Conjugal Chastity ~ Fr Ripperger (series on marriage 2 of 5)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 січ 2020
- MATURE AUDIENCES ONLY. Fr speaks on some sensitive material in this.
mediatrixpress.com/?p=3213 for St Alphonsus' Moral Theology
For more sermons & lectures please visit
sensustraditionis.org/ & remember to do the PenanceWare Fr asks for
Fr Ripperger's order of exorcists dolorans.org/
🙏🏻PLEASE HELP OUR CHANNEL GROW 🙏🏻
▶️ 1. Become a Channel Patron: / sensusfidelium
▶️ 2. Visit the website www.sensusfidelium.us for Gueranger, Saint of the Day, Apologetics, Meditation by the Saints, Scripture Study and more.
▶️ 3. BitChute --- www.bitchute.com/channel/Sens...
▶️ 4. Paypal, Bitcoin, Anedot, Stripe, Square & PO Box donations - sensusfidelium.us/donate-supp...
▶️ 5. UA-cam: Click Subscribe, then Click "Notification Bell" = 🔔
Please "Like" our videos so that UA-cam shares it to others by clicking the "Like" thumbs-up under the video = 👍🏻
▶️ 6. Please share this video 📲, and help others find Christ inside the Catholic Church! Please share this video on Facebook and Twitter using the share button.
▶️ 7. Follow on Social Media:
🔴 Facebook: / sensusfidelium
🔴 Sensus Fidelium Twitter: / sensus_fidelium
🔴 UA-cam: Click Subscribe, then Click "Notification Bell" = 🔔
My mom was right all along: I HAVE to marry a Catholic man. Thank God I realized before too late!
For those who dismiss these as arbitrary and unnecessary: would you trust your own conscience over that of the saints and doctors of the Church? For the sake of our souls we must humbly submit to her being the messenger of Christ’s teaching.
Some of the things I have read that have been written on the internet, regarding the doctors of the Church and their teachings on this subject, will not make a happy marriage because it has been interpreted to suit their own opinions, and that kind of advice is not good for the wife, husband or the children. What is important is that the act is always open to life, and as this priest said, no pollution and always in the correct place. If it does not affect the procreating act, certain things will help her to have a happier experience. This might take some time and effort on the man's part.
Well, I'll pose some challenges, with all do respect.
1) So many theologians, historically, have been celibate men writing from behind a desk, so they lack real world, married experience. This makes their approach to morality too theoretical and disconnected from reality, and more developed scientific understanding of human social and physical behavior.
2) "Pollution" is either a horrendous translation, or a terrible choice of word and clearly carries centuries of sex-negative attitudes. If I remember correctly, it comes from Augustin, whose problematic views on sex clearly come from his very understandable guilt over his youthful unchastity.
3) Thought experiment: the core of the conjugal act is the most natural thing in the world. But the other things mentioned like self-stimulation, "pollution" and other sorts of activity ought not be considered unnatural or gravely disordered. In fact, they can sll be witnessed in nature, in the animal kingdom. Even same-sex activity. The "unnatural" "disordered" terminology is simply outdated and false. I think a better way to strengthen the ultra traditional point of view is to say that humans are called to be supernatural, or above our animalistic aspects, without condemning or putting down our natural instincts. God knows the damage from centuries of repression and shame.
Fr. Ripperger seems like a very nice, articulate, and educated representative of these traditional views. No challenge there. I wish him all the best.
@@AntonAchondoa
1) As if a person who is living a life of chastity doesn't know what it's like to deal with restraining the appetites of the flesh? Theological morality isn't a democratic determination but a Godly one. Those outside of a situation are actually better positioned to discuss it objectively, whereas those in the midst of it are going to be dealing with subjective bias
2) The use of "pollution" is accurate (see the American Heritage Dictionary entry) & is simply an older use of the word from its definition of 'introduction of an impurity'. It's not a "sex-negative attitude" when used to describe a form of defiling the sex act any more than is calling pornography garbage. And your effort to reduce St Augustine's writings to Freudian analysis betrays an agenda at play other than God's. The saints are not infallible, but to dismiss St Augustine's theological discussions on such a flimsy & frankly arrogant basis indicates an objective contrary to "faith seeking understanding".
3) There's nothing new under the sun - you're actually advocating here that we water down the truth. We also see things like animals who give birth & then turn on their young - these are aberrations in nature which are defects ACCURATELY termed as unnatural & disordered. Homosexual activity in animals occurs in unnatural or disturbed settings (such as in Jane Goodall's discussion in regards to chimps). The alleged "damage from centuries of repression and shame" are NOTHING to the damage that's sweeping souls away in a flood toward hell.
Fr Ripperger's lecture is consistent with the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, so this is not traditional vs modern but orthodox vs heterodox
Not all teaching of the doctors of the Church are Church teaching. St. Augustines teaching on sex and marriage were never adopted as Church teaching. He was a wee bit twisted.
@@AntonAchondoa You are completely right. That was a well thought out, intelligent and relevant reply
Excellent. I think all engaged couples need to hear this teaching before marriage. I have been a Catholic since birth, married 45 years, and have learned some things today at the age of 65 that I never knew.
A seminarian friend had me read Humane Vitae and I got to understand this. I also read St Alphonsus Liguori moral theology on marriage and they explain these things as well.
