Q&A: Does Song of Songs teach that oral sex is permissible between husband and wife? And is Song of Songs to be interpreted in physical intimate way rather than in a spiritual intimate way?

Note: None of the teachings on our site must be deemed absolutely infallibly or true, and the reader must be advised to follow his own conscience. Even if our teachings proclaim this or that position to be true (according to our own interpretation), the reader must understand that this is our own private interpretation of saint quotes and church teachings: dogmas and encyclicals. Whatever the case may be, always follow what you think the church teaches on any matter; and do not trust blindly on what is taught on our site (even if we claim this or that position is a mortal sin) – even if our position may seem true and infallible (you may, however, follow what we teach blindly if you think this is the true position). If you have worries about any position, ask a knowledgeable friend or priest for guidance; and if you have further concerns, ask another priest or even several priests to see what he thinks about this or that position. No one can be forced to believe in any position that is uncertain, and the reader must be advised to follow his conscience. So if you think any position is uncertain according to your own conscience, make a reasonable judgment, and then ask for advice or continue to study the issue until you have made a right judgment – according to your conscience.

Question/Objection: Song of Solomon is a glorification of sexual relations within marriage. Songs of Solomon talks about caressing and kissing and so on. Notice in Song 2:3 that it says, " . . . and his fruit was sweet to my taste." Obviously, this involves very intimate experience. Tasting one another can have a wide variety of applications. It appears that this is a veiled way of alluding to oral sex. Therefore, oral sex is permissible between a husband and wife.

Answer: This person, of course, presents no real evidence for his assertion to support oral sex in the bible except for his own private interpretation of the bible (a practise which the Church also condemns). As Catholics should know, Catholics are not permitted to interpret the bible by themselves in opposition to Church teaching.

What the Church teaches is clear, since both Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Doctors of the Church, condemns oral sex as a mortal sin and as an unnatural sexual act (see appendix at the end of the article). And the Church has formally approved of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ and Alphonsus’ teachings.

Related articles:
https://against-all-heresies-and-errors.blogspot.com/2018/04/can-catholic-spouses-use-masturbation-in-the-context-of-natural-intercourse.html

https://against-all-heresies-and-errors.blogspot.com/2018/04/can-catholic-married-couples-use-sex-toys.html

It is not coincidental that in this day and age when almost all are heretics, many people are falsely interpreting King Solomon’s Song of Songs and Proverbs in a literal way instead of a figurative way (as the Holy Fathers did) that signify the spiritual relationship between God and the soul, Christ and the Church, and Christ and Our Lady. The Fathers never interpreted the Song of Songs or any other book of the Bible as a glorification of sex, and they unanimously rejected and condemned those wicked and lustful people who tried to excuse their unnatural sensuality by perverting the Holy Scripture for the sake of their own selfishness.

As said already, a Catholic is bound under pain of mortal sin to obey, consent to and follow the unanimous teaching of the Fathers on everything that they teach unanimously, as the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council teaches.

A doctrine of faith or morals that is taught by the unanimous consent of the Fathers is part of the Ordinary Magisterium. The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that all biblical doctrines that have been held by the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers are true and hence, binds all Catholics to believe them also.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 2, January 6th, 1870, ex cathedra: “I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith... accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

The Council of Trent in the 16th century was the first to infallibly define that a consensus can indeed make a doctrine part of the Ordinary Magisterium. And it was the first to infallibly define that the only kind of consensus that can do this is the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 4, AD 1546, ex cathedra: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners [that is, those who oppose or contradict this] shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”

As we will see, the Church Fathers unanimously teaches that King Solomon’s Song of Songs and Proverbs must be interpreted in a figurative way instead of in a literal way, thus making this doctrine infallibly true (i.e., that the Song is to be interpreted spiritually) according to the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. The Church Fathers, well aware of the seemingly fleshly words and sexuality present in the Song of Songs, generally cautioned against reading it until a ‘mature spirituality’ had been obtained, lest the Song be misunderstood and lead the reader into temptation. Origen says, “I advise and counsel everyone who is not yet rid of the vexations of flesh and blood and has not ceased to feel the passion of his bodily nature, to refrain completely from reading this little book.” (Origen, Commentary on the Song of Songs, cited in Anchor Bible Commentary Song of Songs 117)

When asked for advice about what scriptural books a young girl should read, Jerome recommended the Psalms, Proverbs, Gospels, Acts and the Epistles, followed by the rest of the Old Testament. Of the Song however, Jerome counsels caution, saying “… she would fail to perceive that, though it is written in fleshly words, it is a marriage song of a spiritual bridal. And not understanding this, she would suffer from it.” (St. Jerome, Letter cvii, To Laeta, cited in Anchor Bible Commentary Song of Songs 119)

Indeed, “If you wish to understand… for what reason the body was made, then listen: it was made that it should be a temple to the Lord; that the soul, being holy and blessed, should act in it as if it were a priest serving before the Holy Spirit that dwells in you.” (Origen, Exegesis on 1 Corinthians 7:29)

Concerning the Book of Proverbs, St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-236 A.D.), From the Commentary of St. Hippolytus on Proverbs, writes:

 ““To know wisdom and instruction.” (Prov. 1:2) He who knows the wisdom of God, receives from Him also instruction, and learns by it the mysteries of the Word; and they who know the true heavenly wisdom will easily understand the words of these mysteries. Wherefore he says: “To understand the difficulties of words;” (Prov. 1:3) for things spoken in strange language by the Holy Spirit become intelligible to those who have their hearts right with God.”

