Thursday, December 8, 2016

Banned from SuscipeDomine.com, SuscipeDomine Exposed, Kaesekopf Exposed

I was recently banned from SuscipeDomine.com forum but, as we will see in this post, this ban was totally unjust, outrageous and without any valid reason.

For those who don't know, SuscipeDomine.com is a self-professed Traditional Catholic oriented forum founded and administered by forum user Kaesekopf.

Admin Kaesekopf wrote as the reason for banning me:

"Jerome has been permanently banned for his repeated ignoring of administrative instructions and for routinely dogmatizing private opinion (among other things) in this thread and in others." (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16087.0)

But as we all can see in the thread that he linked to, and as will be shown in this post, his claims are completely untrue and biased.

Note: I don't approve of anyone visiting this forum (or any other forum or website) with images enabled since it is impossible to know what avatars, images or videos they will show. (See this article on how to block images on various websites with an image blocker.) At least one user have an immodest cartoon-avatar (or had at the time if she ever changes it) in this forum with a low-cut gown, as I made note of in this post, although many would probably not see it as a big deal today since they have become brainwashed and morally corrupted by seeing, and exposing themselves to, even worse clothing and lasciviousnesses by their dangerous internet surfings, media watchings and immortifications of the eyes when going outside!

It is true to say that for those who have not brainwashed themselves into denying or downplaying God's moral law when it comes to even lesser immodesties (I only call it "lesser" because we have become accustomed to see even worse things in our evil society), and for those with better understanding such as the saints, who certainly view these things as "great" offenses—as their quotes below shows—which is why they condemn it as a mortal sin even though many people today would look upon it as nothingand certainly to God who is super strict when it comes to these things—it is a big deal; and those women or men who just don't care or even call it "trolling" or "scruples" to uphold God's moral standard, as this woman using this avatar said to me in a private message: "I don't know what your problem is -- troll or scruples.  Either way, I don't care what you think of me or anyone else who posts here.  Get yourself some help, and if you don't like how this forum is (and it really seems like you don't), perhaps this isn't the place for you.", will certainly be cast into Hell themselves for their immodesties and uncharity. Indeed, "Let her who has followed the Devil's fashions be handed over to him..."

St. Anthony Mary Claret: Now, observe, my daughter, the contrast between the luxurious dress of many women, and the raiment and adornments of Jesus... Tell me: what relation do their fine shoes bear to the spikes in Jesus' Feet? The rings on their hands to the nails which perforated His? The fashionable coiffure to the Crown of Thorns? The painted face to That covered with bruises? Shoulders exposed by the low-cut gown [or by exposing the legs by low skirts] to His, all striped with Blood? Ah, but there is a marked likeness between these worldly women and the Jews who, incited by the Devil, scourged Our Lord! At the hour of such a woman's death, I think Jesus will be heard saying: "Cujus est imago haec et circumscripto... of whom is she the image?" And the reply will be: "Demonii... of the Devil!" Then He will say: "Let her who has followed the Devil's fashions be handed over to him; and to God, those who have imitated the modesty of Jesus and Mary."

Note: Was Saint Anthony Mary Claret trolling or scrupulous? Certainly not. He was right and all women are wrong even if they can't see it.

St. Anthony Mary Claret writes further: I have the most trouble with these functions because I want the ladies of the court to wear higher necklines, that is, to cover themselves more than they do. They object that they wear such dresses because etiquette requires it, that they have always dressed like this, and that ladies dress like this in all the courts in the world at such functions, etc. I give my formal opinion, and I say and do what I think is my duty and, although the queen is presently the most decently covered woman in the gathering, I am still not satisfied; and I complain and show my displeasure and my desire to quit the court because of this state of affairs. (Life of Saint Anthony Mary Claret, Chapter VII, AN ACCOUNT OF MY MISSION TO THE PALACE)

Rev. F.X. Schouppe, S.J., The Dogma of Hell, Chapter VIII: “We read also in Father Nieremberg that a noble lady, who was exceedingly pious, asked God to make known to her what displeased His Divine Majesty most in persons of her sex. The Lord vouchsafed in a miraculous manner to hear her. He opened under her eyes the Eternal Abyss. There she saw a woman a prey to cruel torments and in her recognized one of her friends, a short time before deceased. This sight caused her as much astonishment as grief: the person whom she saw damned did not seem to her to have lived badly. Then that unhappy soul said to her: “It is true that I practiced religion, but I was a slave of vanity. Ruled by the passion to please, I was not afraid to adopt indecent fashions to attract attention, and I kindled the fire of impurity in more than one heart. Ah! If Christian women knew how much immodesty in dress displeases God!” At the same moment, this unhappy soul was pierced by two fiery lances, and plunged into a caldron of liquid lead.”

St. Ambrose: The face is a witness of the thoughts and is a silent interpreter of the heart. The outward appearance is often a sign of the conscience and the unspoken words of the mind. Hence people who use immodest avatars shows that their interior is thoroughly corrupted and darkened even if they don't think it is a "big deal". And if people can't see that it is evil and wrong and a problem to clothe oneself in such a way before others or use such an avatar even though all the saints can see it clearly, then it is because they are evil, because they have corrupted themselves and because they have perverted their interior by committing sins of the flesh and evil and vain thoughts, and because they have smothered their conscience. And we will see many reasons for why this has happened in this post.

Kaesekopf, in his delusion, actually said that I am not permitted to teach moral theology[1] or to go on a "crusade against 'media immorality'"[2] and that instead of condemning this, I should adopt to lame conversations with others instead of actually helping them to live a better life by condemning their bad, dangerous and sinful recreations, deeds or actions.

He also frequently, both in private message and publically on his forum, claimed that I did not teach what the Church teaches concerning the things which I taught[3]. However, even though none in the forum actually agreed with him and many even defended me -- saying that I do teach what the Church teaches[4] -- do you think Kaesekopf cared? Evidently not.

[1]. Kaesekopf: "Jerome picked up a seven day ban for ignoring administration instructions to "cease this sort of posting" (in this thread). ***To be more precise: Jerome is not permitted to chastise or instruct others in the realm of moral theology (or advise on what may or may not be grave matter/mortal sin) on this forum, otherwise each transgression will result in a ban of increasing length. He may also not judge another's soul, as has been his habit in his posts. Laymen don't have the right to come onto this forum and dictate to others how to behave and act .***" (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15694.msg340491#msg340491)

In other words: Don't tell us not to watch bad and dangerous media; don't tell us to surf the internet with images blocked in order not to get exposed everyday to lascivious images and dangerous video clips; don't tell us appropriate Catholic modesty dressing codes or condemn those who so obviously contradicts the Church's official teaching on modesty of dress; and don't tell us we commit sin if we obstinately continue with doing these sinful and dangerous things or that we will be damned if we have no intention to stop doing it!

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.

Yes, that's right, as you can see in the thread for which he banned me the first time for one week, avoiding exposing oneself to dangerous occasions and occasions of sinning is exactly what the thread was all about: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15694.0

[2]. Kaesekopf: "Yeah, no. Take a 14 day ban. How would you even compile all of that within the 3 hours Jayne first posted the thread? Jerome, why do you waste your life away on this crusade against 'media immorality'? Go do something productive with your life. You clearly have more than enough time on your hands." (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15979.0)

Note: Because I made the above thread (see above link) refuting and exposing and admonishing people not to watch or let their children watch the dangerous, occultic and immodest tv-series "Young Justice" that some people praised and recommended publically on his forum, I got banned for 14 days. That's right, for exposing a bad and occultic and evil tv-show I was banned for 14 days!

