hand, sternly warned audiences that they
must avoid excessive sexual stimulus as a prelude to marital relations, for
such practices were contrary to the ethics of Christian Marriage. Couples, he
declared, must avoid lascivious kisses and fondling, they should on no
account touch one another's genitals, and they must never see their spouses
naked or allow their own bare bodies to be seen by their mates. [cf. St.
Bernardino, Sermo 18.3.1, in his Opera 1:222-23; Tentler, Sin and Confession,
Pages 188-89, 205]” (Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe, By
James A. Brundage, University of Chicago Press, 2009, p. 508)

St. Vincent Ferrer, who performed over 3000 miracles and raised over 30

people from death, also confirms that sensual kisses are condemned in his 
Catalán Sermon On Saint Mary Magdalene: “Turning to the moral argument in 
the sermon, Vincent addressed women and parents. He admonished women not 
to kiss men (ne besar los hòmens, mas guardau­vos d’ells) and to remain on 
guard from them. Vincent compared women who kissed men too much to 
Herod when he ordered the decapitation of John the Baptist (Fallax gracia [et 
uana est], pulchritudo: mulier timens Deum ipsa laudabitur, Prov. 31:30, p. 
191) —and that he was driven by lust.”

One of the most famous and celebrated Catholic preachers during the 15th
century was Brother Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498) and he is clear that even
lustful kisses in marriage are totally forbidden. Savonarola was a famous Italian
Dominican friar, preacher, and Prophet active in Renaissance Florence who
made several well known prophecies which were fulfilled during his time and
thus increased his fame, and he was venerated by several saints for his holiness
and purity in preaching, and even seen by them in revelations after his death as
a martyr, thus further confirming his holiness and that he died as a martyr for
the Faith:
          “As we might expect from an ascetical moralist, Savonarola was much 
concerned with sexual behavior and devotes a good deal of space to it in his 
manual. He shares the traditional clerical apprehension of erotic physical 
expression. Anything that arouses such feelings, not to speak of the act itself, is 
forbidden outside marriage. Between married partners sexual intercourse is not 
only permissible but meritorious if its aim is procreation, but even in marriage
it is damnable if husband and wife are driven by lust, if they practice 
contraception, experiment with “unnatural” positions or engage in 
libidinous [lustful] touching, kissing, gazing, smelling or suggestive 
speech.” (La figura de Jerónimo Savonarola O. P. y su influencia en España y 
Europa, edited by Donald Weinstein, Júlia Benavent, 2004, page 18)

The Church of course understood from the beginning that all sensual kisses and
touches (whether inside or outside of marriage), was directly evil and sinful,
and that is why the Papal Magisterium as well as the Fathers and the Saints of
the Church unanimously teach this doctrine of the Christian Faith, thus making
this doctrine infallible since “the unanimous consent of the Fathers” in a
doctrinal matter is the official teaching of the Church according to the infallible
teaching of the Catholic Church from the councils of Trent and Vatican I.

Athenagoras the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “On behalf of those, then, to
whom we apply the names of brothers and sisters, and other designations
of relationship, we exercise the greatest care that their bodies should
remain undefiled and uncorrupted; for the Logos [Our Lord Jesus Christ]
again says to us, “If any one kiss a second time because it has given
him pleasure, [he sins];” adding, “Therefore the kiss, or rather the
salutation, should be given with the greatest care, since, if there be mixed
with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us from eternal life.””
(A Plea for the Christians, Chapter XXXII, Elevated Morality of the
Christians)

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “Love and the Kiss of Charity.
And if we are called to the kingdom of God, let us walk worthy of the
kingdom, loving God and our neighbour. But love is not proved by a kiss,
 but by kindly feeling. But there are those, that do nothing but make the
churches resound with a kiss, not having love itself within. For this very
thing, the shameless use of a kiss, which ought to be mystic, occasions
foul suspicions and evil reports. The apostle calls the kiss holy. When the
kingdom is worthily tested, we dispense the affection of the soul by a
chaste and closed mouth, by which chiefly gentle manners are expressed.
But there is another unholy kiss, full of poison, counterfeiting
sanctity. Do you not know that spiders, merely by touching the mouth,
afflict men with pain? And often kisses inject the poison of
licentiousness. It is then very manifest to us, that a kiss is not love. For
the love meant is the love of God. "And this is the love of God," says
John, "that we keep His commandments;" not that we stroke each other
on the mouth. "And His commandments are not grievous."
But salutations of beloved ones in the ways, full as they are of
foolish boldness, are characteristic of those who wish to be conspicuous
to those without, and have not the least particle of grace. For if it is proper
mystically "in the closet" to pray to God, it will follow that we are also to
greet mystically our neighbour, whom we are commanded to love second
similarly to God, within doors, "redeeming the time." "For we are the salt
of the earth." (The Paedagogus or Instructor, Book III, Chapter XI)

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)

St. Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, also confirms the fact that it is
utterly shameful to even think that one could use “kisses and embraces” for
venereal pleasure in marriage: “... and you [the Pelagian heretic Julian] do not
blush to say you think: ‘It [that is, the reproductive member] is the more to be
commended because the other parts of the body serve it, 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)

Wherever one looks in the world and in history, The Fathers of the Catholic
Church believed that all sensual kisses were evil and sinful. The Canons of St.
John The Faster by John IV, Patriarch of Constantinople (582-595 A.D.) for
example tells us, “But as for women, too, if any of them has allowed herself
to be kissed and felt by man, without, however, being ravished by him, let
her receive the penance provided for masturbation.”

St. Charles Borromeo, Cardinal and Archbishop of Milan (1538-1584 A.D.)

also writes in The Milan Penitential, that a man can commit “immoral
intercourse with his wife”.

The Penitential of Cummean is an important Irish penitential, composed c. 650

A.D. by an Irish monk named Cummean which also shows us in a snapshot
from this time that Christians historically believed and taught that non-
procreative sexual acts are evil in marriage.
“18. He who loves any woman, [but is] unaware of any evil beyond a few
conversations, shall do penance for forty days. 19. But he who kisses
and embraces, one year, especially in the three forty-day periods.”
“2. Those who kiss simply shall be corrected with six special fasts; those
who kiss licentiously without pollution, with eight special fasts; if with
pollution or embrace, with ten special fasts. 3. But if after the twentieth
year [that is, as adults] they commit the same sin, they shall live, at a
separate table and excluded from the church, on bread and water.”

Saint Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury (c. 602-690 A.D.) in

The Penitential of Theodore, confirms the fact that all shameful, unnecessary, or
non-procreative sexual touches are totally sinful:
“If he touches the breast with his hand he is to fast 3 weeks. ...If a
man fornicate with his wife from the rear, he must fast for 40 days. In
another place it says that he must repent as he does who fornicates with
animals.”

So even a procreative sexual act other than the normal marital act is condemned
by the Church and Her Fathers. There are undoubtedly many men who think
that they can do what they want and touch their wives in a shameful way on
their breasts, but the Natural Law is very clear that all “sexual excess” is
contrary to reason, and thus a form of sexual gluttony. The man is allowed to
perform “the missionary position” and nothing else.
Saint Theodore also speaks “Of Irregularities In Marriage”. “21. In case of
unnatural intercourse with his wife [anything other than the position of the man
above the woman], he shall do penance for forty days the first time. 22. For a
graver offense of this kind [unnatural sexual act] he ought to do penance as one
who offends with animals.” (Book I, Section XIV)
In “Of Matters Relating To Marriage”, he adds: “31. A husband ought not to
see his wife nude.” (The Penitential of Theodore, Book II, Section XII)

While there are many liars and heretics today who deny that the Catholic
Church historically have always condemned sensual kisses in marriage, the
truth, as we will see, is that historical, scientific, theological, and
anthropological studies proves that sensual kisses in marriage are
unnatural as well as that they were condemned by all in former times:
Catholics, Protestants, Pagans, Eastern “Orthodox”, and the Jews.

The fact of the matter is that the Papal Magisterium as well as the Fathers,
Saints, and Doctors of the Church unanimously condemns sensual kisses and
touches in marriage and between two married spouses not only because they are
intoxicating, unnecessary, selfish, shameful, and non-procreative, but also
because they risk that pre-ejaculatory or preseminal fluid are discharged,
which contain several tens of millions of sperm.

Eve Levin, in her book Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs,
900-1700 also shows us that even heretics kept the teaching of the Church
which condemns all non-procreative sexual acts, such as sensual kisses in
marriage: “The three requirements for licit sex were procreation, vaginal
penetration, and the missionary position. Anything else constituted "a
sacrifice of semen to the Devil without purpose," "sodomy," or illicit
fornication. The "correct" position for sexual intercourse placed the
woman supine and the man astride her. ...Open-mouthed kissing was
deemed inappropriate, even as foreplay... [and had a] penance, consisting of
a dry fast of twelve days... One Russian penitential questionnaire termed
open-mouthed kissing "Tatar," although certainly Russians were acquainted
with the practice before their contact with the Mongols.”

In truth, “There was almost universal agreement, however, that [lustful] kissing
and "indecent touching" between married persons was sinful...” (Law, Sex, and
Christian Society in Medieval Europe, By James A. Brundage, University of
Chicago Press, 2009)

There's really no discussion among historians whether the Church historically

condemned sensual kisses in marriage:
“This bacio in bocca, the kiss in the mouth...a French kiss. Catholic
moral doctrine strictly forbade this kind of kissing, viewing it as the expression
of unbounded lust and animal instincts. Not even a husband and wife were
permitted such an intimacy. ...Aquinas's Summa Theologica declared that a...
glance, touch, embrace, or kiss “in and of itself” was not a mortal sin. It only
became so when “lust” entered the equation. ...In the moral theology of the
nineteenth century, kissing with tongues was a mortal sin “in intent and in the
deed itself.” Even partners who were joined in holy matrimony weren't
allowed to kiss this way.” (Hubert Wolf, The Nuns of Sant' Ambrogio: The
True Story of a Convent in Scandal, OUP Oxford, 2015, pages 151, 301-302)

“In the more rarefied atmosphere of theological journals, as pointed out by

Tony Farmar, sex was referred to as “use of marriage”, kisses were “actus
impudicitiae” [lascivious or immodest acts] and contraception was “onanism”
[Connell, Irish Peasant Society, page 119].” (Diarmaid Ferriter, Occasions of
Sin: Sex and Society in Modern Ireland, Profile Books, 2010, page 347)

Even a filthy Roman Pagan emperor totally condemns “promiscuous kissing”.

Emperor Tiberius who reigned during Our Lord's life and lived 42 B.C.-37 A.D.
shows us that even a pagan can realize truths of the Natural Law, and that all
"sexual excess" is unlawful. Speaking about unlawful sexual excess, Tiberius
“issued an edict against promiscuous kissing”, thus showing us that the
Natural Law that condemns all sexual excess can be known by anyone. (Arthur
Durham Divine, Certain Islands: a personal selection, Arco, 1972)
Even a pagan can make good laws, and the further back in time we go,
historical and anthropological studies show us that sensual kissing was totally
unknown, as we have seen. “He issued an edict against promiscuous
kissing...” (Suetonius, The twelve Caesars, Penguin books, 1980)

Again, we see famous pagan orators, such as Socrates and Cato, totally
condemning sensual kisses:
“I have already mentioned in my preface how dangerous the mere reading about
kisses may be; but, apart from literature, a kiss is something which has to be
dealt with most cautiously. Now hear what Socrates said to Xenophon one day:
"Kritobulus is the most foolhardy and rash fellow in the world; he is rasher than
if he meant to dance on naked sword -points or fling himself into the fire: he
has had the audacity to kiss a pretty face." — "But," asked Xenophon, "is
that such a deed of daring? I am certainly no desperado, but still I think I would
venture to expose myself to the same risk." —
          "Luckless wight," replied Socrates, "you are not thinking what would
betide you. If you kissed a pretty face, would you not that very instant lose
your freedom and become a slave? Would you not have to spend much money
on harmful amusements, and would you not do much which you would despise,
if your understanding were not clouded? Hercules forbid what dreadful
effects a poor kiss can have! And dost thou marvel at it, Xenophon? You
know, I take it, those tiny spiders which are not half the size of an obol, and yet
they can, through merely touching a person's mouth, cause him the keenest
pains; nay, even deprive him of his understanding.
          But, by Jupiter, anyhow this is quite another matter; for spiders poison the
wound directly they inflict a sting. O, thou simple fellow, dost thou not know
that lustful kisses are poisoned, even if thou failest to perceive the poison?
Dost thou not know that she to whom the name of beautiful is given is a
wild beast far more dangerous than scorpions; for the latter only poison us
by their touch, whereas beauty destroys us without actual contact with us,
and even ejects from a long distance a venom so dangerous that people are
deprived thereby of their wits.”” (Dr. Kristoffer Nyrop, The Kiss and its
History, Library of Alexandria, 2016)

In truth, in former times, even the lustful Protestants understood that sensual
kisses in marriage was sinful and evil:
          “It was as one of these manifold "species of uncleanness" that threatened
to lead to more serious sexual sin that kissing entered moral debate. (Jean-
Frederic Ostervald, The Nature of Uncleanness Consider'd, London 1708, p.
177) ...kissing... had to be carefully moderated to prevent it from becoming
“wanton” or “lascivious”. ...Yet kisses that went further than “civil curtesie”
were apt to “inflame impure hearts with burning concupiscence” (John
Downame, Foure Treatises...).
          William Gouge likewise urged careful government of the lips, so that
they “delight not in wanton kisses”, as part of a whole regimen of bodily
control to combat sin. This moral rhetoric found its corollary in the regulatory
activities of the ecclesiastical courts, which in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries functioned as guardians of acceptable morals. The Church's canons of
1604 gave the ecclesiastical authorities the power to present any kind of
“uncleanness and wickedness of life”. ...
          As the seventeenth century progressed, moralists and social
commentators became more expansive in their attempts to delineate lawful and
unlawful kisses. To the general warnings of the dangers of “wanton” or
“lascivious” kissing present in the Puritan conduct literature of the early
seventeenth century were added more specific rules regarding particular
relationships and circumstances. For instance, greater concern was shown
towards the effects of immoderate displays of affection between married
couples in public.

          The Ladies Dictionary (1694) condemned the “public billing” and “open
smacking” of lips practiced by married couples, which, it argued, “sheweth the
way to unexperienc'd youth to commit riot in private”. Thus, “little by little
chastity [is] abolished”. The Spectator likewise criticized the “unseasonable
Fondness of some Husbands, and the ill-tim'd Tenderness of some Wives”, who
“talk and act, as if Modesty was only fit for Maids and Batchelors”. ...In this
context, more explicit counsel was given on how to distinguish between
different types of kisses. A man's intentions were evident in “the very manner of
his address”, counselled one early eighteenth-century advice book, thus “if he
tongues you when he kisses, 'tis an Argument of his Lust”. (Karen Harvey, The
Kiss in History, Manchester University Press, 2005, p. 83-84)

We had laws in former times that condemned non-procreative or unnecessary

sexual acts in marriage, such as sensual kisses or touches, and even the
Protestants agreed with this Natural Law: “Some of these laws [concerning sex]
may seem pretty unbelievable to us now, but what's even more unbelievable is
that many of them are still in force. In Romboch, Virginia, for example, it is still
illegal to have sex with the lights on. In Florida it is illegal to handle a
woman's breasts ever. In Washington DC, it is illegal to have sex in any
position than the missionary position. While in Indiana, Utah, an erection that
shows through a man's clothing is illegal.” (The Surprising History of Sex and
Love, with Terry Jones, TV Movie, 2002 History Documentary)

For further quotations of historical, scientific, theological, and anthropological

studies proving that sensual kisses in marriage are unnatural as well as that they
were condemned by all in former times: Catholics, Protestants, Pagans, Eastern
“Orthodox”, and the Jews, see Part 2 of our book “Sexual pleasure, the Various
Sexual acts, and Procreation, Second Edition”.

The Salamancans also condemns all non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts

in marriage, contrary to what the forger lies and says:
          “Emphasis on emission of semen was associated with a view that found
no difference between coitus interruptus and masturbation. Characteristic of this
way of thinking was the collective moral theology of the Salamancans. Under
"The Vice Against Nature" they treated of autoerotic action [that is,
masturbation] (mollities) and cited the story of Onan to condemn it, without
noting any distinction between acts performed in a marital context and acts
performed alone. The example of Onan served equally against both.” (John T.
Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic
Theologians and Canonists Enlarged Edition)

“The Salamancan Libro sinodal of 1410 listed four reasons for sex during
marriage: for reproduction, to fulfill the conjugal debt, to prevent one's wife
from seeking sexual gratification elsewhere, and to "carry out evil," meaning
sex for pleasure. Sex done for pleasure [only] flatly constituted a sin. In effect,
the Libro sinodal mentioned five criteria that could further determine whether
sex was sinful or not. The time a Spanish couple had sex could make it a sinful
act; sex was immoral if, for example, they copulated during Advent or on a
Sunday before mass.
          Place was important, because sex in a church or graveyard was sinful.
Consent on behalf of both partners was necessary as well. The physical
condition of a wife was important to avoid sinful sex; she could not be
menstruating or be pregnant. Finally, the manner in which a married couple had
sex could be sinful. Having sex with a wife "as if she were a prostitute" was
altogether wicked in the eyes of the church.” (Unfit for Marriage: Impotent
Spouses on Trial in the Basque Region of Spain, 1650-1750, Edward J.
Behrend-Martínez, University of Nevada Press, 2007)

Contrary to the forgery, Lessius also condemns even the normal procreative
sexual act if the man withdraws before insemination, and since he condemns
even a procreative sexual act, it is obvious that he condemns all non-procreative
sexual act even more: “A more significant author, Lessius, was... condemning
"withdrawal before semination": ...(Justice and Law and the Other Cardinal
Virtues 4.3.13).”

Lessius again with Cajetan with numerous authorities condemns all non-
procreative sexual acts in marriage:
          “The usual description of one type of contraceptive behavior is
"emission," or "semination," "outside of" or "omitting" "the due vessel." This
medieval terminology is employed in the sixteenth century by Sylvester,
Cajetan, Soto, Navarrus, Ledesma, Lessius, and Sanchez. (Sylvester, Summa, at
"Luxuria"; Cajetan, On the Summa theologica 2-2.154.11.9, ad 5, and Little
Summa of Sins, "The Sin of Matrimony as to the Vessel"; Soto, On the
Sentences 4.31.1.4, appendix; Navarrus, Manual for Confessors 16.33;
Ledesma, Great Sacrament of Matrimony 49.6; Sanchez, Holy Sacrament 9.17.)
          The terms used are broad enough to cover both coitus interruptus and
anal or oral intercourse. Occasionally, as in Cherubino, "outside semination" is
directly linked to the act described in Genesis (The Rule of Married Life, "The
Fourth Rule"). Cajetan, in his commentary on the Summa of St. Thomas, uses
the cumbersome description "semination within the natural vessel where steps
are taken that conception will not follow" (2-2.154.1.12). ...Lessius also speaks
of "intentionally preventing the emission of what will be born" (Law and
Justice 4.3.13).”

Lessius and Cajetan with other theologians totally condemns non-procreative

sexual acts in marriage:
          “At the beginning of the seventeenth century, there were the first stirrings
of biblical criticism, but the old story was still relied on. The influential
Louvain exegete, Cornelius a Lapide, S.J. (1567-1637), stated that both Er and
Onan "sinned by the sin of autoerotic softness [mollities in Latin, which means
masturbation] and withdrawal, which is against the nature of generation and of
marriage" (Commentary on the Pentateuch of Moses, at Genesis 38.7). Lapide
added, "Let confessors take note." [Saint] Francis de Sales criticized "some
heretics of our age who said Onan had been blamed for his perverse intention
and not his act" (Introduction to the Devout Life 3.39). The acute Lessius took
the story as an objection to withdrawal in intercourse (Justice and Law
4.3.13). ...
          Le Maistre put this analysis forward formally as an objection to
contraception. The argument was merely implicit in Denis the Carthusian's
description of Onan as acting "uselessly and unnaturally"; in Cajetan's
definition of "the sin of matrimony in respect to the vessel" as "semination
outside the natural vessel"; in Angelus' treatment of the sin against nature as not
keeping the "natural way of copulation"; and in Sylvester's statement that sin in
marriage consisted of "not keeping the vessel."
          The most emphatic form of this argument, treating "semination not in the
due vessel or organ" as sodomy, was used as late as 1600 by Lessius. (Le
Maistre, Moral Questions; Denis, On Genesis 38; Cajetan, Little Summa of
sins, at "The Sin of Matrimony in Regard to the Vessel"; Angelus, Summa, at
"Lechery"; Sylvester, Summa, at "The Conjugal Debt"; Lessius, Justice and
Law and the Other Cardinal Virtues 4.3.13) ...The normal act was generative. It
was "ordained by nature to the conservation of the human species." It might not
be disturbed. The same approach was adopted bv Ledesma (The Great
Sacrament of Matrimony 49.6) and by Lessius (Law and Justice 4.3.13).” (John
T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic
Theologians and Canonists Enlarged Edition)
St. Alphonsus's forged Moral Theology contains such evil heresies against the
Natural Law that anyone with normal natural reason can understand that no
Saint like the true St. Alphonsus, who is a Doctor of the Church, which is the
greatest honor a theologian can receive in the Church, would ever teach such
abominable teachings. The forger says that one may help another commit
murder as long as you fear for your own life, thus giving the abominable and
false rule that the people who feared the Nazis and helped to get others killed,
did no wrong at all!:
“7. These which proximately [nearly or closely] assist in the sin, or
induce it, or are opposed to justice, even if of their genus they are indifferent,
e.g. to give a sword to one’s master for a murder, to show him the one he seeks
to kill, to strike the bell (still, without scandal) for a heretical sermon, a harlot,
even if conducted and provided for, to call her from the house to lead her to his
master, to steal a ladder to apply it, to give loan money to one waging an unjust
war, to sell a pagan to a heretical master, require the gravest cause, i.e. fear of
such an evil that according to the laws of charity no man is held to undergo
it to stop the other’s evil, e.g. if he would be killed otherwise. Laymann, cap.
13, n. 4.”

Some of these things you can do in the case of fear of death, such as stealing,
loaning, and giving away one's sword when threatened, but in another part of
the same forgery, this truth is denied: “Moreover, one may never give a sword
to a murderer because it is not lawful to kill an innocent man, and you should
avoid the death as Concina (tom. 7, p. 168) and the Continuator of Tournely
teach. See book 4, n. 697.”

However, guiding a person to the person he wants to kill is so contrary to the

Natural Law that it screams to heaven for vengeance, for this person exchanges
their life for another person's life and is doing something directly contrary to
justice and the golden rule. Sometimes one can do things which are only
incidentally causative in an evil action, such as giving away one's sword when
threatened, or open a door when one flees through it, and although this opens
the door for even the evil person, this is not your intention, and he could do this
himself. But in contrast, if you find the person for him so he could kill him, you
are doing something which without your active participation, he could not
perform the murder, and you are actively doing something as a willful act to
help kill another person.
The forgery continues: “70.— 8. In cities, in which it is permitted for the
sake of avoiding a greater evil, it is lawful to provide a house for a usurer
(the law, nevertheless, excepts foreigners), AND FOR HARLOTS,
especially if other conductors are lacking; nevertheless, harlots gravely harm
honest neighbors, or on account of the opportunity placed in the area they
would give greater sin. Sanchez, lib. 1, mor. cap. 7, Bonacina, loc. cit. (So also
the Salamancans, tract. 21, cap. 8, punct. 5, § 2, num. 65, with Trull., Vasquez,
Prado, Ledesma, and Viva with Suarez, Lessius, Azor and others in common.
71.— 9. Craftsmen, and those who make or sell indifferent things which
someone could rightly use (even if a great many abuse them), are excused from
mortal sin, and even venial sin, if a cause were present; e.g. dice, cosmetics and
swords. The reason is, because they are only remotely ordered to a sin, and
cannot simply be impeded. Nevertheless, if one would abuse against justice, it
would not be lawful, e.g. if you were to give a sword to a murderer on account
of the great price which he offers.
          Likewise, if someone knew this innocent man was not going to be ruined
except through these wares, because a little profit must be postponed for the
certain safety of another. Sanchez, loc. cit. Evil must not be presumed,
wherefore they can licitly sell dice, cosmetics, swords, poisons (viz. only those
which can also serve as a medicine), to anyone for whom it is certain they will
not abuse them. (So think the Salamancans, de contract. cap. 2, punct 3, num.
32, with St. Thomas and the common opinion).
There is a doubt, however, that turns on when it is believed with the
appearance of truth that the buyer is going to abuse it? Busembaum, hic with
Sanchez says that it is not lawful to sell them on account of profit. But
Tamburinius (lib. 5, cap. 1, § 4, n. 33) and the Salamancans (ibid. n. 33) with
Bonacina, Rebell., Tapia, and Sylvester, say that it is lawful if the seller could
not withdraw from the sale without loss, or, as Tamburinius says, if he would
suffer loss by not selling his things. In the same way, it would be licit to sell
ornate dress to young women that are going to abuse them, if they are equally
sold by others, as the authors say, since by then denying the sale, he would not
impede the sin. (Croix, lib. 2, n. 263, with Navarre, Azor, Sanchez, Bonacina
and Diana). But this must not be admitted, according to what was said in n. 47,
vers. Secunda, unless the seller would otherwise suffer a notable
inconvenience.”

The Church has always condemned all makeup as we can see in Part 2 of our
book, “Sexual Pleasure, The Various Sexual Acts, And Procreation”, and
teaching that selling a dress is allowed which you know will tempt others just
because one is inconvenienced is a ludicrous argument which spits on all the
people who will get tempted and die in their souls just because you do not want
to have an inconvenience. It is also a ridiculous argument that as long as others
will help in selling this dress, you can do it, as we must always avoid acts which
harm others as much as we are able, and inconvenience is not enough a reason.
We are responsible for what we do, not what others do.

The forgery continues: “72.— 10. They are also excused who, on account of a
just cause, sell a lamb to a Jew or an infidel that is going to be used for a
sacrifice. Likewise, those who build Jewish synagogues or the churches of
heretics, with the permission of the magistrate, or restore them, especially
if it would be done equally without others. Navarre, l. 5, cons. 1, de Judaeis,
Laymann l. 2, t. 3, cap. 13, n. 4. Moreover, to sell poisons except to those who
the seller thinks will use them rightly, e.g. for the creation of colors, or
medicine, is not lawful. See Sanchez, 1 mor. c. 7. For that reason, the sale of
poison that serves no other purpose but killing a man is simply evil.”

It is obvious that one could not sell a lamb when you know this is how it will be
used unless fear of death exists, for then it is like he is extorting the lamb from
you, and his own apostasy is his own act, and selling a lamb is not heretical in
itself, but this example just gives a “just cause” which could be a number of
things according to the forger, and this is obviously contrary to justice which
says we cannot help in spreading heresy or apostasy.
In addition, to “build Jewish synagogues or the churches of heretics” for any
number of reasons is also false, as the Church excommunicates all who help in
the deeds of heretics.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, On Heretics,
1215: “Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers
who receive, defend or support heretics."

The only exception is through being forced through death, as one can build it as
this would be equivalent to a person pointing a sword to you and saying “build
or die”, and building a house is not heresy or apostasy in itself. The heretic's
malice is his own deed in this case. In the early Church, if a believer put incense
on the altar of a false god, they were counted as apostates even if they feared
death, so unless fear of death exists in these acts that are mentioned by the
forgery, there is no possible reason that these things which are meant to be used
for heresy, can be committed.
Third, the fact is that the Church has declared that St. Alphonsus's teachings are
without a single error, yet at the same time, the Church has also declared that
many things are heresies which forgeries falsely claim Alphonsus teaches, thus
proving that the books which the Church had in their hands when they judged
the true St. Alphonsus's teaching correct, cannot be the same as the forgery
which denies a lot of what the Church taught during this time:
“No fairer exponent of Roman teaching can be had than St. Alfonso
Maria de Liguori, as the following facts will show. In 1787 he died. In 1803 the
sacred Congregation of Rites decreed “that in all the writings of Alfonso de
Liguori edited and inedited, there was not a word that could be justly found
fault with.” [Pope] Pius VII, ratified the decree, and proceeded, in less than
thirty years after Liguori's death, to his beatification.
Monsignor Artico, Bishop of Asti and Prince-Prelate of the Papal
Household, published a letter declaring “that the examination of Liguori's work
had been conducted with particular severity, that his system of Morality had
been more than twenty times discussed by the Sacred Congregation, and that all
had agreed [unanimously by an unanimous vote] voce concordi, unanimi
consensu, una voce, una mente.”
In 1831 Cardinal de Rohan-Chabot, Archbishop of Besançon, propounded the
following questions for the oracular response (oraculum requirit) of the Sacred
Penitentiary:
“1. Whether a Professor of sacred theology may with safety follow and
profess the opinions which the Blessed Alfonso de Liguori professes in his
Moral Theology?
2. Whether a Confessor should be disturbed for following all the opinions
of the Blessed Alfonso de Liguori in the confessional, simply on the ground that
the Holy Apostolic See had declared that it found nothing in his works worthy
of censure?”
The answer given to the first question was in the affirmative. Liguori's
opinions might be followed and professed with safety. The answer to the second
was in the negative. No such Confessor was to be disturbed in his course. This
decision was formally signed and and dated as issuing from the Sacred
Penitentiary on the 5th of July, 1831.
Immediately, the Cardinal Archbishop wrote to his Clergy requiring “that
the judgment of Rome should be fully adhered to, and that the opinions of the
Blessed Alfonso de Liguori should be followed and reduced to practice, all
doubt whatever being thrown aside.” Pope Gregory XVI confirmed the decree
in a few weeks, and in 1839 Alfonso exchanged his title of Blessed for that of
Saint.”
1. St. Alphonsus Liguori was canonized in Rome, May 26th, 1839.
2. The Congregation of Rites stated that they had examined his manuscripts and
printed works, and that "there was nothing censurable in them" even though at
the same time the same Church taught that onanism and contraception, among
many other things as we will see, was sinful and contrary to the Natural Law,
which a forger of Alphonsus's books claims is lawful. So it is a fact that since
the Church have condemned many of the things which we have seen and will
see the forger teaches, the Church when they judged St. Alphonsus's books free
from a single error, cannot have had the forger's books in Her hands but must
have had forged documents.
3. Subsequently, the Pope confirmed the decree of the Sacred Congregation of
Rites, which declared that all the writings of St. Alphonsus, whether printed or
inedited, had been most rigorously examined according to the discipline of the
Apostolic See, and that not one word had been found censura dignum— worthy
of censure.
4. In the Roman Catholic Calendar for 1845, p. 167, we find that preparatory to
his Canonization, the moral system of Liguori had been more than twenty times
rigorously discussed by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which decreed that in
all his works whether printed or inedited, not one word had been found worthy
of censure; which decree was afterwards confirmed by Pope Pius VII.
5. The following prayer is found in the services of the Catholic Church,—" O
God, who by the blessed Alphonsus, inflamed with the love of souls, hast
enriched thy Church with a new offspring, we implore that taught by his
instructions, and strengthened by his example, we may be able to come to thee
through the Lord."