St. Hippolytus of Rome goes on to explain that many things mentioned in the Book of Proverbs has a symbolical meaning:

“[On Proverbs 4:25] He “looks right on” who has thoughts free of passion; and he has true judgments, who is not in a state of excitement about external appearances. When he says, “Let thine eyes look right on,” he means the vision of the soul; and when he gives the exhortation, “Eat honey, my son, that it may be sweet to thy palate,” he uses “honey” figuratively, meaning divine doctrine, which restores the spiritual knowledge of the soul. But wisdom embraces the soul also; for, says he, “love her, that she may embrace thee.” And the soul, by her embrace being made one with wisdom, is filled with holiness and purity. Yea more, the fragrant ointments of Christ are laid hold of by the soul’s sense of smell.”

Hence that the Book of Proverbs is to be interpreted spiritually, with “thoughts free of passion” and “with holiness and purity”, just as with the Song of Solomon, and not for the purpose of any licentiousness.

St. Hippolytus of Rome goes on to explain Proverbs 5:19 in a spiritual sense—which, to the contrary, is the very verse lustful people interprets in a fleshly sense—and explains that it refers to spiritual wisdom and understanding; and that the hind and following words mentioned in Proverbs 5:19 is to be understood by “the purity of that pleasure”, and in the end he equates all of this with wisdom, that, “like a stag, can repel and crush the snaky doctrines of the heterodox [i.e., those holding unorthodox or heretical doctrines or opinions].”

“[Proverbs 5:19 “Let her be thy dearest hind, and most agreeable fawn: let her breasts [or affection or love] inebriate thee at all times; be thou delighted continually with her love.”] He shows also, by the mention of the creature (the hind), the purity of that pleasure; and by the roe he intimates the quick responsive affection of the wife. And whereas he knows many things to excite, he secures them against these, and puts upon them the indissoluble bond of affection, setting constancy before them. And as for the rest, wisdom, figuratively speaking, like a stag, can repel and crush the snaky doctrines of the heterodox. … The heterodox are the “wicked,” and the transgressors of the law are “evil men,” whose “ways”—that is to say, their deeds—he bids us not enter. … Let her therefore, says he, be with thee, like a roe, to keep all virtue fresh. (Prov. 5:19) And whereas a wife and wisdom are not in this respect the same, let her [that is, wisdom] rather lead thee; for thus thou shalt conceive good thoughts.” (The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus, "On Proverbs," by St. Hippolytus of Rome, 170-236 A.D., vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

Concerning this biblical passage, Benson Bible Commentary notes that: “Let her be as the loving hind — Hebrew, as the hind of loves; as amiable and delightful as the hinds are to princes and great men, who used to make them tame and familiar, and to take great delight in them, as has been observed by many writers. … Let her breasts — Rather, her loves, as Houbigant renders דדוה, at all times, in all ages and conditions; not only love her when she is young and beautiful, but when she is old, or even deformed; and be thou always ravished with her love — Love her fervently. It is a hyperbolical expression.”

The Hebrew noun for “affection” is dad and has three other biblical references (the basic meaning of dad is breast or pap), all in Ezekiel.

Since affection (dad) which is synonymous with love, can mean breast, and has correctly been translated as breast in other instances in the bible, that is also probably why most Bible translators have rendered it as breasts in Proverbs 5:19.

However, even some protestant bible versions do translate “breast” in this Bible verse as “love” or “affection”, which we believe is more accurate.

Proverbs 5:19, Revised Standard Version (RSV): “a lovely hind, a graceful doe. Let her affection fill you at all times with delight, be infatuated always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:19, Young’s Literal Translation (YLT): “A hind of loves, and a roe of grace! Let her loves satisfy thee at all times, In her love magnify thyself continually.”

Proverbs 5:19, New Century Version (NCV): “She is as lovely and graceful as a deer. Let her love always make you happy; let her love always hold you captive.”

Proverbs 5:19, Good News Translation (GNT): “pretty and graceful as a deer. Let her charms keep you happy; let her surround you with her love.”

It is of note that the approved Knox’s Catholic Translation of the Vulgate, Proverbs 5:19, reads:

“Thy own bride, gentle as a hind, graceful as a doe; be it her bosom that steals away thy senses with the delight of a lover that loves still.”

This difference in interpreting the Hebrew or Greek may also explain why we have seen different translations of this passage cited by early Church writers but without them mentioning the word “breasts”. The reason for this may be because they have interpreted this passage differently, and hence translated it in another sense. That may also explain why St. Hippolytus never mentioned the words “breasts” when commenting on this passage, and why he instead spoke of “affection of the wife.”

Whatever the case, none of the Fathers has ever interpreted breasts or kisses in a sensual way in scripture. According to St. Ambrose, the Breast mentioned in Song of Songs 8:1 is Baptism, and the Kiss is a kiss of mystical peace: “What are the breasts of the church except the sacrament of baptism? And well does he say “sucking,” as if the baptized were seeking him as a draught of snowy milk. “Finding you without,” he says, “I shall kiss you,” that is, finding you outside the body, I embrace you with the kiss of mystical peace. No one shall despise you; no one shall shut you out. I will introduce you into the inner sanctuary and the hidden places of Mother Church, and into all the secrets of mystery, so that you may drink the cup of spiritual grace.” (Consolation on the Death of Emperor Valentinian 75, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 22, p. 296)

St. Methodius, On The Abuse of Biblical Passages for the Purpose of Sensual Gratification (c. 311 A.D.): “Now Paul, when summoning all persons to sanctification and purity… in order to silence the ignorant, now deprived of all excuse… that he might take away occasion for the abuse of these passages from those who taught the sensual gratification of the body, under the pretext of begetting children… For men who are incontinent in consequence of the uncontrolled impulses of sensuality in them, dare to force the Scriptures beyond their true meaning, so as to twist into a defence of their incontinence… and they are not ashamed to run counter to the Spirit, but, as though born for this purpose, they kindle up the smouldering and lurking passion, fanning and provoking it; and therefore he, cutting off very sharply these dishonest follies and invented excuses, and having arrived at the subject of instructing them how men should behave to their wives, showing that it should be as Christ did to the Church, "who gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the Word," (Ephesians 5:25-26)…” (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, Chapter X.--The Doctrine of the Same Apostle Concerning Purity)