Is that reasonable or just behavior of an admin that also claims to be a Traditional Catholic to be guilty of? Of course not. Do you think Kaesekopf cares? Evidently not. "Don't tell us what to do" and "Don't condemn the things we do", is his evil motto. That is not much different from the satanic motto, "Do what thou wilt."

Kaesekopf is a good example of what spiritual darkness a soul will fall into when it resists God's grace, defends evil and dangerous things, and refuses to oppose or banish such things from himself or others[5].

[3]. Kaesekopf wrote in a private message made public by me: "You are not teaching what the Church teaches." (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=85.2490)

Even though every single thread was completely filled with Church teachings and saint quotes teaching exactly what I teach on the need to avoid exposing oneself to dangerous occasions, such as bad media, books and sights etc., this clown still had the audacity to claim that I do not teach what the Church teaches. Do you think he could prove his assertion that I did not teach what the Church teaches? No. He only claimed I did not!

To his greater shame, however, no one actually agreed with him and people even defended me, as we will see below. But again, do you think Kaesekopf cares? Evidently not.

[4]. PerEvangelicaDicta: "Somewhere in one of the threads debating this topic, I asked if there was anything contrary to Church teaching in your statements. One answer just reiterated that he/she did not like your [condemnatory] style of presentation, but did not answer the question." (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15925.msg346134#msg346134)

Note: No one can actually convict me of not teaching what the Church teaches on this topic. It is rather an issue with people hating to be instructed and admonished on how to live their lives since they do not want to make a change in their bad lifestyle. In other words, they don't want to change and they want to be damned. Yes few are saved, but almost no one cares about that anymore.

Kaesekopf: "No one has any interest in taking moral advice from some random layman on the Internet." Maximilian: "I disagree. In fact, your statement more or less describes the raison d'etre of SD. From some random layman on the internet" is where I learned a lot more about the Catholic Faith than I ever did from the institutional church." (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=85.msg345378#msg345378)

YeOldeFustilarians: "Nice job Jerome. I'm sorry you've experienced so much backlash considering that very few, if any, of your posts were made without explicit reference to moral theologians or popes... you're absolutely right that it's ill advised to indiscriminately consume modern media." (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15694.msg339620#msg339620)

Daniel: "I haven't read through this entire thread, but I sort of agree with the initial post. That's actually the reason that I've been staying out of that thread. Pretty much all new movies these days are garbage." (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15694.msg339992#msg339992)

Jerome: "To my knowledge, it is hard to find a more immoral news site than the daily mail. Also, it is uncharity and a sin of scandal (which in theology is a mortal sin) to link or give to others soul slaying material." Response by user who posted the link: "Some people can read the news on daily mail without looking at the ads [immodest pictures]... But I guess you are right though. I deleted the link to the daily mail in my post above." Jerome: "Thank you... Even if you claim you can read such sites without being negatively effected or even seeing the ads, you are still not permitted to put yourself in such an occasion of sinning, since it is not lawful to expose oneself to damnation and to sin against the all good God... “‘It is not lawful,’ says [Pope] St. Gregory, ‘to behold what it is not lawful to covet.’ The evil thought which proceeds from looks, though it should be rejected, never fails to leave a stain upon the soul.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221) "Can a man," says the Holy Spirit, "hide fire in his bosom, and his garments not burn? or can he walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burnt?" (Prov. 6.27, 28) Not to be burnt in such circumstances would be a miracle. 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." (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)... Besides, do you really not see the ads or lascivious pictures at all? You really never see any of them whenever you enter any website? Your eyes just magically never sees anything bad even though it is right in front of you? To me, it seems like you are just excusing yourself." (Read more: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15717.0)

This is the kind of unblemished Catholic moral teachings that I taught on Kaesekopf's forum -- something which he told me I am not permitted to teach to others and that he even later banned me for!

The fact that Kaesekopf actually claimed that the Catholic Church's teaching that I quoted on the topic of modesty of dress as applied to the cheerleading thread -- http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16087.msg352298#msg352298 -- a Church teaching which he publically denied by the way by claiming it was not a dogma -- http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16087.msg352359#msg352359 -- for which I responded -- http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16087.msg352391#msg352391 -- and for which I was later permanently banned by him, among other things, when I said it needs to be followed, to be merely "private opinion", is outrageous to say the least, but not surprising to hear from a modernist clown like Kaesekopf who totally spits upon and rejects any Church teaching which he do not agree with.

This is the Church's teaching on the topic of modesty of dress that I quoted and which Kaesekopf and others in the thread totally rejected:

On January 12, 1930, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, by mandate of Pope Pius XI, issued emphatic instructions on modesty of dress to all bishops, directing them to insist on these prescriptions:

"We recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knee. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper. "Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but, if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see to it that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb." (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16087.msg352298#msg352298)

Did any user ever present any evidence that I did not teach what the Church teaches? No. The only thing I was ever blamed for was how severely I presented the Church's teaching and because I condemned them -- and did not excuse them or let them get away with it -- their sinful, un-Catholic lifestyle.

If I was of the world, the world would love me. But since I am not of the world and try to refute the worldlings and the evil they do, I am hated, persecuted and even killed (or in this case, banned).

Jesus: "If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19)

I though the following discussion after my second ban, a 14 day ban, was pretty revealing of the kinds of things that I teach and admonishes people to do.


JubilateDeo: "For someone who never, ever, ever watches "mortally sinful media," this guy seems to know an awful lot about what happens on this show [as a matter of fact, I have watched a lot of media before I stopped watching media]."

Karasu: "It's interesting how Pharisaical Jerome is in condemning people, but he never consider the fact that he's actually violating his own moral code. He loves to bring up the condemnation of putting yourself in a proximate occasion of mortal sin for the spiritual good of another, but he actually does that to himself [Jerome: he rashly judges that I watches the things I condemn!], if we are to assume Young Justice is that bad."

Maximilian: "This is a good example of how easy it is to make false judgments. Clearly Jerome didn't watch all the episodes of that cartoon and then write that lengthy description in the few minutes between the O.P. and his response. That text was obviously copied-and-pasted from a website like the one that was mentioned on the similar thread a few days ago [Jerome: much was taken from wikipedia]."

Maximilian: "Criticizing good people for the good they do is a very dangerous activity. God hates this just about more than anything. Like the children who mocked Elisha. God sent bears who tore them to pieces. It reminds me of a story in the book about Anna Maria Taigi. A neighbor was bad-mouthing her. Jesus told Anna Maria Taigi that he was going to punish the neighbor. Anna Maria Taigi asked Jesus to forgive her, but Jesus said "No" -- the neighbor would not be excused for her sins of the tongue."

Karasu: "Did you just compare Jerome, a lay-moral theologian, to one of God's holy prophets?

Maximilian: "Yes. I had a vague recollection that it was the prophet Jeremiah in the story of the bears, which would have made the comparison even better, but I was wrong about that."

Karasu: "I'm simply saying that if we follow Jerome's definitions of what things are to be considered examples of scandal or proximate occasions of sin, he would be inadvertently condemn himself out of his own mouth."

Maximilian: "Except that's not true."

