Ask a Priest

Sexual Pleasure?

Jun 13, 2008

How are we to view sexual pleasure? Assuming a marride couple has sex for the purposes of procreation, how do we view the ensuing pleasure? Is it a gift from God to be enjoyed like other aspects of creation, is it sinful and if so what do we make of Song of Solomon and Proverbs 5:19.

Thanks and Peace…


Asked at 05:30 am on June 13th 2008

Sexual pleasure is a wonderful gift from God to bring couples closer together. It is a good thing.

However, like all good things, it can be abused when used in the wrong way to destroy and oppose God’s plan for marriage and sex, for example, when procreation is denied through artificial contraception (CCC 2370) or masturbation (CCC 2352)

In the Lord,

JD (Not a priest!)

Replied at 12:45 am on June 14th 2008

get the bible

look up LEVITICUS 15

have a read

Replied at 01:24 am on June 16th 2008

Sexual pleasure within a marriage and within the context of what is morally licit, is viewed positively by the Church.

Here is what the Catechism says:

“2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146 ”

Before becoming Pope the then Karol Wojtyla wrote on this and other topics in his book Love and Responsibility. Some quotes from this book are posted here

Here is a part of what the book says on the question you raise.

““The sexual urge in man is a fact which he must recognize and welcome
as a source of natural energy.”

“Our challenge is to make good use of the sexual urge and harness the “natural energy” it provides to serve a love that is genuine and true. Here is where the importance of the “integration of love” becomes clear. A love that is merely an “excitement of the senses,” that does not unite two persons in a true interpersonal union, is a love that “squanders” this
“natural energy.” True, enduring love remains elusive. Thus, couples, “while cultivating as intensively as they can” the passions that draw them close, must “endeavor to achieve objectivity” for “only if it is objectively good for two persons to be together can they belong to each other.”

You can also see some further points on this topic here

Replied at 03:22 am on June 16th 2008

<this content has been removed by a site moderator> – Michael Gravener

I’m a little upset that this mans comments seem to be frequently removed (yes, I have been reading the discussions :D) I feel that it hampers free discussion. I, for one, would be interested to hear as many point of view on this subject as people are willing to give.

Replied at 12:35 pm on June 19th 2008

The site encourages and welcomes debate. If he was moderated, it’s not because he has a different opinion but because he is being rude or acting against Xt3 terms and conditions.

Regardless of your opinion, you’re not allowed to be rude. As you will have seen from following the discussions many of his posts have been allowed.

In Christ,


Replied at 03:07 pm on June 19th 2008

The church isn’t saying that it is fine to have sex without procreation – couples who can’t get pregrant cannot have sex with procreation in mind (because it’s blatantly impossible). However, sex between husband and wife, as well as being for procreation, has the added dimension of unifying them (two bodies becoming one, and all that jazz) – that is why it is okay for infertile couples to have sex – their union is focused on their love for each other. The same unifying act occurs when fertile couples have sex (obviously) but their union just happens to be focused on both love and/or procreation – none of these actions are based in pleasure.

Sex is about unity, love, and togetherness – pleasure is all about the self, sense, and wanting to feel good. the moment you’re doing it for pleasure is a contravenion of the unity of the couple (because pleasure is selfish) and of what sex is there for (love and babymakin’) – that’s just basic logic.

If I’m wrong anywhere then persons in the know please feel free to correct.

Replied at 08:35 am on June 20th 2008

it seems like you are being kinda rude when yer saying celibates (im assuming priests) have all the answers to sex and they make it so complicated they can do with out. the Church has those teachings for a reason. They didn’t just come up with them to keep guys like you outta the sheets.
But I like Patrick’s answer better…

Replied at 08:25 am on June 20th 2008

cheers man

Replied at 10:47 pm on June 20th 2008

I’m a little unclear.

If a couple who is infertile are allowed to have sex because it’s about a union that is focused on their love for each other then couldn’t this argument be applied to homosexual couples? That is, they are unable to procreate but can still have sex because it unites them.