The kisses, breasts, hair, lips, neck, belly, navel, etc. has a spiritual meaning according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers

According to Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory the Great and the rest of the Fathers and early Christian writers, the breasts, hair, lips, neck, belly, navel, etc. in Song of Songs, Song of Solomon or Canticles of Canticles and related bible passages are the “powers” or “representations” of the soul or of the Church and Christ, or even wisdom itself. According to St. Ambrose (4th century bishop of Milan), commenting on Song of Songs 8:1, “What are the breasts of the church except the sacrament of baptism?” For St. Gregory the Great, the fawns feeding among the lilies in Song of Songs 4:5 are saints who “are unto God a sweet savor of Christ” (quoting 2 Cor. 2:15). Again from St. Ambrose, on the Song of Songs 7:2: “Small, too, are the navel and belly of the soul that ascends to Christ.” (From Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament, vol. IX)

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Father and Doctor of the Church (died 604): “To create allegories, the divine thoughts are cloaked with what we know; by examining exterior language, we attain an interior understanding. For this reason the Song of Songs employs language characteristic of sensual love to reheat the soul using familiar expressions to revive it from sluggishness and to spur it onto the love that is above using language typical of the love here below. This book mentions kisses and breasts and cheeks and thighs. We must not ridicule the sacred description of these terms but reflect upon the mercy of God. For this book goes so far as to extend the meaning of the language characteristic of our shameful love in such a way that our heart is set on fire with yearning for that sacred love. By discussing the parts of the body, this book summons us to love. Therefore we ought to note how wonderfully and mercifully this book is working within us. However, from where God lowers himself by speaking, he lifts us up there by understanding. We are instructed by the conversations proper to sensual love when their power causes us to enthusiastically burn with love for the Divinity.” (An Exposition on the Songs of Songs, Section 1 & 2; Translated from Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. CXLIV)

Pope St. Gregory the Great: “The Gentiles who were called did not cease kissing their Redeemer’s feet, because they longed for him with uninterrupted love. Hence the bride in the Song of Songs said of this same Redeemer: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.” (Song of Songs 1:2) It is fitting that she desire her Creator’s kiss, as she makes herself ready throughout her love to obey him.” (Forty Gospel Homilies 33, Quoted in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon by J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 292)

“The song of Songs introduces the bride saying, “Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth.” (Song of Songs 1:2) Now, by “kiss” we understand not the joining of mouths but the communion of pious soul and divine Word. It is like the bride saying something of this kind, I experienced your words in writing, but I long to hear your very voice as well, I wish to receive the sacred teaching directly from your mouth and to caress it with the lips of my mind.” (Commentary on the Song of Songs 1, Quoted in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon by J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 292)

Pope St. Gregory the Great: “Let us set this before our eyes: due to its unceasing desire, a soul of any of the chosen ones is set on fire in love for the sight of the bridegroom. Since such a soul lacks the power to perfectly perceive such a sight in this life, it contemplates his eminence and is deeply pierced because of this love. Now a deep piercing—which is born of charity and set on fire by desire—resembles a kiss, for as often as the soul kisses God, it is deeply pierced with love for him. At the present time there are many who really fear the Lord and have received [the grace of] good works but they still do not kiss God because they are not deeply pierced by a love for him at all.” (An Exposition on the Songs of Songs, Section 18; Translated from Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. CXLIV)

Pope St. Gregory the Great: “And of course the kiss of his mouth is the very fullness of interior peace; when we have attained it, there will no longer be anything to seek. This is why it is fittingly added, “FOR YOUR BREASTS ARE BETTER THAN WINE.” (Song of Songs 1:1) Wine is the knowledge of God received by those of us who reside in this life. But we embrace the breasts of the bridegroom when we contemplate him in the eternal fatherland by an embrace of his presence. Therefore let the soul say, “Your breasts are better than wine.” It is as if the soul says, “Great indeed is the knowledge about yourself that you have bestowed on me in this life; great is the wine of your intimate knowledge by which you make me very drunk; but your breasts are better than wine since whatever is presently known about you through faith is transcended by the beauty and loftiness of contemplation.” (An Exposition on the Songs of Songs, Section 19; Translated from Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. CXLIV)

St. Ambrose of Milan, Archbishop, Confessor, Father and Doctor of the Church (died 397): “But the church does not cease to kiss Christ’s feet, and she demands not one but many kisses in the Song of Solomon, since like blessed Mary, she listens to his every saying, she receives his every word, when the gospel or prophets are read, and she keeps all these words in her heart.” (Letter 62, To His Sister, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 26, p. 392)

St. Ambrose: “Therefore such a soul also desires many kisses of the Word, so that she may be enlightened with the light of the knowledge of God. For this is the kiss of the Word, I mean the light of holy knowledge. God the Word kisses us, when he enlightens our heart and governing faculty with the spirit of the knowledge of God. The soul that has received this gift exults and rejoices in the pledge of wedded love and says, “I opened my mouth and panted.” (Ps. 119:131; 118:131 in Douay-Rheims Version.) For it is with the kiss that lovers cleave to each other and gain possession of the sweetness of grace that is within, so to speak. Through such a kiss the soul cleaves to God the Word, and through the kiss the spirit of him who kisses is poured into the soul, just as those who kiss are not satisfied to touch lightly with their lips but appear to be pouring their spirit into each other. Showing that she loves not only the appearance of the Word and his face, as it were, but all his inner parts, she adds to the favor of the kisses: “Your breasts are better than wine, and the fragrance of your ointments is above all perfumes.” (Song of Solomon 4:10) She sought the kiss, God the Word poured himself into her wholly and laid bare his breasts to her, that is, his teachings and the laws of the wisdom that is within, and was fragrant with the sweet fragrance of his ointment. Captive to these, the soul is saying that the enjoyment of the knowledge of God is richer than the joy of any bodily pleasure.” (Isaac, or the Soul 3.8-9, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 65, p. 16-17)