Chestertonian: "jerome is not a p rophet like elijah [sic]."

Maximilian: "You could turn out to be wrong about that."

Chestertonian: "If God were to send us a prophet, do you think His first order of business would be warning us about the dangers of Beauty and the Beast avatars and fast forwarding through sex scenes? [Jerome: I actually warned against watching any media at all and that people only should listen to the audio, and that they need surfing the internet with images blocked, with ad blocks, and flash html5 blockers.]"

Maximilian: "Yes, if that was the most grave danger to souls. We would all agree that the Cure of Ars was a prophet who was sent by God. What was his first order of business? To warn his parishioners about the dangers of popular entertainments like dancing."

Note: I am not a prophet. But I think it is true to say nonetheless that I am qualified to teach, since everything I teach on this topic is backed up with Church teaching, logic, and reason.

And Maximilian's claim about the Cure of Ars is absolutely true. I frequently quoted the Saint John Vianney quote in order to condemn the worldly people of today that exposes themselves to just as dangerous recreations (if not more dangerous) as dancing was—i.e, the media.

St. John Vianney: “There is not a commandment of God which dancing [or media] does not cause men to break! Mothers may indeed say: Oh, I keep an eye on their dress; [but] you cannot keep guard over their heart. Go, you wicked parents, go down to Hell where the wrath of God awaits you, because of your conduct when you gave free scope to your children; GO! It will not be long before they join you, seeing that you have shown them the way so well! Then you will see whether your pastor was right in forbidding those Hellish amusements [such as media and dangerous internet surfing].” (The CurĂ© D’Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, p. 146)

The responses I made later to some of the allegations in the above thread (not quoted above) was covered in this other thread: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15979.0

Shortly after my permanent ban, some forum users even made fun of me for having used too much Church teaching! Yes, that's right. They made fun of me for having used too much Church teaching! What does this tell us? That they don't want to hear anything of it!

dymphna17: "[After the ban permanent ban message] Awww! Who is going to teach our moral superiority class now? Guess I've got to go kick rocks and find an all knowing, all seeing mouthpiece with bad manners. sigh :( sorry, I couldn't afford the tear emoji" (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16087.msg352737#msg352737)

Akavit: "I've seen so many trolls over the years I could act as a pretty convincing stand-in if anyone thinks things are getting too dull around here. Your signature is shocking to good Catholics everywhere! You can't blame the weather on your immodest decision to wear jeans!" (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16087.msg352739#msg352739)

Jacob: "You guys all seem to recognize Jerome was a troll in deed if not in intent. His MO was well known by the time he came around. After this thread got turned into another Jerome sideshow, what was the point of feeding him?" (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16087.msg352885#msg352885)

Note: According to these two modernist clowns, being firm with God's laws and God's teachings like a St. John the Baptist or an Archbishop St. Thomas Becket, is trolling! (They both upheld the law of God and of the Church without question and without moving either right or left, and for this they were hated by evil people and persecuted and even put to death.) Yes, that's right, they publically and shamefully called it "trolling" to be zealous for the Church's and God's moral law on avoiding dangerous occasions and the occasions of sins and of dressing according to the Church's and God's law!

Lynne: "[In response to Akavit] This is good for a start [making fun of me]... But you need several quotes from saints, etc. ;D" (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16087.msg352800#msg352800)

dymphna17: "[In response to Lynne] Ha! Good one! It's just not as impressive or insulting with out links and quotes from saints and of course the ultimate; verses from the Bible. And if you are taking the immodesty/modesty route, you need to quote from the pamphlet you will be glad to hand out to girls as well as women that contains Our Lady's list of requirements. You've almost got that glaring "you all are nothing but worm spit" attitude down (be sure to be careful with that special gift!) ;)" (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16087.msg352803#msg352803)

The worst thing with the above two posters, however, is that they don't even seem to understand how they condemn themselves out of their own mouths! They are literally admitting right here that I did teach what the Church teaches. Both women even mentions the kind of proofs I used: "quotes from saints", "verses from the Bible", "quote from the pamphlet", "Our Lady's list of requirements" etc.; if only she would have mentioned Holy Office decrees and Papal teachings as well!

Ah, and by the way, the posts below were some of my last posts that I posted before being banned and ridiculed by these people. Do you think these posts could have had anything to do with me being banned? Let's see.


JubilateDeo: "My reasons [for not homeschooling my children and refusing to explain why] are none of your concern. If I were to list them, I'm sure you would only find fault in them, because that's precisely what you look for in other peoples' posts, and then you run with it."

Jerome: "No I don't. I merely make judgments on what others write. I don't find fault if there is no fault to find. For example, when you unjustifiably defend knee length skirts, even though the Church's official teaching clearly condemns this, then I have a fault, and a real fault that rightly can be pointed out, which I also do. I don't make up things, as you seems to want to indicate. No one would be afraid to mention a real and valid excuse for not homeschooling their children. I think that much is clear."

JubilateDeo: "Just to be sure....you do understand that this thread is originally about a 7 year old girl, right? Seeing the lower half  of a second grader's leg should not provoke lust in a normal person."

Comment: I should have asked her at what age she thinks knee length skirts would start to become unacceptable for younger girls to wear. I should also have asked if her daughter wore stockings or some form of trouser covering the naked legs with such a short dress, because if she does not, that would be even more immodest and irresponsible.

Jerome: "Now I know. But that had nothing to do with the original question and response, since the woman I addressed are not a child, and the points I made generally had nothing to do with age.

You will find no moral theologian teaching that modesty standards are different for 7 years old girls. All young girls dressed with long dressed before in time.

By allowing young girls to dress immodestly, you brainwash and pre-condition them to accept this behavior. You are really playing with fire, and you are instructing your children not in modesty, but immodesty.

Compare your doings with the teachings of Pope Pius XI:

Pope Pius XI, 'Divini Illus Magistri', 1929: "These principles with due regard to time and place, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public."

Pope Pius XI: "We lament, too, the destruction of purity among women and young girls as is evidenced by the increasing immodesty of their dress and conversation and by their participation in shameful dances."

JubilateDeo: "Now you know? I said it earlier in the thread, in response to one of your posts (which I guess you never read)"

Jerome: "I read second grade. But that did not tell me much, really, she could be 10 as much as I know. And really, it was absolutely true what I said, since now I in fact do know the exact age, which I didn't before.

Anyway, your response was completely irrelevant.

Some observations:

You try to divert the attention to something else, something irrelevant? Yes.

You avoid the direct quotations form the Pope concerning modesty on young girls that directly refutes what you do against your daughter. Yes.

You avoid the points about what you are morally doing to your daughter by your irresponsible behavior? Yes.

You publically and with obstinacy claimed that the Church's official teaching on modesty of dress don't apply in your case by appealing to your own private judgment, and when it was pointed out to you, you still did not care? Yes.

You will not say the reasons for not homeschooling your children? Perhaps.

Conclusion:

The same old common tactic used by people who cannot, or will not, answer direct questions or face the moral consequences of their positions, deeds, or actions."

JubilateDeo: "If you go out looking for the speck in your brother's eye, you're going to find it. Then, you admonish people for supposedly not caring for their souls enough to guard themselves from mortal sin. You never contribute anything else to this forum, other than criticizing others with long meandering posts. We can all stand to be better Christians and make changes in our lives. What are you doing to better yourself? How about the plank in your own eye?"