Replied at 03:55 am on June 23rd 2008

Yeah, following on from that – homosexuals are in the wrong not because they can’t procreate – it’s a refusal by their choice to deny one of sex’s primary functions. they choose to sleep with men – it is a deliberate deviation of the natural order.

now I know this opens up a whole can of worms about homosexuality and whether it’s natural are by choice – some are naturally gay, some are not – it’s irrelevant to this topic – the point is they deny one of sex’s functions – probably in favour of sexual pleasure – which as we have already established is wrong.

Replied at 08:29 am on June 23rd 2008

What if it’s in favour of a union?

Also if homosexuals are “wrong” because it is a choice to deny one of the primary functions of sex(procreation) then couldn’t it be said that if a heterosexual couple knows one partner is infertile but chooses to have sex nonetheless then it is also a choice to deny one of the primary functions of sex?

I know that the church has a teaching on all of this that would be very difficult to fault in its logic. I’m just not sure if it is exactly the line of argument you are taking.

Father Flynn could you please help us out here?

Replied at 12:54 am on June 24th 2008

Dear Lucie:

I think this thread is wandering off course a bit and if you want guidance on the homosexual issue then this has already been extensively debated in another thread here –!id=2371&page=1&perPage=10

Also please note the post at the end of that thread directing people to other places where there is more information.

If you have further questions, please post them here:
The church and homosexuality:
Theology of the body:
Other issues of Theology:

Replied at 01:03 am on June 24th 2008

ok , how have i been rude this time, and when did sex get so complicated. I wonder why celibates have all the answers to something like sex. Maybe they make it so complex so that that they can deal with being without. Sex in a loving siuation is great and God given, you can have loads of pleasure and you dont have top be open to procreation. Even the church allows sex to be had when the woman naturally cant get pregnant. Therefore they are suggsting it is fine.

or is this going to be dleted because it is being too rude again, cmon Jonathon – Michael Gravener


Don’t you think using contraceptives, especially chemicals, is also making sex complicated by altering the natural ‘ecology’ of the body? Just ask some women who suffer the side effects!

It is not only celibates who believe the teachings of the Church about sexuality. One of the best articles I’ve ever read in support of the Church’s teachings was by a lay woman who was a mother of a number of children. Her name was Elisabeth Anscombe, she was a philosopher and academic – here is her article:

Another person who has taught much about the good of sexual union always remaining the procreative type and also unitive is Christopher West – a married lay person with children.

Replied at 12:27 pm on June 28th 2008

When did pleasure become a sin???

I derive pleasure from playing my guitar which is about self and wanting to feel good. Does this mean i don’t play it because its not for the benefit of someone else. Is that a sin?

I don’t get it. Agree with you totally re. sexual selfishness though. Why can’t sex be pleasurable provided its between a married couple. If your desire is to please your wife/husband then are you not going to feel pleasure in return (provided your spouse has the same attitude).

Replied at 09:00 pm on June 28th 2008

I have to say ur answer is quite logical… and makes sense just spent some time studying some of this sort of topics in college and it is so easy for some one to pick out bits of the church teaching and forget other parts. and the church as u said does place the two dimensions to sexual love the unitive and procreative apect… pleasure perhaps is when these two combine and not the sole reason for sex.. just a thought to add to ur discussion….

Replied at 10:37 am on June 29th 2008

Couldn’t help but think of this blog post by the Ironic Catholic when reading this question. Great, humourous view of things (which seems accurate to me):

Replied at 10:39 am on July 01st 2008

it’s a difficult topic and one that i cannot comprehend…….anyhow,,,,glad to read the previous posts……..thanks folks

where’s my avatar?

Replied at 07:42 am on July 02nd 2008

Blaise, that’s a bloody good article mate. Thanks for sharing it!

Replied at 09:25 am on July 02nd 2008

Jonathan, PaX!

 U said: “it can be abused when used in the wrong way to destroy and oppose God’s plan for marriage and sex, for example, when procreation is denied through artificial contraception (CCC 2370) or masturbation (CCC 2352)”

Masturbation is natural, is physiologycal. It`s a sin when it`s abused.
It´s similar as to eat. The abuse of eatting is gluttony (except when the person have an “alimentar disease”). Gluttony is sin.

I´m not a priest, but i´m a medical studant and I know about physiology.