St. Ambrose: “The church beautiful in [those recently baptized]. So that God the Word says to her: “You are all fair, my love, and there is no blemish in you,” for guilt has been washed away. “Come here from Lebanon, from the beginning of faith, you will pass through and pass on,” (Song of Songs 4:7-8) because, renouncing the world, she passed through things temporal and passed on to Christ. And again, God the Word says to her, “How beautiful and sweet are you made, I love, in your delights! Your stature is become like that of a palm tree, and your breasts like bunches of grapes” (Song of Songs 7:6-8).” (On the Mysteries 7.39, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2.10:322)

St. Ambrose: ““Your navel is like a round bowl, not wanting tempered wine. Your belly is like a heap of wheat, set about with lilies. Your neck is like a tower of ivory. Your eyes are a pool in Heshbon.” (cf. Song of Songs 7:2-4) The good navel of the soul, capable of receiving all virtues, is like a bowl, fashioned by the author of faith himself (Heb. 12:2). For in a bowl wisdom has mixed her wine, saying, “Come, eat my bread and drink the wine which I have mingled for you.” (Prov. 9:5) This navel, therefore, fashioned with all the beauty of the virtues, does not lack mixed wine. His belly also was filled not only with the wheaten food of justice, as it were, but also with that of grace, and it bloomed with sweetness like a lily (Isaiah 31:5).” (Consolation on the Death of Emperor Valentinian 96, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 22, pp. 293-94)

Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus (died c. 457): “She is admitted to the inner chamber, the quarters and rooms of the bridegroom, and boastfully says to her own retinue, “The king introduced me into his chamber,” (Song of Solomon 1:4) that is, he revealed to me his hidden purposes, the plan concealed from ages and generations he made known to me, the treasuries obscure, hidden, and unseen he opened to me, in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah.” (Commentary on the Song of Songs 1, Quoted in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon by J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 295)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Archbishop, Confessor, Father and Doctor of the Church (died 386): “You wish to know the place? He says in the Canticles, “I came down to the nut garden” (Song of Solomon 6:11: A Type of the Passion of Christ); for it was a garden where he was crucified.” (Catechetical Lectures14.5, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 65, p. 16-17)

St. Caesarius of Arles, Archbishop of Arles (died 542): “It is said concerning the church of the Gentiles, “I am dark and beautiful, O daughter of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 1:5) Why is the church dark and beautiful? She is dark by nature, beautiful by grace. Why dark? “Indeed, in guilt was I born, and in sin my mother conceived me.” (Ps. 51:5; 50:7 in Douay-Rheims Version.) Why beautiful? “Cleanse me of sin with hyssop, that I may be purified; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” (Ps. 51:7; 50:9 in Douay-Rheims Version.)” (Sermon 12.4.1, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 47, p. 209)

St. Jerome, Hermit, Priest, Confessor, Bible Translator, Theologian, Father and Doctor of the Church (died 420): “Born, in the first instance, of such parentage we are naturally black, and even when we have repented, so long as we have not scaled the heights of virtue, we may still say: “I am black but comely, O you daughters of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 1:5) But you will say to me, “I have left the home of my childhood; I have forgotten my father, I am born anew in Christ. What reward do I receive for this?” The context shows—“The king shall desire your beauty.” This, then, is the great mystery. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be” not as is there said, “of one flesh,” (Ephesians 5:31-32) but “of one spirit.” Your bridegroom is not haughty or disdainful; He has “married an Ethiopian woman.” (Numbers 12:1) When once you desire the wisdom of the true Solomon and come to Him, He will avow all His knowledge to you; He will lead you into His chamber with His royal hand; (Song of Solomon 1:4) He will miraculously change your complexion so that it shall be said of you, “Who is this that goes up and has been made white?”” (Letter 22.1, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2.6:22-23)

St. Hippolytus of Rome, Priest and Martyr (died 235): “[On Song of Solomon 1:4]“The king introduced me to his treasures.” Who is this king, if not Christ himself? And what are these treasures, if not his chambers? This is the people who say, “We will rejoice and delight in you,” for he calls everyone. First, it tells us about the past, then it reveals a time of penance in the future: “We will rejoice and delight in you.” “I loved your breasts more than wine,” not the wine that was mixed by Christ, surely, but the wine whereby Noah previously languished in drunkenness, the wine that deceived Lot. “We loved your fonts of milk more than this wine” because breasts were the commandments given by Christ [in the law]; they delight but certainly do not inebriate. For this reason, indeed, the apostles said, “Do not drink so much wine that you become drunk.” (Eph. 5:18) Therefore the beloved says, “I loved your breasts more than wine; righteousness loves you,” because those who follow the way of righteousness are those who love you, whereas unbelievers hate you and deserve retribution from the judge.” (Treatise on the Song of Songs 3.1.4, Quoted in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomonby J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 295)

Bishop Gregory of Elvira (died c. 392): “For thus is it called the Canticle of Canticles, inasmuch as it is above every canticle that Moses and Mary in Exodus and Isaiah and Habakkuk and others sang. These are better canticles because they give praise to the Lord with joyful mind and soul for the liberation of the people, or for their conversion, or in gratitude for the divine works. Here they are superior also because the voice of the singing church and of God is heard. Because the divine and human are united with on another, therefore, it is called the Canticle of Canticles, that is, the best of the best.” (Explanation of the Song of Songs 1.2, in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon by J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 289)