Jerome: "Admonishing the ignorant is an act of charity. It is not my fault if people do things they should not be doing. It is also not without reason I point out that some people are not careful enough. I think the threads I have already made on these issues shows this.

To name just a few things noted:

  • People visit daily filth mail (or even worse sites) without any apparent fear and without even having images blocked; neither do most of them even have thought about the need to disable images just as if they thought they could not consent to mortal sin from seeing those immoral images and hence loose their salvation.
  • People watch r-rated movies, or movies containing pornographic scenes, sex scenes, nude scenes, and similar things and are not that careful to expose themselves. One person even continued to post about the r-rated [evil and lascivious] movies he watched even after being rebuked by me for doing this very thing!
  • Almost all people without exception surf the internet in a general sense, and every single website without exception, with images enabled, or without an ad block and flash/html5 blockers. How many bad things do you think they see daily? Only God knows.
  • Many parents might even let their children surf the internet with images on, or without an ad block etc [or let them watch the media].

I do not make those threads to find fault [if none exists], but because I want people to become better [since grave faults exists], and be more careful about themselves. I am not blind to the dangers, neither do I deny them. I try to see reality, and not deny it, or live in another reality by smothering my conscience through dangerous means such as the media."

OCLittleFlower: "I was going to post this before he got banned, but it's too good to leave out of a thread like this.


The Victorians did not expect young girls to be as covered as adult women must be. They are, after all, just children. And of course, for the very young and still crawling, a very long skirt would be too difficult (and of course boys wore dresses as well up to  a certain point, which, honestly, seems more practical for diaper changes and the like, when you stop to think about it)."

Note: Compare this picture with the modesty standard of today were knee length skirts for 7 years old girls are defended and even deemed appropriate! Yet, as we can see in this picture, not even 4 year old girls had knee length skirts 150 years ago,* yet this woman defends a 7 year old girl today to have it? It is true to say that the morality standards of the world and of those who call themselves Catholic today has been completely flushed down the toilet!

*Younger girls, if some of them wore shorter dresses before in time, obviously had some form of covering for their naked legs since to not use any covering is a rather recent concept; and it would be immodest without such covering otherwise since "It was not acceptable for women to show their legs", as one history website put it.

This is how the Fatima children dressed. Note that this photograph was taken as little as 100 years ago, in 1917:


Lucia (age 10), Francisco (age 9) and Jacinta (age 7) of Fatima

Jacinta Marto had been deeply affected by the vision of Hell that Our Lady had permitted her to see. She said the following regarding sin:  "The sins of the world are very great." "Many marriages are not good; they do not please Our Lord, and they are not of God." "If men knew what eternity is, they would do everything to change their lives." "The sins that lead more souls to Hell are the sins of the flesh." "Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord will appear. People who serve God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord is always the same." "Men are lost because they do not think of the death of Our Lord and do not do penance." (Our Lady of Fatima's PLEA FOR SACRIFICE)

Do you see that? "People who serve God should not follow [these modern day] fashions [of short and immodest dress!]" But how many women actually cares anything about God's will on the matter of how women should dress today?

Padre Pio and God's Will Regarding Modesty

"By Padre Pio's explicit wish, women must enter the confessional wearing skirts

AT LEAST 8 INCHES BELOW THE KNEE.

It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them to confession."

"The Church is the house of God. It is forbidden for men to enter with bare arms or in shorts. It is forbidden for women to enter in trousers, without a veil on their head, in short clothing, low necklines, sleeveless or immodest dresses."

- Signs on the doors of San Giovanni Rotondo

Indeed, no man or woman with a right understanding of God's holy will concerning modesty of dress would ever consider it proper for young girls to wear short dresses, and that is even more true if those dresses are worn without any stockings (a form of covering worn under the dress covering the naked legs), as most women do today, thus completely exposing their naked legs for all to see. Padre Pio was very clear on that this was immodest and unacceptable before God.

(If girls are really young, then it may be more excusable to have shorter dresses, provided stockings or trousers is used as well, since it is not proper to expose the naked legs like people do today. That is why no one ever did this before in time.)

Since the Church's official response that was quoted earlier did not specify length, but only said even a little beyond the knee is indecent, this could give some problem in determining exactly what is acceptable. That is why Padre Pio's opinion is so important, since according to Padre Pio himself: this was Our Lord's wishes on how women should dress. Yes, that's right, when Padre Pio refused a woman an absolution because she did not conform to the dressing rules, it was Our Lord that refused to give her the absolution.

Note the following carefully:

"Padre Pio wouldn't tolerate low-necked dresses or short [8 inches below the knee minimum], tight skirts, and he forbade his spiritual daughters to wear transparent stockings. Each year his severity [read: justice] increased. He stubbornly [read: rightly] dismissed them from his confessional, even before they set foot inside, if he [correctly] judged them to be improperly dressed. On some mornings he drove away one after another, until he ended up hearing very few confessions. . .

"Sometimes when Padre Pio refused to absolve his penitents and closed the small confessional door in their faces, the people would reproach him asking why he acted this way. "Don't you know," he asked, "what pain it costs me to shut the door on anyone? The Lord has forced me to do so. I do not call anyone, nor do I refuse anyone either. There is someone else who calls and refuses them. I am His useless tool."'

- D. G., biographical writer

And to the objection that no normal man should get tempted by a seven year old girl and that therefore knee length skirt is no big deal, the following discussion relevant to this question will be quoted:

From: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15611.msg338256#msg338256

erin is nice: "St. Aloysius never looked at his own mother in the face.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Modesty of the Eyes, pp. 252-261) If this is true, isn't it creepy and horrible? His own mother was an occasion of sin? Not sure what to make of that......." Comment: He did it for the sake virtue and mortification, and not for the sake of temptations.

Clarence Creedwater: "Actually, what gives me the creeps is that you would be so willing to suggest a canonized Saint did something "creepy and horrible" without even understanding it!"

Jerome: "I also thought to mention something about that, but didn't. Anyway, even if that would have been true, that would be something beyond his control and something he could not do anything about. If God permits someone to be tempted by the devil in that way - and provided there is no fault in themselves for it having come to this - then it is a cross and a great humiliation.

Many saints have taken upon themselves the worst abominable temptations in order to free others from them. Who knows how "creepy" those temptations might have been? But would that make them "creeps"? Obviously not. Is is better not to judge others, otherwise God might permit us to fall into the very selfsame things ourselves that we despise or find creepy in others.

I am sure most people even on this forum gets "creepy" and abominable thoughts from time to time. That is the devil tempting us. It us not us, but the devil. It is only "us" if we accept those thoughts and agree with them."

And by the way, men can and do get sexual temptations at young girls (that is why there are people falling into pedophilia in deed or thought every day -- even though not every person falls into this sin when tempted) and if they dress immodestly this does not help them, obviously, and girls sometimes can look a lot older and mature and womanly than what they actually are, by the way. That is why even younger girls must dress modestly, and if they dress modestly they cannot be blamed for the lust of any man. So the excuse that no normal man should get sexual temptations at young girls is no argument at all for allowing one's girl to dress immodestly, since even "normal men"* (whatever that is supposed to mean according to her) and women can and do get abominable temptations and thoughts from time to time or even often and are harassed by such, whatever it may be, but the difference is that they resist these temptations to sins against nature, impurity, blasphemy, hatred, envy etc. and do not give in to them. If a man is tempted in this way and do not resist it, he will fall, and many men and women sadly fall every day into sins of this kind in deed or though.