Pope Pius IX also writes in an “Apostolic Letter on Honoring St. Alphonsus

Maria De Liguori with the Title of Doctor of the Church, Ad Perpetuam Rei
Memoriam”, saying that:
“Moreover, this can most truly be preached, that there is no error of our
times which, for the most part, was not refuted by St. Alphonsus. ...And Pius
VII, Our predecessor of blessed memory, marveled at the supreme wisdom of
Alphonsus and advanced this very important testimony about him: “By word
and writings, in the middle of the century he showed the way of justice to those
wandering at night, whereby they could pass from the power of darkness into
the light and kingdom of God.”
Likewise, Our predecessor of celebrated memory, Gregory XVI, spoke of the
incredible power of Alphonsus, the copious and variety of his doctrine, and
continuing with the greatest praise, enrolled him on the heavenly catalogue of
the Saints. At length, in these very times, many cardinals of the Holy Roman
Church... have humbly offered prayers to Us, that we might add to St.
Alphonsus Maria Liguori the title and honors of Doctor Of The Church.
Therefore, we, willing to comply with these pious prayers with a cheerful
mind, consigned this business, as is customary, to the Sacred Congregation of
Rites of the Church, to be weighed by the expositors. ...and at length, all matters
of importance for the reasons earnestly and attentively weighed, it censed to
reply with a unanimous consent: “To counsel Your Holiness for the concession,
or the declaration and extension to the universal Church of the title of Doctor in
honor of St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, with the Office and Mass already
conceded...”
Additionally, the books, commentaries, opuscula, works and at length
everything of this doctor, as of the other Doctors of the Church, we will and
decree to be cited, advanced and when the matter will demand, applied not only
privately but publicly in gymnasiums, academies, schools, colleges, readings,
disputations, interpretations, sermons, homilies, and all other ecclesiastical
studies and Christian exercises. ...
Given at Rome, at St. Peters under the ring of the Fisherman, 7 July 1871,
in the twenty-sixth year of Our Pontificate. Pro Domino Card. PARACCIANI
CLARELLI, FELIX PROFILI, Substitutus. Loco + Annuli Piscatoris.”

A single of these contradictions against the Church's teaching which we will

now read should be enough to a person of goodwill and honesty to admit that
Alphonsus's Moral Theology must have been forged since the Church and Her
Popes teach that Alphonsus's teaching is free from a single error, but we will see
many heresies of the forger totally condemned by the Church, and they are even
contrary to the Natural Law which no one can be excused from being ignorant
of.

Pope Pius XII, Pope Alexander VII, Pope St. Leo IX, Blessed Pope
Innocent XI, and the real St. Alphonsus all condemns all masturbation in
marriage, contrary to the forger

The book, Innocent Ecstasy: How Christianity Gave America an Ethic of

Sexual Pleasure, by Peter Gardella, Oxford University Press, gives us some
quotes of the forged Moral Theology which we will see denies clear Papal
teaching, and which thus proves that the Church would never have approved
Alphonsus's Theologia Moralis or Moral Theology if it had these heresies in it,
and we will then see the real St. Alphonsus refute this forgery:
“But Liguori obtained his most telling influence through his Theologia
Moralis, first published in 1748... In 1831, the Roman Penitentiary, the central
Catholic court for questions arising in the confessional, ruled that priests could
apply Liguori's conclusions uncritically, “not weighing the elements and
reasons on which his various opinions depend.” The commission examining the
case for Liguori's beatification, the first step toward sainthood, had already
pronounced his works free from error, and he was canonized by Pope Gregory
XVI in 1839. In 1871, Pope Pius IX declared St. Alphonsus to be a doctor of
the church. By that time, as one scholar has said, “In the manuals [of moral
theology] St. Augustine was replaced without much struggle by St. Alphonsus.”
...
For example, because [the forged and fake book of] Liguori had so ruled,
Kenrick said that a wife could innocently bring herself to orgasm after
intercourse in which she had experienced no climax; but Kenrick gave no
reason for this decision. In St. Alphonsus himself, one found the question: “If
the man retracts himself after semination [orgasm], but before the semination of
the woman, may she immediately excite herself by touches to seminate?”
(Theologia moralis)
Liguori then cited five moralists who denied women this action under
penalty of sin; they believed (following the biology accepted by [Saint] Albert
the Great, the teacher of [Saint Thomas] Aquinas) that the woman's orgasm was
not true “semination,” because it released no seed and was not necessary for
conception. Therefore, a complete sexual act had already occurred when the
man seminated. The woman's self-stimulation would be beyond the bounds of
natural law, and thus mortally sinful.
On the opposite side, [fake] Liguori ranged twenty-two authorities who
allowed wives this action on the grounds that it pertained to the completion of
the marital act, which nature indicated should involve the orgasm of both
partners. Among these twentytwo were some who added that the denial of this
right would put wives in danger of sin in the form of later masturbation or
adultery. “If women were required to restrain nature after such irritation,”
Liguori reported, summarizing this argument, “they would be continually
exposed to great danger of sinning mortally, since usually the men, being hotter,
seminate first.” ...
[The fake] Liguori himself did not accept it [that is, the above argument,
but he accepted the below argument], pointing out that a man deprived of
orgasm through incomplete coitus had no analogous right to relieve himself.
Instead, Liguori's argument combined the contention that a woman's
touches completed the marital act with a reply to the objections based on
biology. Even if female orgasm (still called seminatio) was not necessary for
conception, he found it probable that the wife's orgasm imparted some
benefit or “perfection” to any child that might be conceived.
As St. Alphonsus saw it, there must be some biological purpose for
female orgasm, because “nature does nothing in vain.” Both the definition
of a marriage act and a probable argument from natural law therefore
vindicated the woman in this case, and she was guilty of no sin. St.
Alphonsus concluded his discussion with a reminder that would tend to
promote mutual orgasm: “All concede that wives who are colder by nature may
excite themselves before copulation, so that they might seminate while having
marital congress.””

Here is first the whole forgery and, secondly below it, the correct quotation
proving that this is a forgery, for in the real one, St. Alphonsus condemns all
masturbation in marriage, and then thirdly, we will see Pope Pius XII condemn
all masturbation in marriage, even for an imagined good cause:

The forger writes: “But, if the husband withdraws after spending [ejaculating],
but before the wife has spent, can she immediately, by touches, excite herself in
order to spend?
This is denied by the author of the “Addit. ad Wigandt.” &c., and this is agreed
by Pal. saying, that is unlawful if the woman could contain herself. The reason
is, because the woman's seed is not necessary for generation [procreation]; also,
because that effusion of the woman, inasmuch as it is separate, does not become
one flesh with the husband. It is, however, more generally affirmed by
DIVINES, (that she may in this manner perfect the act.)
The reason is, both because the woman's spending tends to perfect the
conjugal act, which consists in the spending of both parties; consequently, as
the wife may by touches prepare herself for copulation, so also may she perfect
the act of copulation; and also, if women were bound, at least after irritation, to
restrain nature, they would in like manner themselves be exposed to great
danger of sinning, since generally the husbands, being of a hotter nature, spend
first:—(but this reasoning is not conclusive, for if this were permitted to the
wives, it ought to be permitted also to the husbands; in which case, the woman,
after spending herself, might withdraw, and the husband remain in a state of
irritation; but the doctors commonly say that that is forbidden to the husbands,
as Sanchez, &c.)
And also because, in the opinion of many, the woman's spending is
necessary, or at least greatly conduces to generation; for nothing is done in vain
by nature. But all concede to the wives, who are of a colder nature, that they
may by touches excite themselves before to copulation, in order that they may
spend immediately on the marital encounter taking place. See Conc. n. 13.”
(Lig. v. 6, n. 919)

Another correct version of Alphonsus's Moral Theology, Book 6, Q. 919, totally

rejects as unlawful that the woman masturbates after the man has ejaculated if
she has not climaxed already, thus proving that this above us is a shameful
forgery and a bold lie:
“Then, if the husband withdraws after climax, but before the climax of
the wife, whether it is possible for her to immediately excite herself with
touches so as to climax?”
Saint Alphonsus Liguori cites several authors answering “No”. He agrees with
this answer, explaining the reason:
“The reason: because the climax of the wife is not necessary to
procreation; also, because this sexual pleasure of the wife, in as much as they
are separated, does not occur as one flesh with the husband.”

First, the climax of the wife is not essential to procreation, as it is for the
husband. So her act, in exciting herself with touches after his withdrawal (after
natural marital relations has ended) lacks the procreative motive of the marital
act. In fact, because it is not procreative, her act is nothing other than
masturbation (even if it is her husband who touches her). And such an act is
also not truly marital. It is not the type of sexual act God intends for Christian
spouses.

Saint Alphonsus then cites some authors who answer the question “Yes”, but he
rejects their answer, explaining that their reason is not persuasive:
“This reason is not persuasive, for if this is permitted to wives, it ought to
be permitted also to husbands.”
For if it were moral for the wife, it would be moral for the husband. There are
not two separate versions of the eternal moral law in the marital bedroom, one
for the wife and a different one for the husband. So Saint Alphonsus agrees with
the authors who answered “No”.
Clearly, the Saint rejected the idea of a wife using any technique, whether
touches or any other means, to reach climax, after the husband withdraws. For
then the two are not one flesh, and so the procreative motive and necessity is
absent from the sexual act. In addition, such a sexual act apart from union is
also not procreative. The absence of the procreative ability is what makes such
a sexual act gravely immoral.
Furthermore, it is utterly ignorant to think that the woman does not need to
follow the moral law in the exact same way as the man. Never has the Church
said that the wife is under a different standard of sexual ethics than the husband.
This false claim is a baseless excuse to allow the wife to climax in unnatural
sexual acts, as if she were exempt from sexual ethics merely by being female.
These heretics say that it is evil and sinful for men to climax outside the normal
marital act, but then turn around and diabolically claim that the woman does not
need to follow the same moral law. Both husband and wife are only allowed to
perform the normal procreative sexual act, and women are not exempt from the
moral law just because they are women.

Saint Alphonsus Liguori is very clear why such acts by women are forbidden.
The climax of the wife is not essential to procreation. So her act, in exciting
herself with touches after his withdrawal (after natural marital relations has
ended) lacks the procreative motive of sex.

Alphonsus does not accept the idea that the wife has a right to obtain sexual
pleasure, regardless of the means, as some modern authors imply. Neither does
the Saint treat the subsequent act of the wife and the prior act of natural marital
relations as if these together constituted "one act", as other modern authors have
claimed. (Moral Theology, On Matrimony, Book VI, Q. 919)

Notice also that the forger says that, “all concede to the wives, who are of a
colder nature, that they may by touches excite themselves before to copulation,
in order that they may spend immediately on the marital encounter taking
place” even though we have seen St. Alphonsus himself, as well as numerous
saints, condemn any other act than the missionary position in marriage. We
have also seen Alphonsus himself and many saints, and Papal teaching,
condemn sensual kisses in marriage. So the fact that this bold liar and forger
dares to say that “all” agrees with him when this is demonstrably false is
another irrefutable proof that this is a willful liar who will say anything,
however ridiculous, to fool his readers.

The Pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII, also condemns all
masturbation in marriage, even when it is for a perceived good or necessary
cause, again proving that the books the Church had in Her hands when She
judged Alphonsus's books free from a single error, cannot be the same as the
forgeries we have just read which allows for all kinds of masturbation in
marriage.
Pope Pius XII writes: "What has been said up to this point concerning the
intrinsic evil of any full use of the generative power outside the natural conjugal
act applies in the same way when the acts are of married persons or of
unmarried persons, whether the full exercise of the genital organs is done by the
man or the woman, or by both parties acting together; whether it is done by
manual touches or by the interruption of the conjugal act; for this is
ALWAYS AN ACT CONTRARY TO NATURE AND INTRINSICALLY
EVIL." (Pope Pius XII, Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and
Sterility, Naples, France, 19 May 1956, AAS 48, pp. 472-473)

Pius XII also writes that: "Just as our rational mind is opposed to artificial
insemination, so the same ethical reasoning, by that norm of behavior which is
proposed, altogether prohibits that human semen be procured by means of
masturbation, not even so as to be subject to the examination of experts.”

Some modern-day “theologians” have proposed that perhaps masturbation is

only immoral when the purpose of the act is pleasure. They note the definition
of that act, in the so called “Catechism of the Catholic Church”: "By
masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs
in order to derive sexual pleasure." So they suggest that perhaps the same
sexual act is not condemned when the goal is not sexual pleasure, but other
purposes, such as to obtain a sample for medical examination. Some have gone
so far as to say that the same sexual act should not even be called
"masturbation", when it has a different purpose. But the teaching of the Church
is clear. Pope Pius XII makes clear that certain acts are inherently immoral, and
such acts cannot be justified by a good intention, or a difficult circumstance.

Pope Pius XII continues: "This norm of behavior we likewise mentioned in our
Address before the Congress of the Association of Urological Physicians, on the
8th day in the month of October in the year 1953, in which we decided these
things, saying: 'concerning the rest, the Holy Office has already decided on the
2nd of August, 1929' (Acts of the Apostolic See, vol. 21, year 1929, p. 490, II)
that 'masturbation directly procured so as to obtain sperm' is not licit, no matter
what the purpose of the exam may be. (Address and Radio message, vol. 15,
page 368).'”
"But when it was reported to us that this depraved mode of behavior had
increased greatly in this place, we considered it an opportunity to warn, to
recall, and again to instruct, now just as then. If this mode of behavior is being
used to satisfy the libido, even the natural sensibility of man, by his own free
will, rejects these things, and much more so the judgments of the mind, as often
as he considers the matter, maturely and rightly."
Is masturbation moral when there is a good purpose, or a difficult
circumstance? No, it is not. And the same principle applies to every intrinsically
evil act, whether it is a gravely immoral sexual act or some other type of
inherently immoral sin. An inherently immoral act cannot be justified by
reference to a good purpose or intention. This applies not only to masturbation,
but also to the unnatural sexual acts that are widely promoted by sinful secular
society and often used in “Christian” marriages. These acts are intrinsically evil
and therefore cannot be justified by any purpose, nor by any circumstance.

The Pope continues: "Now the same acts [of masturbation] ought to be likewise
repudiated, even when they are used for grave reasons, which would seem to
remove them from culpability: for example, for use as a remedy for those who
are troubled by an excess of nervous tension or abnormal outbursts of emotion;
for the medical inspection of the sperm, under the power of the microscope, to
determine with which venereal or other kinds of bacterial disease it may be
infected; for various types of examinations, from which, it is ordinarily agreed,
the semen may be diagnosed by the vitality of the sperm, the presence of
components, the number, quality, form, strength, and other conditions of that
type."

Some “Catholic” authors have claimed that it might be moral to use

masturbation for some purpose other than sexual pleasure. What if this act is
used to release "an excess of nervous tension", or in response to psychological
or emotional problems, or for the sake of some type of medical examination?
The Pope teaches what the Church has always taught, that the purpose for
which an act is chosen does not justify an intrinsically evil act. When an act is
wrong by its very nature, by the moral "species" (the type of act in terms of
morality), then nothing can justify the choice of that act.

The phrase "same acts" refers to masturbation, but this teaching can be applied
to any intrinsically evil sin, such as another type of sexual sin, or contraception,
abortion, murder, theft, lying, etc. An inherently immoral act is a deliberate
knowing choice which is wrong by its very nature. And, as Pope Pius XII
clearly states, no reason or purpose, no matter how grave, can justify an
intrinsically evil act.

But this error, condemned by Pius XII, continues to spread among the
“Catholic” faithful today. They justify certain intrinsically evil acts by reference
to "grave reasons", that is, to the intended end or purpose for which the act is
chosen. Yet the Church has condemned this claim, repeatedly over the years. No
reason, however grave, can remove the culpability of a sexual sin, or the use of
contraception, or the choice of direct abortion.
Pius XII writes: "This mode of procuring human seed, by the effect of
masturbation, cannot be viewed as anything other than direct, for it is not in
accord with nature, in its full exercise of the generative faculty in the human
person. Indeed, because this full exercise was done outside of conjugal
intercourse, it bears within itself the direct and improper usurpation of the use
of this same faculty. In this way, the improper use of this faculty is rightly
considered an intrinsic violation of the principles of morality. For by no means
does the human person have the right to any exercise of the sexual faculty
beyond a certain point, because he received the very same faculty from nature."

Just as masturbation cannot be justified for a medical purpose, so also

contraception cannot be justified for a medical purpose. And the same is true for
direct abortion. Pope Pius XII goes on to say that masturbation "is not in accord
with nature" because it is a "full exercise of the generative faculty in the human
person" which is "outside of conjugal intercourse." Thus, the act is intrinsically
evil. It usurps the natural purpose of the sexual faculty, which is found in its
procreative finality. And so masturbation is an "intrinsic violation of the
principles of morality." And the same can be said of any other sexual sin, such
as adultery, premarital sex, and unnatural sexual acts.

So the Pope teaches that the right to the "exercise of the same [sexual] faculty"
is only given to "those who have entered into a valid marriage." But marriage is
not the only requirement for the exercise of the sexual faculty to be moral. For
the use of the sexual faculty is not the only thing that are "confined to the
matrimonial right." It is confined to that right exercised in a certain manner.
This manner is just as stated in a previous paragraph (#14).

For "the right that the spouses have acquired by the matrimonial contract," is
nothing other than to "exercise their natural sexual capacity in the natural
performance of the matrimonial act." They may choose to perform "the natural
conjugal act", but no other sexual acts are moral, not even within the Christian
Sacrament of holy Matrimony. Thus, the Pope and the Church condemn the use
of unnatural or unnecessary sexual acts in marriage.

The Pope is very clear that all non-procreative sexual acts in marriage except
for the normal act is contrary to the Natural Law:
"Yet this right [to the sexual faculty], which pertains to the object and
scope of the natural law, has not been assigned to the will of human persons.
By the force of this law of nature, the human person does not possess the right
and power to the full exercise of the sexual faculty, directly intended, except
when he performs the conjugal act according to the norms defined and
imposed by nature itself. Outside of this natural act, it is not even given
within the matrimonial right itself to enjoy this sexual faculty fully. These
are the limits to the particular right of which we are speaking, and they
circumscribe its use according to nature."

The right to make use of the sexual faculty, within marriage, is not "assigned to
the will of human persons". This means that the spouses cannot perform any
unnecessary type of sexual act to which the two spouses agree. Rather, there are
limits imposed by God and the natural law. The sexual acts of married persons
are moral only when each spouse "performs the conjugal act according to the
norms defined and imposed by nature itself." Any sexual acts which are
contrary to "the norms defined and imposed by nature" are unnatural sexual acts
and are therefore intrinsically evil. These types of acts, which by definition are
inherently non-procreative, do not become moral when used in marriage - no
matter what the purpose might be.

Pius XII continues: "Consequently, since the full exercise of the sexual faculty
is circumscribed within this absolute limit of conjugal intercourse, the same
faculty is intrinsically made fit to achieve the fullness of the natural end of
matrimony (which is not only the generation, but also the education of
offspring), but its exercise must be joined together with said end."
"This being so, masturbation is entirely outside of the aforementioned
natural capacity of the full exercise of the sexual faculty, and therefore it is
also outside that connection to the end ordained by NATURE. For that
same reason, it is deprived of any designation as a right, and also it is
contrary to NATURE and the moral law, even if it is intended to serve a
usefulness which is just and not improper."

Thus, Masturbation is not justified, even in marriage. It is not justified when it

is done by one spouse on the other spouse. It is not justified when done in the
context of natural marital relations. It is not justified when done on the wife, to
bring her to climax, if she does not reach climax during the natural act. And this
is true because masturbation is an intrinsically evil and unnatural sexual act.
No intrinsically evil act, whether in the realm of sexuality or some other area of
human life, is justified by a good purpose, nor by a difficult circumstance. The
popular claim that the wife may climax outside of the natural marital act, by
any means at all, is entirely contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII and the
teaching of the Magisterium.

Pius XII writes: "What has been said up to this point concerning the intrinsic
evil of any full use of the generative power outside the natural conjugal act
applies in the same way when the acts are of married persons or of unmarried
persons, whether the full exercise of the genital organs is done by the man or
the woman, or by both parties acting together; whether it is done by manual
touches or by the interruption of the conjugal act; for this is ALWAYS AN
ACT CONTRARY TO NATURE AND INTRINSICALLY EVIL." (Pope
Pius XII, Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility,
Naples, France, 19 May 1956, AAS 48, pp. 472-473)

Contrary to the forgery, here Pope Pius XII explicitly condemns that a husband
can lawfully masturbate his wife after “interruption of the conjugal act”, that is,
after his ejaculation, and as the Pope says that this is the Natural Law, anyone
who believes this condemned heresy of the forger is automatically condemned
as well as following a clear forgery.
Pope Pius XII condemns all kinds of masturbation, which also condemns the
forgery which says that spouses could use unchaste touches or masturbation to
excite themselves if a spouse is not easily sexually aroused. A wife could use a
lubricant to be able to perform the act, so they have no necessity to use
masturbation as preparation, and we see that even if they had a necessity, they
are still forbidden to use such an act since it is unnatural. We also see that
anything other than the procreative missionary position is condemned and that
all foreplay is contrary to the Natural Law.

Both the real and forged version of Alphonsus's Moral Theology has this quote
below which totally condemns all masturbation of any kind, and this, of course,
totally shows us how the forger contradicts himself and could not remember
what he taught in other places:

Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 24), Sept. 24,
1665: “Masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate
species, and so it is enough to say in confession that one has procured a
pollution.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander VII.

Pope Pius XII plainly states that "outside the natural conjugal act" neither the
husband, nor the wife, nor both spouses acting together, may perform manual
touches or unnecessary acts, no matter what the means, the purpose, or the
circumstances. Any sexual act, outside of the natural marital act, is contrary to
nature (meaning unnatural) and intrinsically evil.

The Pontiff states that neither the husband nor the wife may attain sexual
pleasure outside of the natural marital act: neither by manual touches, nor by
the interruption of the sexual act. This teaching clearly refutes the popular claim
that the wife may reach climax by manual touches (or by oral stimulation, or
sex toys, etc.), if she does not reach climax during the natural act. Such a claim
is absolutely rejected by the Roman Catholic Magisterium. For this type of act
is unnatural and intrinsically evil.

Notice, too, that the Pontiff rejects the popular excuse, that these unnatural
sexual acts occur about the same time as the natural act. For he says that even if
this attainment of sexual climax occurs immediately after the natural marital act
is interrupted, it is still contrary to nature and gravely immoral. And this implies
the condemnation of another popular claim, that all the sexual acts of the
marital bedroom are morally one act. If that were so, then Pope Pius XII would
not have rejected unnatural sexual acts occurring immediately after the natural
marital act is interrupted.

Pope Pius XII condemned the idea that all the sexual acts of one session in the
marital bedroom are to be treated as a single moral entity, such that the acts of
foreplay (acts done “in the preparation”) would be justified by their association
with one “normal performance of the act itself”. Pope Pius XII also condemned
the all-too-common claim today that the wife may climax by means of any
unnatural sexual act, outside of natural marital relations (Address to the Second
World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, n. 22 and 25).

What about the case of a married couple who "need" to use unnatural sexual
acts as a type of foreplay, otherwise the husband cannot attain or maintain the
necessary arousal? What about a similar case for the wife, who has difficulty
becoming aroused, or reaching climax? Does the fact that an act of natural
intercourse occurs about the same time make these unnatural acts moral?
The answer is clear in the text above, as we have already discussed.
Intrinsically evil sexual acts do not become moral when used for a so called
good purpose, such as to prepare for the natural marital act, and they do not
become moral when used in a dire circumstance, such as that the wife cannot
reach climax in any other way, or that the husband cannot become aroused
without this type of activity.

So we see from the quote above that Pope Pius XII rejected the idea that “the
normal performance of the act itself” (the husband completing the act in the
natural manner) would justify “all the rest, in whatever way it is done.” This is a
clear unequivocal rejection of the “One Rule” by the Pope.

Moreover, in saying that “the normal performance of the act itself” does not
justify “all the rest, in whatever way it is done”, including “in the preparation”,
the Pope clearly issues a condemnation of the idea that any sexual act at all,
other than male climax through the normal marital act, is justified as foreplay.
Things done “in the preparation” are not justified by the mere “normal
performance” of natural marital relations. So you cannot justify any and all
sexual acts, other than male climax, as a type of foreplay prior to the natural act.
That argument is contrary to Church teaching.

Pope Pius XII notes that this claim “is not ashamed to elevate itself to a
doctrine”. And that is exactly what is happening today. Many “Catholics” are
proposing this foolish “Rule” as if it were a doctrine. They explicitly claim that
this is the teaching of the Church, when in fact the Church teaches the opposite.
Now the “One Rule” is often used to conclude that the wife may climax by any
means — oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, masturbation, or the use of sex toys —
as long as the spouses also perform the natural act at some point in time. But
this proposition that follows from the “One Rule” is also rejected by the
Magisterium.

A sexual act is unnatural when it is not inherently procreative. Oral, anal,

manual sexual acts and the use of sexual devices are each and all unnatural, as
they are “contrary to nature”, just as Pope Pius XII teaches. Climax outside of
the natural marital act is inherently non-procreative, thus making the act
intrinsically evil.
Can we justify certain unnatural sexual acts by saying they are “foreplay”, used
to prepare for the natural act? No, we cannot. For Pope Pius XII's teaching is
that acts done “in the preparation”, i.e. acts of foreplay, are not justified by “the
normal performance of the act itself.” And the Church also teaches that
intrinsically evil acts are not justified by being done for a so called good
purpose (such as to prepare for the natural act) The reason why these types of
sexual acts are always gravely immoral is that they are inherently non-
procreative. The deprivation of this purpose makes the sexual act intrinsically
evil and therefore always wrong to knowingly choose.

On the issue of Masturbation Procured Directly, the Church even condemns

masturbation for an absolutely necessary medical health motive. From the
Decree of the Holy Office, August 2, 1929, under Pope Pius XI, the Church
answered the question: “Whether masturbation procured directly is permitted to
obtain sperm, by which a contagious disease blenorragia (gonorrhea) may be
detected and, insofar as it can be done, cured. Reply: In the negative (3684 Dz.
2201)”
So when even an absolutely necessary motive exist and it is still condemned, it
is very clear that acts which are not even remotely necessary motives, such as
foreplay, can excuse such acts.

The Church has condemned masturbation on multiple occasions. In his 1054

letter to St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Leo IX censured the shameful deed of those
who brought forth the seed "by their own hands" (propriis manibus; Denzinger-
Hünermann, 2010, 688). In 1665 the Holy Office referred to the sin of
"pollution" — with the clear implication of masturbation (Denz.-H 2010, 2044).

In 1929 the same Holy Office rejected recourse to masturbation for obtaining a
medical specimen of sperm (Denz.-H 2010, 2044). So not even for a necessary
and medical motive may the man arouse himself through masturbation, and this
proves that it is unlawful for spouses to perform any act of masturbation of self
or of spouse. Pope Pius XII reaffirmed the condemnation of masturbation —
even when done for medical purposes — in 1953 and 1956 (cf. Acta
apostolicae sedis, AAS 45, 1953, 678 and AAS 48, 1956, 472-473). In 1952
Pope Pius XII also rejected the argument that sins of masturbation during
adolescence do not constitute a grave matter (AAS 44, 1952, 275-276).

The Acts of the Holy See (Acta apostolicae sedis) totally rejects any notion that
masturbation could ever be lawful or allowed. The interventions of the Church
in the 20th century have made clear that masturbation even for medical reasons
is totally condemned and mortally sinful. Despite interventions of the Holy
Office (July 24, 1929, AAS 21, p. 490) and allocutions of Pope Pius XII, some
“theologians” diabolically claim that "masturbation" for the purpose of seminal
analysis is “probably licit”.

However, masturbation is a kind of rape of a woman, and so, cannot be done

even in the case it is for a necessary motive. Furthermore, in many things, we
may not commit an act even though we may die otherwise, such as rape of a
woman, or adultery with a woman. The sexual power may not be used for
anything other than the primary motive of begetting children, and the only licit
way to procure semen is to tell the woman to collect a sample after she has had
licit marital relations with her husband.

Pope Pius XII, in an allocution on March 23, 1952, about the formation of a
right conscience in youth, affirmed the gravity of the obligation in sexual
matters even for adolescents and said it was erroneous to think that passion
takes away grave guilt (Acta apostolicae sedis 44, p. 270) Pope Pius XII also
makes clear in AAS 45 that masturbation is unlawful even for a necessary
medical motive, saying “ce qu'une n'est pas licite: "masturbatio directe
procurata ut obtineatur sperma" ("this is not lawful: 'masturbation directly
procured to obtain sperm'")”

The relation of masturbation to sodomy is described most clearly by Cardinal

and Doctor of the Church, St. Peter Damian, in his notorious Letter 31 or Liber
Gomorrhianus (Book of Gomorrah, c. 1049) that he sent to Pope St. Leo IX and
which the Pope answered, declaring that it is “certain and evident to all that we
are in agreement with everything your book contains”. In the letter he demands
that Pope St. Leo IX (1002-54) depose from office those clergy who sin against
nature:
“Four types of this form of criminal wickedness can be distinguished in
an effort to show you the totality of the whole matter in an orderly way: some
sin with themselves alone [siquidem secum]; some commit mutual
masturbation [aliorum manibus; lit. ‘by the hands of others’]; some commit
femoral fornication [inter femora; lit. ‘between the thighs’]; and finally, others
commit the complete act against nature [consummato actu contra naturam].
The ascending gradation among these is such that the last mentioned are
judged to be more serious than the preceding. Indeed a greater penance is
imposed on those who fall with others than those who defile only themselves;
and those who complete the act are to be judged more severely than those who
are defiled through femoral fornication. The devil's artful fraud devises these
degrees of falling into ruin such that the higher the level the unfortunate soul
reaches in them, the deeper it sinks in the depths of hell's pit.” (Cardinal St.
Peter Damian, Letter 31, The Book of Gomorrah, Liber Gomorrhianus, to Pope
St. Leo IX, 1049 A.D.)