Replied at 03:03 am on July 03rd 2008

Dear Nuno: Thanks for your post, but we have to be careful in applying norms and practices from one area to another. A simple parallel between eating and other physical actions and saying what is a sin in the matter of our sexual capacities is problematic.

A physical analysis and a moral analysis of actions use different criteria, have different objectives, and a different way of reasoning.

So from a moral point of view it is not possible to say that masturbation is a sin only when abused, because if it is deliberate and willed it is always a sin. This is what the Catechism says in no. 2352 that you mention.

Replied at 03:16 am on July 03rd 2008

The answer is still no. Masturbation is (according to CCC) gravely disordered. Simply it is sought for pleasure and you ended up lusting(which is a sin) only. I think what John Paul II trying to say by “recognize and welcome” is that’s natural for someone to be fruitful and bear a child.Hence, it is a natural calling for someone to get a married state of life. And we can’t interpret him apart from what Our Lord said “…who looks at a woman lustfully has commited adultery with her in his heart” (Mat 5:27-28)

Replied at 04:49 pm on July 12th 2008

“…who looks at a woman lustfully has commited adultery with her in his heart” (Mat 5:27-28)

i may sound like i’m just being argumentive but i’m seriously just trying to understand this; i didn’t even realise what a massive topic this is, its so broad its insane.

anyway in regard to this reference to mathew, i thought adultery was evil because the/y person committing it had no self control, if there body is betraying them and being lustful is that their fault? is there a dif between bodily functions and mindful willpower?

also; everybody keeps saying that having sex isgood bcause it leads to procreation (i take this to mean reproduction yes?) and these arguments are supported by the bible. however, the bible was written when expansion was good, there was no limit to the world (which they thought was flat).
in todays day and age we face such frightenin prospects as global warming, procreation isnt going to help build a sustainable environment, george pell might be calling for us to have more children then our muslim cousins, but we WILL destroy god’s world by these ‘pro’creation teachings. global waming IS serious, i wish people would pay more attention, yer its inconvinient, but its there, the church should, nay must, turn to aknowledging this, and to aknowledging that we don’t need more babies, we need less. our population is far too vast, it is killing this world, god’s world.

these policies of the church are no onger “pro”creation, as they are detrimental to our health, and the health of all the animals on this world.

can a response PLEASE be made by an actall priest? i’d appriciate it father.

Replied at 11:34 pm on July 16th 2008

Dear Isaac: You raised this in another question here – – and I have replied. Just a little patience please, you posted this one here at 9:51am this morning and then, on the thread above I mentioned you posted at 10:08am saying that you had asked a question, but nobody answered.

Hey, we are pretty good at Xt3, but only human so give us a chance to reply! In fact, I replied at 10:27am to your question. 

Replied at 02:49 am on July 17th 2008

i know faher, im SO impatiant its not funny, however i was refering to other threads than this in which i HAVE raised the same issue, in a diferent group-thingy than this, and also to some mesages  sent out to people on other sites etc.

you did answer it extremely well at that and i recomend people reading this to take a peek at that link, which i was just about to put it here myself.

Replied at 02:46 am on July 17th 2008

Is desire within marriage  part of love ??

Replied at 11:28 pm on July 18th 2008


I have been seriously considering religious life for about a year. I know than when one joins religious life they take an act of celibacy. How does one who wants to give her life to Christ stop commiting impure actions (ie self gratification). Everything I do I want to do for JEsus so why is this sin so hard to stop??

God Bless


Replied at 01:58 am on July 29th 2008

Dear Candice: Sometimes habits can be difficult to break, so you need patience and a lot of effort. For a start if you can find a good confessor or spiritual director who will guide you and provide you with spiritual advice, as well as the sacrament of reconciliation, this should help.

Then a strong prayer life and closeness to Christ through the Eucharist is another important source of grace.

You might also benefit from some of the advice found on sites such as the Pure Love Club –

Also I recommend you look upon the matter with a positive orientation. Develop your capacity to love and find where God is calling you to express this. Practice charity with others and help others by being actively involved in your faith. We all have a great capacity to love and if we can develop this positively, instead of self-seeking and an egoistic and sensual concentration on our own pleasure, then it will also help.