* To be "normal" actually means not to consent to sin first and foremost. Being "normal" is thus not defined by the fact of whether a person is harassed by evil and bad thoughts or not, since even saints and ordinary people who perhaps have never even committed such things can be harassed by such thoughts. Sure, often bad thoughts can be a result of bad choices and sins made during one's life and because of a bad lifestyle, but that is not always the case for everyone (even though it is probably true for most people). But again, these sinful thoughts are only sinful if they are given consent too, and not by the mere fact of them appearing in one's mind, provided they are rejected and one has a will to hate them and to be freed from them.

When one considers the behavior of so many people in this forum (and the world in general), one can easily understand why most are damned according to Our Lord's words in the gospel (Matthew 7:13).

Yes Jesus Christ emphatically declared that few are saved, yet most people evidently don't care anything about that; which is why they live their evil, slothful and sinful lifestyles accordingly -- completely filled with occasions of sinnings -- and even of total mockery and rejection of anyone who rightfully and justly admonishes them and their evil ways.

Since they have no will to stop doing the bad things they are doing and to avoid the occasions of sinning, they are all damned.

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.

[5]. For instance, I made a report to Kaesekopf in this thread -- http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15611.0 -- about a woman having linked to an immodest article with lascivious women in bikini's. I did not see the images, of course, since I surf the internet with images blocked, but others did see and complained, as we can see in the above thread, and I also complained and said it is wrong and evil and mortally sinful to post links to such material.

I wanted Kaesekopf to remove the link for the good of souls, but he simply did not do this. Nothing I said to him could make him remove it. Granted, I did not wish to condemn him flat out without mercy for being a useless moderator lacking any real charity for his neighbor and risk being banned -- since I then would loose the purpose and opportunity of continuing helping others on his forum -- but the words and explanations already addressed to him were clear enough in it self, and anyone who is of good will would of course have understood it and make the right choice. But Kaesekopf, sadly, is not of good will as his deeds, omissions and actions clearly proves -- and we will see more examples of this a little further down as we move along.

Kaesekopf: "Also, if you click on a link talking about "sexy nun costumes", and you're surprised to see an example of it, you are probably close to braindead."

Jerome: "That had absolutely nothing do to with my points in the post. If you don't see it, there is nothing more I can do. It is your website, and you can do as you please. Note this though: even though people certainly know or might suspect the outcome, many still will click when this occasion is given to them. That is why one must remove the occasion from them completely, in order that souls may not die and fall down into Hell. I have tried to be very thorough and clear on this."

Kaesekopf: "Also, you have an odd definition of 'encourage' [others in their sin]."

Jerome: "I use the word to its logical conclusion. Let us use an example demonstrating this. Let's say some bad friend of yours left an immodest magazine while over at your place, which said many lascivious things on the cover, would you be so foolish as to allow it to stay on the table for your friends and family to see or read by arguing with yourself that, "if they take up the magazine talking about "sexy" stuff and become amazed, scandalized or offended at seeing examples of it, they are probably close to braindead; and therefore, I will not bother to throw it away, trash and burn it as it deserves and as I should be doing." Would you argue in that way in this example and not remove the evil magazine? If not, why not? If you would not argue in this way in this example (with the immoral magazine laying on your table), why do you not act in the same way on your own forum [by deleting the link as I have asked you to do]?" (Source: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15611.msg338267#msg338267; also see another relevant post I made to Kaesekopf on the same topic in the same thread: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15611.msg338262#msg338262.)

Note: He never responded and he never removed the link.

The reader must also understand that when I give links to a website that is not directly evil or lascivious in itself, I still do not approve of people visiting them with images on, since one can have no way of knowing what things they will post, or what avatars they will use. If this is so with even normal websites, what then with evil and lascivious websites? That is why those people who visit dangerous websites with images on, such as in the link Kaesekopf refused to remove, commits mortal sin.

Being a judge, parent, moderator etc. comes with a horrible responsibility, and woe to all those who make a bad job out of it! Indeed, those who think that they will not be responsible or judged for everything that has ever posted, linked to or written in their forum, either by others or themselves, or that they will not have to render the strictest account for absolutely everything that they have ever allowed to stay, omitted to delete or remove etc., are sorely deceived and will see their folly in the day of judgment.

Not long after this discussion with Kaesekopf, I made a separate thread condemning the evil practise some people have of linking to soul slaying internet sites and visiting them with images on, such as daily mail. You can read about it here: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15717.0

This is important, because even though I have distinctly made clear to many people in this forum that it is a mortal sin to link to such kind of material or visit it with images enabled, Kaesekopf and others -- not long after I was banned -- approved of a forum post linking to just such a website where such evil and lascivious content is seen displayed, as we will see below.

Optatus, December 4, 2016: "[THE DAILY FILTH MAIL LINK DIRECTLY LINKING TO THE ARTICLE AND ARTICLE'S RIGHT SIDE COLUMN WITH LASCIVIOUS IMAGES DELETED BY ME] So apart from the fact that this girl was the daughter of a senior EU official (Dr. Clemens Ladenburger) who was an advocate for refugees, she also came from a deeply Catholic family that was taking Pope Francis' spiel on [false] charity and [false] mercy towards refugees to its logical conclusions: death. Her father was recently re-elected for office in the Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken, a German Catholic lay organisation which in large part also serves as a mouthpiece for the Merkel-EU-Francis agenda regarding refugees... I have to wonder whether or not Maria met her murderer through some Catholic support group for refugees... But let's get more Mohammedan trash into Europe, amirite Papa Francis? I mean, really, who cares how many good Catholic daughters die at the hands of Moor rapists and murderers so long as you and your liberal lunatic friends get to pat yourselves on the back." (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16237.0)

Note: I warn you, reader, if you visit such websites with images on (such as the daily mail link in the thread), you will, without a doubt, commit a mortal sin since it is not lawful for you to put yourself in an occasion of sinning.

What is especially noteworthy with this thread is that no one, and I mean no one of the 26 replies, raised even a single word in objection to that a link had just been posted to a harmful website containing soul slaying material! That's right, these people claim to be Traditional (and Morally upright?) Catholics yet don't even find it important to mention, or put up a warning, that soul slaying material just had been linked too!

In fact, not even one of them cared to say a single word about it or warn anyone entering the thread to be careful! Not a single word or sentence! That says quite a bit about how spiritual blind and evil almost all people have become to day.

No, all they did instead -- Kaesekopf included -- was to have a useless discussion that will profit no one, while they completely ignored the only thing which would have been important -- and that they should have been doing -- such as 1) showing outrage that such a link had been posted to the harm of souls and the offence of God, 2) instructing sinners and people doing bad things, and 3) teaching others of the necessity of avoiding dangerous occasions and setting an example by removing it (such as deleting the link).

In fact, had I not been banned already, all I would have spoken of in this thread would be about how evil it is to link to such material and not say a word of warning about it (as none of them did), and how blind a person must be to not see a problem with linking to such material for others to get exposed too (as this person did, and as all of them approved of -- Kaesekopf included -- since they didn't say a word about it).