I realize I'm quite randomly asking but does anyone know a good website to watch new series online?
Arise Oh Lord and let Thy enemies be scattered and let those that hate Thee flee before Thy Face
Lord Jesus Mercy
Virgo Potens Mercy
Thank you God in action
its so important. Thank you. Sancte Thoma ora pro nobis!
As a revert from a very worldly lifestyle, I had a tough time accepting some of these traditional teachings. Then, when I became married, I suddenly started to feel wrong about some of the activities I always thought were a normal part of intercourse. I learned these things at an early age from bad books, movies and from the culture. They don't seem natural to me anymore.
How does your wife see that? Is there harmony about it?
Your feelings are not Church teachings.
The talk on foreplay left me with more questions than answers and now I have anxiety about it that I didn't have before.
From what I understand is it's fine as long as the rules are followed such as no pollution from either husband or wife and that it ends with completion of the marital act. And the husband is allowed to orally stimulate the wife but not the other way around.
@@patrickbaker3345pollution from the wife in which way? Is it not permissible to bring the wife to completion through oral sex before the insertive act into the vase for example?
What constitutes pollution for the wife?
@@djoseph5072 Yeah. The man yes if the seed goes not into the vase. We understand that. But pollution of the wife? Female orgasm doesn't even work in the same way so why would it be a sin?
Most men if they are not doing sins of pornography and masturbation will be sensitive in their private part. Therefore they will not be lasting long enough to get the wife to reach climax. Therefore the man can't make the wife reach climax through acts other than penetration? I like Father Chad but if he's going to talk about serious issues we're going to at some point need to do away with the euphemistic language
@@patrickbaker3345 I did heard that st. Alphonsus permits oral genital contact as long as it is done' in passing and with reverence. So to be clear this might mean the wife is able to give him peck kisses or maybe a passing lick or so.
Therefore you should only get married to a trad catholic. It's very difficult to convince a spouse who isn't to follow all these rules.
But i remember reading a book of the old testament that said that the non believer is blessed to have a husband/wife that IS a believer.
One can help the other.
When my girlfriend and i started dating, she was a lukewarm Catholic and i was an Athiest. Now we're married and we're both very devoted Maronite Catholics. With God anything is possible.
alienasotam very true otherwise it would be frustrating
Anselmo Werner Formolo congratulations
Right now I’m a trad catholic and my girlfriend is Protestant , I’m praying she converts.
Apparently even though I could remarry I could not enjoy the act again because I would be constantly thinking of this talk. Micha'EL
That's the devil trying to steal the grace of your formation in proper spiritual union which should be for the enhancement of your marriage
You can enjoy the act since God Himself made it pleasurable. Even if sought for pleasure alone as an end in itself st. Thomas aquinas list it as a venial sin if they go about it as they would by no means act thus with another. If pleasure is sought but included with being subject to the primary end and the cultivating of mutual love then there is no sin but instead meritorious. Pope pius 12th said spouses who enjoy this pleasure do no wrong whatever, they are fulfilling what the creator had destined for them.
@@robertkolinsky1286 but his second wife would have to be open to the idea of more children???
@@panes840 yes that's what the act is intrinsically designed to do, meaning make children.
What I never hear in talks like this, is a discussion about when one of the spouses in a holy marriage can no longer have sexual intercourse because of injury or serious health issues.
I would think that the answer to this is that the healthy spouse must practice abstinence for the rest of their marriage or until the ill spouse is healed and able to participate in intercourse. Not an easy task, but the right one.
I would think that abstinence is the best route. Not doing something, in this case, is better than doing too much
And as the wife of a disabled husband, it is the part I'm always wishing someone would talk about!
There's nothing to be discussed. You're right. Abstinence is obligatory. It can be offered up as a perfection for both of you.
obviously, it would be very abusive to do the opposite
I m sure that s what "in sickness and in death " means
Amen
How could I get in touch with Fr Rippenger to ask a question concerning this topic?
@Dell Chica, I can't find your comment but I saw the notice. I'm in Haifa Israel. A beautiful city of Arabs, Christians, Moslems and Jews, some Believers in Jesus, some traditional. We mostly get along although the Orthodox would like to see everyone else gone. My pastor is a Lebanese Carmelite but I usually go to the small Hebrew speaking community. Our priest is Colombian and our deacon is Italian. They are Neo Catechuminal. The group is mixed and several languages are spoken, often at one time. We will be baptizing a young Jewish man who converted this Saturday evening.
Teaching a child the proper names for body parts is important. It actually helps protect and alert to sexual abuse. Teaching the names "vulva" and "penis" dont even remotely teach anything about sex. It's a name of a body part, just like finger or knee.
Children have an innate sense of modesty. Being too graphic and real arouses their curiousity in a precocious and inappropriate way. The gentleman who quoted his daughter's use of the "proper" terms is right. All she had to say was "don't forget to wipe well." No need to keep talking about parts because eventually the kids will "share" them on the playground and open the doors to immodesty.
I support this a 100%. I don’t understand why Fr. Ripperger sees that as wrong. It’s against reason to tell the child it’s called something else when it’s not. You don’t say hand is called something else. It’s when you always have impure ideas that’s when you would think a child would. They can’t! They know only what they are told.