Replied at 01:02 am on July 29th 2008

Let’s take a closer look at what the Catechism has to say. From the Catholic Catechism, paragraph 2352: “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” * * Granted, our culture doesn’t consider it a sin, and you might even find people in the Church, even priests, who would be dismissive of calling it serious sin. The Church doesn’t point out sin to shame us, but to try to lead us toward happiness by showing us where the dead-ends are along the way. Here’s the basic logic of the Church: masturbation is the misuse of one of God’s greatest gifts, our sexuality. The language of sexual activity is meant to be the language of love, of union and communion, of self-gift for the sake of one’s beloved. Its proper home is in the context of marriage. Between a man and a woman, this “language” can be spoken in truth. When a man gives himself sexually to his wife, his action can really mean for her: “I make a free, faithful, total gift of myself to you, and I am willing for this gift to have the consequence of bringing new life into the world. I love you in such a committed way that I am not only willing to be one with you at this moment, but for our oneness to become so real that it begins a family… which requires our oneness for many years to come. I choose to be one with you in this total, vulnerable, unique way, a way which will require many sacrifices of me, and of you… sacrifices that I am ready to make, because I love you and have committed myself to you.” So that is the context of the Church’s teaching. Masturbation speaks a different language. For one thing, it doesn’t require a spouse at all. Doesn’t lead to new life. Doesn’t necessarily lead to the two becoming one flesh, which is the great sacrament of love. It can destroy happiness by leading a person into a spiral of loneliness, isolation, and selfishness. It offers momentary pleasure, but delivers nothing lasting. While it is true that some couples masturbate together, by doing so, they’re changing what they communicate to each other. It introduces selfishness in what was meant to be an act of total self-gift, a renewal of marriage vows, and an openness to new life. The partners can end up using each other for pleasure, and the desire for self-gratification can blur the focus on the good of the other. If it is mutually satisfying, it is so by matter of coincidence, not by the nature of the act. The act says “me first” and “I will use this incredible gift in a way that I choose that is not in keeping with the desire of the One who gave me this gift.” I want to make one other very important point: just because masturbation is always wrong, doesn’t mean that the person who commits it is necessarily in serious sin (sometimes called “mortal” or “grave”; the kind that requires confession). For a person to be culpable/responsible for a serious sin, three things must be present: 1) grave matter – the action, in itself, must be evil; 2) full knowledge – he must know it is seriously wrong; 3) full consent – he must choose freely to do it anyway. If any of these three things is missing, it wouldn’t be mortal sin, but venial sin. Now notice that when discussing masturbation, the Church specifically notes that not everyone is fully culpable: “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If masturbation has become a habit, this can diminish responsibility. Doesn’t mean it’s a good thing, but it can make you less responsible. Remember, the Church is a mother, and she understands human weakness. For some, it can take a long time to overcome a habit that carries with it so much comfort and/or pleasure. Some use it as an escape from pain, etc. But the Church wants us to have the grace of Christ, which is a grace that can help us break habits that keep us in chains. Long story short, the Church recognizes that someone who masturbates doesn’t necessarily do it out of hatred for God, etc. Nevertheless, she calls us to the freedom of love… the self-possession that is the pre-condition for giving ourselves away in love. We can’t give what we have not come to possess. In summary, masturbation represents a failure to understand/participate in what is essentially a relational capacity of man — human sexuality is ordered to relationship. One of the essential ends of genital expression is to unite a man and a woman to each other… each making a gift of self to the other. Masturbation is a mockery of this end… it is to intercourse what bulimia is to healthy habits of eating. Maybe masturbation does not exploit someone else, but it certainly does exploit oneself. And it does exploit someone else, in a sense, because the time spent in this solpsistic activity is robbing the energy and love that could have been spent in love of another. Remember that there is something called a sin of omission… One last thing: If you struggle with this, don’t be afraid, and don’t let shame paralyze you. Keep your eyes firmly fixed on the mercy of God, who is always pursuing you. Don’t allow falls to  discourage you. And don’t listen to the voice that says “everybody is doing it.” Even if this were true, would it really matter? What everyone does is not the ultimate point of reference for love.