St. Augustine of Hippo, Bishop, Philosopher, Theologian, Father and Doctor of the Church (died 430): “The Canticle of Canticles sings a sort of spiritual rapture experienced by holy souls contemplating the nuptial relationship between Christ the King and his queen-city, the church. But it is a rapture veiled in allegory to make us yearn for it more ardently and rejoice in the unveiling as the bridegroom comes into view—the bridegroom to whom the canticles sings, “The righteous love you,” and the hearkening bride replies, “There is love in your delights.”” (City of God 17.20, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 24, p. 77)

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (died c. 340): “And as we are examining His Name, the seal of all we have said may be found in the oracle of Solomon the wisest of the wise, where he says in the Song of Songs: “Thy name is as ointment poured forth.” (Song of Songs 1:3) Yea, he being supplied with divine wisdom, and thought worthy of more mystic revelations about Christ and His Church, and speaking of Him as Heavenly Bridegroom, and her as Bride...” (Proof of the Gospel 4.16, Quoted in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon by J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 293)

Cassiodorus, Roman statesman and writer (died c. 585): “In short, you deserve Christ’s kiss and the continuance of your virginal glory forever, for these words are spoken to you: “Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth, for your breasts are better than wine, smelling sweet of the best ointments,” (Songs of Solomon 1:1) and the other verses which that divine book includes with its mystical proclamation.” (Exposition of the Psalms, Preface, in Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation 51:42)

Origen, biblical scholar and theologian (died c. 254): “We must not, however, overlook the fact that in certain versions we find written “for your sayings are better than wine,” where we read “for your breasts are better than wine.” (Song of Solomon 1:4) But although it may seem that this gives a plainer meaning in regard to the things about which we have discoursed in the spiritual interpretation, we ourselves keep to what the Seventy interpreters wrote in every case. For we are certain that the Holy Spirit willed that the figures of the mysteries should be roofed over in the Divine Scriptures, and should not be displayed publicly, and in the open air.” (Commentary on the Song of Songs 1.3, in Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation 26:74)

St. Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens (1st century): “And in the Songs there are those passionate longings fit only for prostitutes. There are too those other sacred pictures boldly used to represent God, so that what is hidden may be brought out into the open and multiplied, what is unique and undivided may be divided up, and multiple shapes and forms be given to what has neither shape nor form. All this is to enable the one capable of seeing the beauty hidden within these images to find that they are truly mysterious, appropriate to God, and filled with a great theological light. But let us not suppose that the outward face of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. Rather, it is the protective garb of the understanding of what is ineffable and invisible to the common multitude. This is so in order that the most sacred things are not easily handled by the profane but are revealed instead to the real lovers of holiness. Only these latter know how to pack away the workings of childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive, contemplative power to cross over to the simple, marvelous, transcendent truth of the symbols.” (Letter IX, in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, pp. 282-83)

As we have seen, the Church Fathers unanimously teaches that King Solomon’s Song of Songs and Proverbs must be interpreted in a figurative way instead of in a literal way, thus making this interpretation infallible according to the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. Anyone, therefore, who dares to teach contrary to this unanimous interpretation of the Fathers on the Song of Songs (claiming that the Song definitely approves of various sexual acts or deeds when no one supports this notion), must be regarded as having deviated from how the Church understands these biblical books and hence is to be censured, because he denies the infallible teachings of the most Holy Councils of Trent and Vatican I, which explicitly declares that “the unanimous  consent of the Fathers” in a doctrinal matter is the official teaching of the Church. Indeed, so important is it to regard someone as having deviated from the faith who rejects the Church’s teaching on this matter that the Church declared in the Council of Trent that “Contraveners [that is, those who oppose or contradict that “the unanimous consent of the Fathers” is the official teaching of the Church] shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”

APPENDIX

St. Alphonsus condemns oral sex as a mortal sin. He also condemns other unnecessary non-procreative sexual acts as mortal sins:

1: On Matrimony, Book VI, n. 491-492

St. Alphonsus considers a question on marital sexual acts:

“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 an answer proposed by some moral 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.

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. Neither are they truly unitive (even if there exists a merely physical type of union in the act), since these acts do not offer the type of union ordained by God for husband and wife.

Then Alphonsus 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).

St. Alphonsus considers the question on rectal intercourse:

“Whether a man sins mortally by beginning intercourse in the posterior receptacle (the anus), so as to consummate it afterwards in the appropriate receptacle (the vagina)?" 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]... But it is more generally and truly affirmed [to be a mortal sin] by [various theologians], because coitus itself of this kind (even if without insemination) is true sodomy, although not consummated, just as copulation in the natural vessel of another woman is true fornication, even if insemination does not take place.”

Q&A: “Is it Moral for the Wife to climax outside the Natural Marital Act”? “Can Catholic Spouses use Masturbation in the Context of Natural Intercourse”?

Note: None of the teachings on our site must be deemed absolutely infallibly or true, and the reader must be advised to follow his own conscience. Even if our teachings proclaim this or that position to be true (according to our own interpretation), the reader must understand that this is our own private interpretation of saint quotes and church teachings, dogmas and encyclicals. Whatever the case may be, always follow what you think the church teaches on any matter; and do not trust blindly on what is taught on our site (even if we claim this or that position is a mortal sin) – even if our position may seem true and infallible (you may, however, follow what we teach blindly if you think this is the true position). If you have worries about any position, ask a knowledgeable friend or priest for guidance; and if you have further concerns, ask another priest or even several priests to see what he thinks about this or that position. No one can be forced to believe in any position that is uncertain, and the reader must be advised to follow his conscience. So if you think any position is uncertain according to your own conscience, make a reasonable judgment, and then ask for advice or continue to study the issue until you have made a right judgment – according to your conscience.