Reiterating the category of the four forms of sodomy which Damian lists —
solitary masturbation, mutual masturbation, and interfemoral and anal coitus,
Pope St. Leo IX declared that it is proper that by “our apostolic authority” we
intervene in the matter so that “all anxiety and doubt be removed from the
minds of your readers.”
“So let it be certain and evident to all that we are in agreement with
everything your book contains, opposed as it is like water to the fire of the
devil,” the pope continued. “Therefore, lest the wantonness of this foul impurity
be allowed to spread unpunished, it must be repelled by proper repressive
action of apostolic severity...” (Cf. Pope St. Leo IX, Ad splendidum nitentis,
1054 A.D., DS 687-688; and the decree of the Holy Office, March 2nd, 1679,
DS 2149)

Pope St. Leo IX's “Ad splendidum nitentis” is a Papal decree on the sexual
purity of the Apostles, which is based on the Liber Gomorrhianus of St. Peter
Damian, and it makes clear that all masturbation is condemned, and affirms the
facts that St. Peter Damian teaches in his book. Pope St. Leo IX officially
condemned masturbation in 1054 as “a ‘secret sin’, a threat to the human race,
and an ontic [physical, real] evil” (Patton, 1985, p. 133).

Blessed Pope Innocent XI also totally condemns all masturbation in his

condemnation of The Errors of Michael of Molinos, (condemned in a decree of
the Sacred Office, August 28), as well as in the Apostolic Constitution Coelestis
Pastor (issued November 20, 1687 A.D.):
Denzinger #1267 “When things of this kind contrary to the will occur, it
is proper to allow Satan to operate, by applying no effort and making no
real attempt, but man should persist in his own nothingness; and even if
pollutions follow and obscene acts by one's own hands, and even worse,
there is no need to disquiet oneself, but scruples must be banished, as well
as doubts and fears, because the mind becomes more enlightened, more
confirmed, and more candid, and holy liberty is acquired.
And above all there is no need to confess these matters, and one
acts in a most saintly way by not confessing, because the devil is
overcome by this agreement, and the treasure of peace is acquired.” -
Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI

Denzinger #1268 “Satan, who produces violences of this kind contrary to

the will, afterwards persuades that they are grave sins, so that the mind
disturbs itself, lest it progress further in the interior way; hence for
weakening his powers it is better not to confess them, because they are
not sins, not even venial.” - Condemned statement by Pope Innocent
XI

Pope St. Leo IX’s De Malitia Masturbationis in 1054 declared that

“Masturbators should not be admitted to Sacred Orders”, and the Sacred
Congregation for Religious, in 1952, teaches that Habitual masturbation is an
impediment to religious life.

Notice also that Pius XII condemns those spouses who tries to make “more
intense the pleasure, in the preparation and in the performance of the conjugal
union”, and this absolutely condemns all non-procreative sexual acts, such as
foreplay and sensual kisses and touches.

So not only does Pope Pius XII condemn acts of foreplay that are performed
before the normal marital sexual act, which he denotes as “preparation... of the
conjugal union” but he even teaches that spouses can sin when they perform the
normal marital act, and that this is decided in how the act is performed if they
are trying to make “more intense the pleasure... in the performance of the
conjugal union”.

No “extra” acts, such as sensual kisses and foreplay before, during, or after the
normal marital sexual act, are allowed by the married to make “more intense the
pleasure in the preparation and in the performance of the conjugal union”. Thus,
Pope Pius XII is clear that spouses can only lawfully perform the normal and
natural procreative marital act.

Pope Pius XII makes it clear that a Christian has “a dignity which restrains the
excess of sensuality” even in marriage, and non-procreative sexual acts are
precisely “excess of sensuality” as they are not necessary for procreation, and
thus are excess of sensual desire:
“Nevertheless, here also, husband and wife must know how to keep
themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of
food and drink so with the sexual they must not abandon themselves
without restraint to the impulses of the senses. The right rule is this: the use
of the natural procreative disposition is morally lawful in matrimony only, in
the service of and in accordance with the ends of marriage itself.
Hence it follows that only in marriage with the observing of this rule is
the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the
pleasure is subordinate to the law of the action whence it derives, and not vice
versa—the action to the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable,
concerns not only the substance but also the circumstances of the action, so
that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible
to sin in the way it is performed.
The transgression of this law is as old as original sin. But in our times
there is the risk that one may lose sight of the fundamental principle itself. At
present, in fact, it is usual to support in words and in writing (and this by
Catholics in certain circles) the necessary autonomy, the proper end, and the
proper value of sexuality and of its realization, independently of the purpose of
procreating a new life.
There is a tendency to subject to a new examination and to a new norm
the very order established by God and not to admit any other restraint to the
way of satisfying the instinct than by considering the essence of the instinctive
act. In addition there would be substituted a license to serve blindly and
without restraint the whims and instincts of nature in the place of the
moral obligations to dominate passions; and this sooner or later cannot but
turn out to be a danger to morals, conscience and human dignity.
If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a
reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it
had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their
personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the
Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the
natural act. Now, instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique,
great law of the "generatio et educatio prolis" [procreation and education of
children] namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the
origin and source of life.
Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and
threaten to submerge in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires and acts the whole
marital life, not without serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty
of husband and wife.
This anti-Christian hedonism too often is not ashamed to elevate
itself to a doctrine, inculcating the ardent desire to make always more
intense the pleasure in the preparation and in the performance of the
conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law were
reduced to the normal performance of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in
whatever way it is done, were to be justified by the expression of mutual
affection, sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, worthy of praise and
reward before God and conscience. There is no thought at all of the dignity
of man and of the Christian—a dignity—which restrains the excess of
sensuality.
No; the gravity and sanctity of the Christian moral law do not admit
an unchecked satisfaction of the sexual instinct tending only to pleasure
and enjoyment; they do not permit rational man to let himself be mastered
to such an extent, neither as regards the substance nor the circumstances of
the act.”

Other Popes can also be quoted to support this truth:

Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604): “The married must be
admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the
purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to
immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to
the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then
pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights.
Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer what they
befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure.”
(Pastoral Care, Part 3, Chapter 27)

Pope St. Peter quoted by Pope St. Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.):
“But this kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual
intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere
 pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. And since this
observance is found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a
shame if it be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshiping God.”
(Recognitions of Clement, Chapter XII, Importance of Chastity)

Pope Pius XII and the real St. Alphonsus condemns amplexus reservatus,
contrary to the forger

The forger also claims that spouses can perform acts of amplexus reservatus,
which is when spouses perform the normal procreative marital act but without
intending for the man to ejaculate, which is also called amplexus reservatus
(which means reserved embrace) and which we will then see Pope Pius XII and
the real St. Alphonsus condemn, and the forger even preposterously dares to
claim that unless a husband masturbates his wife after he ejaculates, he sins,
even though we have seen that the Church teaches that all masturbation in
marriage is contrary to the Natural Law and totally forbidden:

“But behind these judgments stood the complex reasoning [fake] Liguori
had applied to amplexus reservatus, an arcane form of intercourse in which a
couple joined their sexual organs but restricted their motion to delay or to avoid
climax. Amplexus has appeared among Albigensian heretics in twelfthcentury
France, among illicit lovers in French court circles of the same century, among
married couples in Liguori's Italy, and among members of the Oneida
Community in nineteenth-century New York. For some it was merely a method
of birth control; for others it expressed spiritual love through control of the
flesh.
For Liguori, amplexus provided an opportunity to examine more closely
the relation of orgasm to a complete sexual act. Although St. Alphonsus
conceded the practice of amplexus to the married, he expressed great concern
for mutuality. ...Pursuing the questions raised by a failure of discipline, Liguori
asked whether a man who lost control of himself and ejaculated while
attempting to practice amplexus thereby acquired any obligation to stimulate his
wife to orgasm. The consensus of moralists said no. Even those who felt that the
woman's orgasm should be part of a complete sex act believed female orgasm to
be unnecessary for conception, which was the ultimate end of nature in sex.
They therefore ruled that the husband's omission was not sinful.
But here [the fake] Liguori demonstrated his independence of majorities.
According to a corollary of equiprobabilism, no one could be allowed to omit
an action on probable grounds if another probable argument indicated that
damage to a third party might result. Release of the male seed introduced a third
party by opening the possibility of conception. Therefore, Liguori decided
that a husband in this situation must continue stimulating his wife, to
provide any conceptus with the “perfection” probably imparted by female
orgasm. Omission of this duty would be venial sin.
Such reasoning had potential for applications beyond the limited context
of amplexus reservatus. Explicitly stepping out of that context, Liguori
reminded his readers that the consensus of authorities at least allowed a
husband to continue to stimulate his wife after ejaculation in any act of
intercourse. Returning to the women, St. Alphonsus then dissented strongly
from the permission, granted by a few, to a woman to avoid orgasm during
ordinary sexual acts “by diverting her mind to other things.”
Only in a mutual amplexus could wives so restrain themselves. In
ordinary intercourse, this restraint often represented a contraceptive intention,
because some women followed a folk belief that they could not conceive if they
did not have orgasm. Even if there was no contraceptive intent, Liguori saw the
avoidance of orgasm under such circumstances as a contravention of natural
law and a probable occasion of damage to any child conceived, and therefore as
a mortal sin.”

The fact that anyone can fall for this despicable liar who have the boldness to
claim that husbands are obligated under sin to masturbate his wife is
preposterous. So in one version of the forgery, “Alphonsus” advices spouses to
commit the act of amplexus reservatus, but in the quotes below, they are either
said to be a venial or mortal sin, thus showing us that the forger could not keep
what he taught in his mind, but forgot what he had written. The fact that this
forger also teaches that it is a mortal sin against the Natural Law for women to
avoid orgasm is so preposterous that it boggles the mind that people cannot see
how obvious it is that a Doctor of the Church could never teach such a heresy
against the Natural Law.

So even in the forgery, “Alphonsus” teaches that amplexus reservatus, which is

the normal procreative sexual, can be either no sin at all, or a venial or mortal
sin, yet the deluded heretics who falsely claim that Alphonsus allows all kinds
of unchaste touches or masturbation in marriage, do not see how contradictory
this is, since he even condemns the normal procreative sexual act if it is not
procreative in intent.

Another false version claims that Alphonsus teaches that amplexus reservatus is
only a venial sin even though the real Alphonsus condemns even the normal
procreative marital sexual act as sinful unless it is excused by quoting Blessed
Pope Innocent XI's condemnation of this act, as well as that all sensual kisses
are condemned by quoting Pope Alexander VII's condemnation of all sensual
kisses.
 Blessed Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #9, March 4,
1679: “THE ACT OF MARRIAGE EXERCISED FOR PLEASURE
ONLY IS ENTIRELY FREE OF ALL FAULT AND VENIAL DEFECT.”
– Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI. (Denz. 1159)

John T. Noonan Jr. quotes the forgery which excuses amplexus reservatus as a
venial sin, but he also quotes other good Catholic theologians that condemns all
acts of amplexus reservatus, thus showing us what the historical teaching is
concerning this matter, and then finally, he quotes the real St. Alphonsus which
condemns this act as a mortal sin:
“The first to attack the practice [of amplexus reservatus] was the
Dominican, Sylvester da Prierio. He outlined the practice as described by Peter
de Palude and simply dismissed Palude's approving opinion as "highly
irrational" (Summa, at "De debito conjugali"). A number of lesser authors
developed the attack, condemning amplexus reservatus on the basis that a
venereal act not directed to generation was always immoral.
For this reason the practice was found to be mortal sin by Bartholomew
Fundo, a Dominican inquisitor (d. 1545); by the Italian Dominican, Ignatius
Conradi (d. 1606); by the Spanish Jesuit John Azor (d. 1608) and the
Portuguese Jesuit Henry Henriquez (d. 1608). (These authorities are collected
and quotations from them set out in Hyacinth M. Hering, "De 'amplexu
reservato,'" Angelicum 28 (1951), 326-327) A more significant author, Lessius,
was ambiguous in condemning "withdrawal before semination": it is not clear
whether he meant coitus interruptus or amplexus reservatus, or both (Justice
and Law and the Other Cardinal Virtues 4.3.13).
Some important authors compromised and treated the act as venial sin: in
the seventeenth century, Paul Laymann (3.4.19); in the eighteenth century, both
Billuart (Summa 5, "Temperance," 6.17) and St. Alphonsus (Moral Theology
6.918). Underlying this position seems to be not an objection to the
contraceptive effect - for then the act would be condemned as mortal-but to the
seeking of pleasure by this sexual means. There was general agreement that the
act was seriously unlawful if the woman was provoked "to seminate" (Cajetan,
On the Summa theologica 2-2.154.11.10, reply 6; Sanchez, The Holy
Sacrament of Matrimony 9.19; Liguori, Moral Theology 6.918).”

However, in the same book Noonan quotes Alphonsus as saying that amplexus
reservatus is a mortal sin, thus showing us that in the same book, he quotes one
valid and one forged source of Alphonsus:
“The theologians thus have a double confusion. They speak of an
"emission of female seed," which does not correspond to any identifiable
process, and they make this emission the equivalent of orgasm. The relevance
of this double confusion is that it is for several authors the chief objection to
acceptance of amplexus reservatus. ...Liguori says he believes the act is, in
practice, mortal sin because of the danger of "effusion of seed," and a cross-
reference to Sanchez indicates that he means female seed.” (John T. Noonan Jr.,
Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and
Canonists Enlarged Edition)

The fact is that the Holy Office “at the express command of His Holiness by
Divine Providence Pope Pius XII” even condemns the normal procreative
marital act but without intending for the man to ejaculate, which is also called
amplexus reservatus (which means reserved embrace). This shows us that the
marital sexual act must not be only directly procreative, natural, and normal in
itself, but the man must also intend to ejaculate sperm and directly desire to
beget children, and it also shows us that the books the Church had in Her hands
when She judged St. Alphonsus's books free from a single error, cannot be the
same as the forgery we have just seen, thus proving that a forger has corrupted
Alphonsus's work.

This proves that all non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts, such as

sensual kisses and touches, or foreplay, are forbidden by the Church, since the
Church even condemns the normal procreative marital sexual act if the man
intends not to ejaculate, and if even a procreative sexual act (from the external
viewpoint) is forbidden even though it is able to beget children, how much
more must a non-procreative sexual act be forbidden by the Church.

While the man in amplexus reservatus intends not to ejaculate, the act is still
able to beget children by unforeseen ejaculation or by the pre-ejaculate fluid
which has more than millions of sperm in it, and yet the Church condemns even
the normal procreative sexual act in the case of amplexus reservatus, thus
totally proving that all unnecessary sexual acts, such as sensual kisses, are
totally condemned in marriage and between married spouses:

“On June 30, 1952 the Holy Office issued the following statement concerning
the practice of amplexus reservatus:
“Admonition
The Holy See has noted with grave concern that in recent times not a few
writers when treating of conjugal life have not been ashamed to go into the
details concerning it frequently, openly and minutely: furthermore, that some of
them describe, praise and recommend a certain act called amplexus reservatus.
Lest it fail its duty in a matter of such great moment, which concerns the
sanctity of marriage and the salvation of souls, the Supreme Sacred
Congregation of the Holy Office, at the express command of His Holiness by
Divine Providence Pope Pius XII, seriously admonishes all the aforesaid writers
to desist from such a way of acting.
And it earnestly exhorts the Bishops to exercise careful vigilance in these
matters and to make diligent use of appropriate remedies. Priests, moreover, in
their care of souls and in the direction of consciences, must never, either of their
own accord or when questioned, presume to speak as though no objection were
to be made against the amplexus reservatus from the viewpoint of the Christian
law.” (AAS, 44, Aug. 1952, 546)” (Contemporary Moral Theology Volume 2:
Marriage questions, by Gerald Kelly, John C. Ford, p. 213-14, 1963)

The fact that the Church, as St. Alphonsus, condemns this act as a mortal sin is
also seen in this sentence, which explains that this act: “concerns the sanctity of
marriage and the salvation of souls”, for no venial sin damns a person. The
Church and Pope Pius XII officially condemned amplexus reservatus in the
1950's when heretics started to promote this heresy, thus showing us that the
Pope's version of the authentic Moral Theology could not have had this heresy
in it as the Popes teaches that there is not a single error in St. Alphonsus's
teaching:
“...nor was there official Roman action until a controversy broke out in
the 1950's over L'Art d'aimer and Art d'aimer et continence conjugale by Paul
Chanson, a Catholic layman. In these books... amplexus reservatus was set out
not only as a lawful means of avoiding children, but as a desirable
"humanization of the flesh" and "mastery of love." The practice, lasting from
ten to thirty minutes, was said to foster mutual love. The Holy Office by letter
of August 12, 1950, ordered the books removed from commerce and prohibited
new editions "on account of the general orientation and practical counsels
given." ...
In 1951 Hyacinth M. Hering, the leading Dominican authority on moral
theology at the Angelicum, made a full-dress attack [on amplexus reservatus],
the most thorough critique the practice had ever received. ...Any act involving
the genital organs, he said, must be classified as "shameful" (turpis). Shameful
acts were not "of their nature" ordained "to manifest or to foster love."Some
such acts might be justified for a good end - for example, the examination of the
organs for a medical purpose was justified. But if the genital act in question was
actual copulation, it could only be justified by being an exercise of the marital
right; and the marital right, as the Code of Canon Law, c. 1081, sec. 2,
proclaimed, and as St. Thomas taught, was only the right to an act "per se apt
[suitable] to generate offspring." Amplexus reservatus was not such an act, and
was therefore "a grave sin, reductively pertaining to the vice against nature."
Besides violating strict Thomistic doctrine, the theory and practice of
amplexus reservatus had several other defects. The theory exalted carnal
pleasure to the level of a "sacred rite, as an effort at spiritual ascension."
Chanson's books "practically forgot the primary end of marriage." In practice,
many couples, unable to achieve control, engaged instead in coitus interruptus.
In teaching the method, a number of truths of the faith were neglected, such as
"the doctrine of original sin and its consequences, especially concupiscence."
(Hyacinth M. Hering, "De 'amplexu reservato,''' Angelicum 28 (1951), 333,
338-340) On June 30, 1952, the Holy Office issued a monitum warning authors
not to "describe, praise, and urge" amplexus reservatus. Priests were instructed
that they should never speak "as though there was nothing to be objected to
against amplexus reservatus on the part of Christian law" (AAS 44: 546 ).”
(John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic
Theologians and Canonists Enlarged Edition)

The forgery continues: “Pleasure in a good act was morally good, and probably
conducive to physical good, but the definition of a good act still required
couples not to have sex, in Liguori's words, “for a depraved end, for example on
account of sensuality alone.” [So even the forgery condemns even the normal
procreative sexual act for sensuality alone, yet people cannot see how this
totally destroys the thesis that Alphonsus allows non-procreative sexual acts in
marriage.] (Liguori, Theologia moralis, 6.912) ...
On the other hand, natural law reasoning had the potential to leave the
suspicion of depravity behind and to justify pleasure in terms of fulfilling the
purposes of God in nature. [Fake] Liguori approached this point when he added
“the reason of health” to his list of the rational purposes of marital sex.
(Liguori, Theologia moralis, 6.927)
The purpose of procreation came from Genesis through Augustine, and
the purposes of fulfilling a duty to one's spouse and of avoiding sin had their
sources in Paul, but “the reason of health” could claim no authority other than
the argument that sex was a good of nature. If health was sufficient as a purpose
for marital sex, what happened to the doctrine that sin had removed human
sexual pleasure from its natural context? Liguori sensed the difficulty and
qualified his acceptance; “to use [sex] solely for the reason of health, however,”
was probably still venial sin. (Liguori. Theologia moralis, 6.927)”

In fact, the modern day proposition that health, pleasure or love might be the
sole object of intercourse is a heresy that has no biblical, apostolic, patristic or
medieval authority whatsoever. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in his Summa that:
“Although it is not evil in itself to intend to keep oneself in good health, this
intention becomes evil, if one intend health by means of something that is not
naturally ordained for that purpose; for instance if one sought only bodily health
by the sacrament of baptism, and the same applies to the marriage act in the
question at issue.” (Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 49, Art. 5, Reply to
Objection 4)

Pope Pius XII condemns the “sexual excess”, sensual thoughts and
sodomitical acts of the forger

The forger continues: “The earliest manuals for confessors had dealt simply
with physical acts, but Liguori both summarized an existent body of teaching
on protection of the personal bond in marriage and added his own contribution
to that teaching. He agreed, for example, with the consensus that imagining
another partner while having sex with one's spouse was “mental adultery,” and
therefore mortal sin. (Liguori, Theologia moralis, 6.913)
On the other hand, entertaining a fantasy about the copulation of
another couple might be innocent if the spouse or spouses used the
excitement of the fantasy to prepare for their own intercourse. Such
fantasies could not involve known persons, however, because this might
lead to an illicit desire for these persons. Acknowledging that he was the
first moralist to consider the question of precoital fantasy, Liguori stated
his conclusions tentatively, leaving further consideration “to the discretion
of the wise.” (Liguori, Theologia moralis, 6.914)
Often Liguori used mental criteria to weaken physical prohibitions. On
the question of whether a man sinned if he inserted his finger into the anus of
his wife during intercourse, the rigorist Tamburinius had said yes, indicting the
act as a variant of the mortal sin of sodomy; but Liguori dissented, professing
uncertainty “that this feeling [the affectus of sodomy] is contained in such an
act.” (Liguori, Theologia moralis, 6.935)”

The fact that a sane human being would imagine that a saint after 1750 years of
the Church existence would come up with a new teaching never before heard
of, which contradicts all what the Church teaches, is preposterous, yet the fools
of today want their ears tickled, and they do not care how impossible something
is as long as they see what they desire in their impure hearts.

The real St. Alphonsus's Theologia moralis in its very beginning as its
foundation actually quotes and agrees with Blessed Pope Innocent XI's
condemnation of even the normal procreative sexual act in marriage unless it is
excused by the motive of procreation, and Alphonsus also quotes and agrees
with Pope Alexander VII's condemnation of all sensual kisses in marriage and
outside marriage, thus showing us how preposterous it is that he should forbid
even the normal sexual act unless it is excused by procreation, but then turn
around and say that spouses could do all kinds of diabolical acts of sexual
excess.
 Blessed Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #9, March 4,
1679: “THE ACT OF MARRIAGE EXERCISED FOR PLEASURE
ONLY IS ENTIRELY FREE OF ALL FAULT AND VENIAL DEFECT.”
– Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters #40, September

24, 1665 and March 18, 1666: “It is a probable opinion which states that a
kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible
delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and
pollution is excluded.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander
VII.

The fact that the Church condemns non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts,
such as sensual kisses and touches in marriage, is also a great testament to the
truth that the Church utterly rejects the notion that spouses can arouse their
sensual desire by unnatural sexual acts. The married are only allowed to
perform the normal, natural, and procreative sexual act, and all other sexual
acts are sinful according to the Church's teaching since they are intoxicating,
shameful, and non-procreative.

This is also why the Natural Law and the Church teaches that even sensual
kisses performed “for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises
from the kiss” is condemned as a mortal sin for both the married and the
unmarried people alike. Indeed, the Church firmly condemns anyone who
would dare to claim that sensual kisses are only venial sins, thus utterly proving
that such acts are mortal sins and that the opinion that sensual kisses are
allowed in marriage or outside of marriage is condemned.

This is also why the Church teaches that even the normal, natural, and
procreative “act of marriage exercised for pleasure only” is condemned as a
sin for both the married and unmarried people alike (Blessed Pope Innocent
XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters Condemned in Decree (# 8), March 4,
1679). Since the Church and the Natural Law condemns even the normal,
natural, and procreative “act of marriage exercised for pleasure only” even
though this act is directly procreative in itself, it is obvious that all non-
procreative and unnecessary forms of sexual acts (such as sensual kisses and
touches) are condemned as even worse sins (that is, as mortal sins) since they
are utterly unnatural, unreasonable, shameful, and selfish.

This obvious fact is also why it is patently absurd and illogical for anyone who
agree with the Church’s condemnation of the normal, natural and procreative
“act of marriage exercised for pleasure only” even though this act is directly
procreative in itself, to then turn around and say that the Church and the Saints
allows spouses to perform unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts, such as
sensual kisses and touches!

Even though many heretics readily admit that the Church condemns even the
procreative “act of marriage exercised for pleasure only” they impiously
assert that the Church allows non-procreative sexual acts! How is this position
anything other than pure madness? The Natural Law and reason itself tells us
that if the Church condemns even a procreative sexual act for pleasure only, it
must even more condemn and reject a non-procreative sexual act, such as
foreplay and sensual kisses and touches.

In truth, it is a marvel how anyone who accept such a contradictory, illogical

and absurd position as described above is even able to justify such a stupid
position in his own conscience, but free will being what it is, we can only pray
that those who have fallen into this false and unreasonable position see their
error, and convert. Again, since the Church and Her Saints teach that even the
normal, natural and procreative sexual act is sinful for the married unless it is
excused with the motive of procreation, and that this fact is true even though
this act is totally able to procreate in itself, how much more obvious does it
have to get for a person to realize that all non-procreative or unnecessary
sexual acts, such as kisses and touches for venereal pleasure, are even more
sinful for the married?

Pope Pius XII makes it clear that a Christian has “a dignity which restrains the
excess of sensuality” even in marriage, and non-procreative sexual acts are
precisely “excess of sensuality” as they are not necessary for procreation, and
thus are excess of sensual desire:
“Nevertheless, here also, husband and wife must know how to keep
themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of
food and drink so with the sexual they must not abandon themselves
without restraint to the impulses of the senses. ...And this law, so very
reasonable, concerns not only the substance but also the circumstances of
the action, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally
safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed. ...
Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and
threaten to submerge in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires and acts the whole
marital life, not without serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty
of husband and wife.
This anti-Christian hedonism too often is not ashamed to elevate
itself to a doctrine, inculcating the ardent desire to make always more
intense the pleasure in the preparation and in the performance of the
conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law were
reduced to the normal performance of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in
whatever way it is done, were to be justified by the expression of mutual
affection, sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, worthy of praise and
reward before God and conscience. There is no thought at all of the dignity
of man and of the Christian—a dignity—which restrains the excess of
sensuality.”

Pope Pius XII is clear, as is the Holy Bible, that “sexual excess” is evil and
sinful even in marriage and between two married spouses in their sexual acts.
Our Lord in the Holy Scripture speaks of those who "pervert the gracious gift of
our God to sexual excess and deny Jesus Christ, our only Master and Lord".
These "godless types" continue to worm "their way into your midst" (Jude 1:4).
"Stay clear of them" (2 Tim. 3:5). Notice also that Pius XII condemns those
spouses who tries to make “more intense the pleasure, in the preparation and in
the performance of the conjugal union”, and this absolutely condemns all non-
procreative sexual acts, such as foreplay and sensual kisses and touches.

So not only does Pope Pius XII condemn acts of foreplay that are performed
before the normal marital sexual act, which he denotes as “preparation... of the
conjugal union” but he even teaches that spouses can sin when they perform the
normal marital act, and that this is decided in how the act is performed if they
are trying to make “more intense the pleasure... in the performance of the
conjugal union”. No “extra” acts, such as sensual kisses and foreplay before,
during, or after the normal marital sexual act, are allowed by the married to
make “more intense the pleasure in the preparation and in the performance of
the conjugal union”. Thus, Pope Pius XII is clear that spouses can only lawfully
perform the normal and natural procreative marital act.

The real St. Alphonsus condemns adultery and fornication as inexcusable

sins against the Natural Law, and he also condemns that a penitent does
not have to confess all what the Church teaches are sins, all contrary to the
forger

The forgery continues: “A more remarkable example of tolerance based on

consideration of mental states occurred in The Practice of the Confessor, a small
volume of guidance sometimes bound with Liguori's moral theology. Here, St.
Alphonsus noted that peasant males frequently did not realize “the special
malice of adultery.” If these men did not think of their extramarital relations
(presumably with prostitutes) as mortal sins, Liguori advised the confessor not
to disturb their ignorance: "With those who are accustomed to this vice, it is not
expedient to warn them of the evil of adultery, since the profit of the warning
may be expected to be small, but will have such effect that the penitent will sin
doubly, if he does not resist the desire of the flesh." (Alphonsus Liguori, Praxis
Confessarii, Graz 1954, paragraph 39)”

This preposterous lie is pure evil which falsely claims that Alphonsus teaches
that if a person believes he does not do a sin, then he will not be guilty and he
does not have to confess. However, the real St. Alphonsus quotes several papal
teachings in his Moral Theology to refute this as we will see, and these quotes
have even been left in the forged version by the forger stumbling over himself,
and we will see that St. Alphonsus condemns both fornication and adultery as
inexcusable sins against the Natural Law even though a person does not believe
they are sinning, thus utterly proving how this above is a forgery.