@@Meira750there’s nothing graphic about saying Vagina. It’s called a Vagina and that’s what it is. Simple! If you say something more then you can be wrong depending on what you say. But “Hey, be sure to wipe your Vagina” means “be sure sure to wipe your Vagina” Period. The Child doesn’t know it’s also used for sex but only for urinating. They can know later on.
It's best to say private part?
There is some evidence that teaching children the names of intimate body parts can increase their susceptibility to being abused. Actually if you look for evidence that using proper names helps children avoid abuse, you won't find any. Just a lot of opinions. So if we're fighting over opinions, just think, as a parent, whether you want your child to feel super comfortable talking about their private anatomies as if it were the most normal thing in the world. I get that we want to do something to protect our children and wet want them to feel comfortable talking to us and be able to tell us what is happening. But in reality the best thing wet can do is say that their privates are private and to teach them healthy shame. The virtue of shame.
I’ve heard so many different positions on these matters, that I’m still a little confused. Everything from Ronald Conte Jr. to James Martin. Still not entirely sure which is correct. I’ve had good priests and bishops tell me things that are slightly(but not entirely) different from Father Ripperger, and their explanations make far more sense than this. These also have the backing of Church teaching from the catechism and encyclicals.
Jerome Wilshank Never listen to James Martin!
James Medina Oh of course not, I’m just listing the two extremes which I know are wrong. My point is that this is a very much debated subject with vastly differing opinion on what the Church really teaches. The fundamentals of sexual ethics are there and known and cannot be debated because it’s apparent in divine revelation and natural law. The particulars, however are vastly in discussed and debated. I have two good traditional priests where I live that give good advice on the matter that’s in accord with Church teaching, but it’s only to the extent that they are able to provide ample arguments and reasons of good quality. They do not necessarily come to the same conclusion as Ripperger, however. Ronald Conte takes teaching and twists it to an imagined extreme, and James Martin doesn’t even bother with Church teaching. You’ll find positions everywhere in between.
I found this to be very unclear about oral sex where the woman is the recipient. He says women have something analogous to pollution, and then says in one place that stimulation by hand is ok “if there is no danger of pollution.” He seems to rule out oral sex almost entirely. But quite traditional priests have told me and others and written in books, that stimulating the woman to orgasm either before or after coitus is ok so long as it is in the context of the marital act. That is not the same with the man because ejaculation has to happen in the vagina. For the woman, though, it takes much more stimulation to climax and it usually does not happen during coitus but during manual or oral stimulation. Again, even very holy orthodox priests say that is acceptable. Frankly there would be a lot of unsatisfied and frustrated wives if it were not. So, please, if you are married and that is an issue for you, ask a priest you trust in confession.
@@eulogossusan I totally agree, Father was confusing in this aspect. If he is saying that the only way for a woman to achieve climax is through the Act itself... well then I would say that is very unjust, since 99.9% of women do not achieve climax during the act.
Both Conte and Martin are total frauds. Never listen to either. Unfortunately even Ripperger seems to be confusing things in this one...
What is the name of the song at the end? Anyone know?
Stabat Mater Dolorosa
This talk is for males, mostly. Speaks on the modes and circumstances which are good and holy for the conjugal act, and those which are bad and sinful. Questions and answers after.
it's just as important for women
So for nfp is a reasonable reason for it that the couple cannot afford to have anymore kids? If they are blessed with a child then it's OK?
Yes that would be a reasonable reason. Since pope pius the 12 listed reasons to suffice would be medical, economic, eugenic and social reasons. Not being able to afford would be an economic problem.
What is the definition of “petting”? Does this involve caressing of genitals? If so, their would be no distinction between doing this with the hand or with the mouth. Either way, the action can be brought to completion/pollution.
I just want to be sure I understand what exactly is meant by this word, “petting.”
I think the difference between the mouth and the hands is that the hands are made of holding/caressing whereas the mouth is not😅
Petting is usually caressing of any body part. But iv heard that st. Alphonsus permits oral genital contact as acceptable as long as it is done 'in passing and with reverance'. So to be clear in my guess that means is that the wife can give the husband peck kisses or a brief passing lick.
My husband has had a prostatectomy. He us unable to do the conjugal act. Are my husband and I allowed in marital chastity to have intimacy other than the way that is natural to the vas. Or do we need to just live like Brother and sister.
Is he permanently not able?
@@robertkolinsky1286 A prostatedecomy is the surgical removal of the prostate. It's a permanent procedure for otherwise untreatable ailments. Such as cancer.
I would speak to your priest
All this is impossible to live in modern society where it’s taught in schools
I know, schools have become a big problem and many people can’t home school either because the family unit usually has both parents working 🙏
I wish he had gone over NFP longer. Serious reason. Ok. What about not having enough room in the house? Needing to build another room but not having the money. Is that serious? Really wish I could ask him.
"Not enuf room" isn't grave cause.
@@AnnulmentProof where do you put them then? Living conditions must be healthy, right, or would we just stack them on a pallet on the floor? If that were to be the case we may as well wait for child protective services to take our children away from us again. That was hell the first time.
@@mypony891 Bunk beds are healthy. 'Human wisdom' is the wrong answer. Fear of the Lord is the right answer.