Neither the husband, nor the wife, may act, in any way, so as to deliberately climax outside of natural intercourse (such as by mutual masturbation, either in context of the act, or outside the act). This doctrine was taught by Pope Pius XII in his speech to the Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility (19 May 1956).

“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 [the normal marital 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.” 

“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.”

It is not true, as many persons claim, that the wife’s climax, being (as they say) unrelated to procreation, can be obtained by any means, outside of the natural marital act. This idea was condemned by the Magisterium in the above words of Pope Pius XII. Such an act is “contrary to nature” and “intrinsically evil”. Even married persons do not have the right to the “full exercise of the sexual faculty”, meaning real sexual acts and acts to climax, other than in natural marital relations.

The Pontiff condemns climax outside the natural act and of other unnatural acts outside the natural act, for the wife, just as for the husband. The wife is not exempt from this rule against unnatural acts or climax outside of natural intercourse (as so many persons claim). It doesn’t matter if the “full exercise of the genital organs” is done by the man, or the woman, or both acting together — it is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Notice he does not accept the idea that climax for the wife is moral when done about the same time as the natural marital act. This point is absolutely clear, since the Pontiff says that, outside the natural marital act, the husband and the wife are under the same rule as unmarried persons: no completed sexual acts at all. The Pope said: “the natural conjugal act applies in the same way when the acts are of married persons or of unmarried persons”. If completed or unnatural acts for the wife were moral, when they occur just before or just after natural marital relations, then the Pontiff could not compare her situation, morally, to that of the unmarried.

Furthermore, the Pontiff says that this rule applies even when it occurs “by the interruption of the conjugal act.” In other words, the act remains intrinsically evil if it occurs just after the conjugal act is interrupted. It is very clear that an act of masturbation on the wife or the husband is still gravely immoral, when it occurs about the same time as the natural marital act, or whether the act was interrupted or not. For the Pope condemns such an act, even when it is done just after natural marital relations.

Neither does he consider all the sexual acts of the spouses to be “one act” in the marriage bed. If he accepted that idea, then again, he could not compare the spouses, outside the natural act, to be in the same moral situation as the unmarried. Instead, he teaches that any sexual act to completion (or any excessive or unnatural sexual act), for either spouse, other than the “natural conjugal act” and what is inherent therein, is “always an act contrary to nature and intrinsically evil”.

The normal performance of the marital sexual act itself does not justify “all the rest, in whatever way it is done”, such as in acts done “in the preparation” (foreplay). And St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches that sodomy is still sodomy if climax is lacking (Moral Theology, On Matrimony, Book VI, Q. 916); and he also condemns oral sex as a mortal sin (Moral Theology, On Matrimony, Book VI, Q. 491-492).

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.

“Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge, in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires, and acts, the whole of marital life, and 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 justified by the expression of mutual affection, were sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, and made 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, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession)

Therefore, the claims of the heretics on this point were rejected by the Church many years ago. The approval that they preach for unnatural and excessive sexual acts and sexual acts to completion on the wife is gravely contrary to the eternal moral law and contrary to Church teaching. Neither the husband, nor the wife, may perform any type of unnatural sexual act, or perform any act on the wife, in order to bring her to climax outside the natural act. Neither may they perform such acts (before, during or after the act in order to climax or “to make always more intense the pleasure, in the preparation and in the performance of the conjugal union” which Pope Pius XII called “anti-Christian hedonism”) during the natural marital act. Such claims represent an approval for a gravely immoral sexual act, already condemned by the Magisterium.

So to the question: Can Catholic Spouses use Masturbation in the Context of Natural Intercourse?

No, they cannot. First, masturbation is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. It is always gravely contrary to chastity and the dignity of one’s soul and body.

The Catholic Church defines masturbation as: “the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.” This sexual act is non-natural, non-marital, non-unitive, and non-procreative. It has several grave deprivations in its moral object, making the act intrinsically evil and certainly always a grave sin.

Does masturbation become moral when used with another purpose or motive, other than “to derive sexual pleasure”? No, for intrinsically evil acts are immoral regardless of the intention that motivates the act.

Masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act. The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty.

Although the most common motive for masturbation is sexual pleasure, the Magisterium does condemn this type of sexual act, regardless of the motive for acting this way (that is why one cannot masturbate even for medical purposes). Therefore, the motive of preparing for the natural marital act does not justify masturbation, nor does the motive of helping the wife reach climax after marital relations.

Moreover, the Magisterium has condemned the “exercise of the sexual faculty” outside of natural marital relations, for the wife as well as for the husband. (Pope Pius XII, Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, 1956) Neither the husband, nor the wife, may stimulate her to climax outside of the natural act. Such an act is morally a grave sin, just as is a solitary act of masturbation.

As an intrinsically evil act, masturbation is not justified by any purpose or motive, nor by any circumstance. An intrinsically evil act never becomes justified by being done about the same time as a good act. So it is not true that an act of masturbation on the husband or on the wife, becomes moral by being done before, during or after the natural marital act.

What if the act of masturbation is not completed in climax? Masturbation is correctly defined as a “deliberate, erotic stimulation often to the point of orgasm.” Masturbation is “often to the point of orgasm” because climax is not essential to the definition of masturbation, nor to the definition of a sexual act.

Masturbation is still the same type of grave sin when used without climax, or when used in marriage, or when it occurs about the same time as the natural marital act.

Related article: Q&A: “Can Catholic Married Couples Use Sex Toys, Such As A Vibrator Or Phallic Device”?

Q&A: “Can Catholic Married Couples Use Sex Toys, Such As A Vibrator Or Phallic Device”?