Not that it would be lawful to link to such material publically even with a warning, since most people just don't care about avoiding occasions of sinnings and hence would enter the site with images on regardless of the warning since they are evil and want to be damned; but when they don't even give a warning, it really shows how spiritually blind and depraved they really are, and where they are headed -- down to Hell.

St. John Vianney: “There is not a commandment of God which dancing [or media] does not cause men to break! Mothers may indeed say: ‘Oh, I keep an eye on their dress; [but] you cannot keep guard over their heart.’ Go, you wicked parents, go down to Hell where the wrath of God awaits you, because of your conduct when you gave free scope to your children; GO! It will not be long before they join you, seeing that you have shown them the way so well! Then you will see whether your pastor was right in forbidding those Hellish amusements [such as media and dangerous internet surfing].” (The CurĂ© D’Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, p. 146)

It is true to say that if a person don't see a problem with it, this is an indication that he is already in a state of damnation. I mean, how could a person -- full well knowing the content -- not see a problem with it or that he should not expose others to it? Should one expose others to Hell? To damnation? To mortal sin? To commit sin against the all good God? This is the kind of evil we are talking about here. Yet none of them even mentions it once or sees a problem with it. Ah blind, evil and damned people!

Pope Pius XII, Encyclical "Sacra Virginitas", March 25, 1954: "For modesty foresees threatening danger, forbids us to expose ourselves to risks, demands the avoidance of those occasions which the imprudent do not shun. It [modesty] does not like impure or loose talk, it shrinks from the slightest immodesty, it carefully avoids suspect familiarity with persons of the other sex [and do not rashly expose themselves to it by the media etc.], since it brings the soul to show due reverence to the body, as being a member of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit. He who possesses the treasure of Christian modesty abominates every sin of impurity and instantly flees whenever he is tempted by its seductions [i.e., he do not expose himself to the danger]."

Pope Pius XI, Encyclical "Ad Salutem", April 30, 1930: "It is abundantly clear that readers of Augustine [or of the saint or of tradition] will not be caught in the toils of that pernicious error, which was widespread during the eighteenth century, namely, that the inborn impulses of the will should neither be feared [to be indulged in or to be exposed to the danger] nor curbed... From this false principle too comes that license in writing and reading [and watching], in presenting or frequenting plays [the media, magazines, video games etc.], that do not merely threaten innocence and purity with dangerous occasions, but actually plot their ruin and destruction. From this source again are derived those immodest fashions of dress, which Christian women can never be at too great pains to abolish."
How does such amazing spiritual blindness of mind and dulness of sense arise in people as described in this post? In order to answer this question, I will simply quote an extracted and modified section from:


The description of a sinner “hardening” himself through sin that the Holy Scripture and spiritual writers often use to describe such people is indeed a most perfect description for this process of a sinner’s evolution in wickedness. Indeed, the more a man is of bad will, the less will also his conscience rebuke him for his sinful activities, so that a person hardened in habitual sins will many times totally cease to hear the rebuke of his God given conscience.

The reason behind why people fall into heresies or sins of all kinds is that they sin against the Natural Law concerning one or more of the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Anyone who commits a single one of these sins sins mortally against nature, and damns himself. If people would only keep the Natural Law, the devil would never be able to conquer and damn their souls. However, of all the seven mortal sins, lust is especially powerful in inducing a man to fall into heresy. A great reason why the people who commit sexual sins are so “hardened” in their sins, and so hard to be converted according to St. Thomas, is because sensual lusts (both for the married and the unmarried people alike) actually “gives rise to blindness of mind, which excludes almost entirely the knowledge of spiritual things, while dulness of sense arises from gluttony, which makes a man weak in regard to the same [spiritual] intelligible things.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II:II, Q. 15, Art. 3) Indeed, this “blindness of mind” and “dulness of sense” in regards to “the knowledge of spiritual things” that St. Thomas describes that lustful and gluttonous people have, is undoubtedly the main reason why most people, however much evidence is provided against their heresies or sins and impieties, refuse to convert or to the right thing. It is therefore true to say that “The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools [and damned people] is infinite” (Ecclesiastes 1:15) because of their own bad will and lasciviousness, according to God’s Holy and infallible Word. Their short moment of pleasure in this perishable world blinds them to the truth about God and the Natural Law, precipitating them into an eternal hell fire and torment.

This fact also requires married people from not indulging too often in the marital act. For all who overindulge in the marital act will always experience a “blindness of mind” of spiritual things. So young as well as old must be kept away from impurity and gluttony, since both of these sins are very powerful in getting a person to abandon the faith and the moral life, since the “blindness of mind” and “dulness of sense” undoubtedly will effect the minds of both young and old in a very detrimental way. Since the Holy Bible itself infallibly tells us “the number of fools is infinite” and that “The perverse are hard to be corrected” we should not wonder or find it hard to believe or accept that Our Lord’s words in the Gospel that most men are damned, are true.

If they would only keep the Natural Law in all, God would come to them and give them help in ascertaining the truth of how to interpret the theological law and the teachings of the Church, but since they reject the Natural Law which they know by inborn nature and instinct, God does not find them worthy enough to be enlightened by the light of His Faith and the fullness of the Truth of His Church, and leaves them in their darkness and blindness of heresy that they have prepared for themselves.

St. Paul speaks about these blind wretches who rejects the Natural Law in his letter to the Ephesians, admonishing Christians to stay away from their lasciviousness and covetousness. “This then I say and testify in the Lord: That henceforward you walk not as also the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts. Who despairing, have given themselves up to lasciviousness, unto the working of all uncleanness, unto covetousness. But you have not so learned Christ.” (Ephesians 4:17-20)

Lust, in all its forms, is undoubtedly the greatest reason why people have a “blindness of mind” concerning spiritual things. “As Isidore says (Etym. x), "a lustful man is one who is debauched with pleasures." Now venereal pleasures above all debauch a man’s mind.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II:II, Q. 153, Art. 2) The truth that lust is the most powerful of all human acts in inducing spiritual death, can even be understood from reason alone, since the sexual or lustful pleasure is the one pleasure of all who induces in man a kind of inability to reason. “...lust applies chiefly to venereal pleasures, which more than anything else work the greatest havoc in a man’s mind”. (Ibid) “And truly, the concupiscence of the flesh, beyond all other passions, doth greatly hinder us from being ready to meet Christ; whilst, on the other hand, nothing makes us more fit to follow our Lord, than virginal chastity.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, The art of dying well, Chapter IV)

This proves that lust and sexual pleasure is the biggest cause why people in the end are damned, and it also shows us about what sins one should speak about when one tries to convert a sinner or a heretic. And this of course also applies to married people and their sexual acts, and St. Augustine also confirms the fact that “he who is intemperate in marriage, what is he but the adulterer of his own wife?” by quoting the great St. Ambrose’s teaching concerning the necessity for married people to practice moderation in even their normal, natural and lawful marital acts. Spouses who overindulge in the sexual act are doing the exact same thing as gluttons, acting unreasonably and being attached to a fleeting pleasure. A person who is steeped in lust will always have a “blindness of mind” concerning spiritual things. It cannot be doubted that “Although every vice has a certain disgrace, the vices of intemperance are especially disgraceful,” and that “Among the vices of intemperance, venereal sins are most deserving of reproach, both on account of the insubordination of the genital organs, and because by these sins especially, the reason is absorbed.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 151, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 2 and 3)