@@AnnulmentProof bunk beds are a great idea! Remember, the man’s responsibility is to provide these things. Not too hard to figure out!
@@mypony891 Poverty is GRAVE REASON. Read Casta Connubi by Pope Pius XII. Mental health is also grave reason. Not sure of the spelling on Pius XII's encyclical. Go to a source with MORAL AUTHORITY. There is no need to pay attention to random commenters.
The best explanation of this is Ron Conte's book "The Catholic Marriage Bed." There is a difference between foreplay(holding, kissing, touching) and a sexual act(using the genitals for stimulation which can only be used in the act of natural marital relations.)
Please do NOT read anything by Ron Conte. He is a layman who teaches with unjust authority and has expressed very troubling views. He attempted to predict the exact date of Christ's second coming, believes that there will be a THIRD coming contrary to Catholic doctrine, and makes other "prophetic" predictions which, obviously, didn't come true. Be very, very careful when looking up so called "independent" theologians like him.
Does anyone know of the video where Fr. Ripperger permits a wife to climax after marital relations is? I feel like this was the talk but perhaps it was edited out??
Yeah, I listened to this exact talk right before I got married four years ago, and it definitely had that in there. The channel must not agree with it and clearly decided to remove it.
No, it is not permitted. St Alphonsus Liguori.
The church permits it
@margaritapavic a woman climaxing in marriage is not accepted? But the man can?
Go two rounds
Oral w/o pollution is forbidden within marriage. Did I hear him correctly?
Yea I think at minute 15, where quotes Aquinas and Liguori they say the act of oral sex and anal sex is sinful in marriage. But the way he says it he seems to imply the intent behind that act matters.
what about if you have oral sex but climax in the vagina is that ok? I'm confused
I thought oral on the man is always immoral since it clearly only belongs in one place.
@@lucytherese5207 No. He is saying the make can touch delicately and outside only. Nothing inside accept regular intercourse w/ climax.
It's forbidden female to male but male to female externally is ok.
🙏
What does pollution mean in this context?Can someone kind enough explain please.
Climaxing outside of vaginal sex
another made up abstract rule with no actually pragmatic consequences other than it "goes against the nature of things"
@Unclenate1000 If you were a Christian you would know that your wrong, and you would be able to see the logical truth behind Christ's teachings. But you have bought into the lies of the world, and so satan has you blind folded your eyes from seeing, and mind from knowing.
@@nathanbyrnes2189 Where, exactly, did Jesus talk about ANY of this? And I ask this respectfully. I'm curious to know the answer.
@@a.d.2719 Hello sorry been really busy and haven't got back with any comments in a long time. Thats a good question, which church or religion do you come from? Well if you were Catholic then you would know that not everything is explicitly stated in the Holy Bible, and the Bible says that not everything is in it. This is known as Sacred Tradition, or the oral word of God/Jesus through the Apostles.
2 thes. 2:15
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
John 21:25
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
Jesus never commanded his followers to write down all His teaching and put them in a book, though He knew this would happen because He is God.
The 260 Popes through out the 2000 year history of the Church by the Holy Ghost have infallibly taught the one true faith of Jesus Christ, the Church has now power to create and new teachings, only to clarify what is in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. So as to help the faithful from being lead astray.
The Popes and Church have expounded on what a moral Marriage looks like, and is lived out. The scriptures have many verses on sexual morality just by themselves like no sex outside of marriage, no somite unions, no incest unions, and no adultery, etc. And the Scriptures show that the primary purpose of marriage is to create life, and honor God. And modern unions in many many ways go against these teaching and many more.
❤
Chad: What do you do if your wife says she's done having (3) children at 40, and wants to use a contraception method now. Is it better to have no sex, or use contraption?
Never use contraception, its intrsincally evil. See Humanae Vitae
@@matthewschmidt5069 yes also casti connubi
Guys, come on! Four advertisements in less than 14 minutes. That’s a bit much.
ad blocker my guy
And UA-cam ReVanced for Android, it's a game changer.
Thank you for the video. What should happen if people have choose to have no more children because of a disabled child? Can the parents still enjoy a sex life without worrying about getting pregnant ?
Might I just respectfully ask if you have brought this issue to prayer. You could say a novena to Our Lady of Sorrows so she can reveal your hearts to yourself and the heart of Jesus.
In terms of this case natural family planning would be lawful since it's eugenic reason. And pius the 12th mentioned eugenic as one of these serious reasons for justified the long use of the natural sterile periods. But if spouses were to want and could not risk absolutely no more children and could not trust the sterile periods then he recommend complete abstinence and he went on to speak of the heroism of it and that it can be done with the grace of God with whom all things are possible.
Father never explained female pollution. Am I to understand that if my wife climax is either before or after the conjugal act but within the context of the conjugal act is this morally acceptable?
There is a book titled marriage questions volume 2 by Father Ford and Kelly that covers this," a word of explanation is in place concerning the expression " unjustifiable risking of orgasm apart from intercourse". It is the common teaching of theologians that when the husband has his orgasm during coitus but before the wife has reached her climax, stimulation of the wife may continue until she has an orgasm. The reason given for this is that there is at least a moral unity between her orgasm and coitus; hence the orgam is not considered to be outside intercourse. To follow this opinion is not only not hedonistic; it is both morally and psychologically advisable, and when married couples ask such questions they should be advised accordingly."