John T. Noonan Jr. also quotes from this forgery which we will then see the real
Alphonsus totally demolish:
“The purpose of marriage was invoked later in the century by Henry
Busenbaum, and his text was adopted verbatim by St. Alphonsus: any
prevention of offspring by the married was "against the principal end of
marriage" (Moral Theology 6.954). ...A penitent in the state of good faith or
invincible ignorance was not to be told by his confessor of the sinfulness of a
past act, if the confessor "foresaw" that his admonition would not be profitable.
The reason was that such admonition would put the penitent in a state of bad
faith; his ignorance would no longer be invincible. If he continued to perform
the act in this state of mind, he would commit formal sin.
In his earlier state of mind he was committing acts which, materially,
were sins, but which his good faith prevented from being formal offenses to
God. Informed of his sin and unlikely to mend his ways, he would become an
intentional enemy of God. The confessor was not only a teacher, but a doctor.
He should not impose a teaching on a penitent which would only hurt him by
putting him in this position (ibid. 6, "Penance," 610). ...
In the theory expounded in the Moral Theology, he limited his position by
saying that one could not without "a fault of positive negligence" be ignorant of
the Ten Commandments or even of the duties of one's state in life. However, in
practice he seemed inclined to believe that simple and uninstructed persons
might without mortal sin be ignorant of such obligations. [Anyone honest can
see the contradiction that the forger forgot to remove.] In the Practice of the
Confessor, written for Italian confessors, he warned them that the peasants "did
not know the malice of adultery." Further, "it is foreseen that admonition will
profit little." Hence it was not expedient to admonish those who customarily
committed the sin (no. 39).
(Edition cited in note 41. Alphonsus has been speaking of mental sins, but
the thrust of his statement seems to include acts of adultery as well as the desire
for it. Speaking not of confession, but more generally of the Christian's duty to
correct his brother, he says that where one is sinning against the natural law, he
should be advised of his sin, unless "fruit is despaired of or it is feared that evil
acts will become formal instead of material" (Moral Theology 2.36).)
With this attitude toward admonition about a sin expressly condemned by
the Decalogue [The Ten Commandments], it seems probable that St. Alphonsus
did not believe in active inquiry into practices which might have been more
readily believed to be innocent than adultery by those engaging in them.
According to Liguori's standard, if contraception was practiced in ignorance of
the teaching of the theologians, in the belief, say, that coitus interruptus was no
more a sin than amplexus reservatus, a confessor should not disturb the
contraceptor's innocence by rebuke if he foresaw that the rebuke would be little
heeded.” (John T. Noonan Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the
Catholic Theologians and Canonists Enlarged Edition)

The forgery quotes from Moral Theology 2.36 to back up his heresy, but this
exact place even in the forgery actually directly contradicts the false idea that a
person does not have to confess all the acts the Church teaches are sins, and it
directly condemns all unchaste kisses and touches contrary to what the forger
claims in other places:
“...and then the gravity of the object in confession must be expressed,
indeed what act he constituted in his individual act, as Filliuci, Bonacina,
Suarez (de poen. s. 22, s. 4, n. 36) ...Hence, kisses, touches, unchaste words,
etc. ...are one sin by number, as Navarre (c. 6, n. 17), Azor (l. 4, qu. 6), and
Filliuci, etc. teach. ...
36.— For the understanding of this very difficult matter on numeric
distinction of sins, in regard to which the Doctors place great labor and make
many dissertations, so that all the things which Busembaum said would be
understood more clearly, we must preface that it is certain from the Council
of Trent that in confession not only must the species of sins be explained,
but also the number, since it taught in its 14th Session, can. 7: “If anyone
will have said that in the sacrament of penance it is not necessary to confess
ALL things and each individual mortal sin by divine law, anathema sit [let
him be anathema].” ...
37.— And I. In regard to internal acts one must distinguish sins of the
thought from sins of word and of an action. If they are sins of the thought,
which are carried out altogether internally, such as hostility, heresy, delectatio
morosa, foul desires, etc., these are on the spot both repeated and interrupted, so
that there are as many sins as there are acts of the will consented to. ...
 However, the second opinion is more common, which we follow, and it is
held by the Continuator of Tournely (de pecc., part. 1, cap. 3, art. 2 Dico 1),
Conc. (tom. 10, p. 531, n. 29), Croix (l. 5, n. 149-150), Holzman (tom. 1, p.
142, n. 668), and the Salamancans (tr. 20, c. 12, p. 6, n. 61), with Azor, Hurt.,
Vasquez Diana, Dic., and innumerable others. This opinion teaches the diversity
of total objects rightly constitutes different sins by number.
The reason is 1) that, just as an act regarding many objects, by a different
species, includes a great many different sins in the species that must be
explained in confession, so the act regarding many objects, different in number,
includes many different sins in number. 2) Which more strongly proves it, is
that the same act can not only include many different malices by species, but
even in number. It is clear with an example: If a husband has relations with a
married woman that is not his wife, no man denies (as de Lugo himself
upholds in n. 241) that he commits a double injustice, because he violates
the right of his wife, because he laid with another, as he violates the right of
the other woman’s husband.
Therefore, with the same individual act there can rightly be many sins,
different in number, against the same virtue. ...although the act may be
physically one, still, it can be morally manifold when according to the judgment
of prudent men that one act is equivalent to many, while holding the reasoning
for totally different objects, insofar as it is clear from the example of sexual
relations between a married man and another married woman, and St. Thomas
teaches this (2.2. d. 42, q. 1, art. 1).”

This shows us that this forger's reference to Moral Theology 2.36 is totally false
since it says the opposite and that adultery is a double injustice that must be
confessed, but it also shows us that there is at least two forged versions, for this
sentence Noonan quotes does not even exist in the forged version we almost
always quotes from: “Speaking not of confession, but more generally of the
Christian's duty to correct his brother, he says that where one is sinning against
the natural law, he should be advised of his sin, unless "fruit is despaired of or it
is feared that evil acts will become formal instead of material" (Moral Theology
2.36).” (Noonan, Contraception)

It cannot be a coincidence that over and over again, the exact references to
something actually teaches the exact opposite when the references are checked,
and it is very clear that the forger just changed the text without changing the
references, hoping that no one would look up what he said. We will also see
further on that the real St. Alphonsus condemns as an inexcusable sin against
the Natural Law both fornication and adultery, contrary to the forger.

The forgery quotes that we do not need to confess all mortal sins, but the
beginning of Moral Theology of the real Alphonsus says that all mortal sins
must be confessed in detail, and the real Alphonsus quotes these Papal
teachings below to prove this fact in the beginning of his Moral Theology, and
even the forged version have these quotes below, thus showing us that the
forger contradicts himself over and over again:

Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 24), Sept. 24,
1665: “Masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate
species, and so it is enough to say in confession that one has procured a
pollution.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander VII. (Denz.
1124)

Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 25), Sept. 24,
1665: “He who has had intercourse with an unmarried woman satisfies
the precept of confession by saying: “I committed a grievous sin against
chastity with an unmarried woman,” without mentioning the intercourse.”
– Condemned statement by Pope Alexander VII. (Denz. 1125)

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 50), Mar. 4, 1679:
“Intercourse with a married woman, with the consent of her husband, is
not adultery, and so it is enough to say in confession that one had
committed fornication.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.
(Denz. 1200)

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 58), Mar. 4, 1679:
“We are not bound to confess to a confessor who asks us about the habit
of some sin.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI. (Denz.
1208)

Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 11), Sept. 24,
1665: “We are not bound to express in a subsequent confession sins
omitted in confession or forgotten because of the imminent danger of
death or for some other reason.” – Condemned statement by Pope
Alexander VII. (Denz. 1111)

Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 14), Sept. 24,
1665: “He who voluntarily makes a null confession, satisfies the precept
of the Church.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander VII.

Pope Alexander VII says concerning these condemned opinions: “...that

whoever will have taught, defended or published these separately or together, or
treated on them in a manner of disputation whether in public or in private,
except perhaps to impugn them, ipso facto incurs excommunication, from
which he cannot (except at the point of death) be absolved by another no matter
how great their dignity, unless by the present Roman Pontiff for the time being.
Moreover, he strictly forbids by the virtue of holy obedience under the threat of
divine judgment, all of Christ’s faithful of whatever condition, dignity and state,
even worthy by a most special mark, lest they would introduce the aforesaid
opinions or some one of them into practice.”

Furthermore, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that all what the Church
teaches are mortal sins must be confessed, contrary to the forger. The Council
Of Trent, Session 14, The fourth under the Supreme Pontiff, Julius III,
celebrated on the twenty-fifth day of November, 1551 explains what is required
to be saved through confession:
“Penance was indeed necessary at all times for all men who had stained
themselves by mortal sin, even for those who desired to be cleansed by the
sacrament of baptism, in order to obtain grace and justice; so that their
wickedness being renounced and amended, they might with a hatred of sin and
a sincere sorrow of heart detest so great an offense against God.
Wherefore the Prophet says: Be converted and do penance for all your
iniquities, and iniquity shall not be your ruin. [Ezek. 18:30] The Lord also said:
Except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish; [Luke 13:5] and Peter the
Prince of the Apostles, recommending penance to sinners about to receive
baptism, said: “Do penance and be baptized every one of you.” [Acts 2:38] ...
For these [the members of the Church], if they should afterward have
defiled themselves by some crime, He wished not to have cleansed by the
repetition of baptism, since that is in no manner lawful in the Catholic Church,
but to be placed as culprits before this tribunal that by the sentence of the
priests they may be absolved, not only once but as often as, repentant of the sins
committed, they should turn themselves thereto.
Moreover, the fruit of baptism is one thing, that of penance another. For
by baptism “we put on Christ” [Gal. 3:27] and are made in Him an entirely new
creature, receiving a full and complete remission of all sins; to which newness
and integrity, however, we are by no means able to arrive by the sacrament of
penance without many tears and labors on our part, divine justice demanding
this, so that penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers a laborious kind
of baptism. This sacrament of penance is for those who have fallen after
baptism necessary for salvation, as baptism is for those who have not yet been
regenerated. ...
Contrition, which holds the first place among the aforesaid acts of the
penitent, is a sorrow of mind and a detestation for sin committed with the
purpose of not sinning in the future. [Cf. Sess. VI, chaps. 6, 14] This feeling of
contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the forgiveness of sins and
thus indeed it prepares one who has fallen after baptism for the remission of
sins, if it is united with confidence in the divine mercy and with the desire to
perform the other things that are required to receive this sacrament in the proper
manner.
The holy council declares therefore, that this contrition implies not only
an abstention from sin and the resolution and beginning of a new life, but also a
hatred of the old, according to the statement: “Cast away from you all your
transgressions by which you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new
heart and a new spirit.” [Ezek. 18:31] And certainly he who has pondered those
lamentations of the saints: “To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil
before thee; [Ps. 50:6] I have labored in my groanings, every night I will wash
my bed; [Ps. 6:7] I will recount to thee all my years in the bitterness of my
soul,” [Is. 38:15] and others of this kind, will easily understand that they issued
from an overwhelming hatred of their past life and from a profound detestation
of sins. ...
From the institution of the sacrament of penance as already explained, the
universal Church has always understood that the complete confession of sins
was also instituted by the Lord and is by divine law necessary for all who have
fallen after baptism; [Luke 5:14; 17:14; I John 1:9] because our Lord Jesus
Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left behind Him priests, His
own vicars, [Matt. 16:19, John 20:23] as rulers and judges, to whom all the
mortal sins into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen should be brought
in order that they may, in virtue of the power of the keys, pronounce the
sentence of remission or retention of sins.
For it is evident that priests could not have exercised this judgment
without a knowledge of the matter, nor could they have observed justice in
imposing penalties, had the faithful declared their sins in general only and not
specifically and one by one. But since all mortal sins, even those of thought,
make men “children of wrath” [Eph. 2:3] and enemies of God, it is necessary to
seek pardon of all of them from God by an open and humble confession. ...
Canon 8. If anyone says that the confession of all sins as it is observed in
the Church is impossible and is a human tradition to be abolished by pious
people; or that each and all of the faithful of Christ of either sex are not bound
thereto once a year in accordance with the constitution of the great Lateran
Council and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be persuaded not to
confess during Lent, let him be anathema.”

The real St. Alphonsus confirms in many places that we must confess all what
the Church teaches are mortal sins:
 “He who has offended God by mortal sin has no other remedy to prevent
his damnation but the confession of his sin. "But, if I am sorry for sin from my
heart? If I do penance for it during my whole life? If I go into the desert and
live on wild herbs, and sleep on the ground?" You may do as much as you
please; but if you do not confess every mortal sin that you remember, you
cannot obtain pardon. … Accursed shame: how many poor souls does it send
to hell! St. Teresa used to say over and over again to preachers: "Preach, O my
priests, preach against bad confessions; for it is on account of bad confessions
that the greater part of Christians are damned."” (The complete ascetical works
of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, p. 546)

St. Alphonsus: “Alas! Christian soul, you have sinned; if you do not confess
your sins you will certainly be damned. Why then do you not confess your
sin? ...Remember that if you do not confess now, the devil will gain absolute
sway over you, and then perhaps God will abandon you, and there will be no
more hope for you. Courage, then! go to confession immediately.” (The
complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, pp. 316-320)

St. Alphonsus, Of Persons Who Have Made Sacrilegious Confessions:

“IV. The celebrated Doctor John Ragusino relates that a certain very
spiritual woman practised meditation and frequented the sacraments, so that she
was considered by her Bishop to be a saint. The unhappy woman looked one
day at a servant, and consented to an unchaste thought; but because the sin was
only one of thought, she flattered herself that she was not bound to confess it.
However, she was always tortured with remorse of conscience, and particularly
in her last illness. But even at death she concealed the sin through shame, and
died without confessing it.
The bishop who was her confessor, and believed her to be a saint, caused
her body to be carried in procession through the whole city, and through
devotion got her buried in his own chapel. But on the following morning on
entering the chapel he saw a body above the grave, laid on a great fire. He
commanded it in the name of God to tell what it was. A voice answered that it
was his penitent, and that she was damned for a bad thought. She then began to
howl and to curse her shame, which had been the cause of her eternal ruin.”
(The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, pp. 571-578)

See how the real St. Alphonsus says that even if a person believes they do not
have to confess an act, they are still damned. And this is what he teaches even
of a single impure thought, without any physical external act. One can only
think about how this great saint would shudder at the thought of people falsely
claiming that he supports unnecessary sexual acts in marriage.
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.

St. Alphonsus answers this question in great detail for us in a section “On the
Purpose of Sinning no More”:
“Sorrow and a purpose of amendment necessarily go together. "A sorrow
of the soul and a detestation of sin," says the Council of Trent, "along with the
purpose of sinning no more." The soul cannot have a true sorrow for sin without
a sincere purpose never more to offend God. Now, in order to be a true purpose,
it must have three conditions: it must be firm, universal, and efficacious. ...The
purpose must be universal; that is, it must be a purpose of avoiding every
mortal sin. ...Our purpose, then, must be universal: it must be a purpose of
avoiding all mortal sins. ...
Now, no one can receive absolution unless he purpose firmly to avoid the
occasion of sin; because to expose himself to such occasions, though sometimes
he should not fall into sin, is for him a grievous sin. And when the occasion is
voluntary and is actually existing at the present time, the penitent cannot be
absolved until he has actually removed the occasion of sin. For penitents find it
very difficult to remove the occasion; and if they do not take it away before
they receive absolution they will scarcely remove it after they have been
absolved.
Much less is he fit for absolution who refuses to remove the occasions, and
only promises that in them he will not commit sin for the future. Tell me, my
brother, do you expect that tow thrown into the fire will not burn? And how ran
you expecting that if you expose yourself to the occasion of sin you will not
fall? And your strength, says the prophet, shall be as the ashes of tow, . . . and
both shall burn together, and there shall be none to quench it.” (The complete
ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, pp. 539-546)

See how the real St. Alphonsus says that not only mortal sins, but also
remaining in occasions of sins, damns us!

St. Alphonsus, On Confession: “Confession, in order to be good, must be entire,

humble, and sincere.
“I. THE CONFESSION MUST BE ENTIRE.
“He who has offended God by mortal sin has no other remedy to prevent
his damnation but the confession of his sin. …
“Have you committed sin? If you do not confess it you shall be damned.
Therefore, if you wish to be saved, you must confess it some time or other. ...Of
what use is it to receive absolution as often as you go to confession when you
do not renounce sin? All these absolutions shall add to the fire that will torment
you in hell. ...For example, it would be a mortal sin for a penitent to accuse
himself of a mortal sin that he has not committed or to deny a mortal sin that he
has committed and has never confessed, or to deny that he had a habit of a
certain sin; for in all these he would be guilty of grievously deceiving the
minister of God.” (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, pp.
546-560)

Not only does St. Alphonsus teach that all the mortal sins that the Church
teaches are mortal sins must be confessed and repented of, but one must also
promise to avoid all occasions of sin.

St. Alphonsus Liguori also confirms this fact in his Dignity and Duties of the
Priest:
“A penitent who wishes to receive absolution before the removal of such
an occasion is not disposed for the sacrament; because he is in the proximate
danger of violating his purpose as well as the obligation by which he is bound
under pain of mortal sin to remove the occasion. To take away proximate
occasions is very painful and difficult, and can be effected only by doing great
violence to one's self. But he who has already received absolution will scarcely
offer such violence to himself. Freed from the fear of being deprived of
absolution, he will flatter himself with the hope of being able to resist
temptations without taking away the occasion; and thus remaining in the
occasion, he will certainly relapse.”

How obvious can it get that St. Alphonsus teaches that all what the Church
teaches are mortal sins must be confessed when even occasions of sin is judged
by him to damn a person, and that a person must promise to avoid them in the
future to be absolved.

We also saw that the forgery taught that a confessor should not inquire about
whether penitents commit the sin of contraception, but the real Moral Theology
which quotes Papal teaching as well as the real Alphonsus totally condemns this
opinion as we have seen and will see.

During the pontificate of Pius IX (1792-1878), at least five decisions were

made by the Holy See with regard to contraception in one or another form. The
following was made by the Holy Office and approved by the Pope. It touches
on one type of contraception, but in doing so clarifies two important elements:
that Onanism is against the Natural Law, and that confessors have a duty to
inquire about this practice if they have a good reason to suppose that it is being
done.

Pope Pius IX also totally condemns the forgery which allows for Onanism and
contraception, thus showing us once again that the Church did not have these
forged documents in Her hands when She judged Alphonsus's books free from a
single error. Pope Pius IX also condemned all onanism in marriage as a mortal
sin against the Natural Law, contrary to what we will see the forger teaching:
On the heretical objection, “It is permissible for spouses to use marriage
the way Onan did, if their motives are worthy.” Pope Pius IX answered that,
“The first proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural right
of matrimony.”
On the heresy that “It is probable that such use of marriage is not
forbidden by the natural law.”, the Pope answered that, “The second proposition
is scandalous, erroneous, and elsewhere implicitly condemned by [Pope]
Innocent XI: “Voluptuousness is not prohibited by the law of nature. Therefore
if God had not forbidden it, it would be good, and sometimes obligatory under
pain of mortal sin” [Condemned Statement by Innocent XI] (March 4, 1679).
On the third heresy, “It is never proper to ask married people of either sex
about this matter, even though it is prudently feared that the spouses, whether
the wife or the husband abuse matrimony.”, Pius IX answered that, “The third
proposition, as it stands, is false, very lax, and dangerous in practice.”, thus
making clear that not only is onanism contrary to the Natural Law, but that it is
a mortal sin against the Natural Law since it must be confessed, and no venial
sin has to be confessed. (Decisiones S. Sedis de Usu et Abusu Matrimonii,
Rome, 1944, pp. 19-20; May 21, 1851).

This shows us that onanism is against the natural law, and that confessors have
a duty to inquire about contraception if they have good reason to suppose that it
is being used. Many heretics, and the forger, during this time taught that if a
confessor thought that a person did commit a sin, but that they would not likely
give it up if they were taught that it was a sin, then they could avoid teaching
them that contraception was a sin. But the Church has always taught that
confessors are bound to see to it that their penitents must confess all sins or
heresies.

The foregoing included a quotation from Pope Innocent XI’s condemnation of

the theory that sexual immorality belongs only to divine positive law (that is,
God wills it, but not to divine natural law) that is crucially important. If
contraception were not wrong because it contradicts human nature, some could
argue (as they do) that changed circumstances might justify what was formerly
wrong. But no circumstances can justify what is against the very nature of man;
so that wherever you have human beings you have the prohibition of certain
conduct, like contraception, abortion, and infanticide.

Pope Pius XI adds in his authoritative Encyclical Casti Connubii concerning the
absolute necessity for the confessor to teach his flock this truth concerning the
unlawfulness of contraception, and that priests are obligated to teach his
penitents in confession about this truth of the Natural Law not only when he
suspects that penitents commit such acts, but to all in general, teaching that:
“We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who
have the care of souls, in virtue of our supreme authority and in our solicitude
for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err
regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves
immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any
confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted
to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty
silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to
God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to
himself the words of Christ: ‘They are blind and leaders of the blind and if the
blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.’”

St. Peter Damian, Cardinal, Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor of the Church, also
confirms that onanism in marriage is a sodomitical act in his famous book The
Book of Gomorrah addressed to Pope St. Leo IX, which the Pope totally
confirmed, saying that it is “certain and evident to all that we are in agreement
with everything your book contains”. Damian decries the audacity of men who
are “habituated to the filth of this festering disease,” and yet dare to present
themselves for holy orders, or if already ordained, remain in office.

Was it not for such crimes that Almighty God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah,
and slew Onan for deliberately spilling his seed on the ground? he asks. Damian
sees "sodomitic vice" as not only including homosexual acts (which he holds to
be the most grievous kind of sodomy) but any form of sexual perversion, which
notably includes contraception and masturbation, which he regards as closely
related. In chapter four of The Book of Gomorrah he notes that God "struck
Onan, the son of Jude, with an untimely death because of this nefarious
offense," that is, spilling his seed upon the ground rather than completing the
sexual act in the natural way.

Another passage of Denzinger 2795, quoting a decision of the Holy See, also
discusses contraception:
 “Questions: 1. Is the imperfect use of marriage licit, whether it happens
by onanism or ‘condomistically’ (that is, by using the abominable instrument
commonly called ‘the condom’)?
“2. Can the wife, aware of such ‘condomistic’ union, yield herself
passively?
“Response: (decree of April 6, published April 19, 1853): To 1. No,
indeed, it is intrinsically evil. To 2. No, she would indeed be engaging in an act
that is intrinsically illicit.”

It is also commonly claimed by forgers of Alphonsus that he teaches that as

long as we do not believe we sin, we will not be held accountable, and we saw
this claim just above us in regards to the issue of adultery. However, while this
is true with things which do not touch on the Natural Law, or when we have not
heard a commandment of something which is not a part of the Natural Law, the
fact is that the real Alphonsus and even the forged version of his book even
condemns both fornication and adultery as inexcusable sins against the Natural
Law.

Fornication and adultery is the normal procreative sexual act, and yet,
Alphonsus condemns all such acts as inexcusable sins against the Natural Law,
thus showing how the forger failed to remove this fact from the forged version,
and that Alphonsus regards all sexual sins as mortal sins against nature, just as
he says even in the forged version as we have seen.

In the Bible, the sin of fornication is given a small monetary fine, while
adulterers are given the death penalty, and yet, while adultery is a much graver
sin against the Natural Law which cannot be excused, the real Alphonsus says
that even fornication can never be excused, and he also teaches that adultery
cannot be excused even if a person believes it is lawful, thus proving how this
above which claims that adultery can be excused is a forgery once again.

Many heretics who lie about St. Alphonsus say that he does not condemn a
person if he sins against nature, or that if this person does not think that a sin is
a sin, then he will not be condemned for this act, but even in the forged Moral
Theology, it says that adultery and sins against the Natural Law are inexcusable
however much a person believes they are allowed:
“Moreover, it is certain that in the first principles of natural law, equally
and in proximate conclusions as well as certain obligations of the proper state,
invincible ignorance is not granted because by that light of nature such things
are known to all, except those who close their eyes lest they would see them.
And this is precisely what St. Thomas says (1. 2., q. 94, a. 6): “To the law of
nature pertains firstly certain very common precepts which are known to all;
secondly, certain secondary precepts, more properly, which are like relative
conclusions to the principles;” and he upholds that in both cases one cannot be
ignorant except from passion or from culpable ignorance [that is, passion and
culpable ignorance produces ignorance and thus cannot be excused], because,
as Suarez teaches, “Nature itself, and conscience assail their acts, that they are
not permitted to be inculpably ignorant of them.” ...
And Gerson (de vita spirit.) wrote, “The opinion is unanimous that
nothing in those matters which are of the law of nature yield invincible
ignorance,” ...St. Thomas lays down a very clear axiom on this matter (in c. 1,
Epist. ad Rom.), and teaches as certain: “Ignorance, which is caused by sin,
cannot excuse the subsequent fault; and for this reason sin is committed,
although it is not held [to be a sin by the sinner]” ...
But let us see, I ask, what St. Thomas upholds in that citation, where he
proposes this article: “Whether the will in accord with errant reason is good? (1.
2. q. 19, a. 6). There, the Holy Doctor says: “...Therefore, if reason or
conscience errs in a voluntary error, whether directly or on account of
negligence, because it is an error in regard to that which someone is held to
know, then such an error of reason or conscience is not excused, that the will in
accord with reason, or conscience so erring, would be evil.”
Let the words be noted: “If, therefore, reason or conscience would err in a
voluntary error, either directly or on account of negligence, because it is an
error in regard to that which someone is held to know, then such an error does
not excuse.” ...But the author of the Regula morum repeats that St. Thomas
adds these words in the same article: “If errant reason would say that a man
held to his wife happens upon another, the will concordant to this
reasoning is wicked, to the extent that the error comes into being from
ignorance of the law of God which he is held to know.” …
And he confirms it with another text of the Angelic doctor (in Quodlib. 3,
art. 27, ad 2): “If conscience would say to someone that he could do that which
is against the law of God, if he does it he sins because ignorance of the law does
not excuse from sin, unless perhaps the ignorance were invincible, just as in the
mad and insane, which altogether excuses.” Additionally, he confirms it with a
text of [Pope] Boniface VIII (de reg. juris 13, in 6), “Ignorance of fact, but not
of law, excuses.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Book 1, Theologia Moralis)

The real St. Alphonsus also quotes this in his Moral Theology, and even the
forged version has this quotation:

Pope Alexander VIII (1689-1691) condemning the Errors of the Jansenists,

condemns this false proposition: “Although there is such a thing as invincible
ignorance of the law of nature, this, in the state of fallen nature, does not excuse
from formal sin anyone acting out of ignorance.” - Condemned by Pope
Alexander VIII (Condemned in a Decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690)

We all have a conscience, and we will be judged for every sin against the
Natural Law, whether we believe it is a sin or not.

The real St. Alphonsus continues in his Moral Theology to prove that not only
fornication, (which is the normal procreative sexual act) but also the desire for
fornication, is an inexcusable mortal sin against the Natural Law, and even the
forged version has this quotation:
“9.— Quaeritur: 2) Whether an invincibly erroneous conscience can be
posited in one who desires to accomplish some evil, say fornication, judging
erroneously that only the desire to fornicate is not mortal, if fornication does not
follow in fact? Sanchez and Cardenas affirm this as more probable, because
although he would will an evil object, nevertheless, he invincibly believes his
desire does not inflict an injury on God. Still, I could never reckon this opinion
to be probable, because I have never availed to understand how someone would
deliberately exercise an action in which he knows God is offended and could
inculpably believe that he does not offend God while he efficaciously desires to
carry it out, whereby he certainly recognizes he turns away from God.
But someone will say: How will he formally sin in his desire, if he does
not know of its malice? We respond: Although it is posited [that is, suggested,
assumed, or claimed] that he is unaware of the malice of the internal act, still he
knows for certain the malice of the external act; therefore, if he wishes to carry
it out, and it is already known to him as an evil, how can he be excused from
sin? Certainly, everyone discerns from the light of nature that he is held in
obedience to his creator; so when someone deliberately means to do something
which he knows God has forbidden him, at the same time he necessarily knows
that he acts wickedly... nevertheless by exercising it in fact he then sins, wishing
to refuse due obedience to God in the time in which he plans to accomplish the
sin.
Now, one might insist: many unlearned men will not confess these
wicked desires because they believe they only sin when they accomplish the sin
externally. We respond: They are rather more deceived in a false belief that they
are not held to confess the sins which they do not accomplish; but a prudent
confessor ought to judge that when they thought about accomplishing the sin,
truly they also sinned formally from a wicked will turning themselves from
God.”

Here we see that even if a person believes fornication is not a sin, he still sins,
thus demolishing the lie of the forgery which claims that the far greater sin of
adultery does not have to be confessed, nor that they do this sin unless they
themselves believe it is a sin.

Blessed Pope Innocent XI also teaches that fornication by its own nature
involves sin, that is, that it is a sin against the Natural Law even though no
human law exists in the state which forbids it, and the real St. Alphonsus quotes
this truth in his real Moral Theology, and even the forged version have these
quotes:
Blessed Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #48, March
4, 1679: "Thus it seems clear that fornication by its nature involves no
malice, and that it is evil only because it is forbidden, so that the contrary
seems entirely in disagreement with reason." - Condemned statement by
Pope Innocent XI

Blessed Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #49, March
4, 1679: "Voluptuousness is not prohibited by the law of nature.
Therefore, if God had not forbidden it, it would be good, and sometimes
obligatory under pain of mortal sin." - Condemned statement by Pope
Innocent XI

Truly, as Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254) declares: “Moreover concerning

fornication which an unmarried man commits with an unmarried woman, there
must not be any doubt at all that it is a mortal sin, since the Apostle declares
that "fornicators as adulterers are cast out from the kingdom of God" [1 Cor.
6:9]. (From the letter "Sub Catholicae" to the Bishop of Tusculum, of the
Legation of the Apostolic See among the Greeks, March 6, 1254, Denzinger
453)

The Church has always been clear that concubinage, which is the same as a
steady fornicating relationship, is condemned even though it may bring you
some physical benefit, and both the real and forged version of Alphonsus's
Moral Theology quotes this teaching of Pope Alexander VII, thus demolishing
the lies of the forger, and showing how this liar contradicts himself:
Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 41), Sept. 24,
1665: “One living in concubinage is not bound to dismiss the concubine,
if she is very useful for the pleasure of him so living (in the vernacular,
“regalo”) provided that if she were missing, he would carry on life with
very great difficulty, and other food would affect him living in
concubinage with great loathing, and another maid servant would be
found with very great difficulty.” – Condemned statement by Pope
Alexander VII.
St. Alphonsus Liguori also confirms that fornication is an inexcusable sin
against the Natural Law in his, Sermons for all the Sundays in the Year, Sermon
45, On Impurity, where he makes clear that even if a person believes fornication
is no sin, they are still damned:
“But the unchaste are guilty of an unceasing torrent of sins, by thoughts,
by words, by looks, by complacencies, and by touches; so that when they go to
confession they find it impossible to tell the number of the sins they have
committed against purity. …Some of these blind miscreants go so far as to say,
that fornication is not in itself sinful. ...But fornication was always forbidden,
under pain of mortal sin, in the Old, as well as in the New Law. St. Paul says:
“No fornicator or unclean hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of
God.” (Ephesians 5:5) Behold the impiety to which the blindness of such
sinners carry them! From this blindness it arises, that though they go to the
sacraments, their confessions are null for want of true contrition; for how is it
possible for them to have true sorrow, when they neither know nor abhor their
sins? ...
Some person addicted to this vice says: “I always confess the sin.” So
much the worse; for since you always relapse into sin, these confessions serve
to make you persevere in the sin. The fear of punishment is diminished by
saying: “I always confess the sin.” If you felt that this sin certainly merits hell,
you would scarcely say: “I will not give it up; I do not care if I am damned.”
But the devil deceives you. “Commit this sin,” he says, “for you afterwards
confess it.”
But, to make a good confession of your sins, you must have true sorrow
of the heart, and a firm purpose to sin no more. Where are this sorrow and this
firm purpose of amendment, when you always return to the vomit? If you had
had these dispositions, and had received sanctifying grace at your confessions,
you should not have relapsed, or at least you should have abstained for a
considerable time from relapsing. You have always fallen back into sin in eight
or ten days, and perhaps in a shorter time, after confession. What sign is this? It
is a sign that you were always at enmity with God. If a sick man instantly
vomits the medicine which he takes, it is a sign that his disease is incurable.”