Note: None of the teachings on our site must be deemed absolutely infallibly or true, and the reader must be advised to follow his own conscience. Even if our teachings proclaim this or that position to be true (according to our own interpretation), the reader must understand that this is our own private interpretation of saint quotes and church teachings, dogmas and encyclicals. Whatever the case may be, always follow what you think the church teaches on any matter; and do not trust blindly on what is taught on our site (even if we claim this or that position is a mortal sin) – even if our position may seem true and infallible (you may, however, follow what we teach blindly if you think this is the true position). If you have worries about any position, ask a knowledgeable friend or priest for guidance; and if you have further concerns, ask another priest or even several priests to see what he thinks about this or that position. No one can be forced to believe in any position that is uncertain, and the reader must be advised to follow his conscience. So if you think any position is uncertain according to your own conscience, make a reasonable judgment, and then ask for advice or continue to study the issue until you have made a right judgment – according to your conscience.

No, they cannot. The use of sexual devices (“sex toys” or “marital aids”), even in marriage, is gravely immoral. There are a number of reasons why this type of act is intrinsically evil and morally illicit.

First, this type of sexual act is non-natural, non-unitive and non-procreative. And the Magisterium teaches that each and every sexual act in a marriage must be natural, unitive and procreative. Thus, any sexual act which is inherently non-natural, non-unitive or inherently non-procreative is intrinsically evil.

Second, a sexual act does not cease to be a sexual act, if climax is lacking. Such devices cannot be used as mere “stimulation” prior to the natural marital act. The normal performance of the marital sexual act itself does not justify “all the rest, in whatever way it is done”, such as in acts done “in the preparation” (foreplay). And St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches that sodomy is still sodomy if climax is lacking (Moral Theology, On Matrimony, Book VI, Q. 916); and he also condemns oral sex as a mortal sin (Moral Theology, On Matrimony, Book VI, Q. 491-492).

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.

“Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge, in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires, and acts, the whole of marital life, and 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 justified by the expression of mutual affection, were sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, and made 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, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession)

Third, the use of a sex toy is a type of masturbation, even when the person using the device is one’s spouse. And masturbation has been condemned by the ordinary and universal Magisterium as intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Fourth, the use of sexual devices is specifically condemned by the Magisterium: Sacred Penitentiary, 3 June 1916, Denzinger 3638-40. The Sacred Penitentiary considers the situation in which a husband proposes to use a “artificial instrument” in a sexual act on his wife. The Sacred Penitentiary responds that this act is gravely immoral, and that the wife may not consent, nor even offer only passive resistance.

“Questions: 1. Is a wife, when her husband wishes to practice onanism by means of an (artificial) instrument, required to exercise positive resistance?

...

3. So that the entire matter might be developed and taught in a more certain way, must a man, using such instruments, truly be regarded as an 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 3. Yes.”

The term “onanism” is used here to refer to masturbation. Sometimes onanism refers to contraception. Other times it refers to masturbation, even by a female. Both contraception and masturbation are similar to the sin of Onan in the Bible. In some cases, the onanism can refer, more broadly, to a range of unnatural sexual acts between a man and a woman. In his article The Sin of Onan Revisited, Brian W. Harrison explains:

“‘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, is not exactly a pleasant theme to write about.” 

“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.”

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” (as Harrison notes in his article). 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-natural, non-procreative and non-unitive.

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.

Related article: Q&A: “Is it Moral for the Wife to climax outside the Natural Marital Act”? “Can Catholic Spouses use Masturbation in the Context of Natural Intercourse”?

More on marital chastity: Chastity: The Angelic Virtue

The Importance of Asking God Questions in Prayer and of Receiving Answers

I don’t know how many others do this, but this should be done by everyone who desires to advance and know God better in their life. Ask God an important question for your life, or for solutions to some trouble you have. Pray the Rosary, asking God to answer you through divine enlightenment, providence and grace. Then, as you go through your day, remain alert for an answer by providence, interpreted by you through grace, faith, and reason. Sometimes it takes a few days. Sometimes you don’t get an answer; in which case, ask a different question.

You can ask very specific questions and get an answer. It is also a good idea, from time to time, to ask broad questions, such as “What is your will for me?” or “What should I do differently in my life?”

Be careful not to fall into the trap of imagining that God is confirming your own ideas and preferences. We are all fallen sinners, so we all have the tendency to think that our own understanding or goals are perhaps better than they are in God’s eyes. If God is telling you to keep doing what you are doing, and not to make any changes, and He really seems to have no criticisms or suggestions for improvement, then you are not doing this correctly. That would be just your own selfishness, not the providence and grace of God.

If it is not working for you, try to be more alert to hints from God in events that happen as you go through your day. If it still does not work, then add self-denial to prayer. And make certain that you regularly examine your conscience and go to Confession and Communion, if this is possible.

Be advised that it is easy to misinterpret what God is saying through enlightenment, providence and grace. So do not make any major decisions on this basis, and do not do anything risky. It is also always advisable to have someone to consult in spiritual matters, such as a spiritual guide. And you must ALWAYS put the teachings of the Church on faith, morals, and salvation, and anything clear to reason, above that God seems to be saying in this way.

It is important to follow the points above, to be in a state of grace (or at least, to desire betterment), sincere in prayer, and patient. The signs may show up in unexpected places but when they occur it will immediately be evident that they are the result of prayer.

Another way to do this is ask God a question before praying one of the hours of the Liturgy of Hours (or before any prayer). For big questions about vocations and the like, one of the best things to do is an Ignatian Spiritual retreat that uses the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola.

Prayer for God's Providence

Providence of God, have mercy on me!

Most Precious Providence of God, have mercy on me!

Adorable Providence of God, have mercy on me!

Admirable Providence of God, have mercy on me!

Loving Providence of God, have mercy on me!

Most Holy Providence of God, have mercy on me!

Sanctifying Providence of God, have mercy on me!

Treasured Providence of God, have mercy on me!

Testing Providence of God, have mercy on me!

Penetrating Providence of God, have mercy on me!