That a passage from the book on marriage questions vol.2 and it has an imprimatur and 2 nihil obstats. Published in 1963.
Though they don't mention nor do I think it should be sought beforehand since that would defeat the purpose of trying to get her to climax during intercourse. Afterwards is simply permitted though not obligatory since she didn't reach completion so stimulation is still part of intercourse but if she did during penetration then it would not be permitted after hand. That's what I get from it.
I'm having trouble understanding undue mode and the other language used in this for married couples in regards of oral sex I am under the clear impression that regardless of what happens in the act the man must finish inside of his wife.
This man is wrong on oral foreplay between spouses. His view is opposed to official Church teaching. If every priest has a different opinion on every subject no one could believe anything.
@@pilot2502can you link the official church teaching?
@@pilot2502 please help by providing a link to official teaching
fr ripperger. I have long ago heard that a married catholic couple who lives in the perpetual state of chastity/celibacy for an extended period of time... those persons can regain their 'spiritual virginity'... of course not meaning 'physical virginity' could ever be regained. Do you know about this? If so please comment. we have lived as such for nearly 20 yrs now. And always in accord with Holy Mother Churches precepts. our thought is that my spouse shall return to Jesus in as pure a state-condition as is humanly possible... with Divine assistance of course. Thanks to Our Lady and St Joseph's helps and our firm resolve to lovingly and faithfully submit ourselves.
You are a saint. The Josephite Marriage is certainly the most holy of marriages
That is nuts. Why would anyone who is married want to do anything that absurd?
I really wish I can understand this video it is all over the place .is there enyone out there that can understand what fr is talking about?please fr ripperger it really is just all over place if u can do a video describing foreplay leading up to intercourse in the one act.All this techinel terms is very confusing for a layman God bless you
He's trying to remain modest and not put idea and images into his male audience's mind as well as his own.
You should probably consult a spiritual director over any specific questions.
That's a great idea
That way we can look at a manual while engaged in the conjugal act
In addition, the wife's participation could include pad and pencil, check marking the dos and don'ts of this baby making gong show ☺️
@@mana7412 some might suggest that knowing boundaries prior to engaging in the act would prevent your having to consult this "manual". Since sins of impurity are necessarily mortal, you would be well served to make sure you're not committing them. Of course it's a lot easier to make fun of serious Catholics who want to lead an upright life than to try to change your ways, but I'd recommend the latter.
What does it mean when he says, “as long as pollution doesn’t occur.” Is he referring to an orgasm?
Yes
So basically no sort of sexual touching or passionate kissing unless you have intercourse with the possibility of pregnancy. What if someone can't afford having another child, or maybe psychologically one spouse cannot bear having another child? Life long abstinence?
Yes, this would be the only answer. Can it be done? Yes, priests do it, so can married men.
My understanding, NFP is allowed for serious reasons, after discussing with a faithful priest of the serious reasons. Not 100 percent effective, but nothing other than abstinence is 100 percent effective.
If you "psychologically" can't "bear" the idea of another child, you need to fix your life and maybe you don't deserve sex.
My sister lives off of Food stamps, but she has dix kids who are well fed. If your husband can’t get a job to support y’all financially, from the start you should not have gotten married bc you weren’t ready to have kids.
If you can’t psychologically cannot bear it, you go to therapy or practice NFP. You have to ask the grace of God, if He gives you a child and you seak Him He will give you the Grace
No, because that would mean older couples had to be celibate but we don't. There is no quick fix for a still fertile couple. You need to go to your spiritual advisor.
Does St alphonsus Liguori condemn oral sex even when done to the wife as forplay?
Yes.
@@Marco-qe5zw hmm, it doesn't seem like St. Alphonsus was ever married, so I would take his reflections on sex with a pinch of salt. I think the underlying intent to revere intimacy and the whole human person is solid, but as for the intricate details of what is/isn't allowed...to be excessively theoretical with no experience can be entirely unhelpful and, in fact, disconnected from reality.
"I know better than the saints, because x" is what you are really saying. And you don't.
@@AntonAchondoa
"I'm gonna turn my brain off and do what I'm told." It's just not my favorite approach to life. Sorry, friend.@@mavisjohnson4592
@@AntonAchondoa your argument is entirely fallacious. St. Alphonsus was a priest (and a saint!) and therefore received the graces due to fulfill the duties of his office, of which teaching is one of them. That would be like saying that he could not preach against usury because he was never a banker.
Know your place as a layman, and listen to the good shepherd which is Saint Alphonsus. Plus, the Church multiple times praised his moral teaching. We could say he is the moral theologian by excellence.
My understanding of the catechism is that it is never moral to engage in oral sex, but it sounds like Fr. Ripperger suggested that ones husband can perform oral sex if it leads to intercourse. Or did I misunderstand him?