The forged copy contradicts the fact that fornication is an inexcusable sin
against the Natural Law because we are dealing with two different people: one
saint, and one heretical forger, and as we saw above, they were obligated to
confess and repent of their fornication, but the forgery contradicts this:
“Among the bulk of the clergy, however, attitudes toward sexual issues
moderated in the eighteenth century, or at least did so in terms of calls for the
investigation and punishment of sexual sins. The most influential Catholic
writer on moral issues from this period, [the forgery of] St Alphonsus Liguori
(1697–1787), clearly advised confessors not to treat too harshly those who were
unaware that their practices were sinful and not to concentrate too much on sins
they had little hope of eradicating, such as lustful thoughts or fornication. In his
opinion, explaining the sinfulness of acts that people would not give up simply
transformed unwitting sins into mortal ones.
Institutions
Had [the fake] Liguori lived two centuries earlier, such statements would have
led to a trial rather than a canonization process, because in the sixteenth century
simply to express the view that fornication was not a mortal sin could lead to
indictment before a variety of church courts.” (Christianity and Sexuality in the
Early Modern World: Regulating Desire, Reforming Practice, Merry Wiesner-
Hanks, Routledge, 2014)

All modernists who believe that the Church or Her Saints can come up with
novel teachings after 1750 years of teaching the same teaching concerning
fornication, are of course totally deluded, knowing nothing about the fact that
the Church and Her Laws can never change.

The truth is that the Church has always taught that fornication can never be
excused, and that is why the Inquisition punished those who denied Church
teaching on this point:
“In sharp contrast to Liguori’s [forged] position later, the Iberian
Inquisitions regarded lack of familiarity with Church doctrines as something to
be corrected rather than indulged. For example, to commit fornication was a
sin, but to say that sexual relations between two unmarried people was not a sin
was much worse, even if done in ignorance. Such persons were to be punished,
“for in this way they will be relieved of their ignorance, and the punishment
will have its terrifying effect on others.”
Such ignorance was also to be combated by an annual reading of the Edict of
Faith from every pulpit, in which approved Catholic positions on a range of
matters were explained in simple language, and people were encouraged to
report to the Inquisition any neighbor or acquaintance whose statements or
actions were in contrast to these.” (Christianity and Sexuality in the Early
Modern World: Regulating Desire, Reforming Practice, Merry Wiesner-Hanks,
Routledge, 2005)

Question: Why is fornication evil or sinful or contrary to the Natural Law if

both parties consent to the act?

Answer: Fornication as all sexual sin is sinful and contrary to the Natural Law
because it is intoxicating, shameful, addictive, non-procreative, and
unnecessary. All fornicators also come to their marriage defiled and polluted,
having allowed into their minds and hearts for all time on earth more people
than their spouse. We can never forget former sexual acts, and humans should
only experience sex with their spouse and no other. All who sins through
fornication will always have these experiences lodged in his heart as long as he
lives, and these experiences will undoubtedly tempt a person to commit
adultery or sexual sin during his or her marriage.

Fornicators also risk that a child will be born outside wedlock, which is a
human tragedy which engenders countless of troubles in society. This world
today is filled of what the Bible calls bastards, and fornication is the root of all
this evilness. A huge percentage of crime in society is committed by people who
have grown up with only one parent. That is why fornication in society must be
severely punished.

Contrary to the forger, The Holy Bible teaches: “Know you not that the unjust
shall not possess the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the
covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom
of God. ...but the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for
the body. Now God hath both raised up the Lord, and will raise us up also by
his power. Know you not, that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I,
then, taking the members of Christ, make them the members of a harlot? God
forbid.
Or know you not, that he who adheres to a harlot, is made one body? For
they shall be (saith he) two in one flesh. But he who adheres to the Lord is one
spirit. Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth, is without the body: but he
that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body. Or know you not,
that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you
have from God, and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great
price. Glorify and bear God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-20)

In First Corinthians chapter 7, St. Paul addresses the situation of two unmarried
Christians who are burning with passion (7:8–9) who should either exercise
self-control or be permitted to marry (cf. verses 36–38). The teaching is the
same as in Deuteronomy 22. People who are too weak to be celibate only has
two choices to escape being burned forever in Hell according to the Bible, that
is, get married or exercise self-control, “for it is better to marry than to burn”:
“Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a
man not to touch a woman: But because of fornication let every man have his
own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. ...Defraud not one
another, unless, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to
prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men
were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this
manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: it
is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain
themselves, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1
Corinthians 7:1-10)

The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem in about 50 A.D. also confirms that

fornication is totally forbidden: “To the Lord was his own work known from the
beginning of the world. For which cause I judge that they, who from among the
Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. But that we write unto
them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from
fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. ...For it hath seemed
good to the Holy Ghost... That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols... and
from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well.”
(Acts 15:18-29)

The Church condemns all “sexual excess” as contrary to the Natural Law, and
fornication is a totally unnecessary and selfish act that serves nothing but a
selfish lust. That is is also why Blessed Pope Innocent XI condemned this
proposition: “Voluptuousness is not prohibited by the law of nature. Therefore if
God had not forbidden it, it would be good, and sometimes obligatory under
pain of mortal sin”.

Pope Pius XI also condemned fornication in his Encyclical Casti Connubii:

“How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways
of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the
origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it.
The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its
advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by
which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of
man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and
abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human
affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more
sacred and has wider range than matrimony - hence it may be exercised both
outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of
matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base
fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a
lawfully wedded wife.
Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new
species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the
times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label
"temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the
indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond,
and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a
matrimony in the full sense of the law.”

Again, the real Alphonsus writes “On a doubtful Conscience” in his Moral
Theology, and even the forged version has this quote:
“It is never licit to act with a practically doubtful conscience; and in a
case where someone acts he sins... because someone who exposes himself to
the danger of sinning, now sins according to what is said in the Scripture, “He
who loves danger will perish in it.” (Eccli. 3:27.) ...But the Angelic doctor does
not understand this at all; there he only teaches he is not excused from sin if he
is held to know the precept and is culpably ignorant of it. It is clear from that
which he added in the same article (ad 4): “Then an erroneous conscience does
not suffice to absolve one when he sins in error.” ...
St. Thomas declares the same thing in another place, where he writes:
“Every question in which one scrutinizes about mortal sin, unless the truth
should expressly be contained, perilously makes a determination; because an
error in which something that is mortal is not believed to be a mortal sin
does not excuse the conscience...” (Quodlib., 9, art. 15). Notice the words,
unless the truth is expressly contained, he perilously makes a determination”.
Therefore, the principle of our adversaries is false, that in doubt, lex possidet,
and hence in doubt the safer part must be held. ...
St. Antoninus says...: “It must be known that St. Thomas says, in a certain
question from the Quodlibetus, that a question, in which it is argued on some
act, whether it is a mortal sin or not, unless the express authority of Sacred
Scripture or a canon of the Church, or evident reason were present, it is
determined only perilously.
For, if one would determine that something is mortal and it is not, one
acting against it sins mortally because everything which is against conscience
paves the way to hell; but if it were determined that it were not mortal, and it is,
his error will not excuse him from a mortal sin. But this seems right according
to what has been understood, when someone would err from crass [stupid]
ignorance; otherwise, if from probable ignorance [that is, on issues which do
not deal with Natural Laws], say because he consulted experts in such a matter,
and he was told by them that such a thing was not mortal, it would seem then in
that case the ignorance would be almost invincible which excuses from the
whole. And this in regard to those matters which are not expressly against
divine or natural law, or against the articles of faith and the Ten
Commandments...”
Equally, here they object with the doctrine of St. Thomas, which
coincides in the same thing: “Whoever commits to the peril of mortal sin, sins
mortally.” (Quodlib., 9 a 15). These words can be explained in two ways: either
on placing oneself in the danger of transgressing a certain law according to the
case expressed in Scripture, or rather on acting with a practical doubt, according
to another text of the same Angelic Doctor, where he said: “One who commits
something, or omits it, in which he is uncertain whether it is a mortal sin,
commits himself to peril.” (In 4, dist. 21, quest. 2, a. 3, ad 3). ...And St.
Antoninus says: “One can well excuse ignorance, in as much as it is invincible,
in regard to those matters which are not expressly against divine or natural
law.” (Part. 2, tit. 1, c. 11).”

Venerable Antonio Rosmini also confirms the Church's teaching that we are
obligated to avoid not only sins, but also occasions of doubtful sin:
“1. The first harm we can do ourselves consists in damaging our soul by
exposing ourselves to the danger of formal sin. St. Thomas makes the same
point in Quodlib., 8, art 13: “Anyone placing himself at risk in matters relative
to salvation, sins”; and in Quodlib., 9, art. 15: “Anyone placing himself at risk
or in danger of committing mortal sin, sins mortally.”
In the canons we find: “In matters relative to eternal salvation, the safer
way is to be taken if serious remorse of conscience is to be avoided” (Clement.,
bk. 5, t. 11, c. 1, pd Item quia praeter ea). Scotus also declares: “If there is an
easier way, that is, one over which we have greater power and which is a more
sure way of re-acquiring grace, we must take it. To attempt a more difficult and
less sure way when the easy one is open is equivalent to endangering and
despising our own salvation” (in 4 Distinc. 17, quaest. Unica).
All theologians, including St. Alphonsus, teach that we must flee the
proximate occasions of sin. How do we explain this most certain truth? The
reason, as we know, is that it does not suffice to flee what is certainly sin; we
also have to avoid probable and doubtful sin. We cannot excuse ourselves by
saying that the sin is doubtful if the law is doubtful, because it is certain that no
one may lawfully expose himself to the danger of sinning. This is the very law
we are upholding.
2. The same must be said about a choice of religion. If in making our
choice we do not keep to the safest path, we leave ourselves open to the danger
1. of offending God; 2. of offending ourselves. This is one of those points,
therefore, at which St. Alphonsus... says: “Hence we can conclude that it is not
lawful in matters of faith, and in everything touching upon the means of eternal
salvation to follow either the less probable opinion (according to the fourth
proposition condemned by [Blessed Pope] Innocent XI), or the more probable.
[The condemned proposition states: "A non-believer following a less probable
opinion will be excused."] We are bound to hold the safer opinion and
consequently to choose the safest religion, that is, the Catholic religion.”
He adds: “Because any other religion is false, even if one of them appears
more probable to someone, he cannot accept it in place of the safer religion
without placing in jeopardy his eternal salvation.” (Th. M. De Consc., 43)
3. The same danger makes it unlawful for a person to put his life at risk without
necessity.” (Conscience: The Writings Of Blessed Antonio Rosmini, Blessed
Antonio Rosmini, Catholic Life International, 2017)

The book that documents the forged Alphonsus's book continues:

“Such concern for the consciousness of sin could cut both ways. Only
two paragraphs after allowing adultery to the ignorant, Liguori taught that a
wavering intention to commit sin added a separate sin of intention at each point
of consent, even if there was only one consummated act. Fantasies during
masturbation likewise involved a distinct mortal sin for each person imagined
in the fantasy. (Alphonsus Liguori, Praxis Confessarii, Graz 1954, paragraph
41) ...
The single instance in which love did figure in Liguori's teaching on sex
in marriage was his discussion of the so-called imperfect acts: kissing, manual
stimulation, and oral-genital contact. Because natural law permitted orgasm
only in coitus, no imperfect acts could licitly be continued to the point of
imminent orgasm. To Liguori, this meant that some of these acts were forbidden
altogether. Some moralists had argued that “insistently moving a finger in the
female vessel,” or the taking of the male organ into the wife's mouth, might be
allowed if done “in passing,” or in preparation for intercourse; but St.
Alphonsus felt that both actions necessarily brought about an imminent danger
of orgasm, and therefore constituted mortal sin. (Liguori, Theologia moralis,
6.934-935)
Yet here again Liguori reasoned that the proper mental condition might
result in innocence. Any act, even with the “foreseen danger of pollution,”
could be done if there was an urgent necessity “to foster love” (ad fovendum
amorem). A sufficient need to foster love could arise from suspicion of adultery,
strong temptation to infidelity, or some other threat to the marriage.” (Innocent
Ecstasy: How Christianity Gave America an Ethic of Sexual Pleasure, by Peter
Gardella, Oxford University Press)
Both the real and forged work titled “Moral Theology” by Saint Alphonsus
Liguori in reality condemns all marital sexual acts which risk ejaculation
outside the vagina, such as oral sex, contrary to the forger, and he also says that
such an act is contrary to the Natural Law which thus means that no one can be
excused who performs such acts in marriage, whatever ridiculous excuses are
claimed to make such perverse acts necessary. The fact that a sane human being
could make an argument that placing a penis in the mouth is somehow
necessary is preposterous:
“Or whether it is always [a] mortal [sin], if the husband were to insert
[his] penis into the mouth of [his] wife?”
Then, the Saint gives a false answer proposed by some “theologians” of
his day: “In the negative [say several authors] … but only if there is no danger
of pollution.”
Some “theologians” of that time period (1700’s) claimed that it would be moral,
only if there was no danger that the husband would climax (“danger of
pollution”). But then the Saint rejects their answer and gives an answer he
asserts to be the truth:
“But the truth is in the affirmative [that it is a mortal sin, citing several
authors]... not only because, in this act, on account of the warmth of the mouth,
there is proximate danger of pollution, but also because this [act] is
considered [to be], in itself, an abnormal type of pleasure against nature (as
has been said of any type of shameful sex).”

Saint Alphonsus asserts that this type of act, within marriage is a mortal sin for
two reasons. First, because there is always the danger of pollution, i.e. the risk
that the husband will climax, making the act a completed unnatural sexual act.
Second, because this type of act, even without climax, is “in itself … against
nature”, which means that it is an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral sexual
sin. And he asserts that the same is true of “any type of shameful sex”, that is to
say, any type of unnatural sexual act.

Canon Law defines the natural sexual act in explaining the consummation of a
marriage. A marriage that is ratified by the consent of the spouses (at the
wedding ceremony) is afterward consummated only if the spouses have
performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is
suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring. Even if one or both spouses are
infertile for some reason, the act is still termed natural, if it is the type of act
that would be capable of procreation if they were fertile.
The moral object of any act is the end toward which the knowingly chosen act
is inherently ordered, regardless of whether the moral object is attained. To be
moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and procreative. Sexual
relations open to life is inherently ordered toward the procreative motive, and
so it is called the natural act.
An unnatural sexual act is any type of sex, whether or not climax occurs, which
is not ordered, by the nature of the act, toward procreation. Unnatural sexual
acts are not procreative.

Then the Saint adds some commentary after his answer:

“And besides, whenever another orifice [or vessel] is sought by the
husband, other than the natural orifice, which has been ordained for copulation,
it is considered [to be] an abnormal type of [sexual] pleasure.”

The term “vessel” [vas] in Latin texts of moral theology refers to any orifice or
receptacle used in a sexual act. The natural vessel is the vagina of the wife.
Unnatural vessels include any other orifice or body part used to commit a
sexual act (even if it is not strictly speaking an orifice). So we see that the real
St. Alphonsus condemns as unnatural any act which does not include the man
putting his penis inside the vagina. (Moral Theology, On Matrimony, Book 6, n.
491-492)

However, a forged copy of Alphonsus's teaching allows for oral sex: “This
being said, even the relatively (but not completely) austere St. Alphonsus
allows oral contact with the spouse's genitals obiter, that is, "in passing," as a
brief expression of reverence or affection without oral penetration.” (Catholic
Theology and Oral Pleasure, Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem., 2017)

Again, in On Matrimony, Book 6, Q. 916, both the real and forged work titled
“Moral Theology” by Saint Alphonsus Liguori in reality condemns all marital
sexual acts which risk ejaculation outside the vagina. In this question, Saint
Alphonsus rejects the proposition, so often asserted today, that the married
couple may use unnatural sexual acts, as long as the husband completes the act
(i.e. climaxes) only in a subsequent act of natural marital relations:
“Whether it is a mortal sin for the husband to begin copulating in a
disordered [or perverse] orifice, then afterward consummate the act in the
proper orifice?”
This is exactly the idea proposed by foolish commentators today. They claim
that all manner of unnatural sexual acts (oral, anal, manual “stimulation”) are
justified as long as the husband “completes” the act by climaxing in a
subsequent act of natural marital relations. And what answer does Saint
Alphonsus give to the question?

First, notice that the question asks if this proposal is a mortal sin. As usual, the
Saint cites opinions on both sides of the question, first citing some who say
“No”, it is not a mortal sin, as long as there is no “danger of pollution” (i.e.
danger of the husband climaxing during the unnatural sexual act), and others
who say that there is no mortal sin in any sexual acts between the spouses. But
the Saint rejects these opinions.

The answer given to that question is: “[Various theologians] deny it is a mortal
sin as long as there is no danger of pollution [ejaculation outside of the vagina]
because all other touches (as they say), even if sexual, are not gravely illicit
among spouses. But it is more generally and truly affirmed [to be a mortal sin]
by [various theologians]. The reason is that this manner of his sexual act (even
without climax) is truly sodomy, whether or not it is consummated, just as an
act of copulation in the natural orifice of another woman is truly fornication,
even if there is no climax.”

So the Saint states that the correct opinion, which was also the common opinion
of the theologians of his day, is that such acts are gravely immoral. Alphonsus
contrasts his own teaching with that of the heretics who is reported to have
falsely claimed that “all other touches (as they say), even if sexual, are not
gravely illicit among spouses”. So Saint Alphonsus Liguori rejected the idea
that unnatural sexual acts are moral to use as foreplay, as long as the husband
consummates only in a subsequent natural act. And yet this rejected idea
continues to be promoted today, mostly by “Catholics” who hide behind the
anonymity of the internet. (Moral Theology, On Matrimony, Book 6, Q. 916)

In addition to the fact that the forgery teaches that sensual kisses are allowed in
marriage, the true teaching of the authentic Alphonsus confirms the Papal
teaching which condemns as a mortal sin all sensual kisses both inside and
outside marriage, and the book Moral Theology directly quotes this teaching
below in its beginning, thus showing us that a forger, again, has manipulated
Alphonsus's teaching, and even the forgery has this quote, thus showing us that
the forger stumbled over himself and failed to remove this truth that refutes his
lies:

Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters #40, September

 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666: “It is a probable opinion which states that a
kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible
delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and
pollution is excluded.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander
VII.

Indeed, in another place of even the forged Moral Theology, it directly

condemns all unchaste kisses and touches contrary to what the forger claims in
other places:
“...and then the gravity of the object in confession must be expressed, indeed
what act he constituted in his individual act, as Filliuci, Bonacina, Suarez (de
poen. s. 22, s. 4, n. 36) ...Hence, kisses, touches, unchaste words, etc. ...are one
sin by number, as Navarre (c. 6, n. 17), Azor (l. 4, qu. 6), and Filliuci, etc.
teach.”

The text never says that it only speaks about the unmarried, which were a
superminority at that time, and it is very improbable that he should speak
generally without specifying that he is speaking about a very small group, and
anyone who are honest has to admit that even the forged Moral Theology
condemns all sensual kisses and touches for all, both the married and the
unmarried.

Other forged versions also teach things which we have seen the real Alphonsus
as well as the Popes he quotes totally condemns. First, the forgery allows for
amplexus reservatus, which we have already seen the real Alphonsus say is a
mortal sin. Second, it teaches that unchaste touches are allowed even though we
have seen that Alphonsus condemns any act in marriage except vaginal sex.
Then the forgery falsely quotes St. Antoninus even though we have seen that he
condemns all acts in marriage except for the missionary position. The forger
writes:
“It is asked, III., whether married persons sin mortally, if, after having
commenced the act of copulation, they refrain from spending [ejaculating]?
Answer. If both parties consept, and there be no danger of spending
outside the vessel, that, speaking of itself, is not a mortal sin—for such entrance
into the female vessel is then considered in the same light as touches of the
private parts, which are permitted among married persons, or at least is not
mortal sin, the danger of pollution being avoided. Thus, generally, St. Antoine,
&c.
I have said, first, if both parties agree; for, if one withdraws without the
consent of the other, he certainly sins grievously, as is asserted by all the above
cited authors. I have said, secondly, speaking of itself, (for it is wisely observed
by Sanchez, &c.) that this is ordinarily mortal sin, because generally from such
withdrawal there is danger of spilling the seed, unless the contrary has been
experienced by the married parties; in which case, however, I think that they
can in no way be excused, at least from venial sin, whatever may be said by
Sanchez and others. But, if the woman has already spent, or is in probable
danger of spending, the husband cannot indeed withdraw himself from
spending without heinous sin, because in that case he himself is the cause that
the seed of the wife is wasted, as is generally said by St. Antoine, &c.
This, however, will not be so intrinsically bad, that it cannot, in any case,
be permitted: for instance, if the man should desist from copulation from danger
of death or scandal to others; for in that case he may lawfully withdraw himself,
even at the risk of pollution, because this would happen by accident, and
contrary to his intention; and, on the other hand, he is not bound, with danger of
so much injury, to procure generation. Thus Sanchez, &c. These things are
agreed upon by all. But if the husband has already spent, it is doubtful whether
the female commits a mortal sin if she withdraws from spending, or whether the
husband commits a mortal sin by not waiting for the spending of the wife.”
(Liguori. v. 6, n. 918)
“If it (copulation) takes place in an improper manner; as, for example,—
1st, if the natural vessel be not kept, which many teach to be real sodomy;
others that it is a real sin against nature. See 6th com. 2ndly, if without just
cause the position be unnatural, from behind, &c., which some maintain to be
mortal sin; others, danger of spilling seed being avoided, that it is only a venial
sin, although grievous and severely to be reprehended, Dian, &c. 3.
If one of the married parties either from sulkiness or other reason, refrain
from spending, which some generally maintain to be mortal sin, because the
end of the conjugal act, viz., generation, is impeded; some, however, with
Sanchez, say it is no sin in the female.” (Lig. vol. 6, n. 915)

However, the forger stumbles over himself again. Both the real and forged
Moral Theology totally rejects all sodomitical acts in marriage as mortal sins
and the question below even condemns all other procreative sexual acts in
marriage as sinful, except for the missionary position, totally demolishing the
forgery which allows all kinds of non-procreative or unnecessary sensual acts in
marriage as we have seen. The forger writes:
“It is asked, lst, does a man sin mortally by commencing the act of
copulation in the hinder vessel, that he may afterwards finish it in the proper
vessel? This is denied by Navarr. &c., provided there be no danger of pollution;
because, otherwise, as they say, all touches, even venereal, are not grievously
illicit among married persons. But it is commonly and more truly affirmed by
Sanchez, &c. The reason is, because the very act of copulation after this manner
(even without spending) is real sodomy, although not consummated, just as
copulation itself in the natural vessel of a strange woman is real fornication,
though there may be no spending.
But is it a mortal sin for a man to rub his against the hinder vessel of the
wife? This is denied by Sanchez, &c., because to touch the mouth of the hinder
vessel is not ordained for sodomical copulation. But it is more truly affirmed by
Pontius, &c., and also by Tambur... The reason is, that such touch cannot
morally take place without affecting sodomy.” (Liguori vol. 6, n. 916)
“It is asked, 2ndly, whether, and in what manner, married parties sin by
copulating in an unnatural posture? The natural posture is for the woman to lie
under the man, because this posture is better adapted for the effusion of the
man's seed, and its reception into the female vessel, for the purpose of
procreation. But an unnatural position is, if coition takes place in a different
manner, viz., sitting, standing, lying on the side, or from behind, after the
manner of cattle, or if the man lies under the woman; such coition, contrary to
the natural posture, some, with Sanchez, &c., generally condemn as mortal sin;
others maintain that only the two last modes are mortal sin, affirming these to
be repugnant to nature itself: but others commonly say that all these modes do
not exceed venial sin.” (Liguori vol. 6, n. 917)

As we saw, the real St. Alphonsus teaches that sexual sins are always mortal
sins, and even the forgery itself has this quotation, thus proving that even other
procreative sexual acts than the “missionary position” are mortally sinful in
marriage: “What is lust? 71.— Resp. Lust is a disordered appetite for venereal
pleasures... hence someone who abuses it, wounds God and man. It is a mortal
sin by its nature.”

The forgery continues to say that all kinds of non-procreative or unnecessary

sexual acts in marriage are allowed even though we have seen the real
Alphonsus teach that even other procreative sexual acts than the missionary
position is condemned as sinful, and the forger also lies about Sanchez's
teaching ,which we have seen condemns even other procreative sexual acts than
the missionary position:
“You will ask, whether, and at what times, touches, looks, and filthy
words are permitted, among married persons?
Ans. Such acts are of themselves lawful to them, because, to whom the
end is lawful, the means are also lawful; and to whom the consummation is
lawful, so also is the beginning: consequently, they lawfully excite nature to
copulation by such acts. But, if these acts are performed separately and without
order to copulation, as, for example, for the purpose of pleasure alone, they are
venial sins, because, in respect of the state which renders those acts honourable,
they have a right to them; unless, however, as often happens, they are joined
with danger of pollution, or the married parties have a vow of chastity, for in
that case they are mortal sins, as has been said above.” (Lig. vol. 6, n. 932)
“Whence it will be resolved.
I.—A husband commits only venial sin—1st. By touching himself
from pleasure, and by not referring the touch so expressly to copulation, as
Sanchez more probably teaches, in opposition to Wasquez and others. 2nd.
In pleasing himself venereally without danger of pollution, in thinking of
the conjugal act, whilst the partner is absent, or the act itself cannot be
exercised.
II.—1st. A widow sins grievously when she derives venereal pleasure
from copulation formerly had, because such is unlawful to her, in consequence
of her state. 2ndly. A person married a second time, who, during the conjugal
act, had with the second wife, represents to himself the first, and derives carnal
pleasure thereby, because it is permixture with another woman.
It is asked—1st, whether touches and base looks among married people
be mortal sin, on account of pleasure alone, without order to copulation, if there
should not be danger of pollution. This is affirmed by St. Anthony and others,
because (as they say) every venereal act not relating to conjugal copulation is
mortal sin. But this is denied by the common and more true opinion, and
that opinion is maintained by Laym. and others. The reason is, that as the
marriage state renders copulation honourable, so also does it touches and
looks of this nature, &c.” (Lig. vol. 6, n. 983)

See how the forger trips over himself and admits that St. Antoninus teaches that
all unchaste touches “on account of pleasure alone, without order to copulation,
if there should not be danger of pollution” in marriage are forbidden, even
though we have seen he lies about Antoninus's teaching on this issue in other
places.

The forgery continues to say that masturbation is allowed as foreplay even

though we have seen the real St. Alphonsus, many saints, and Pope Pius XII
and Pope Alexander VII totally condemn all masturbation as unnatural in
marriage:
“It is asked—II, what if married persons, from these filthy acts, foresee
pollution about to follow, either in themselves or the other? There exist many
opinions. The first opinion, which is maintained by [fake] Sanchez, exempts
that from all sin, even in the person demanding, if pollution be not intended,
and there be no danger of consenting to it, and provided the touches be not so
filthy that they ought to be considered as begun pollution (such as would be to
move the finger morosely within the female vessel); and besides there might be
some grave cause of applying such touches, viz., for the purpose of preparing
one's self for copulation, or for promoting mutual love.
The reason is, because in that case the just cause renders such acts
honourable, which are not otherwise unlawful among married persons, and if
pollution ensues, this will be by accident. It is said, if there be grave cause for
it; if there be not, the forementioned acts are not excused from mortal sin.
The second opinion, maintained by Pal. &c., distinguishes and affirms,
that unchaste touches are a mortal sin, if pollution is foreseen to proceed from
them, because since these proximately lead to pollution, and are not of
themselves instituted to promote conjugal affection, they are considered
voluntary in effect; otherwise if they are chaste, such as kisses and embraces,
because such acts are of themselves lawful among married parties, since they
are naturally calculated to cherish conjugal love.
The third opinion, maintained by Dian, &c., affirms that touches, both the
unchaste and the chaste, are mortal sin, if danger of pollution be foreseen. The
reason is, because touches are therefore lawful among married people, in so far
as they are sought within the limits of matrimony, or in so far as nothing
follows repugnant to the end and the institution of seed; but when the dispersion
of seed is foreseen, although not intended, touches of whatsoever nature are
unlawful.
These opinions being laid aside, I am of opinion, that it ought more
probably to be said, that filthy touches among married people, with danger of
pollution, are mortal sins both in the one demanding and in the one complying,
unless they are had in order that the married persons may excite themselves to
copulation immediately to follow, because, when they have a right to
copulation, they have also a right to such acts, although pollution may by
accident anticipate copulation.
But I am of opinion that even chaste touches are mortal sins, if they are
had with danger of pollution either in one's self or in another, in which case
they are had solely for pleasure, or even for a light cause; otherwise, if for a
grave cause, as, for instance, if there should exist, at any time, urgent cause for
showing tokens of affection to cherish mutual love, or that one party may avert
suspicion from the other, that he or she is favourably inclined towards another
person.” (Liguori, vol. 6, n. 934)
However, both the real and forged version quotes this Church teaching below,
thus totally crushing the forger's lies:
Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 24), Sept. 24,
1665: “Masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate
species, and so it is enough to say in confession that one has procured a
pollution.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander VII.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's article, Nature of Adultery, also confirms that: “It
must be added, however, that St. Alphonsus Liguori, with most theologians,
declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when
their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446).” And
sodomy as we know how it was defined before our time, was all non-
procreative sexual acts in marriage or out of marriage.