Providence of God, You have provided for me, have mercy on me!

Providence of God, You will provide for me, have mercy on me!

Prayer for My Vocation in Life

Behold me at thy feet, O Virgin most kind, seeking to obtain through thee, the most important grace of knowing what I ought to do. I desire nothing but to comply perfectly with the Will of thy Divine Son at every moment of my life. Mother of Good Counsel, let me hear thy voice. It will dispel every doubt that troubles my mind.

I trust in thee, being confident that, since thou art the Mother of my Redeemer, thou wilt also be the Mother of my salvation. If thou, O Mary, wilt not send me a ray of the Divine Sun, what light will enlighten me? Who will direct me if thou refusest, who art the Mother of the uncreated Wisdom!

Listen, then, to my humble prayers. Let me not be lost in my uncertainty and instability; lead me along the straight road that ends in life everlasting, Thou, who art my only hope, and whose hands are full of the riches of virtue and of life, and who dispensest the fruits of honor and holiness. Amen.

Q&A: "I am a homosexual. I don't know what to do. I have suicidal thoughts."

Email question: “Hello, I am a member of the catholic church, but recently I have discovered that I am a homosexual. I don't know what to do. I have suicidal thoughts. Sometimes I feel like I am a pile of sin. Please help me, I don't know what to do with myself.”

Answer: Hello, you are only a homosexual if you accept that you are a homosexual. Reject this perversion with all your will, and even if you are tempted, say to yourself that you do not agree with it and that you don't want this. Also pray to God to deliver you from this inclination.

Do not say: I am a homosexual. Remember, if you do not agree with this and reject it and seek ways to come out of it, then you are not a homosexual.

If you are a member of the Vatican II sect and are living in heresy, then that may be one of many reasons for why you have this inclination. Please see this file for more information on Vatican II and sedevacantism:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/vatican-ii/

If you live in impurity and masturbate or indulge in sinful thoughts, that is also one reason why people are delivered over to perverse and unnatural desires. The same is true for idolatry, i.e., you show excessive love and care for worldly things and people and neglect God.

Please read this article for help and deliverance for overcoming homosexuality:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/homosexuality/

Also, never lose hope in God and do not despair. So long as you have a will not to be a homosexual and avoid sin and love God then you are not a homosexual and God's friend. It is actually not so hard to be God's friend. Ask yourself, do you have a desire to avoid all sin or not? That is how you will understand if you are God's friend or not. Have hope!

The best way to overcome homosexuality is of course by prayer. If you do not pray for help in overcoming any sin or sinful inclination, do not expect to be successful.

Regarding the Holy Rosary, Sister Lucia told Father Fuentes in a famous 1957 interview:

“Look, Father, the Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Holy Rosary. She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all, spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world, or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary. With the Holy Rosary, we will save ourselves. We will sanctify ourselves. We will console Our Lord and obtain the salvation of many souls.”

Please read this article from another person who also had problem with sin and said he had lost hope. The recommendations apply as well to you:

https://against-all-heresies-and-errors.blogspot.com/2017/11/i-am-in-real-trouble-i-am-in-mortal-sin.html

Also, you may need to read this article below in order to stop exposing yourself to sexual temptations on the media and internet:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/spiritual/#How-to-control-your-eyes

You will find all the instructions on how to surf the internet in a safe way (with image and ad blockers) and also read about the need not to watch secular media, such as the television. If you watch television or surf the internet with images on, you will expose yourself to innumerable temptations and hence expose your chastity. Not only that, but you are also exposing yourself to the occasion of sin and those who do this cannot be saved according to Church teaching.

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.

The section in the link above is a bit long but very important, since it deals with avoiding sin and the occasion of sin. People who live in the occasion of sin may be delivered over to such things that you describe and they also expose themselves to impurity and to fall into masturbation and unchaste thoughts, which also is one of the mayor reasons for homosexuality.

Related article:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/best-adblockers-imageblockers-and-flashblockers/

If there is anything else, let me know.

Traditional Online Mass Options for Sedevacantists and Traditionalists

For those who have no Mass and don't go to Mass on Sunday due to there being no acceptable Mass available or near to them, I will give an easy solution to this problem.

For starters, the best option available would be to view a Mass online -- whether pre-Vatican II or modern. There are many Traditionalists and Sedevacantists Masses streamed online every Sunday and Holy Days, and for those who find such Masses acceptable, they could watch those Masses online in order to receive the graces of Mass.

For those who don't find modern day masses acceptable by Traditionalists/Sedevacantist priests due to doctrinal differences, there are many pre-Vatican II masses available on youtube that can be viewed instead. For example: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64

I recommend this pre-Vatican II Mass especially since it is not so long and because it also has commentary by Mgr. Fulton J. Sheen so that the viewer will have some understanding of what is happening during the Mass.

"If we only knew how God regards this Sacrifice, we would risk our lives to be present at a single Mass." -- Padre Pio

The Mass gives tremendous graces and it would be tragic to completely miss all those graces. Therefore, have faith in God and pray for the grace to receive the graces of Mass even by watching an online Mass! I believe that if you have faith in God on this point, He will give you the graces of the Mass. After all, if you do watch the Mass already, you are in fact showing to Him that you are intending to go to Mass, or at least, desire it and that you try to do something.

Since it may become boring to watch a Mass online, especially if it is the same Mass you are viewing week after week, it is recommended to pray throughout the entire Mass. I can complete about two Mysteries of the Rosary during the above Mass, and if I did not pray I would perhaps not have the patience to sit through the same video-mass week after week. So not only do you pray more by following this easy advice, but you also (so we hope) receive the tremendous graces of the Mass which otherwise would have been lost!

For those who want more masses, here are two links to two other pre-Vatican II masses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEODk9Tvs0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ6wFM4eUCk