I’m also a little confused with what he is trying to say in this video. What I hear sounds more or less like the position of Ronald Conte jr. Most priests I know would classify oral “sex” as an incomplete and therefore sinful sexual act. However oral stimulation is debated. I think Ripperger considers it a gravely sinful act no matter what. He doesn’t view a sex act as being made up of multiple sexual acts which must lead to the proper end of the sexual act. Hence why he starts by stating there are gravely sinful sexual acts- a statement I do not disagree with. I am on the fence on this matter because there does not seem to be a really clear explanation of the Churches official teaching on the matter(and I’m not surprised why). We get various statements by Doctors, Saints, and Popes, but I’ve also seen very different answers to these questions at every level of Church authority.
Oral sex can be part of foreplay before the conjugal act, but it can never be the ends in of itself.
Pat I agree, but I also I consider oral sex as being something separate to oral stimulation. Because it implies both a mindset and an end. One that ends in pollution or a race to see how long one can do the act. The other is purely an aid for the proper end of the sex act. Both for the sake of reproduction and unity. It doesn’t dominate the sex act and it is not central, but serves to aid the act. This is generally how priests have explained it to me. Just to help with a better distinction.
@@bigman7856"I also I consider oral sex as being something separate to oral stimulation."
--Yes I think that is a good distinction to make. It should be done to serve the conjugal act.
@@phoult37 it actually CAN’T. No where in what you’ve stated is this supported by the Church or it’s Saints.
A lot of upset men in here knowing that their mornjng birthday gifts are now known as a sin...listen, im not happy about it either...for me and the wife it was a mutual connection...at least we thought..im willing to give it up to know im not sinning.
...so what about a couple that don't want any more children NOT for serious/grave reasons? They can't ever have sex? So what happens when both desire each other but don't want to go ahead for fear of getting pregnant? Isn't this going to create serious friction?
Serious friction with God, yes. Be fruitful and multiply is not just a suggestion.
@@AnnulmentProof Yup. No one ever heard of The Ten Suggestions. Wouldn’t be a very good movie.
Yep. Live chastely and never have sex unless you are willing to partake in God’s plan instead of your own plan
If you legitimately can’t raise children then it’s immoral not to abstain. My sister has six and she lives off food stamps, they’re all well taken care of. The purpose of Sex is first and foremost children as said in the first talk.
You can hope that your conjugal act doesn’t lead to children and use NFP to prevent it but you must always be open to life. Not using The pull out method or Condoms or Birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.
If they want sex but are too scared to have kids then their desires are miss-ordered. That’s a wrong emotional response. if you don’t want kids, if you aren’t ready for kids, don’t get married
If it creates friction to the marriage then that itself would justify nfp since it would fall under the mental / psychological reasons that would justify nfp.
19:30 midget bowling for anyone looking for it 🙃
Omg! 😂
And father was totally serious in the description 🤣
I’m interested in why Fr R never refers to or quotes from the writings of Pope and Saint of the Catholic Church, John Paul II. Even if one is a traditionalist Catholic, it is very foolish to ignore his treatise on the human person, marriage and sexuality Man and Woman He Created Them. God does not stop gifting his bride with the tools she needs for whatever times she finds herself in. You and I are chosen from all eternity to live in these times, to make holy these times...with the TOOLS God has given us precisely for these times. The teaching of the Church is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow but as the millennia unfold, the Church unpacks with greater understanding and study, those teachings. St JP’s Theology of The Body approaches sexuality and the relationship of marriage from the starting point of Heaven, of God’s original plan, he shows us the excellent way. I find Fr Chad’s approach to be more starting from the aspect of concupience, starting in the mire, avoiding sin rather than growing in holiness.
I have listened to quite a few of his talks on marriage now and I find them very reductionist (e.g a wife as due matter). Marriage is not simply a matter of rights and duties but the reflection of Christ’s relationship with his Bride the Church and of the love between the persons of the Trinity. A Catholic marriage is about helping each other to Heaven, to be the path to holiness for each other. This is surely a higher understanding than how often to fulfill the ‘marriage debt’ (a terrible term for the act designed by God precisely to renew the sacramental graces of marriage) that your spouse doesn’t commit adultery or sin alone. How can we gaze upon Heaven, side by side with our spouse if we are entangled in the preoccupation with sin?
Even if Fr R prefers the older saints, and this is perfectly legitimate, one would have to ask whether he has even read the writings of St Pope John Paul because otherwise, his profound philosophical teachings would inevitably at least from time to time become apparent, not least because truth rings true. Do we therefore conclude that it has been a deliberate decision NOT to read these great works and a deliberate decision to act and teach as though this saint never existed? Would it not be a good idea to at least read these things, if only to know what other Catholics are being taught? Food for thought.
My guess and I could be wrong. But Fr R does not refer to JP2 as St JP2.
Well-said! God bless you, sister.
This is an important question that goes back to the disagreements between
"Traditionalist Catholics" and "Modernist Catholics" to give them a name. You may be aware that there is a very serious concern among Traditionalist Catholics about the New Order of the Mass, that which was promulgated after Vatican II, with Traditonalist seeking out and advocating for the older form of the Roman Rite. But the differences apply to theology and catechesis as well. The modernist theologians, Like John Paul II, took great liberties in reinterpreting a lot of teachings and 'softening' them. Not just in the area of sex, but on many moral questions. This was a source of his popularity in some circles, and consternation and sorrow in others. Traditionalists Catholics Like Fr. Ripperger are naturally going to be very suspicious of teachings that take a lot of liberties, or in anyway seem to revise the more ancient teachings. He may not criticize them, but they are going to ignore them in favor of older teachings that are more rooted in the tradition. Its kinda part and parcel to the whole 'Traditional Catholic' thing, of which Fr. Ripperger is a part. Hope that helps.