Not only does the real St. Alphonsus teach that a person must confess all his
mortal sins whether he thinks they are sins or not, but that details must be given
just as the Church teaches.

The fact that a sane human being can think that it is somehow a grave or
necessary act to perform unchaste acts or as the forgery itself calls it, “filthy”
touches, is mind boggling. The forger continues:
“But is it always a mortal sin, if the husband introduces his into the
mouth of his wife? It is denied by [fake] Sanchez and others, provided there be
no danger of pollution. But it is more truly affirmed by Spor. de Matrim, and
others, both because in this case, owing to the heat of the mouth, there is
proximate danger of pollution, and because this appears of itself a new species
of luxury, repugnant to nature (called by some, Irrumation), for as often as
another vessel than the natural vessel ordained for copulation, is sought by the
man, it seems a new species of luxury.
However, Spor. and others make an exception, if that be done casually;
and, in truth, Sanchez seems to be of this opinion, whilst he excuses that act
from mortal sin, should all danger of pollution cease. Pal., also, makes an
exception, “if the husband does this to excite himself for natural copulation.”
But, from what has been said before, I think neither ought to be admitted.
In the same manner, Sanchez, condemns a man of mortal sin, who, in the act of
copulation, introduces his finger into the hinder vessel of the wife, because (he
says) in this act there is a disposition to sodomy. But I am of opinion that such
effect may be found in the act; but, speaking of itself, I do not acknowledge this
effect natural in the act. But I say that husbands practising a foul act of this
nature, ought always to be severely rebuked.” (Liguori, vol. 6, n. 935)

Here we see that even in the forgery, oral sex is condemned even though we
have seen other places allow it, thus showing us how the forger stumbles over
himself and forgets what he teaches in other places. We will also see that the
real St. Alphonsus further on below teaches that all occasions of sins must be
avoided under pain of mortal sin, which aligns with the words “proximate
danger of pollution” which are the words even in the forgery. Alphonsus is very
clear that all occasions of sin must be avoided, yet we have seen the forger
teach just a few pages before that oral sex is allowed even though he admits that
it is an occasion of sin, thus totally refuting himself and his common teaching.

Now, there is a serious problem with the claim that unnecessary sexual acts are
not equivalent to sodomy because climax is lacking. The Church has
condemned marital sodomy, without stating that it is only immoral with climax.
Moreover, the Church has taught that the wife must resist actively, if the
husband attempts “the crime of the Sodomites” with her:
“If, however, the husband wishes to commit the crime of the Sodomites
with her, since sodomitic intercourse is against nature on the part of both
spouses who are united in this way and, in the judgment of all the learned
teachers, is gravely evil, there is clearly no motive, not even to avoid death, that
would permit the wife legitimately to carry out such a shameless act with her
husband.” (Denz. 3634)

And in the Church's vocabulary, sodomy is all non-procreative or unnecessary

sexual acts in marriage. The Church have always condemned all kinds of
sodomy, both heterosexual or homosexual, as in former times sodomy was
regarded as all sexual acts except for the “missionary position.” “The Third
Lateran Council of 1179 specifically condemned sodomy and decreed
excommunication for any member of the clergy or laity found guilty of this
“crime against nature””.

Historians are unanimous in their historical study over how the former
generations viewed the sin of sodomy, teaching that sodomy is all non-
procreative or unnecessary sexual acts even in marriage:
“So, it should be no surprise that marital exemption from sodomy
laws is a new concept. Convictions for consensual activity between married
spouses in their own home have been affirmed and other courts have
rejected marital exemption both before and after the Griswold decision. ...
Some states also revised their sodomy laws so that they became
applicable only to activity between people of the same sex. Kansas began this
unfortunate trend in 1969. Seven other jurisdictions followed suit. These
jurisdictions found a creative way to rationalize heterosexual desire for long-
banned activity by making it seem normal and acceptable, as if society always
had accepted heterosexual sodomy.” (George Painter, The Sensibilities of Our
Forefathers: The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States)

Anyone who denies that the married commits sodomy with each other if they
perform non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts are totally ignorant and
clueless about history:
“Sodomy was the name, taken from the Bible, for an unmentionable sin
that was defined as any lustful act which could not result in procreation
within marriage. From the thirteen century, it was not only a sin, but also a
capital crime. Sodomy included extramarital heterosexuality, non-vaginal
sexual acts, all forms of same-sex behaviour, bestiality, masturbation and so
forth.” (Hekma, “Same-sex relations among men in Europe, 1700-1990”, p.79)
“Sexual acts not geared toward procreation were commonly referred to
as sodomy. In addition to homosexual intercourse, this term might cover anal
contact between man and woman, coitus interruptus, bestiality, and even sexual
intercourse between Christians and non-Christians (Greenberg 1988, 274-275;
Gilbert 1985).” (Oosterhuis, Stepchildren of Nature Kraft-Ebing, Psychiatry,
and the Making of Sexual Identities, p. 21)
“Theoretically, sodomy was a fairly general term for most types of crimes
that were deemed to be ‘against nature’. In effect, this meant sexual relations
that were non-procreative. By the middle ages, most jurists and theologians
had subdivided sodomy into four general categories: sex between men, sex with
animals, non-procreative sex between men and women, and masturbation.
However, in practice even procreative sex could be considered unnatural if it
was any position other than the missionary (face-to-face, man on top, woman
on her back). (Naphy, Sex Crimes From Renaissance to Enlightenment, p. 103-
104)
“On the one hand, historians confirmed sodomy’s capaciousness: it
means masturbation, several of forms of same-sex sexual behavior, bestiality,
non-procreative sex (oral or anal most commonly) between a and a woman,
or any form of sex in which conception was impossible.” (Crawford, The
Sexual Culture of the French Renaissance, p. 4)
 “Sodomy entailed improper usage (because a non-sexual organ was
used for sex) or aim (non-procreative sex).” (Crawford, p. 156, European
Sexualities, 1400-1800)
“Sodomy, defined as anal penetration or any sexual act that did not
intend procreation, was until the eighteenth century a sin for which the death
penalty could be imposed.” (Hekma, A History of Sexology: Social and
Historical Aspects of Sexuality)

Other perverts who call themselves married claim that spouses may use sexual
devices (“sex toys” or “marital aids”), even in marriage, but this is clearly
gravely immoral. The use of sexual devices is specifically condemned by the
Church. (Sacred Penitentiary, 3 June 1916, Denzinger 3638-40) The Sacred
Penitentiary considered the situation in which a husband proposes to use a
“artificial instrument” in a sexual act on his wife. The Sacred Penitentiary
responded that this act is gravely immoral, and that the wife may not consent,
nor even offer only passive resistance.

The fact is that the Church condemns all non-procreative or unnecessary sexual
acts in marriage between husband and wife as evil and is named and
condemned as sodomy:
“The Sacred Penitentiary responded to a question on heterosexual
sodomy. The question was whether a woman threatened by her husband with
violence or even death, is morally permitted (to avoid that violence or death) to
indulge her husband’s perverted lust. The answer: No. Instead, she is called to
the same kind of resistance – insofar as it is possible to her physically – that a
virgin is called to against a would-be rapist.
I cite the congregation’s response (1916): “If, however, the husband
wishes to commit the crime of the Sodomites with her, since sodomitic
intercourse is against nature on the part of both spouses who are united in this
way and, in the judgment of all the learned teachers, is gravely evil, there is
clearly no motive, not even to avoid death, that would permit the wife
legitimately to carry out such a shameless act with her husband.” [Response of
the Sacred Penitentiary, April 3, 1916] DS 3634 (Ignatius translation). In a
nutshell, sodomy is an evil act, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.”
(The Church Against Heterosexual Sodomy)

The term “sodomy” has a broad meaning, which includes any unnatural sexual
acts. And “no motive” permits the wife to agree to “such a shameless act”, not
even the motive to prepare for natural marital relations. This teaching
contradicts those who say that the purpose (or motive) to prepare for the natural
act justifies marital sodomy. It also contradicts those who say that oral, manual,
or artificial means may be used for that same motive.

Consider the sin of Onan in the Bible. Sometimes, it is claimed that his sin was
only that of contraception. But onanism can refer, more broadly, to a range of
unnatural sexual acts between a man and a woman. “Onanism”, the term
derived from Genesis 38:9-10 which in traditional Christian usage has
designated both masturbation and unnatural intercourse between a man and
woman, has historically been regarded as condemned by this biblical passage in
Genesis 38. The classical Jewish commentators — who can scarcely be accused
of ignorance regarding Hebrew language, customs, law, and biblical literary
genres — certainly saw in this passage of Scripture a condemnation of both
unnatural intercourse and masturbation as such.

The Sacred Penitentiary also condemns wives who consent to sexual acts which
are contraceptive: “So that this entire matter might be developed and taught in a
more certain way, must a man, using such instruments (artificial onanism), truly
be regarded as equivalent to an aggressor toward who the wife must offer the
same resistance as a virgin would toward a rapist? – Ans: Yes” (Denzinger
3638)

Too many people have falsely been told that if a man insists on wearing a
condom or a woman insists on taking the pill, it's not a sin for their spouse to
enter into the marital act. The truth however, is that "resistance as a virgin
would toward a rapist" implies that Saint Maria Goretti's act of resisting a rapist
is more of an expected response instead of an optional one.

The forgery continues: “It is asked, Does morose gratification in a married

party, respecting copulation had, or to be had, which yet cannot be had for the
present, amount to mortal sin?— There are three opinions. The first opinion
affirms it; and this is maintained by Pont. &c., who call it probable. The reason
is, because such gratification is, as it were, begun pollution, which, since it
cannot be had at that time in a lawful manner, is altogether illicit.
But the second opinion, more common, denies this; and this opinion is
maintained by Pont. &c. This opinion says that such gratification is not a mortal
sin, if there be no danger of pollution, but only a venial sin. It is venial, because
it wants the due end, since it cannot be ordained for present copulation. But it is
not mortal sin, since gratification derives its good or bad qualities from the
object; and since copulation is lawful for married persons, its gratification
cannot be grievously unlawful to them.
 And this is expressly favoured by what St. Thomas says,—“As carnal
intercourse is not a mortal sin to a married person, the consent to gratification
cannot be a greater sin than the consent to the act.” [as we have already seen,
St. Thomas does not speak about consent to sexual desires apart from the
normal act, so this is just a bold lie, and even this quote does not say that it is
not a sin but only that something is a greater sin. Two things can be a mortal sin
with one being a more serious mortal sin. We will see the real quotation below.]
And this is admitted by Spor, although the venereal gratification arising
from the moving of the passions be had. Lastly, the third opinion, maintained by
Salm. distinguishes and says, that if the gratification be without moving of the
passions, it will not be mortal—otherwise, if accompanied by the moving and
titillation of the parts.
I will proffer my own opinion: If the gratification be had not only with
the moving of the passions, but also with titillation, or venereal pleasure, I am
of opinion that that cannot be excused from mortal sin, because such
gratification is proximately allied to danger of pollution. I think that the
contrary should be said, if it be not attended with that voluptuous titillation,
because then danger of pollution is not proximately annexed to the gratification,
although it may be attended with the moving of the passions; and so, in truth,
think [fake] Sanchez, &c., since there he does not excuse the gratification with
venereal pleasure, but only, as he says, with the excitement and moving of the
parts without danger of pollution.
But since such moving is nearly allied to that voluptuous titillation,
therefore married couples are to be especially exhorted to abstain from morose
gratification of this nature. It is also to be observed that this is altogether illicit
in a husband, who is bound by a vow of chastity, as is commonly said by
Sanchez and others.” (Lig. v. 6, n. 937)

Here is the real St. Thomas, De Malo, Question 15, Article 2, Objection 17:
Objection 17: “What is a mortal sin for one person is not a mortal sin for
another. But consent to pleasure is not a mortal sin for a man who is having
intercourse with his wife, since the act itself is not a mortal sin for him.
Therefore, neither is consent to pleasure in sexual lust a mortal sin for others.
Therefore, not every act of sexual lust is a mortal sin.”
Answer to Objection 17 by St. Thomas Aquinas: “As the Philosopher
says in the Ethics, the goodness or wickedness of pleasures results from the
activities that are pleasurable. And so as copulation is not a mortal sin for the
married but is for the unmarried, there is also a like difference between the
pleasure in copulation and consent to the pleasure. For consent to a pleasure
cannot be a more serious sin than consent to the act, as Augustine makes
clear in his work On the Trinity.”

Notice that it is the objection, not St. Thomas, who says that there is a
difference with the act and the consent to the pleasure, but he is clearly
speaking about consent to the sexual pleasure in the sexual act, “consent to
pleasure is not a mortal sin for a man who is having intercourse with his wife,
since the act itself is not a mortal sin for him.”

A person can have sex without consenting to the pleasure, as women can do, so
consent to a pleasure and the external act are two different things, but this
objection and answer never even remotely says that spouses can consent to
unchaste thoughts away from their spouse or perform unchaste touches in
marriage.

In fact, as we have seen, St. Thomas condemns this, and the quote in De Malo
is clearly mentioning marital sexual sins in the context of this quote from St.
Thomas. In the context, he mentions that a man sins “who out of disordered
desire has [normal] intercourse with his wife” and that “there is a sin of sexual
lust only because of the disorder of the desire, for example, when one has
intercourse with one's wife lustfully” and that it is a mortal sin “to have
intercourse with his wife, or even another woman, contrary to the law of
marriage”. He also says that “every use” of the sexual act that is non-
procreative or unnecessary is sinful, making perfectly clear that “every such
act” are totally condemned as mortally sinful.

We have also seen that the real Sanchez condemns even other procreative
sexual acts in marriage than the missionary position, and that the deluge
happened because spouses performed other sexual acts than the missionary
position, which totally shows how he must even more condemn unchaste
touches, or consent to unchaste thoughts away from the spouse, contrary to
what the forger says.

We will also see that the real St. Alphonsus further on below teaches that all
occasions of sins must be avoided under pain of mortal sin, which aligns with
the words “proximate danger of pollution” which are the words even in the
forgery which are used to describe oral sex in marriage.

Even in the forged copy of Alphonsus's book as we have read, it makes it clear
that oral sex is an occasion of sin, but then it directly denies that it is always
sinful to do such acts, even though the real St. Alphonsus himself in his real
work titled “Moral Theology” quotes Blessed Pope Innocent XI's condemnation
of remaining in an occasion of sin, thus making it very clear that the real
Alphonsus teaches that one may never commit acts which are occasions of sin,
and even the forgery have these quotes of Pope Innocent XI, thus showing us
how the forger stumbled over himself again:

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
place themselves in the occasion of sin 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 allow oneself to be in a situation where we
think that we may 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. So, it does not matter how
important something is, if we endanger our souls by it. We are obligated to
avoid it under the pain of mortal sin.
Many other writings from the real St. Alphonsus also confirms that it is totally
forbidden to remain in an occasion of sin, thus directly contradicting the forger's
words which taught that even though oral sex is an occasion of sin, spouses
could still perform such an evil and filthy act:

St. Alphonsus, On Avoiding the Occasion of Sin: “Now, no one can

receive absolution unless he purpose firmly to avoid the occasion of
sin; because to expose himself to such occasions, though sometimes he
should not fall into sin, is for him a grievous sin. And when the
occasion is voluntary and is actually existing at the present time, the
penitent cannot be absolved until he has actually removed the occasion of
sin. For penitents find it very difficult to remove the occasion; and if they
do not take it away before they receive absolution they will scarcely
remove it after they have been absolved.” (The complete ascetical works
of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, p. 543)

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)

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)

St. Alphonsus, On Avoiding the Occasions of Sin: “I will show today the
great danger of perdition to which they who do not avoid the occasions of
sin expose themselves. ...He, then, who wishes to save his soul, must not
only abandon sin, but also the occasions of sin: that is, he must renounce
such an intimacy, such a house; he must renounce those wicked
companions, and all similar occasions that incite him to sin. ...
Now, when a dangerous occasion is present, it violently excites our
corrupt desires, so that it is then very difficult to resist them: because
God withholds efficacious helps from those who voluntarily expose
 themselves to the occasion of sin. "He that loves danger shall perish in
it." (Ecclus. 3.27) "When," says St. Thomas, in his comment on this
passage, "we expose ourselves to danger, God abandons us in it." St.
Bernardine of Siena teaches that the counsel of avoiding the occasions of
sin is the best of all counsel, and as it were the foundation of religion. ...
Hence, being once compelled by exorcisms to tell the sermon
which displeased him most, the devil confessed that it was the sermon
on avoiding the occasions of sin. As long as we expose ourselves to the
occasions of sin, the devil laughs at all our good purposes and promises
made to God. The greatest care of the enemy is to induce us not to
avoid evil occasions; for these occasions, like a veil placed before the
eyes, prevent us from seeing either the lights received from God, or
the eternal truths, or the resolutions we have made: in a word, they
make us forget all, and as it were force us into sin. ...
St. Bernard teaches that to preserve chastity, and, at the same time, to
expose oneself to the proximate occasion of sin, "is a greater miracle
than to raise a dead man to life." In explaining the fifth Psalm, St.
Augustine says that "he who is unwilling to fly from danger, wishes to
perish in it." ...You must be persuaded that, in whatever regards
chastity, there cannot be too great caution. If we wish to save our
souls from sin and hell, we must always fear and tremble. "With fear
and trembling work out your salvation." (Phil. 2.12) He who is not
fearful, but exposes himself to occasions of sin, shall scarcely be
saved.” (Hell’s Widest Gate: Impurity, by St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons
(nn. 2-4) taken from Ascetical Works, Volume XVI: Sermons for all
Sundays in the Year (1882) pp. 152-173)

The forger who falsely claims that St. Alphonsus teaches that a person does not
have to confess if they believe their sin is no sin, is totally refuted by the fact
that the real Saint teaches that a person cannot be absolved unless he avoids not
only all sins, but also all occasion of sin.

Indeed, if Alphonsus taught that a person's own opinion of what is wrong or

right decided if one could get absolved or saved, he wouldn't have taught that
almost no one is saved: “In the Great Deluge in the days of Noah, nearly all
mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a
deluge, not of water but of sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this
deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved.” (Saint Alphonsus Liguori)
It is just not only that few are saved, which would be bad enough, but that
“Scarcely anyone is saved.”

It’s a sad fact of history that most people in the world are of bad will and don’t
want the truth. That’s why almost the whole world lies in darkness and on the
road to perdition. This has been the case since the beginning. It was the case
when only eight souls out of the world’s entire population (Noah and his
family) escaped God’s wrath in the deluge that covered the entire earth, and
when the Israelites rejected God’s law and fell into idolatry over and over again.

If we wish to be saved, we must seek to imitate the saints and the few who are
saved. “The saints are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved
with the few. O God, too few indeed they are; yet among those few I wish to
be!” (Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church) “The number of the saved
is as few as the number of grapes left after the vineyard-pickers have passed.”
(St. John Vianney, c. 1845)

There are so many ways to fail and be damned in this life, but only one to be
saved, and that is to be free from all mortal sin. St. Alphonsus (1755) adds that:
“The atmosphere of the world is noxious and pestilential. Whosoever breathes it
easily catches spiritual infection. Human respect, bad example, and evil
conversations are powerful incitements to earthly attachments and to
estrangement of the soul from God. Everyone knows that the damnation of
numberless souls is attributable to the occasions of sin so common in the
world.”

Again, Noonan quotes from the forged Moral Theology with teachings which
we have already seen the real St. Alphonsus deny where he condemns even
other procreative sexual acts than the missionary position, or the normal sexual
act without excusing it, and we have already read that Alphonsus condemns all
non-procreative sexual acts:
“According to some medieval authors, a wife had the duty to refuse
intercourse if her husband sought intercourse outside the vagina. ...With these
distinctions in mind, [the fake and forged] Liguori's treatment of the role of the
wife in coitus interruptus may be considered. Four alternatives were possible.
The wife's part in this kind of intercourse might have been viewed as a sin in its
own right, or formal cooperation in the sin of another, or material cooperation,
or no cooperation at all. The first two alternatives were not stated. A
"probable" opinion was that her act was not cooperation of any kind, "for
she does not cooperate in the semination outside the vessel, but only in the
beginning of the copulation, and that is entirely lawful for both."
If the wife, however, sought coitus, knowing from experience what her
husband would do, then she was giving material cooperation to an act which
she knew would lead to sin by her husband. From a charitable concern for his
salvation, she should not seek; this charitable duty, however, could give way to
a "just and grave reason" on her part. She might seek coitus if in danger of
incontinence. Suppose she were unsure if she was in such danger of
incontinence that she should occasion her husband's sin? If she suffered
"perpetual scruples" on this point, Liguori said, that in itself was a sufficiently
grave reason to justify her seeking intercourse. The "more probable" opinion
was also that the wife was bound to cooperate if her husband sought
intercourse, although she knew that he intended to practice coitus
interruptus (Moral Theology 6.947).
The benign toleration of Liguori was remarkable. It led him to say that
there was not even material cooperation in having intercourse when the
husband "wants to seminate outside the vessel after the beginning of
copulation." To most persons the wife's act would seem to have been a sine qua
non [an essential condition] of the husband's objective and therefore some form
of cooperation. Left unexplored and unmentioned was whether the rules on
material cooperation justified intercourse where the husband used a condom or
the wife used a douche or potion.
The difference between the old opinion so strenuously maintained by
authors such as Gerson, St. Bernardine, and Sylvester and the position taken...
by [fake] Liguori, was measurable. Can the difference be accounted for by
supposing that the older authorities meant only cooperation in anal or oral
intercourse? The language they used - "omission of the due vessel" - was broad
enough to cover coitus interruptus. There was a perceptible difference in
evaluation when Liguori expressly approved cooperation in the beginning of an
act of intercourse in which ejaculation would occur outside the vagina. …
Change, then, had occurred. ...Liguori's opinion represented a new
latitude allowed a woman whose husband was bent on contraception [the fact
that anyone can delude himself that the Church changed her opinion on the
sinfulness of contraception after about 1800 years is mindboggling.]. ...In the
process of beatification in 1800, his works were examined, and the examining
commission of Roman ecclesiastics pronounced them "free from error." He was
beatified in 1816.
In 1831, at the instigation of Gousset, then vicar-general of Cardinal
Rohan, the Penitentiary was asked, Might confessors be "undisturbed" who,
when in doubt, followed Liguori's opinions, "not weighing the elements and
reasons on which his various opinions depend?" The Penitentiary answered
affirmatively. This extraordinary statement did not entirely substitute Liguori
for reason or the Gospels: the confessor had to be "in doubt" before Liguori
could be invoked as an absolute guide. The answer, moreover, dealt only with
practice. But for practice here was a decisive official commitment to the use of
his teaching. He was canonized by Gregory XVI in 1839 and declared a doctor
of the Church by Pius IX in 1871. ...
In regard to "chaste touchings" between married persons, with risk of
ejaculation, Liguori follows [fake] Sanchez and says that such acts are lawful
provided there is "urgent need for showing signs of affection to foster mutual
love" (ibid. 6.934).” (John T. Noonan Jr., Contraception: A History of Its
Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists Enlarged Edition)

Another proof that the Church did not have the forged versions of St.
Alphonsus's books is also seen on the issue of contraception. In refutation of the
forgery concerning Onanism, during the pontificate of Pius IX (1792-1878), at
least five decisions were made by the Holy See with regard to contraception in
one or another form. The following was made by the Holy Office and approved
by the Pope. It touches on one type of contraception, but in doing so clarifies
two important elements: that Onanism is against the Natural Law, and that
confessors have a duty to inquire about this practice if they have a good reason
to suppose that it is being done.

Pope Pius IX also totally condemns the forgery which allows for Onanism and
contraception, thus showing us once again that the Church did not have these
forged documents in Her hands when She judged Alphonsus's books free from a
single error. Pope Pius IX also condemned all onanism in marriage as a mortal
sin against the Natural Law, contrary to what we will see the forger teaching:
On the heretical objection, “It is permissible for spouses to use marriage
the way Onan did, if their motives are worthy.” Pope Pius IX answered that,
“The first proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural right
of matrimony.”
On the heresy that “It is probable that such use of marriage is not
forbidden by the natural law.”, the Pope answered that, “The second proposition
is scandalous, erroneous, and elsewhere implicitly condemned by [Pope]
Innocent XI: “Voluptuousness is not prohibited by the law of nature. Therefore
if God had not forbidden it, it would be good, and sometimes obligatory under
pain of mortal sin” [Condemned Statement by Innocent XI] (March 4, 1679).
On the third heresy, “It is never proper to ask married people of either sex
about this matter, even though it is prudently feared that the spouses, whether
the wife or the husband abuse matrimony.” Pius IX answered that, “The third
proposition, as it stands, is false, very lax, and dangerous in practice.”, thus
making clear that not only is onanism contrary to the Natural Law, but that it is
a mortal sin against the Natural Law since it must be confessed, and no venial
sin has to be confessed. (Decisiones S. Sedis de Usu et Abusu Matrimonii,
Rome, 1944, pp. 19-20; May 21, 1851).

This shows us that onanism is against the natural law, and that confessors have
a duty to inquire about contraception if they have good reason to suppose that it
is being used. Many heretics, and the forger, during this time taught that if a
confessor thought that a person did commit a sin, but that they would not likely
give it up if they were taught that it was a sin, then they could avoid teaching
them that contraception was a sin. But the Church has always taught that
confessors are bound to see to it that their penitents must confess all sins or
heresies.

Contrary to this forgery, as we have seen, the fact is that the real Alphonsus
even teaches that the normal procreative sexual act must be excused: “St.
Alphonsus and his followers at the end of the seventeen hundreds and the first
half of the eighteen hundreds still insisted on the necessity of a virtual intention
of an end other than pleasure for complete lawfulness in the use of marriage.”
(Sheridan, The morality of the pleasure motive in the use of marriage, Rome,
Gregorian University Press, 1947, p. 53)” (Contemporary Moral Theology,
Volume 2, Marriage Questions, John C. Ford S.J., Gerald Kelly S.J.)

The forgery boldly teaches that Alphonsus allows contraception, but the real
Alphonsus totally condemns such acts with the whole Church: “Saint Albert,
Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Saint Charles Borromeo, and various clergy
throughout Church history taught about the sinfulness of contraception (Ford &
Grisez, 1978).” (Catholic Social Ethics, Stephen M. Scrimenti, Xulon Press,
2005)

The real Alphonsus totally demolish and refute all contraception: “The purpose
of marriage was invoked later in the century by Henry Busenbaum, and his text
was adopted verbatim by St. Alphonsus: any prevention of offspring by the
married was "against the principal end of marriage" (Moral Theology 6.954).”
(Noonan, Contraception)

Over and over again we will see how the Church condemns all contraception,
thus proving that the Church could not have had the real Alphonsus's books in
Her hands when she judged that he had not a single error in all his books.

We have already seen that the real St. Alphonsus quotes this teaching by Pope
Innocent XI in his book Moral Theology which condemns all non-procreative
sexual acts, and even the forgery has this quote.
Blessed Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #9, March 4,
1679: “THE ACT OF MARRIAGE EXERCISED FOR PLEASURE
ONLY IS ENTIRELY FREE OF ALL FAULT AND VENIAL DEFECT.”
 – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI. (Denz. 1159)

Since the Church and the Natural Law condemns even the normal, natural, and
procreative “act of marriage exercised for pleasure only” even though this
act is directly procreative in itself, it is obvious that all non-procreative and
unnecessary forms of sexual acts (such as sensual kisses and touches) are
condemned as even worse sins (that is, as mortal sins) since they are utterly
unnatural, unreasonable, shameful, and selfish.

This obvious fact is also why it is patently absurd and illogical for anyone who
agree with the Church’s condemnation of the normal, natural and procreative
“act of marriage exercised for pleasure only” even though this act is directly
procreative in itself, to then turn around and say that the Church and the Saints
allows spouses to perform unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts, such as
sensual kisses and touches! Even though many heretics readily admit that the
Church condemns even the procreative “act of marriage exercised for
pleasure only” they impiously assert that the Church allows non-procreative
sexual acts! How is this position anything other than pure madness? The
Natural Law and reason itself tells us that if the Church condemns even a
procreative sexual act for pleasure only, it must even more condemn and reject
a non-procreative sexual act, such as foreplay and sensual kisses and touches.

In truth, it is a marvel how anyone who accept such a contradictory, illogical

and absurd position as described above is even able to justify such a stupid
position in his own conscience, but free will being what it is, we can only pray
that those who have fallen into this false and unreasonable position see their
error, and convert. Again, since the Church and Her Saints teach that even the
normal, natural and procreative sexual act is sinful for the married unless it is
excused with the motive of procreation, and that this fact is true even though
this act is totally able to procreate in itself, how much more obvious does it
have to get for a person to realize that all non-procreative or unnecessary
sexual acts, such as kisses and touches for venereal pleasure, are even more
sinful for the married?