Replied at 03:11 am on July 29th 2008

I cant help but not agree with the argument that pleasure can be looked at in such a negative sinful way. Maybe by pleasure you mean ‘Lust’ im almost willing to bet on it that pleasure is a necessary part of love, whether it be sexual or just something which stimulates the other bodily senses i.e chocolate.

Replied at 01:16 am on July 31st 2008

<this content has been removed by a site moderator>

Replied at 01:09 am on July 31st 2008

Dear Michael: There is a very good site that I think will help you understand Church teaching on sexual matters –

If you look at the FAQ section it covers a wide variety of subjects and questions.

Also, Michael, in your posts on these subjects please keep in mind that there are members on the site as young as 16, and that the area of sexual morality is a delicate subject. So it’s best to refrain from language that is too graphic or explicit. The questions you have can be made in a clear way without going into descriptions of sexual acts, thus respecting the views and sensibilities of all the Xt3 users. 

Replied at 02:14 am on July 31st 2008

Fair enough, i’ll go to that site and have a look. Sorry for the language. Could you please attempt to answer some of the questions in the more appropriate language then?

Replied at 12:58 am on August 02nd 2008

I cant help but not agree with the argument that pleasure can be looked at in such a negative sinful way. Maybe by pleasure you mean ‘Lust’ im almost willing to bet on it that pleasure is a necessary part of love, whether it be sexual or just something which stimulates the other bodily senses i.e chocolate.

   Pleasure, per se, isn’t the problem. Lust is… lust gives priority to personal gratification (rather than the good of the beloved) and also gives priority to acquisition (rather than self-donation). As John Paul II once wrote, the opposite of love is not hate, but use. We’re accustomed to think that pleasure is a necessary part of love. It’s a romantic notion that we have. But remember that the ultimate gesture of love — the Cross — didn’t deliver much in the way of pleasure. It may have satisfied the deepest desire of Jesus, but the satisfaction of that desire came by way of total self-denial.  Not saying pleasure is evil. Not at all. I think it was CS Lewis who noted that pleasure was created by God to incline us toward good acts. But in our fallen state, it can be given undue priority and/or directed toward that which does not and cannot bring true happiness. 

Replied at 01:57 am on August 02nd 2008

Very true. Glad  you elaborated a bit more on the Jesus’s passion and no pleasure. Plenty of stories in the bible where Jesus has a wonderful time and enjoys good company. You don’t hear much if any about Jesus and women, or joseph and marys sexual desires for one another either. Or do you? I’d like to read that if it existed or anything like it.

Also thankyou Fr for the site that was very helpful in regards to contraception. I’m still after some information on sex within marriage. If you could help me out with that it would be awesome. Thanks – miCk.

Replied at 01:40 am on August 02nd 2008


I like your posts as I have been reading them.  You seem to have a very strong desire to seek and understand the truth.

As a married woman I hope I can help you with any questions you may have regarding sex within marriage.  Fr John will probably give you the theological low down, but if you want advice/info from someone who is married and waited until they got married to have sex then feel free to ask me.

Replied at 07:29 pm on August 11th 2008

The church says lust is wrong, which i understand, but does that mean it also disagrees with showing affection for one’s partner, or are we supposed to just hold hands and nothing else until mariage? 

Replied at 10:23 am on September 07th 2008

Dear Jennifer: Lust, as you see in the Catechism is a disorder.

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

Affection between couples who are going to get married is not wrong, but should respect certain boundaries and reserve for marriage the physical intimacy that is proper in the married state.

There are many ways to demonstrate affection and love and it would be a poor preparation for married life if affection and love were reduced to a merely physical act, instead of it being something far deeper and more complete in a total self-giving. 

Replied at 10:57 pm on September 07th 2008

Hi. Read St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most important philosophers and theologians of the Middle Ages. He talks about sex pleasure. Of course church allows it… at least since the Middle Ages.You must seek the other’s pleasure instead your own pleasure. I’ve readed several times Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, and I’ve not found nothing about sex. Only two things: Jesus “If you think of a married woman with desire, you’re commiting adultery in your mind.” and St. Pablo: “No fornication.” But make love with your gilfriend, the person who God has given you, is not fornication. It’s true love. As St. Augustine said: “Love and do wat you want”. He is one of the fathers of the church. St. Augustine predates  St. Thomas Aquinas.  I’m agree with this, of course. Fornication is hang out wiht hookers, have sex the first night, drunk, and so… But not make love with your lovely girlfriend, of course. Richness is one of the biggest sins. Lie and cheat, like Pharisees and Scribas too. Oppres the people like Romans too. Read the Gospels, Jesus talk about this ad nauseam. Read the Gospel and ask the Holy Spirit lighting about this issue. Often pray in fron of the Sacrarium. And go to mass and commune as frequently as you can… I am sure you will reach the same conclusion that me. And the same conclusion of thousands of Spanish catholics, of course, some of them theologians. Kind Regards. God bless you.