Thank you so much. This is perfect. I agree.
@@michaelshelbyedwards Interesting that you call Fr Ripperger by his priestly title but you do no such courtesy to Pope and Saint of the Catholic Church. Have you read Pope St John Paul’s ‘Man and Woman He Created Them?’. As I said, Truth rings true & the understanding of marriage as a reflection of the Trinity is surely higher than one which demeaningly refers to a wife as ‘due matter’ and with words like ‘polluted’ whose main role is to prevent her husband from committing adultery or sunning alone. It reduced both husband and wife to the carnal which is a shabby alternative to the beautiful understanding of marriage taught by this great saint.
All this talk is turning me on. Not trolling. Dead serious. Man, it's so easy to sin.
Respectfully, you gotta chill. I remember once being like you. But we gotta accept that discussing our bodies and our biology is normal and healthy. Also, ironically, we are more susceptible to being turned on and to sinful thoughts, because we have been repressed sexually. The more you chill out, you'll realize that the lustful thoughts will recede into the background.
Also, take much of this lecture with a grain of salt... it's very clear that many of the concepts were developed by celibate men who don't understand the female anatomy, and the practical aspects of human sexuality. It's all too theoretical.
If the interpersonal relationship is just as important as procreation, then anything which affects the communion of the spouses, i.e. *babies kill date night*, then they would argue that for the sake of the unity of the marriage, that they should be allowed to use NFP.
It’s not. The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children.
@@adrianakellogg4493 Fr. Ripperger states V2 nu speak.." the primary purpose is procreation and union." This is the only way to justify NFP. The emperor has no clothes.
@@AnnulmentProof in video 1 of the series he talks about the primary, secondary, tertiary ends of marriage, etc. The primary being children
@@adrianakellogg4493 that's well and good, but out of the other side of his mouth he also says the "primary purpose of marriage is procreation and union." He says this when justifying NFP.
Exactly Pro-creation, having kids. in the first video he said the purpose is in this order, Procreation, Physical union, Union of love. So procreation is first and foremost
Isn't the "pollution" aspect for men considered so heavily because of lack of scientific knowledge at the time St. Alphonsus and the earlier moral theologian Saints lived?
I read somewhere that in medieval times there were "homunculus" or a kind of microscopic human dwelling from the man's seed. Could it have been wrongly correlated with abortion somehow?
In the case of Onan in Genesis it is unclear as to why he died. Perhaps it was only because he intended to deny his wife of a child even though he was married to her (and perhaps could've refused).
Could it have been that it was Onan's dishonest intentions rather than the act itself what was which caused his death?
Another concern is that after intercourse there may be considerable spillage that may reduce the chance of fertility to some degree... unless precautions are taken to minimize this which might be inconvenient for the couple, I wonder what the moral implications of these cases would be, explained from a philosophical and scientific outlook.
Sex is ordered to reproduction. That is why it exists. Compare it to eating. Although there is great pleasure in eating, it is ultimately ordered toward nutrition. Therefore, if someone intentionally tries to deny the nutritive function of food - say by sticking his finger down his throat or misusing laxatives - we would say that behavior is gravely disordered.
Procreation doesn't need to be the goal of every sexual act but every sexual must be open to procreation. Onan's sin was just that: spilling his seed in order to prevent pregnancy.
The accepted interpretation by both Christians and Jews of Onan is that the failure to complete the act properly was the sin that led to death.
There are actually books written by Catholics that discuss techniques to avoid problems like excess spillage. There is always going to be some but as long as the husband finishes inside his wife, it is not sin. The majority of his semen will get where it needs to go and it only takes one little swimmer to do the job. He just has to be in the right place at the right time.
Was it the fact that Onan spilled his seed on the ground that was what angered God or the disobeying and the intent that angered God? ( God didn't care about the seed on the ground, just the disobeying?). And the Catholics make the assumption that it is the spilling that causes the sin, so they run with it, this what you call making your own Dogma. ( And God caused a lot of forcible chain of events By killing Er in the first place - and why? There is a lot to this story that's questionable.
And Tamar wasn't Onan's wife, it was his sister-in-law, and he didn't want to impregnate her because it wouldn't be his child. How does that work? ( if I had sex with my sister in - law and she became pregnant I think would be my my child) how the story ends Tamar father in-law (Judah) ends up raping Tamar ,and she produces child anyway - to a lineage that no longer exists.
No offense, but I am not getting as much out of the lesson as I could because I have to have a dictionary in my left hand and keep pausing the video. Just kidding. Lay terms only please for us common folk.
This definitely seems like a good recipe for the stereotypical frigid wife.
Too embarrassing, I guess
I don't get it. He goes on to explain what pollution is, which is clearly only something a man can do. Then he makes a comment about women being able to do it too.
Last time I checked, women do not produce semen.
He's referring to female orgasm, which can happen during foreplay before the conjugal act and is not wrong in that context. The rules for men and women are a bit different because of single vs multiple climax.