The truth that of all a Christian’s conflicts against the devil, the most important one is chastity, cannot be understated: “Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christiano [Serm. ccxciii; ccl de Temp]) that of all a Christian’s conflicts, the most difficult combats are those of chastity; wherein the fight is a daily one, but victory rare: and Isidore declares (De Summo Bono ii, 39) that "mankind is subjected to the devil by carnal lust more than by anything else," because, to wit, the vehemence of this passion is more difficult to overcome.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 3, Reply to Objection 1)

Indeed, Our Lady of Fatima directly teaches that “The sins of the world are too great! The sins which lead most souls to hell are sins of the flesh! Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much. Those who serve God should not follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same. Many marriages are not good; they do not please Our Lord and are not of God.” Our Lady is the Queen of Prophets, and her words have been perfectly fulfilled in our times. Right at this time when Our Lady of Fatima revealed the future to the three young children, immodesty and lasciviousness started to rear its ugly head in all of society as a result of cinema. The sin that have damned most people through the ages is undoubtedly lust, but Our Lady put an emphasis on this message about lust and that “Many marriages are not good” at this exact time, because She knew that the years following Her prediction, the world’s people would be especially evil and lustful. Notice also how She prophesies and connects the sin of immodesty, and the changing of the clothes of the woman to lust, obviously because women in the years following her revelation would discard the immemorial law of the Church which expressly forbids women from wearing pants or tight and revealing clothing. Immodesty and lust goes together, as both are sins, and immodesty is the cause of the lust of the man. At no time in history have the world’s people been more evil and lustful, and this also shows us that the reason why most of the so called Christians have fallen into heresy, schism or apostasy, is lust.

St. Peter also confirms that “carnal desires” “war against the soul” in the Holy Bible, thus showing us that lust in all its forms blinds our spiritual eyes and understanding: “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims to refrain yourselves from carnal desires which war against the soul.” (1 Peter 2:11) It is important to notice that St. Peter does not single out only sinful lust here, but instead, he tells us that “carnal desires” in general “war against the soul”. All sexual acts, even lawful ones, “war against the soul” since they all are intoxicating like a drug, or as St. Thomas Aquinas describes it, “because the reason is carried away entirely on account of the vehemence of the pleasure, so that it is unable to understand anything at the same time... the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused”. The sexual pleasure is very similar to the effect of a strong drug, and drugs as we all know are very easy to become addicted to by abusing them or overindulging in them. The stronger a drug is, the more is also our spiritual life hindered, and that is why the angelic life of chastity will always be more spiritually fruitful than the marital life according to the Bible and God’s Holy Word. And so, it is clear that Holy Scripture infallibly teaches that marriage and the marital life is an impediment to the spiritual life, while the chaste and pure life “give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.” (1 Corinthians 7:35)

This is also why the Holy Bible urges people to remain unmarried and in a life of chastity since the married man “is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided (1 Corinthians 7:33). St. Paul in the Bible also warns those who intend to marry and perform the marital sexual act that they “shall have tribulation of the flesh”: “But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you.” (1 Corinthians 7:28)

Even lawful sexual acts tempts a man to be “intemperate in marriage,” and if a man gives in to this temptation and perform unlawful sexual acts with his wife, such as foreplay, oral sex or sensual kisses and touches, “what is he but the adulterer of his own wife?” Since “the whole world is seated in wickedness” (1 John 5:19), more because of carnal desires than any other act, the Apostles and their followers, who wrote the New Testament, really put an emphasis on the topic of chastity and carnal desires and lust, repeating the same topic over and over again in the Holy Scripture, since they had been told the truth from Our Lord that carnal desires was the greatest cause of why people, in the end, are damned. This is also why the wise teacher of God’s word should always remember this fact in order to know where his priorities need to be when he tries to convert a person. The man of God must not be discouraged if he cannot convert anyone or more than a few, for “The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools [and damned people] is infinite” (Ecclesiastes 1:15), and very few people are saved in the end.

The more a person, whether married or unmarried, seeks or indulges himself with venereal pleasures in his life, the more detrimental in effect will this “blindness of mind” be “since if one consent to them this increases the force of concupiscence and weakens the strength of the mind” and this proves that even the married must be very careful to never exceed the limits set by nature for the procreation of children.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 153, Art. 2: “Venereal pleasures are more impetuous, and are more oppressive on the reason than the pleasures of the palate: and therefore they are in greater need of chastisement and restraint, since if one consent to them this increases the force of concupiscence and weakens the strength of the mind. Hence Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 10): ‘I consider that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its heights as the fondling of women, and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state.’”

Since “venereal pleasures above all debauch a man’s mind” and “more than anything else work the greatest havoc in a man’s mind”, the topic of lust, in all its forms, is where the preacher or teacher should first try to find heresies or sins against the Natural Law in the sinner he intends to convert. Then he can move along and see if there are some other sins against the Natural Law, by asking questions to see if the sinner commits one or more of the other seven deadly sins, that is, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Every single mortal sin that man can commit on this earth fits into one of the categories of the seven mortal sins, and that is why it is much more easy to expose a mortal sin by using the template of the seven mortal sins when we try to convert a person. If people would only remember that God sees all their actions, no one would be able to sin. That is why one should always think as if God is present all the time in order to keep the Natural Law.

That one nowadays is forced to have to explain such matters of the Natural Law concerning sexual pleasure just shows us in what bad shape the world is currently in, for before our own time, as we have seen from the teaching of the Popes, Fathers and Saints of the Church, the world’s population understood the inherent evilness of sensual kisses and touches in marriage and between married spouses, and it was publicly taught by the Magisterium of the Church as well as the Church’s Saints that kisses performed “for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss” is condemned as a mortal sin for both the married and the unmarried people alike (Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Morals Condemned in Decree #40, September 24, 1665; Denz. 1140).

A good example of how the Christian peoples of the former times understood that non-procreative sexual acts (such as sensual kisses and touches) were sinful both for the married and the unmarried is found in St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings where he tells us that acts “such as impure looks, kisses, and touches” regards the virtue of purity, while the virtue of “chastity regards rather sexual union”.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 151, Art. 4: “Consequently purity regards venereal matters properly, and especially the signs thereof, such as impure looks, kisses, and touches. And since the latter are more wont to be observed, purity regards rather these external signs [i.e., looks, kisses, and touches], while chastity regards rather sexual union.”

Here we have another great evidence that kisses and touches for venereal pleasure was known very clearly to be sinful, shameful and contrary to purity even by the lay people of St. Thomas’ time. St. Thomas tells us that the virtue of “purity regards venereal matters properly, and especially the signs thereof, such as impure looks, kisses, and touches.” But he adds that the virtue of purity were “more wont to be observed” by the people of his own time in regards to these “impure” acts of “impure looks, kisses, and touches,” thus confirming the fact that non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts, such as kisses and touches for sensual pleasure, is a completely foreign concept to the Church and Her Saints that have been foisted on the modern man and woman through the diabolical media, to be a cause of or even to be “love”, “affection”, or an integral part of the marital act, when it in fact is nothing but filthy lust! Thus, according to St. Thomas, in contrast to the lustful spouses of our own times, the people of the former times were lucky enough to have this good “shamefacedness” that kept them from performing unnecessary and unlawful sexual acts “such as impure looks, kisses, and touches.