In addition, the Catholic Church infallibly condemns all contraception in

marriage as an inexcusable sin against the Natural Law. Casti Connubii is an
encyclical addressed to the entire Church. In this encyclical, Pope Pius XI
plainly states what the Faith of the Church is on Christian Marriage. When a
Pope plainly and authoritatively states what the Faith of the Church is in an
encyclical to the entire Church, that represents the teaching of the Ordinary
and Universal Magisterium, to which a Catholic is bound. His teaching
shows that all forms of birth prevention and non-procreative and
unnecessary sexual acts are evil, sinful, and contrary the Natural Law. (We
quote a long excerpt from his encyclical which sums up the issue below.) In
addition, there is solemn language used by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii
which constitutes a solemn and infallible (ex cathedra) pronouncement.
Note the bolded and underlined portions.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930: “And now,
Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of
the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring,
which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of
matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married
people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in
matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.
Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of
children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden.
Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the
other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the
part of the mother or on the part of the family circumstances.
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which
anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to
nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined
primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in
exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin
against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically
vicious.
“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine
Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times
has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even
with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the
conception of offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this
and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).’
“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted
Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to
declare another doctrine regarding this question, THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH, TO WHOM GOD HAS ENTRUSTED THE DEFENSE
OF THE INTEGRITY AND PURITY OF MORALS, standing erect in
the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she
may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by
this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship
and through Our mouth proclaims anew: ANY USE WHATSOEVER
 OF MATRIMONY EXERCISED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE ACT
IS DELIBERATELY FRUSTRATED IN ITS NATURAL POWER TO
GENERATE LIFE IS AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAW OF GOD
AND OF NATURE, AND THOSE WHO INDULGE IN SUCH ARE
BRANDED WITH THE GUILT OF A GRAVE SIN.”

These sentences fulfill the conditions of an infallible teaching regarding a

doctrine of morals. The Pope is addressing the Universal Church, “the Catholic
Church.” He makes it clear he is proclaiming a truth, “Our mouth proclaims.”
The topic deals with morals, “the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted
the defense of the integrity and the purity of morals.” And lastly, he binds
Catholics to this teaching under pain of grave sin, “those who indulge in such
are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” This is infallible, ex cathedra
language; anyone who denies this simply doesn’t know what he is talking
about. This also serves to refute those many voices today who say things such
as: “there have only been two infallible statements in Church history, the
Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.” That is complete nonsense, of
course, but one hears it quite frequently.

One can see that Pope Pius XI condemns all forms of contraception as mortally
sinful because they frustrate the marriage act. Does this condemn NFP? Yes it
does, but the defenders of Natural Family Planning say “no.” They argue that in
using Natural Family Planning to avoid conception they are not deliberately
frustrating the marriage act or designedly depriving it of its natural power to
procreate life, as is done with artificial contraceptives. They argue that NFP is
“natural.”

Common sense should tell those who deeply consider this topic that these
arguments are specious because NFP has as its entire purpose the avoidance of
conception. However, the attempted justification for NFP – the claim that it
doesn’t interfere with the marriage act itself and is therefore permissible – must
be specifically refuted. This claim is specifically refuted by a careful look at the
teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage and ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE. It
is the teaching of the Catholic Church on the primary purpose of marriage (and
the marriage act) which condemns NFP.

Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the
conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end
of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
 Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore,
the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of
children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural
powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is
shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Besides this primary purpose, there are also secondary purposes for marriage,
such as mutual aid, the quieting of concupiscence and the cultivating of mutual
love. But these secondary purposes must always remain subordinate to the
primary purpose of marriage (the procreation and education of children).
This is the key point to remember in the discussion on NFP.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as
well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends,
such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of
concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO
LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END
[THAT IS, PROCREATION OF CHILDREN] and so long as the
intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act
itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned
because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the
marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary
ends.

NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately

attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having
marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It
does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be
done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend
NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the
marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference
if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart
the primary PURPOSE of marriage.

Numerous other Popes can also be quoted to support this truth.

Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604): “The married must be
admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the
purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to
immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to
 the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then
pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights.
Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer what they
befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure.”
(Pastoral Care, Part 3, Chapter 27)

Pope St. Peter quoted by Pope St. Clement of Rome (1st century A.D.):
“But this kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual
intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere
pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. And since this
observance is found even amongst some of the lower animals, it were a
shame if it be not observed by men, reasonable, and worshiping God.”
(Recognitions of Clement, Chapter XII, Importance of Chastity)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great's book, Morals on Job, also confirms that the
sexual act must be excused with the motive of procreation in marriage, teaching
that: “Spouses are without blame in having intercourse only when they come
together not for the fulfilling of lust but for receiving offspring.”

And so important is it that spouses desire to beget children, that Pope Gregory
IX (1145-1241) teaches that a marriage is invalid if spouses intend to “prevent
the conception of children” before they marry: “As much as the contract of
marriage is favored, it lacks effect if conditions are stipulated against the
substance of marriage. For example, if one says to the other, “I contract with
you if you will prevent the conception of children,” or, “until I find another
woman more worthy in honor or riches,” or, “if you will sell yourself in
adultery for money.”” (Gratian, Marriage Canons From The Decretum, Case
Thirty-Two, Question IV, Conditions Set in Betrothals or Other Contracts)

Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447 A.D.) also decreed in The Council Of Florence

that the primary purpose of marriage is begetting and educating children:
“Moreover, there is allotted a threefold good on the part of matrimony. The first
is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The
second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is
the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ
and the church.” (Decree for the Armenians, From the Bull "Exultate Deo,"
Nov. 22, 1439)

In the late sixteenth century, Pope Sixtus V (1521-1590) passed a series of laws
to curb the immorality of his day. Among these laws was one that
simultaneously covered abortion and contraception. There is nothing new about
the legislation, except the added solemnity of it being passed by direct order of
the pope. Abortion and contraception are equally called crimes.

Pope Sixtus V, Bull Effranatum, Oct. 27, 1588: “Who does not abhor the
lustful cruelty or cruel lust of impious men, a lust which goes so far that
they procure poisons to extinguish and destroy the conceived fetus within
the womb, even attempting by a wicked crime to destroy their own
offspring before it lives, or, if it lives, to kill it before it is born?”

Pope Sixtus V: “Who, finally, would not condemn with the most severe
punishments the crimes of those who by poisons, potions and evil drugs
induce sterility in women, so that they might not conceive or, by means
of evil-working medication, that they might not give birth?” (Quoted in
Bullarium Romanum, Vol. 1)

There is only one primary motive of marriage and the marital act according to
the Papal Magisterium of the Church, and that is procreation of children, and
that is why all other motives for the marital act are secondary and unnecessary:
"No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor
in any way limit the CHIEF AND PRINCIPAL PURPOSE of marriage
ordained by God's authority from the beginning: 'Increase and multiply.'"
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Rerum Novarum, 1891 A.D.)

The Bible also infallibly condemns all contraception. The best example of
God’s utter hatred and detestation of all those who perform the marital act while
trying to thwart the procreation of the children that God wanted to bless them
with, is found in The Book of Genesis, where God Himself directly killed a man
named Onan for practicing contraception. The reason Onan in The Book of
Genesis was killed was because “He knowing that the children should not be
his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest
children should be born in his brother’s name.”

Notice how clearly the biblical text shows that the reason he did this “detestable
thing” was “lest children should be born in his brother’s name”, thus showing
us that the act of performing the marital act while taking steps to hinder
procreation is hated by God. This absolutely proves that the act of trying to
hinder conception (in action or thought) is condemned and sinful according to
God’s Holy Law.

Genesis 38:8-10 “Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: ‘Go in to thy
brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.’
 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his
brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be
born in his brother’s name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because
he did a detestable thing.”

What deed was Onan killed for by God? Obviously, he was killed for the
wicked and selfish deed of having sexual relations while practicing
contraception; and for being against conception; for, “As St. Augustine
notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked
where the conception of offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did
this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).’” (Pope Pius XI, Casti
Connubii # 55; St. Augustine, De Conjugiis Adulterinis, Book II, Chapter 12)

Since Onan wanted to selfishly and lustfully enjoy the sex act without intending
having children as God’s holy law requires, the evil angel Asmodeus that kills
lustful and wicked people, was permitted by God to slay him (cf. Tobias 3:8).
Haydock commentary explains: “[Genesis 38] Ver. 10. Slew him, perhaps by the
hand of evil angels, Psalm lxxvii. 49. Asmodeus, etc., who slew the libidinous
husbands of Sara. (Tobias iii. 7[8].) (Menochius)”

Interestingly, another son of Judah was also killed by God for the exact same
sin according to the Jews: “And Her, the first born of Juda, was wicked in the
sight of the Lord: and was slain by him.” (Genesis 38:7) Not only Onan was
killed for performing contraceptive acts according to the Jews, but the first son
of Judah, named Her, was punished by God for performing contraceptive acts,
thus showing us that such unnatural acts deserve the death penalty.

Haydock Bible Commentary explains: “Verse 7. Wicked; without shame or

remorse, sinning against nature, in order, if we may believe the Jews, that the
beauty of his wife might not be impaired by having children. Onan was actuated
by envy. (Menochius)”

So Her, the first born of Judah, used contraception for the motive that his wife
would not be less beautiful according to the Jews, but Onan used contraception
for the motive of envy, and yet, God killed both since the external act of
contraception is a sin against the Natural Law which deserves the death penalty.

So the forger says that a woman should cooperate with a husband who want to
commit a crime which is so evil that God killed a person, yet anyone with sense
can see that a wife becomes an occasion of sin, and helps in his sin.

In addition to this irrefutable biblical example from The Book of Genesis that
shows that contraceptive marital sexual acts are hated by God, we read in the
biblical Book of Tobias or Tobit (which not surprisingly is missing from most
protestant “bible” versions, whereas in the few versions they are included, these
verses shown below are nevertheless missing) that the holy youth Tobias was
explicitly commanded by almighty God through the Archangel Raphael to
never perform the marital act for the sake of lust and that “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 who was a holy and virtuous person consented to this admonishment by
the holy angel and answered God in his prayer that “not for fleshly lust do I
take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity”.

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.”

This makes it perfectly clear that spouses must approach the marital sexual act
with a will to beget children “moved rather for love of children than for lust” as
well as with a “fear of the Lord” so that they do not allow their lust to erupt or
gain a control over their minds by acts of non-procreative, unlawful or
excessive sexual acts, such as sensual kisses between two married spouses
performed “for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from
the kiss” which is condemned as a mortal sin for both the married and the
unmarried people alike (Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Morals
Condemned in Decree #40, September 24, 1665; Denz. 1140).

According to the Church's teaching, spouses are only allowed to perform the
normal, natural, and procreative sexual act, and all unnecessary and non-
procreative forms of sexual acts, such as sensual kisses and touches, either
before, during, or after the normal procreative sexual act, are mortally sinful
and unnatural since they are intoxicating, shameful, and selfish.

The holy youth Tobias approached his bride Sara after three days of prayer in
chastity and abstinence from the marital act, not for fleshly lust but only for the
love of posterity, having been instructed by the Archangel Raphael that to
engage in the marital act he shall “be moved rather for love of children than for
lust”.
According to God’s will, spouses are to engage in the marital act for the “love
of posterity” (children), not for lust. No, contrary to what most people today
say, the Holy Bible is clear that spouses are to come together “only for the love
of posterity” if they want to please Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Holy Word of
God in the Bible is indeed true when it says that “the devil has power” over all
spouses who selfishly only come together for the purpose of gratifying their
fleshly pleasures, giving “themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule,
which have not understanding” instead of being “moved rather for love of
children than for lust” when they perform the marital act that Our Lord
commands.

Tobias 6:16-17 “Then the angel Raphael said to him [Tobias]: Hear me,
and I will show thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For
they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from
themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust,
as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the
devil hath power.”

Haydock Commentary adds about: “Verse 17. Mule, which are very libidinous,
[Showing excessive sexual drive; lustful.] Psalm xiii.”

The interesting thing about the sexual connection of a horse and a mule is that
they cannot produce offspring, thus making their sexual relations completely
sterile and unproductive. So what does this mean for marriage? It means that
this verse alone proves that God’s Holy Word in the Bible condemns as sinful
and unlawful all human sexual relations or acts that (1) are performed for the
sole sake of lust; (2) that cannot produce offspring naturally (not referring to
natural infertility or defects); and (3) that are done with an intention or mindset
opposed to procreating offspring.

St. Paul in the New Testament also connects the will to bear children to
salvation, teaching that a woman: “shall be saved through child-bearing; if she
continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” (1 Timothy 2:15)
St. Paul makes clear in the Holy Scripture that those who do not intend to live a
live of virginity or chastity, should marry in order to “bear children”: “I will,
therefore, that the younger should marry, bear children, be mistresses of
families, give no occasion to the adversary to speak evil.” (1 Timothy 5:14)
God's Word is very clear that marriage includes a will to beget children by the
spouses.

Furthermore, the Holy Fathers of the Church all agree with the Holy Scriptures
and the Magisterium of the Church that every marital sexual act must be
excused by the motive of procreation before spouses can lawfully perform the
act, thus making this doctrine infallible since the “unanimous consent of the
Fathers” in a doctrinal matter is the official teaching of the Church.

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “To have coitus other than to
procreate children is to do injury to nature.” (The Paedagogus or The
Instructor, Book II, Chapter X.--On the Procreation and Education of
Children)

St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 468-542 A.D.): “AS OFTEN AS HE KNOWS

HIS WIFE WITHOUT A DESIRE FOR CHILDREN...WITHOUT A
DOUBT HE COMMITS SIN.” (W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of The Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 2233)

St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, A.D. 419: “It is one

thing not to lie [with one’s wife] except with the sole will of generating
[children]: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of the flesh
in lying, although within the limits of marriage: this has venial fault [that
is, venial sin as long as one is not against procreation].” (Book I, Chapter
17.--What is Sinless in the Use of Matrimony? What is Attended With
Venial Sin, and What with Mortal?)

St. Jerome, Against Jovinian, A.D. 393: “But I wonder why he [the
heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless
perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain
because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve
of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? …
He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer [of his God
and of his wife].” (Book 1, Section 20; 40)

Many more quotes can be read in Part 1 of this book.

Contrary to the forger, as we will see, the Church condemns cooperating with a
spouse who intends to not beget children or to perform the act of Onanism.

In truth, so much must even the normal sexual act be procreative both
externally and internally in the mind, that a practice called copula dimidiata is
forbidden by the Church, which means that spouses perform the normal
procreative missionary position, but with the man avoiding to push in his penis
fully in order to avoid conception. If even the normal procreative act is
condemned in this case, how much more must non-procreative sexual acts, such
as sensual kisses and touches, be utterly condemned.

And we have also already seen that the real St. Alphonsus condemns as a mortal
sin amplexus reservatus in marriage, which is the normal sexual act but without
ejaculation, and if even the normal procreative sexual act from the external
viewpoint is condemned by him, it is obvious that he condemns much more all
non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts:
“By copula dimidiata is meant partial penetration of the vagina with
insemination. In 1921, the bishop of Haarlem, acting for the Dutch hierarchy,
informed the Holy Office that some confessors were recommending use of this
form of coitus as a lawful substitute for contraception and a way which would
substantially diminish the probability of conception. Some of the clergy and
laity, including doctors, had been scandalized by this advice. The bishop asked
if the method could be taught "promiscuously" to all penitents, and if a
confessor should be rebuked for recommending the method to one he had
vainly tried to turn from contraception. On November 23, 1922, the Holy Office
answered the first question negatively and the second affirmatively. (Decisiones
Sanctae Sedis, pp. 40-41)” (John T. Noonan Jr., Contraception: A History of Its
Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists Enlarged Edition)

Pope Pius XII, on Onanistic uses of matrimony, Decree of the Holy Office, 2
April 1955, not only condemns the use of contraceptive devices by a spouse,
but also spouses who cooperate with their spouse in having marital relations
with such a sinful spouse:
“The Sacred Congregation particularly raises its voice utterly to condemn
and reject as intrinsically evil the application of pessaries (sterilet, diaphragm)
by married couples in the exercise of their marital rights. Furthermore,
Ordinaries shall not permit the faithful to be told or taught that no serious
objection may be made according to the principles of Christian law, if a
husband cooperates materially only with his wife who uses such a device.
Confessors and spiritual directors who hold the contrary and thus guide the
consciences of the faithful are straying far from the paths of truth and moral
righteousness.” (Denzinger 3917a)

Question: Can a faithful Catholic have sex with a Spouse who is using
Contraception?
B
R
O
Y
Answer:
N Formal cooperation occurs when the act of the other person is
intrinsically evil, and the cooperating act is ordered, by the nature of the act, to
C
O
N
T
E
assist in attaining the evil end of that intrinsically evil act. This makes the
cooperating act also intrinsically evil. Therefore, formal cooperation is always
morally illicit.

Examples

A husband knows that his wife is using abortifacient contraception. He cannot

have marital relations with her, in that case, because his act of having relations
with her is directly related to the very nature of her sin. She cannot accomplish
the sins of contraception and abortion without his cooperation. Moreover, in the
circumstances of the act, he can stop a prenatal from being killed in the womb
by the abortifacient, by merely refraining from sex. The loss of human life far
outweighs the loss of sexual relations, so the circumstances also requires him to
refrain.

A similar analysis applies if the husband wishes to use a condom, and the wife
must decide whether it is moral to have marital relations that is contracepted by
that device. The use of condoms is intrinsically evil, as it is a type of
contraception. Her cooperation is directly related to that use, since without
sexual relations the contraceptive act cannot occur, and it is the very act of sex
which she is deciding upon that is harmed by the contraception. So she cannot
morally have sex with her husband, if he is using a condom.

Denzinger 3638-40 also has a response of the Holy See on artificial

contraception:
“Questions: 1. Is a wife, when her husband wishes to practice onanism by
means of an (artificial) instrument, required to exercise positive resistance?
[Yes]
“2. If the answer is negative, could the woman honestly exercise passive
resistance for reasons equally serious as those that pertain to natural onanism
(without an artificial instrument), or, rather, are the most grave reasons
absolutely necessary? [the answer is positive and she is required to exercise
positive resistance]
“3. So that this entire matter might be developed and taught in a more
certain way, must a man, using such instruments, truly be regarded as
equivalent to an aggressor toward whom the wife must offer the same resistance
as a virgin would toward a rapist?
“Response: to 1. Yes. — To 2. Provided for in the first. — To 3. Yes.”
Note that the word “honestly” above is better translated from the Latin as
“justly”, “uprightly”, “properly”, or “reasonably”.

Natural onanism is contraception by natural means, i.e. withdrawal. Artificial

onanism is contraception by artificial means, such as a condom, a female barrier
method, an IUD, or chemical contraceptives. The artificial version of the sin is
worse, since it is further from the moral natural act, although both are mortal
sins. Also, any contraceptive method which is also an abortifacient is much
more gravely immoral, as innocent human life is lost.

We can apply the above teaching of the Holy See to other sins. The crime of
Onan is not only contraception, but also, by extension, masturbation. And so,
masturbation with an instrument (sex toys) is more gravely evil and sinful than
a normal contraceptive act; though both are mortal sins. Now the Sacrament of
holy Matrimony was not established by Christ in order to justify gravely
immoral sexual acts. Contraception does not become moral when done within
marriage. Neither does any intrinsically evil sexual sin become moral within
marriage.
So the crime of Onan as masturbation does not become moral when done by
one spouse on the other. And such a crime is worse when performed using an
artificial instrument, just as contraception is worse using an artificial
instrument. Onan’s sin is sometimes used to refer to contraception, or to
unnatural sexual acts between man and woman, or to masturbation, since all
these acts are “intrinsically sterile forms of genital activity”. If you look up
“Onanism” in Denzinger’s index, it says “See Contraception; Masturbation”.
So the term “onanism”, in the Denzinger quote above, refers to an unnatural
sexual act committed on a wife, by her husband, by means of an instrument (i.e.
a sex toy, such as a vibrator or phallic device). This can be considered a type of
masturbation, specifically, but in any case it is an unnatural sexual act — an
intrinsically non-procreative form of sexual activity. The answer given by the
Sacred Penitentiary, across three questions on this subject, is that the act is
gravely immoral, and the wife must offer active resistance, not merely passive
resistance. The answer to the third question reveals that this act is morally
equivalent to an aggressor who is attempting to rape a virgin.

However the question itself does not concern rape, but whether the wife may
consent to this act. She cannot morally consent. The act is so gravely immoral
that she must offer active resistance. And this implies that a wife cannot use
such an instrument on herself, nor on her husband. All such sexual acts are
gravely immoral. They are unnatural sexual acts, because they are non-
procreative. Notice that this act is so gravely immoral that it is compared to the
rape of a virgin. Certainly, then, the act does not become moral by being done
in the context of the natural marital act. And it does not become moral if climax
is lacking, just as rape does not become moral if climax is lacking.

Another passage of Denzinger 2795, quoting a decision of the Holy See, also
discusses contraception:
“Questions: 1. Is the imperfect use of marriage licit, whether it happens
by onanism or ‘condomistically’ (that is, by using the abominable instrument
commonly called ‘the condom’)?
“2. Can the wife, aware of such ‘condomistic’ union, yield herself
passively?
“Response: (decree of April 6, published April 19, 1853): To 1. No,
indeed, it is intrinsically evil. To 2. No, she would indeed be engaging in an act
that is intrinsically illicit.”

Since the act of the husband is intrinsically evil from its beginning, the wife
cannot cooperate or she sins gravely. The same analysis applies to the crime of
the Sodomites: the act is intrinsically evil from its beginning, and therefore it
cannot be used as a type of foreplay. The husband may not have marital
relations with his wife, if she is using any form of contraception or
abortifacients. And the wife may not have marital relations with her husband, if
he is using condoms or any other form of contraception. (For we know that
male chemical contraceptives are under development.)

The fact that the Church and Her theologians have always taught that
contraceptive acts are contrary to the Natural Law is very clear, just as Pope
Pius XI teaches.

Noonan also quotes many good sources which condemns contraception:

“The Thomistic analysis takes the biological function of the sexual act as
given by God and unalterable by man. ...In his early commentary on the
Sentences, he uses some very broad language: "The end, however, which nature
intends in copulation is offspring to be procreated and educated... Whoever,
therefore, uses copulation for the delight which is in it, not referring the
intention to the end intended by nature, acts against nature; and this is also true
unless such copulation is had as can be appropriately ordered to that end" (On
the Sentences 4.33.1.3).
These words... are comprehensive enough to suggest that lack of
procreative intention is itself a sin against nature. ...Thus, in Evil, [De Malo]
Thomas showed that every act of lechery [sexual excess] was mortally sinful
because each such act lacked direction to the generation and education of
offspring. ...An act in which generation could not follow "according to the
common species of the act" was lechery and sin. This kind of act was
distinguished from an act affected by a particular circumstance, such as "old
age or infirmity." ...
THE NECESSITY OF CONSCIOUS PROCREATIVE PURPOSE
Explicit criticism of marital acts in which insemination was impossible
was normally made in terms of the unnaturalness of the acts. Explicit criticism
of the use of the poisons of sterility was usually made in terms of homicide.
Both types of behavior were also destructive of marriage as viewed by the
prevailing Augustinian theology. Some authors explicitly developed this theme,
which in the twelfth century had been that of Aliquando and of the formal,
juridical glosses of Huguccio and Rufinus on Aliquando. In a work of
Alexander of Hales' middle years, written between 1227 and 1229, he stated,
"Deliberate avoidance of offspring is evil and per se opposed to the good of
marriage" (Gloss on the Sentences 4.31.12).
It has already been remarked that [Saint] Albert [the Great] condemned
use of the poisons of sterility as a sin "against marriage." In his first treatment
of unnatural marital acts, [Saint] Thomas speaks of a "usus contra naturam
conjugis" (On the Sentences 4.31.2.3, "Exposition of Text"). This phrase might
be translated "a use against the nature of a spouse." More probably it means "a
use of a spouse against nature," for he is commenting on Peter's phrase "a use
which is against nature." This interpretation would also accord with his later
work where there is no attempt to analyze such acts otherwise than as sins
against nature. ...
Pure Augustinian doctrine stated that only a procreative purpose freed
marital intercourse from sin. Intercourse [only] to avoid committing fornication
was venial sin. This position, established in the twelfth century with only a few
dissents, was reaffirmed by the classical canonists and theologians of the
thirteenth century. The most influential of all, St. Thomas, took this stand in his
work on the Sentences (4.31.2.2, reply to obj. 2). ...The same position was taken
in the confessors' manual of greatest influence in the next two centuries,
Raymond's Summa for Confessors (4.2.8). The Augustinian doctrine was also
adopted by Hostiensis, the preeminent commentator on the Decretals. It was
subscribed to by the leading Franciscans, Bonaventure and Scotus. (Hostiensis,
Summa 4.2.8; St. Bonaventure, In libros Sententiarum 4.31.2.2; Duns Scotus, In
libros Sententiarum 4.26)
It was propagated by the summists Monaldus and Astesanus, and by such
commentators on Lombard as Francis Mayron (d. 1326). (Monaldus, Summa,
fo1. 136r; Astesanus, Summa 8.g: Francis Mayron, In quattuor libros
Sententiarum 4.26) It was repeated in conventional manuals for confessors of
the fifteenth century (Trovamala, Summa, "Debt," 3; Angelus, Summa,
"Conjugal Debt"). In the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries it was the
common teaching.
A special case of nonprocreative purpose was intercourse in pregnancy. Such
intercourse was deplored with particular zeal. In "The Monk's Tale" Chaucer
finds it appropriate for the monk to say that the virtuous Cenobia would not let
her husband, Odenake, have intercourse with her once she was pregnant. She
says, "It was to wyves lecherie and shame / In oother caas, if that men with hem
pleyde" (Canterbury Tales, "The Monk's Tale," lines 2293-2294). In the
thirteenth century, Peraldus cited the elephant as an example of a beast which
never had intercourse in pregnancy (Summa 1.6, "Temperance," 18), and as late
as the fifteenth century [Saint] Bernardine pointed to the modesty of animals as
a reason for avoiding intercourse in pregnancy altogether (Seraphic Sermons
19.1) . (Intercourse in pregnancy was also sinful for a reason other than the
violation of procreative purpose; see below, p. 284) ...
The prohibition of intercourse in pregnancy... in the thirteenth century the
principal reason for overriding the right to intercourse becomes the danger to
the existing fetus [and scientific studies also show that with sex during
pregnancy there is a risk for the child in the womb as we prove in Part 2 of this
book]. Hence, the case is another one in which the Pauline right to the debt was
subordinated to the welfare of existing offspring. The case is also instructive
because almost all medieval theologians treat the act as a mortal sin....
The development begins from the point where the prohibition of
intercourse in pregnancy is formulated in Gratian (Decretum 2.32.4.5) and
Lombard (Sentences 4.31.5). Here, the general rule is stated in the language of
Seneca, quoted above, p. 47, attributed by Gratian and Lombard to Jerome. This
language combines an emphasis on procreative purpose with an implication of
risk to the embryo. What happens in the thirteenth century is a shift of emphasis
from procreative purpose to the risk to the child. Points of the development may
be summarized as follows. In 1220-1230, St. Raymond simply cited the rule in
Gratian and held coitus in pregnancy to be mortal sin (Summa 4.2.8). In 1240,
Alexander of Hales taught that it was mortal sin "if there is a strong
presumption of danger to the embryo" (Summa theologica 22.3.5.2.1.3.2, ad 8).
About 1248, St. Albert... cited Avicenna as teaching that the danger of
abortion by coitus was based on the possibility that delight might make the
matrix open and the embryo fall out (On the Sentences 4.31.22). The danger,
Albert said, was particularly acute in the first four months of pregnancy. ...St.
Thomas returned to the usual position that mortal sin was involved, but clearly
had learned from Albert. ... (On the Sentences 4.31.2.3, "Exposition of text").
After Aquinas, this formula is general; there is mortal sin "if" there is or "by
reason of” danger of abortion: Peter de Palude, On the Sentences 4.31.3; John
Gerson, Sermon on Lechery, in Opera, III, 916; Bernardine, Seraphic Sermons
19.1, noting that some say the danger may be at the beginning and the end of
pregnancy; St. Antoninus, Summa 3.1.20.4; Angelus Carletus de Clavasio,
Summa, at "Debitum conjugale," 32. ...
The barriers against contraception by the requirements as to purpose were
made still higher by the doctrine on marital intercourse with pleasure as its
object. Here the categorizations ranged between venial and mortal sin. The
twelfth-century...[theologians] had held intercourse for [the sole reason of]
delight or pleasure or lust as mortal. But the doctrine did not end with...
[theologian] commentary on Gratian. It was adopted by the bible for confessors,
Raymond's Summa (4.2.8). It was perpetuated by Monaldus, following
Raymond (Summa, fol. 136r). It was not just an eccentricity of the canonists.
Chaucer found it appropriate doctrine to put in the mouth of his virtuous parish
pastor. It is mortal sin, the Parson says, "to assemble" not for children, return of
the debt, or avoidance of fornication, but "oonly for amorous love and for noon
of the foreseyde causes, but for to accomplice thilke brennynge delit, they rekke
nevere how ofte" ("The Parson's Tale," Remedium contra peccatum luxuriae,
line 942).
Into the fifteenth century, the view persists among... [theologians] on
sexual activity. [Saint] Bernardine of Siena in his preaching puts the question as
follows: Can a husband "use his wife only for delight [delectatio] or principally
for delight?" A husband will "often" say, "Why can't I take delight in my own
goods and my own wife?" But to this... complaint Bernardine answers, "She is
not yours, but God's." It is a sin impliedly a mortal sin - to have intercourse "too
frequently, with inordinate affection, or with dissipation of one's strength"
(Seraphic Sermons 19.3).
At the same time the predominance of the milder Augustinian view must
be recognized. It labeled the intention to seek [only] pleasure in [normal
procreative] intercourse as venial. It was held steadily by most of the major
theologians: Alexander of Hales, Summa of Theology 2-2.3.5.2.1.3.2; [Saint]
Thomas, On the Sentences 4.31.2.3; [Saint] Bonaventure, On the Sentences 4-
31.2.3; William of Rennes, Gloss on the Summa of Raymond 4-2.8; Astesanus,
Summa 8.g; Durand of St. Pourcain, On the Sentences 4.31.4; Peter de Palude,
On the Sentences 4.31.3; John Gerson, Compendium of Theology, "The seven
Capital Vices: The Sin of Lechery"; [Saint] Antoninus, Summa 3.1.20. [Since
these saints and theologians even condemn the normal procreative sexual act
unless it is excused by procreation, it is very clear that they condemn all non-
procreative sexual acts.] ...
For them, as for Jerome, the too ardent lover was an adulterer. In
Gratian's law book the... phrase had taken on added gravity and an almost
juridical force. The thirteenth-century theologians tried to give content to the
vague "too ardent." They held that, when this immoderation was exhibited,
mortal sin occurred. Two main standards were proposed. One was that
immoderate love was present when one preferred sexual union with one's wife
to union with God as one's last end; so taught Thomas, On the Sentences 4-
31.2.3; Bonaventure, On the Sentences 4.31.2.3; Gerson, Compendium of
Theology, "The Seven Capital Vices: The Sin of Lechery"; Bernardine, The
Christian Religion 18.1. ...
The other standard required a deliberate act of abstraction from actual
circumstances. "Would the husband have intercourse with his wife even if she
were not his wife?" If so, he was guilty of too ardent love. This... test... was set
out by William of Auxerre, Summa 4 (fol. 287v). It was adopted by Alexander
of Hales, Summa of Theology 2-2.3.5.2.1.3.2; Bonaventure, On the Sentences
4.31. 2.3; Astesanus, Summa 8.9; Durand of St. Pourcain, On the Sentences
4.31.4; Antoninus, Confessional, "Interrogatory" 3.1.
[Saint] Antoninus, though recommending the test to a confessor
interrogating a married penitent, added... "It is, however, difficult to discern and
recognize this." Indeed, if the test was to have any meaning, it fused with sins
of objective behavior where procreation was frustrated. In this sense, the sin of
too ardent love became "to use one's wife as a harlot," a definition ventured in
an early work of [Saint] Albert (The Sacraments 9.2.2, reply to obj. 2) and
adopted by [Saint] Thomas (On the Sentences 4.31.2.3). ...
Aliquando proclaimed that the users of contraceptives were adulterers. Si
aliquis condemned them as homicides. [Saint] Bernardine labeled spouses
frustrating insemination "the killers of their own children." In the ranking of
sins of lechery [sexual excess], the sin against nature was said by Adulterii
malum to be worse than incest. Gratian's ordering was maintained by the
standard works of theology.
In Thomas' Summa theologica, the sin against nature, including the sin in
marriage, is the greatest of sexual vices, being worse than fornication,
seduction... incest, or sacrilege (2-2.154.12). This abstract ordering of vices is
put concretely in preaching by Bernardine: "It is better for a wife to permit
herself to copulate with her own father in a natural way than with her husband
against nature" (The Christian Religion 17.1.1). "It is bad for a man to have
intercourse with his own mother, but it is much worse for him to have
intercourse with his wife against nature" (Seraphic Sermons 19.1).
This kind of ranking contributed to a social attitude; these descriptions
functioned as epithets as well as analyses. To the best of their linguistic ability,
the medieval scholastics sought to label contraception as an affront to decency,
life, and nature. The man who engaged in contraceptive behavior had not only
to ignore the spiritual consequences, but to defy the social ideals of his
community.” (John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by
the Catholic Theologians and Canonists Enlarged Edition)

God created marriage as the foundation of society, and all the married who
perform the marital act must therefore desire to beget children since this is the
primary reason of marriage and the marital act. "No one can fail to admire the
divine Wisdom, Holiness and Goodness which, while respecting the dignity and
happiness of husband and wife, has provided so bountifully for the conservation
and propagation of the human race by a single chaste and sacred fellowship of
nuptial union." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 1930)

Fourth, the fact is that there are clear historical evidence that in a large part of
St. Alphonsus' life people around him forged documents and then published
them in his name, and that this problem became so big that the Pope took away
from Alphonsus the control and rule of his own order since the Pope
erroneously believed that Alphonsus had manipulated his own writings as the
forgers falsely claimed that Alphonsus approved and wrote what they published.
There is no end to how many forged versions there are that can circulate out
there, so if one finds things which deny Church teaching or Alphonsus' own
teaching, we can know that forgers have been behind these falsehoods. And as
he was so sick a large part of his life, he could do nothing since all around him
betrayed him. Here are some interesting facts about one of the greatest saints
who ever have lived.