@@phoult37 I'm not sure if that is accurate. Father implied that females can have something similar to a male climax, but didn't specify an orgasm itself. I'm thinking (pardon the explicate wording) a form of discharge from a woman may be closer to the implication, but I could be wrong. I would assume he would have been clearer which is why I question your point.
@@a-aronander-son5861 Yeah it's vague for sure. That discharge actually facilities better intercourse and makes the women more receptive to sperm, thus increasing the chances of fertilization. So in my opinion, if foreplay is used to stimulate the woman toward the end of procreation, then it is not disordered (assuming all of the other principles are followed). However, stimulating the woman to the point of orgasm, which replaces intercourse and would be pleasure for pleasure's sake, would be disordered, as far as I can tell.
I'm certainly open to persuasion though as it's not elaborated upon in the video.
@@phoult37 Sure sure, again I am not sure I am right here. As you had pointed out the female was designed for multiple climaxes whereas the male only one, and noting how God condemned Onan and never a single woman I just have to wonder if stimulating a woman to the point of orgasm with the full intent to contract marital rights is acceptable.
I like you am open to persuasion. I just wish there was clarity.
@@a-aronander-son5861 For sure. It's an important question that needs to be clarified.
I think, but not sure, a lot about chastity in marriage isn't morally conclusive. Anal sex I believe is wrong because the vagina is sufficient... but maybe if the vagina can't ever be used due to some sicknesses I think there are exceptions. Full consent is another issue. Which spouses are psychologically and intellectually ready? Without full consent you can't commit mortal sins. Venial sins of course should be avoided but this is a long story hard to discuss here. Chastity in marriage should be given very thorough consideration and study by the Church... once and for all, so help us God. Argument that the penis isn't designed for the mouth i think is shallow. The ears aren't designed to be kissed... so it's wrong to kiss it? If course you don't stick the eyes because it'll get injured. God please guide us, send us your Spirit.
NO!!!! It's right in the Bible about misusing the orifices. The alternative is abstinince
@@Meira750 The Bible has a lot of useless, cultural taboos and is not word-for-word, infallible. The spirit of the text, i.e. a reverence for intimacy and the human person, is what is essential.
you are a modernist and a deceiver. @@AntonAchondoa
Chastity and abstinence are forms of birth control which the Church is supposedly against. Its a weird contradiction of beliefs
That's different. Birth control during the act is different than abstaining. Controlling Birth itself is not condemned by the church but rather tye perverting of the act itself by unnatural means is the kind of Birth control condemned. It's about controlling Birth while performing the act is what the church doesn't allow. Abstinence has nothing to do with the act itself so there is no perversion taking place.
@@robertkolinsky1286Abstinence by definitions has to do with "the act" namely the when and under what circumstances. And NFP and abstinence are not "open to life"
@@veddermn8 no abstence has to do with not doing that. The context of birth control is when the act is actively taking place which is not the same with abstinence since it is by definition refraining from the act. And yes nfp is not open to life but it can be practiced to make Conception more likely. Also nfp is allowed under certain circumstances to avoid life because as I've read it is not a violation of the nature itself as with artificial birth control which directly interferes with nature. With nfp one is working with nature to avoid Conception.
@@robertkolinsky1286 if it has nothing to do with sex... then the word is meaningless lol. And its not open to life. neither is NFP
@@veddermn8 hmm I feel it's something intellectually understood that during abstaining the sexual act is not taking place. This is easy for me to understand. And besides it's not about not being open to life. Not desiring a child is not an intrinsic evil therefore its not wrong in itself not to want a child so the fact abstaining is not open to life has nothing to do with its being morally wrong. Nfp is not open to life but pius the 12th put it that it's an exemption from the obligatory primary motives( open to life). Artificial birth control is condemned not so much that its not ordered to life but that it disrupts the natural function of the body. This is proven by its side effects and its actively suppressing fertility. Also it kills the fertilized egg if it managed to be able to
This is absurd on many levels. Clearly not church teaching on marital love. This guy should learn something about marital sex before trying to explain it to others.
Dude, it's Humane Vitae. It is indeed church teaching
I think it's best to pray for discernment on these issues.
Nowhere does Humane Vitae speak toforeplay between couples. I suggest a reread
@@pilot2502 There’s a lot of the pre-eminent moral theologian and Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori, in here as well. So what do you disagree with specifically? Are you in the Ron Conte or Christopher West camp? Im guessing the liberal camp, since you disrespectfully refer to a priest as “this guy”.
@@skypilot7162 When the catholic priests do something about the sex abuse issue I may learn to have respect for them as a group.
Completely made up
You cant really site text as he does from Sts and it be totally made up.
How so
@@gerettaball7867 I believe what the OP means is that even the citations from Saints are based on cultural taboos rather than any kid of objective morality.
@@gerettaball7867 His advice on marital love, if followed would destroy many marriages. He needs to consider another line of work.
Natural law is not made up
just more made up abstract rules that exist for their own sake, especially the "pollution" concept.
Just say you disagree then people will believe you.
I would give more credit than that, but I share your overall disagreement. Let's celebrate that Catholic teaching reveres human intimacy and the human person. But many of the smaller details seem rooted in cultural taboos more than objective morality.