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, but only to the unmarried):

Now men are most ashamed of venereal acts... so much so that even the conjugal act, which is adorned by the honesty of marriage, is not devoid of shame... 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.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 151, Art. 4)

Thus, we can see how bad will and the people’s evolution in wickedness have changed the human race’s moral compass to such a degree that, what were once “more wont to be observed” by the more virtuous people of St. Thomas’ time concerning how “purity regards venereal matters properly, and especially the signs thereof, such as impure looks, kisses, and touches”, and that these people understood that “impure looks, kisses, and touches” were unlawful and shameful even for the married—have now changed so much that a great part of this world now impiously and shamelessly teaches that “impure looks, kisses, and touches” are “good” and allowed to be performed in a marriage and between two married spouses.

St. Paul teaches us of God’s purpose on marriage and sexuality, saying: “May marriage be honorable in all, and may the bed be undefiled. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” (Hebrews 13:4) Haydock Commentary explains this teaching of God in the Holy Bible: “Or, let marriage be honorable in all. That is, in all things belonging to the marriage state. This is a warning to married people, not to abuse the sanctity of their state, by any liberties or irregularities contrary thereunto. (Challoner) --- As marriage is a great sacrament, (Ephesians 5) married persons should be careful to honor and respect it, by chaste and prudent behavior; (see 1st Peter 3, and 1st Thessalonians 4) but it too often happens that by criminal incontinence they change a great sacrament into a great sacrilege.”

1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 “For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication; That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor: Not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God… because the Lord is the avenger of all these things, as we have told you before, and have testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto sanctification.”

No good Christian can doubt that all selfish, unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts must be totally excluded from a marriage that is “honorable in all” that the apostle spoke about, and that all selfish, immoderate or unnatural sexual acts “that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.” (Ephesians 5:12)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 15-20 “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. … [Know you not that] 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 take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. But he who is joined 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.”

Haydock Commentary explains: “Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ....and the temple of the Holy Ghost. Man consists of soul and body; by baptism he is made a member of that same mystical body, the Church, of which Christ is the head: In baptism both the soul and body are consecrated to God: they are made the temple of the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as the spirit and grace of God inhabits in men, who are sanctified. Christ redeemed both our souls and bodies, both which he designs to sanctify, and to glorify hereafter in heaven; so that we must look upon both body and soul as belonging to Christ, and not as our own. --- Shall I, then, taking the members of Christ, make them the members of an harlot, by a shameful and unlawful commerce? --- Such sins are chiefly to be avoided by flight, and by avoiding the occasions and temptations. Other sins are not committed by such an injury done to the body, but by an abuse of something else, that is different from the body, but by fornication and sins of uncleanness, the body itself is defiled and dishonored, whereas the body ought to be considered as if it were not our own, being redeemed by our Savior Christ, consecrated to him, with an expectation of a happy resurrection, and of being glorified in heaven. Endeavor, therefore, to glorify God in your body, by employing it in his service, and bear him in your body by being obedient to his will. (Witham) --- We know and we believe that we carry about Jesus Christ in our bodies, but it is the shame and condemnation of a Christian to live as if he neither knew or believed it. … Whoever yields to impurity, converts his body into the temple of Satan, glorifies and carries him about, tearing away the members of Jesus Christ, to make them the members of a harlot.”

Sacred Scripture uses the term fornication in a more general sense that encompasses all sinful sexual acts. The argument is that God is Holy and that we also must be holy. “Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:16) The body of each and every Christian is a part of Christ, and is a Temple of the Holy Spirit. We are joined to the Lord with a unity of heart and mind that makes us one in spirit with our Savior, who is God Incarnate, who Himself has a human body and soul. Therefore our bodies, as well as our souls, should be treated as a holy means to glorify God. This understanding of the body is incompatible with the use of the body for mere sexual pleasure or mutual sexual gratification, in any situation, even within marriage, and is directly contrary to the Divine and Natural Law.

Unnatural, immoderate and non-procreative sexual acts within marriage are in fundamental conflict with this call from Scripture to “be holy” and to avoid all sexual sins because the body is a part of the body of Christ and is a Temple of the Holy Spirit. Did Christ teach His disciples to commit such acts within marriage? If you think so, then you do not know Christ. Would the Holy Spirit guide a married couple to commit such acts within the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which is bestowed on the couple by the Holy Spirit? If you think so, then you understand neither the Spirit nor the holiness of the Sacraments. You have been bought at the great price of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Do not sin against Christ, the Natural Law and against the Sacrament of Marriage by committing unnatural or excessive lustful sexual acts.

The entire moral law is found implicitly in the single act of Jesus Christ dying on the Cross for our salvation. Look at a crucifix and consider the self-sacrifice and selfless love with which Christ lived and died for you. Do you really think that, within the Sacrament of Marriage established by this same Savior, Christ would permit unnatural, shameful or immoderate sexual acts of any kind, at any time, under any conditions whatsoever? Are such sexual acts compatible with the pure, holy, selfless, self-sacrificing love, which encompasses the entire moral law as well as our salvation? Certainly not.

Putting forward the question concerning sexual pleasure and the Natural Law: “Can a husband use his wife only for delight or principally for delight”, St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444) shows us a response or defense that lustful and wicked husbands commonly use in order to excuse their sexual sins, saying: “Why can’t I take delight in my own goods and my own wife?” St. Bernadine, however, answers the wicked man that the wife is not the husband’s but God’s and that it is a sin (by implication mortal sin) to have sexual intercourse too frequently, with inordinate affection, or with dissipation of one’s strength (Bernadine of Siena, Seraphic Sermons, 19.3).

So contrary to what most deceived people think today, spouses are not married or given to each other to live out, increase or excite their shameful, sexual perversions, but they are married for the purpose of chastity, procreation and honorable companionship, and for the honor and glory of Our Lord.

For she was espoused to her husband to be his partner in life, and for the procreation of children, not for the purposes of indecency and laughter; that she might keep the house, and instruct him also to be grave, not that she might supply to him the fuel of fornication.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Homily V, 1 Thessalonians iv. 1-8, Ver. 8)

All the Saints in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church as well as the Catholic Magisterium of the Popes (as we have seen), taught that the seeking of pleasure only in natural intercourse, as well as seeking pleasure in unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts, was a selfish insult to God, the “Supreme Lord of our body” and an abuse of the generative power (and thus an abuse of the natural law) in the private parts.

As the Apostle says (1 Cor. 6:20) in speaking against lust, ‘You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body.’ Wherefore by inordinately using the body through lust a man wrongs God Who is the Supreme Lord of our body. Hence Augustine says (De Decem. Chord. 10 [Serm. ix (xcvi de Temp.)]): ‘God Who thus governs His servants for their good, not for His, made this order and commandment, lest unlawful pleasures should destroy His temple which thou hast begun to be.’” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I:II, q. 153, art. 3, obj. 2)

In truth, “If it is a sin for a man to be intimate with his wife except through a desire for children, [when the spouses are still performing the normal, natural and procreative marital act] what can men think or what hope can they promise themselves, if being married, they commit adultery? By this means they descend to the depths of hell, refusing to hear the Apostle when he says: ‘The time is short; it remains that those who have wives be as if they had none’; [1 Cor. 7:29] and: ‘every one of you learn how to possess his vessel in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who have no hope.’ [1 Thess. 4:4,5,12]” (St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 42:4, c. 470-543 A.D.)

Also see:

No comments:

Post a Comment