Catholic Encyclopedia's article about Alphonsus' life says that:

“The early years, following the founding of the new order, were not
promising. Dissensions arose, the Saint's former friend and chief companion,
Vincent Mannarini, opposing him and Falcoia in everything. On 1 April, 1733,
all the companions of Alphonsus except one lay brother, Vitus Curtius,
abandoned him, and founded the Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament,
which, confined to the Kingdom of Naples, was extinguished in 1860 by the
Italian Revolution. The dissensions even spread to the nuns, and Sister Maria
Celeste herself left Scala and founded a convent at Foggia, where she died in
the odour of sanctity, 14 September, 1755. She was declared Venerable 11
August, 1901.
Alphonsus, however, stood firm; soon other companions arrived, and
though Scala itself was given up by the Fathers in 1738, by 1746 the new
Congregation had four houses at Nocera de' Pagani, Ciorani, Iliceto (now
Deliceto), and Caposele, all in the Kingdom of Naples. In 1749, the Rule and
Institute of men were approved by Pope Benedict XIV, and in 1750, the Rule
and Institute of the nuns. ...
A final attempt to gain the royal approval, which seemed as if at last it
had been successful, led to the crowning sorrow of Alphonsus's life: the
division and apparent ruin of his Congregation and the displeasure of the Holy
See. This was in 1780, when Alphonsus was eighty-three years old. But, before
relating the episode of the "Regolamento", as it is called, we must speak of the
period of the Saint's episcopate which intervened. ...But in spite of his
infirmities both Clement XIII (1758-69) and Clement XIV (1769-74) obliged
Alphonsus to remain at his post. In February, 1775, however, Pius VI was
elected Pope, and the following May he permitted the Saint to resign his see.
Alphonsus returned to his little cell at Nocera in July, 1775, to prepare, as
he thought, for a speedy and happy death. Twelve years, however, still
separated him from his reward, years for the most part not of peace but of
greater afflictions than any which had yet befallen him. By 1777, the Saint, in
addition to four houses in Naples and one in Sicily, had four others at Scifelli,
Frosinone, St. Angelo a Cupolo, and Beneventum, in the States of the Church.
In case things became hopeless in Naples, he looked to these houses to maintain
the Rule and Institute. In 1780, a crisis arose in which they did this, yet in such
a way as to bring division in the Congregation and extreme suffering and
disgrace upon its founder.
The crisis arose in this way. From the year 1759 two former benefactors
of the Congregation, Baron Sarnelli and Francis Maffei, by one of those
changes not uncommon in Naples, had become its bitter enemies, and waged a
vendetta against it in the law courts which lasted for twenty-four years. Sarnelli
was almost openly supported by the all-powerful Tanucci, and the suppression
of the Congregation at last seemed a matter of days, when on 26 October, 1776,
Tanucci, who had offended Queen Maria Carolina, suddenly fell from power.
Under the government of the Marquis della Sambuca, who, though a
great regalist, was a personal friend of the Saint's, there was promise of better
times, and in August, 1779, Alphonsus's hopes were raised by the publication of
a royal decree allowing him to appoint superiors in his Congregation and to
have a novitiate and house of studies. The Government throughout had
recognized the good effect of his missions, but it wished the missionaries to be
secular priests and not a religious order. The Decree of 1779, however, seemed
a great step in advance.
Alphonsus, having got so much, hoped to get a little more, and through
his friend, Mgr. Testa, the Grand Almoner, even to have his Rule approved. He
did not, as in the past, ask for an exequatur to the Brief of Benedict XIV, for
relations at the time were more strained than ever between the Courts of Rome
and Naples; but he hoped the king might give an independent sanction to his
Rule, provided he waived all legal right to hold property in common, which he
was quite prepared to do. It was all-important to the Fathers to be able to rebut
the charge of being an illegal religious congregation, which was one of the chief
allegations in the ever-adjourned and ever-impending action by Baron Sarnelli.
Perhaps in any case the submission of their Rule to a suspicious and even
hostile civil power was a mistake. At all events, it proved disastrous in the
result. Alphonsus being so old and so infirm — he was eighty-five, crippled,
deaf, and nearly blind — his one chance of success was to be faithfully
served by friends and subordinates, and he was betrayed at every turn. His
friend the Grand Almoner betrayed him; his two envoys for negotiating
with the Grand Almoner, Fathers Majone and Cimino, betrayed him,
consultors general though they were. His very confessor and vicar general
in the government of his Order, Father Andrew Villani, joined in the
conspiracy.
In the end the Rule was so altered as to be hardly recognizable, the
very vows of religion being abolished. To this altered Rule or
"Regolamento", as it came to be called, the unsuspecting Saint was
induced to put his signature. It was approved by the king and forced upon
the stupefied Congregation by the whole power of the State.
A fearful commotion arose. Alphonsus himself was not spared. Vague
rumours of impending treachery had got about and had been made known
to him, but he had refused to believe them. "You have founded the
Congregation and you have destroyed it", said one Father to him. The
Saint only wept in silence and tried in vain to devise some means by which
his Order might be saved. His best plan would have been to consult the
Holy See, but in this he had been forestalled.
The Fathers in the Papal States, with too precipitate zeal, in the very
beginning denounced the change of Rule to Rome. [Pope] Pius VI, already
deeply displeased with the Neapolitan Government, took the fathers in his
own dominions under his special protection, forbade all change of rule in
their houses, and even withdrew them from obedience to the Neapolitan
superiors, that is to St. Alphonsus, till an inquiry could be held.
A long process followed in the Court of Rome, and on 22 September, 1780,
a provisional Decree, which on 24 August, 1781, was made absolute,
recognized the houses in the Papal States as alone constituting the
Redemptorist Congregation. Father Francis de Paula, one of the chief
appellants, was appointed their Superior General, "in place of those", so
the brief ran, "who being higher superiors of the said Congregation have
with their followers adopted a new system essentially different from the
old, and have deserted the Institute in which they were professed, and have
thereby ceased to be members of the Congregation."
So the Saint was cut off from his own Order by the Pope who was to
declare him "Venerable". In this state of exclusion he lived for seven years
more and in it he died. It was only after his death, as he had prophesied,
that the Neapolitan Government at last recognized the original Rule, and
that the Redemptorist Congregation was reunited under one head (1793).
Alphonsus had still one final storm to meet, and then the end. About three
years before his death he went through a veritable "Night of the Soul". Fearful
temptations against every virtue crowded upon him, together with diabolical
apparitions and illusions, and terrible scruples and impulses to despair which
made life a hell. At last came peace, and on 1 August, 1787, as the midday
Angelus was ringing, the Saint passed peacefully to his reward. He had nearly
completed his ninety-first year. He was declared "Venerable", 4 May, 1796; was
beatified in 1816, and canonized in 1839. In 1871, he was declared a Doctor of
the Church. ...
To prevent the ship going to pieces on the rocks, it has need of a very
responsive rudder, answering to the slightest pressure of Divine guidance. The
rudder is humility, which, in the intellect, is a realization of our own
unworthiness, and in the will, docility to right guidance. But how was
Alphonsus to grow in this so necessary virtue when he was in authority nearly
all his life? The answer is that God kept him humble by interior trials. From his
earliest years he had an anxious fear about committing sin which passed at
times into scruple. He who ruled and directed others so wisely, had, where his
own soul was concerned, to depend on obedience like a little child. To
supplement this, God allowed him in the last years of his life to fall into
disgrace with the pope, and to find himself deprived of all external authority,
trembling at times even for his eternal salvation. ...
At three different times in his missions, while preaching, a ray of light
from a picture of Our Lady darted towards him, and he fell into an ecstasy
before the people. In old age he was more than once raised in the air when
speaking of God. His intercession healed the sick; he read the secrets of hearts,
and foretold the future. He fell into a clairvoyant trance at Arienzo on 21
September, 1774, and was present in spirit at the death-bed in Rome of Pope
Clement XIV. ...
It is a matter for friendly controversy, but it seems there was a real
difference, though not as great in practice as is supposed, between the Saint's
later teaching and that current in the Society [perhaps the work of the
forgers]. ...An interesting series of portraits might be painted of those who play
a part in the Saint's history: Charles III and his minister Tanucci; Charles's son
Ferdinand, and Ferdinand's strange and unhappy Queen, Maria Carolina,
daughter of Maria Teresa and sister of Marie Antoinette. Cardinals Spinelli,
Sersale, and Orsini; Popes Benedict XIV, Clement XIII, Clement XIV, and
Pius VI, to each of whom Alphonsus dedicated a volume of his works.”

This shows us that the Popes read and approved St. Alphonsus's books, and we
have seen that they all teach that his books are free from a single error, yet we
have also seen Pope after Pope condemn what the forgery teaches, thus proving
that the Popes could not have had the same book as the forgery.

The Book "The life of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor of
the Church, Founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer" also
confirms that there was a conspiracy to manipulate Alphonsus's writings and
that the Popes had personally approved of his book Moral Theology, thus
showing us that the Popes themselves could not have had the same forged book
of Moral Theology, since the ones the forgers made contradict the Popes
numerous times as we have seen and the Popes are very clear that Alphonsus'
writings have not a single error in them:
“Not withstanding his grave and multiplied embarrassments, Alphonsus
published, in 1753, his justly appreciated Moral Theology. At the request of his
spiritual children, he had, in 1748, enriched Busembaum with notes, which they
wished to have printed, to be more easy of reference. At a later period, he
enlarged this work, and dedicated it to [Pope] Benedict XIV, who gave it his
approbation. This invaluable work, like every other that came from his pen, was
the fruit of zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. The images of
Jesus and Mary were constantly before him, for he never handled his pen
without invoking them. In short, it was seen even then, as the Pope himself
prophesied, that Alphonsus was destined to be universally approved. Once
when a celebrated Neapolitan ecclesiastic came to consult this learned Pope on
a difficult cause, his Holiness would give no decision. "You have Father Liguori
at Naples," said he ; "consult him." Indeed this excellent Pontiff, whose
erudition was a marvel, quoted our saint with approval, in his valuable work,
De Synodo Diocesana. ....
The holy bishop replied to his adversary in a learned and moderate
address, in which he sustained his doctrine by the authority of the canons, the
holy Fathers, the most celebrated theologians, especially the great Dominican
Divine St. Thomas Aquinas, and which he dedicated to Pope Clement XIII, with
this declaration. "I protest that in all I have written, I have had no desire, save to
make the truth evident in so grave a matter, on which depends the good or evil
direction of consciences; and as I had the honor of dedicating my Moral
Theology to the sovereign Pontiff, Benedict XIV, I venture to submit to your
Holiness, this treatise, which is an appendix to its sense; that your Holiness may
deign to correct, modify or cancel, whatever may be opposed to the maxims of
the Gospel and the rules of Christian prudence."”

Historical fact makes it very clear that a long while during St. Alphonsus's life,
his followers abandoned him and started to forge documents and claimed that
Alphonsus himself held these words, and this problem became so big that the
Pope took away the rule from Alphonsus of his own order, as people around
him acted as if Alphonsus taught what they published:
“It is somewhat singular that the Pope, even while giving decisions
against Alphonsus and using the utmost severity towards him, never doubted his
sanctity. When Cardinal Banditi and Monsignore Bergamo endeavored to
exculpate him, the Pope remarked that it is not well to change the rule of a
Congregation without the sanction of the Holy See. These good prelates
explained that Alphonsus had made no change; the changes fraudulently
made by Majone were repudiated by him as soon as he heard of them; he
had since been making superhuman efforts to rectify the errors of the
treacherous consultor, and had, thanks to God, almost succeeded.
They enlarged on what was notorious, the sanctity of the holy old man
and his devotion to the Apostolic See: "I know," returned the Pontiff, "that
Monsignore Liguori is a saint, and that he has been most obedient to Christ's
Vicar, but he has not done well in this circumstance;" [since it falsely appeared
as Alphonsus himself was behind the forgeries] and being asked to bless him,
he said: "I bless him with all my heart, and I bless all the members of his
Congregation."
When he, whose displeasure was most grievously felt, entertained so high
an opinion of the old man, towards whom he showed such severity, a severity
altogether foreign to the gentle and benign nature of [Pope] Pius VI what can
we conclude, but that God inspired the Sovereign Pontiff to act in this
seemingly unaccountable manner, in order that the last fine touches might be
added to this wonderful sanctity of Alphonsus Liguori. Although the Pope
seems to have shown a little lenity towards him from this period, they were
never fully reconciled. Pius VI did him ample justice, but not till he was already
enjoying, among the just made perfect, the fruits of his heroic patience. ...
The vast and profound learning of Alphonsus, joined to his eminent
sanctity, had fixed on him, even during life, the suffrages of the Catholic world;
and devotion to him, and appreciation of his doctrine, have but increased with
time. Every pope, from Benedict XIV to Pius IX, has been lavish of praises of
this great son of the Church. Benedict XIV, whose extraordinary learning won
him the praises even of a Voltaire, quotes Father di Liguori as an authority in
one of his elegant and erudite works. To this great pontiff the saint dedicated his
"Moral Theology," and the compliment was not unappreciated, as an elegant
letter from the Pope to the priest eloquently testified.
When [Pope] Clement XIII, who compelled him to accept the mitre, had
seen and conversed with him, he remarked to a prelate of his court: "At the
death of Monsignore Liguori, we shall have one saint more." Clement XIV
would never allow him to resign his bishopric, saying that he could govern his
diocese from his dying bed, and that a single prayer of the holy bishop was
worth more than a hundred ordinary episcopal visitations. Pius VI, even when
permitted by Providence to be numbered among those from whom the heaviest
crosses of the aged Founder proceeded, habitually called him a saint, and was
wont to kiss his picture with devotion.
He ordered his cause to be introduced immediately after his death and
kept on his table some of his works to read, whenever he had a moment of
leisure. Pius VII called him a most brilliant star in the firmament of the Church,
and deemed it an honor to celebrate the beatification of so great a saint. Leo XII
ordered the canonization of the Blessed Alphonsus to be proceeded with before
all others, and sent a special blessing, a letter, and a medal, to the publisher of
his complete works, which he graciously permitted to be dedicated to himself.
The great canonist, Pius VIII, during his short pontificate, published the
important decree which declared that the canonization of the Blessed Alphonsus
Liguori might in all safety be proceeded with.
Gregory XVI loved to praise the profound learning and eminent sanctity
of Alphonsus. He placed his name in the ecclesiastical calendar, and extended
his mass and office to the universal Church. "He is resplendent," said that great
Pope, "even among the brilliant lights that adorn the Catholic Church."
Our reigning pontiff, Pius IX, has declared that the works of the saint are of the
greatest utility, not only to the simple faithful, but also, and chiefly, to
ecclesiastics, and to all who are charged with the direction of souls ...declaring
St. Alphonsus a Doctor of the Church a distinction which had not been
conferred on any ecclesiastical writer or theologian for [a long time]...
The conditions which the Church requires for this rare and honorable
distinction are: eminent knowledge, great sanctity, and the declaration of the
Church. Now our sainted prelate has not only fulfilled the necessary conditions,
but seems also to have reunited in himself the peculiar excellences of the most
celebrated among the doctors: the spirit of penance of St. Jerome; the apostolic
boldness of St. Ambrose; the divine unction of St. Augustine, the tender piety
and love of Mary which distinguished St. Bernard; the devotion to the Church
and zeal for the clergy which characterized St. Peter Damian; the lofty intellect
and angelic meekness of St. Thomas Aquinas; and the lively faith and ardent
love which gained for St. Bonaventure the beautiful title of Seraphic Doctor.”

Truly, St. Alphonsus' life was plagued with hardship, yet his wisdom seemed to
overflow the more hardship he had.
“He founded the Redemptoristines women’s order in Scala in 1730, and
founded the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Liguorians;
Redemptorists) at Scala, Italy in 1732. The Redemptorists proved to be a
quarrelsome congregation: their formal establishment had been delayed by
more than a decade because of internal dissension. Appointed bishop of Saint
Agata dei Gotti by Pope Clement XIII in 1762, Liguori worked to reform the
clergy and revitalize the faithful in a diocese with a bad reputation. He was
afflicted with severe rheumatism, and often could barely move or raise his chin
from his chest. In 1775 he resigned his see due to his health, and went into what
he thought was a prayerful retirement.
In 1777 the royal government threatened to disband his Redemptorists,
claiming that they were covertly carrying on the work of the Jesuits, who had
been suppressed in 1773. Calling on his knowledge of the Congregation, his
background in theology, and his skills as a lawyer, Alphonsus defended the
Redemptorists so well that they obtained the king’s approval. However, by this
point Alphonsus was nearly blind, and was tricked into giving his approval to a
revised Rule for the Congregation, one that suited the king and the anti-clerical
government. When Pope Pius VI saw the changes, he condemned it, and
removed Alphonsus from his position as leader of the Order. The Redemptorists
split into two congregations, both of whom rejected him. This caused
Alphonsus a crisis in confidence and faith that took years to overcome.
However, by the time of his death he had returned to faith and peace.”

In truth, St. Alphonsus was surrounded by so many betrayers that every single
person in his order agreed together to manipulate the rules of the order and then
lie about it to St. Alphonsus. So much did these false brethren hate him, that St.
Alphonsus was expelled from his own order (CSSR). If so many people can
agree together to manipulate the whole foundation of the order, which is its
rule, it is obvious that such conscienceless individuals would not bat an eye to
manipulate Alphonsus' Moral Theology. And as he was so sick a large part of
his life, he could do nothing since all around him betrayed him.
“What can safely be said of every book written by St. Alphonsus is that
his words reach deep inside the interior of the human heart. Of all of his
writings, he considered the book he wrote at 72 years of age, “The Practice of
the Love of Jesus Christ,” to be his most devotional and useful of all his works.
His primary intention is to provide souls with a concrete blueprint approach on
how to build a spiritual life that will eventually lead us to experience complete
immersion in divine love.
As the years went on, Alphonsus experienced his personal share in the
Paschal Mystery of our Lord. “His austerities were rigorous, and he suffered
daily the pain from rheumatism that was beginning to deform his body. He
spent several years having to drink from tubes because his head was so bent
forward. An attack of rheumatic fever, from May 1768 to June 1769, left him
paralyzed. He was not allowed to resign his see, however, until 1775.
In 1780, Alphonsus was tricked into signing a submission for royal
approval of his congregation. This submission altered the original rule, and as a
result Alphonsus was denied any authority among the Redemptorists. Deposed
and excluded from his own congregation, Alphonsus suffered great anguish.
But he overcame his depression, and he experienced visions, performed
miracles, and gave prophecies. He died peacefully on August 1, 1787, at Nocera
di Pagani, near Naples as the Angelus was ringing.”

“But he felt an ardent desire, too, to preach the Gospel to non-Christians in

Africa and Asia, as he often wrote in his letters, and to Christians separated
from the Catholic Church, as for example, the Nestorians living in
Mesopotamia. He took pains to enkindle this apostolic zeal in his sons,
proposing in the Constitutions a special vow obliging them to preach the Gospel
to non-believers (1743). This vow however was suppressed in Rome by those
[the forgers] who revised them.” St. Alphonsus Ligori was expelled from his
own order (CSsR), even though he was the founder of it, and this shows us the
hatred and dishonesty of his members.

St. Alphonsus is a Doctor of the Church, and only the the greatest theologians in
the Church receives such an honor:
“The Catholic Church recognized the wide influence of St. Alphonsus
Liguori by declaring him a Doctor of the Church on July 7, 1871, as proclaimed
in the Apostolic Letter of Pius IX. This was done 32 years after St. Alphonsus’
canonization, which took place on May 26, 1839, and less than a century after
his death. “St. Thomas Aquinas had to wait for three centuries, St. Robert
Bellarmine and St. Peter Canisius for more than three centuries. St. Albert the
Great was not declared Doctor of the Church until seven centuries had passed.
St. Alphonsus, however, received the title in less than a century after his death.”
… The earlier Doctors that were closest to him chronologically, but still more
than a century and a half earlier, were St. Francis de Sales (+1622) and St.
Lawrence of Brindisi (+1619).” (Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers
C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 624)

Pope Pius IX writes: “One can in fact assert that there has not been one error
even in our times which Alphonsus, at least in great measure, did not fight
against.” (Qui Ecclesiae Suae, Apostolic Letter, Pius IX, Rome, 1871)

Pope Benedict XIV also taught that Alphonsus's teaching was high above others
in wisdom:
“Benedict had such a high esteem for his wisdom, that on one occasion,
when a celebrated Neapolitan missionary came to consult him on a difficult
case, this great Pope would not give a decision, but contended himself with
replying, “You have the Father Liguori at Naples, consult him.” [This is all the
more remarkable as the Catholic Encyclopedia speaks about Benedict XIV in
the following terms: “one of the most erudite men of his time . . . perhaps the
greatest scholar among the popes” (Catholic Encyclopedia: Benedict XIV,
Healy P. J., 1907)]” (Life of S. Alphonso Maria de Liguori, ch. XXXII, Tannoia
Antonio Maria C.SS.R., vol. II, Birmingham, 1847, p. 56)

Alphonsus also built his theology by explaining St. Thomas's works, so it is not
likely that he should lie about St. Thomas's words as we see the forgery do: “In
1747 the most important general meeting was held in regard to the rules. . . .
The original rule and constitutions . . . were read and approved. Then twenty-
five statutes were added among which the following are of particular interest: . .
. VIII. In scholastic theology, St. Thomas must be chiefly followed.” (St.
Alphonsus Mary De Liguori, Miller D. F. C.SS.R., London, 1940, p. 168)

The solidness of his research, and the fact that he communicated with Rome
constantly to check that his opinions was right also shows that he could never
have taught error personally and still be praised by the Popes as not teaching a
single error in his works:
“Whenever he had a difficult case to consider, besides meditation and
prayer, he passed entire months in examining different opinions, and when he
was not convinced with consulting the Fathers of his own Congregation, he sent
to Rome and Naples for the opinion of the best theologians; and principally to
the Sacred Congregations which are at Rome as the organs of the Sovereign
Pontiff.” [This comment comes from Fr. Tannoia. Father Antonio Tannoia
C.SS.R. was a contemporary of St. Alphonsus and became the first biographer
of the saint.]” (Life of S. Alphonso Maria de Liguori, ch. XXXII, Tannoia
Antonio Maria C.SS.R., vol. II, Birmingham, 1847, p. 55-56)

The Popes also always approved of his works even though we have seen
numerous Popes contradict what the forger says:
“No ecclesiastical writer has ever received more direct, positive and
formal approbation than that accorded by the Holy See to the moral writings of
this Doctor of the Church. While still alive, four Popes expressed their
admiration of his prudent doctrine. ...In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI enhanced this
approbation when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach any
opinion of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighing reasons, could
safely follow him – simply on the fact that St. Alphonsus said so.
Each of the thirteen predecessors of Pius XII in the chair of Peter has in
some way or another recommended, approved or exalted the ‘Moral Theology’
of the Patron of confessors. In his Apostolic Brief of April 26, 1950, Pope Pius
XII alludes to some of them. “By his learned writings, especially his ‘Moral
Theology,’ he dissipated the darkness of error with which Jansenists and
unbelievers have cloaked the world” (Pius IX). He was “the most illustrious and
benign of moralists” (Leo XIII). “He illumined obscurity, made doubts plain
and clear, and in the maze of over-strict and over-lax theological opinions, he
hewed a path which directors of souls can tread in safety” (Pius IX).
To this chorus of pontifical voices, Pope Pius XII felt, he said,
constrained to add his own, declaring St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori the
celestial Patron of both confessors and moral theologians.” (Homoletic and
Pastoral Review: New Patron of Confessors, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Vol. LI,
No. 6, March 1951, Fr. Galvin J. J. C.SS.R., 1951, p. 511)

Pope Pius IX also venerated Alphonsus since he knew how holy he was:
“During his exile in Naples, Pope Pius IX, in his veneration for St.
Alphonsus, determined to make a pilgrimage to the Saint’s tomb. On 8 October,
1849 he celebrated Mass at the altar beneath which lie Alphonsus’ venerated
remains; after which he knelt down and exchanged his pastoral ring for that
which encircled the Saint’s finger.” (Catholic, 2005, p. 10)
“When the tomb of St. Alphonsus Liguori was opened years after his
death, Pope Pius VII asked that the three fingers of his right hand be sent to
Rome. “Let these three fingers that have written so well for the honour of God,
of the Blessed Virgin, and of religion, be carefully preserved and sent to Rome.”
(Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington,
1993, p. 620)
 “Not only all theologians, but also the Sacred Penitentiary proclaims the
highest authority of St. Alphonsus in moral theology.” (Manuale Theologiae
Moralis, Prümmer M. O.P., Freiburg, 1958, p. XVI)

Alphonsus had an unique position of authority in the Church: “In 1831, Pope
Gregory XVI had “decreed it safe to follow St. Alphonsus’ opinion, even if you
do not know the reason behind it – a badge of honour Rome has given no other
saint.”” (Joseph Maier C.SS.R. in ‘The Priest’, Vol. 19, Sept., 1963).” (Thirty-
Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p.
623)

Alphonsus is also a Patron of Confessors and all Popes have recommended his
Moral Theology even though we have seen the forgery teach contrary to many
Popes over and over again, thus proving that what the Popes had in their hands
when they read Moral Theology cannot be the same as what the forgery says:
“The 13 Popes preceding Pius XII had all in some way especially
recommended St. Alphonsus’ Moral Theology. Pope Pius XII, on the occasion
of the second centenary of the first edition of this great work of St. Alphonsus,
designated him as the ‘Patron of Moralists and Confessors’. Pope Pius XII
referred in his declaration on April 26, 1950 to the hearing of Confessions as
the principal work committed to the Redemptorists by their founder. “Indeed,
he committed to his companions, gathered into the Congregation of the Most
Holy Redeemer, as its principal duty, the hearing of Confessions.” The
Redemptorist constitutions declare: “Nothing shall be dearer to the members
than the hearing of Confessions, for there is no work better calculated to
procure the glory of God and the salvation of souls.”” (Thirty-Three Doctors of
the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 625)

Pope Benedict XIV also praised his Moral Theology: “The learned Benedict
XIV, declared in a letter dated July 15, 1755, that the work would prove to be of
the greatest utility and would win the favour of all.” (Life of St. Alphonsus de
Liguori, Berthe A. C.SS.R., Dublin, 1905, p. 461)
“How highly the Sovereign Pontiff esteemed the work [of the book Moral
Theology] dedicated to him, appears from two letters of His Holiness to the
saint, given in vol. i. of General Correspondence, pps. 314 and 369.” (St.
Alphonsus Maria de Liguori. Complete Works 21, Letters IV)