Replied at 11:42 pm on September 08th 2008

Dear Adolfo, Jennifer and others: What Adolfo says here is not what the Church teaches, but just his own ideas. Sexual intimacy with someone before marriage is a mortal sin and this is what the Church has always maintained. To say otherwise is to ignore two thousand years of constant teaching.

Replied at 12:18 am on September 09th 2008

In relation to the phrase of Augustine that Adolfo has used to wrongly justify premarital sexual relations I would like to refer Xt3 users to a useful article on the Web page of the US bishops. The full text can be found here.

Here is the part that deals directly with the passage from St Augustine.

“In the 4th century, St. Augustine offered advice that looks like something one would find in Playboy or Cosmo: “Love – and do what you will.”

But how do you define “love”? At the end of the day, how do you know if you have been loving? Poets, philosophers, and psychologists have struggled with this mystery. I think, ultimately, human happiness is captured in a phrase from John’s Gospel: “Love one another as I have loved you.” So when we think about our sexual relationships, there’s an interesting model, and a second question: “What would Jesus do?” How would the God who created you want you to use this great gift of passion and procreation? What does God see when he looks at the young man or woman in front of you? Do you see the same person? And what does God see when he looks at you? What does God want for you, right now and at the end of your life?

The answers are pretty obvious with just a little thought. God wants only the best for you. He wants you to imitate the model of Jesus by loving permanently, faithfully, completely, fruitfully. He doesn’t want you to be burdened with a broken heart, with a disease that could make you sterile or kill you. He wants children to be born to married parents who are lovingly committed to each other and to their children. He wants you to understand that “[the] meaning of life is found in giving and receiving love, and in this light, human sexuality and procreation reach their true and full significance” (John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, 81).

Replied at 02:12 am on September 09th 2008

“…who looks at a woman lustfully has commited adultery with her in his heart” (Mat 5:27-28)

Ok, its things like this that really get me and result back to the question about nature. Nature in the way that God created man with large abundances of sexual urges. In reference to that quotation and the sexual urges of men, most men can not help but in the first split seconds of seeing an attractive woman imagine and fantasize these lustful ideas about her. There is no control over this, our mind thinks faster then then the small part of it that decides what to think.

Replied at 02:59 am on September 09th 2008

Yes,Ok. Two
thousand years of constant teaching… But I would like to know in wich part of
the Old or the New Testament are based this teachings. I remenber you Matthew
23, 8-11 (Bible of Jerusalem, Catholic): “You, however, do not let
yourselves call masters, because only one is your master, and you are all
brothers. Nor you call to anybody father yours in the Eart, because only one is
your father: the one of the Heaven. Nor you either do not let yourselves call
“Director” , because one is only your Director: the Christ. The major
between you will be your servant.” I think is extremely clear, like all
Gospel, isn´t it? Then, why do you talk about the teaching of the Church? The
teaching of the Church is not  God Speak. Godspel is God Speak. Obviusly
the teaching of the Churh is mistaken, two thousand years mistaken. Don’t
worry. We are humans and we make mistakes… The Pope is not the master. The
Pope is not the director. The Pope is not the father… I don’t say this, Jesus
says this… The Pope is a servant like you and like me, and like all the
Christians in the world. Exactly the same. What about the dogma of the
infalibility of the Pope? As you know, the infalibility only applies whe Pope
publishes Ex Catedra documents. Ex Catedra means a lot of thinking, praying,
consultation and so. And after this, Pope publishes Ex Catedra document. Pope
John Paul the Second never used infalibility, for example… The Church is not
God. God id God. The Church can be mistaken, of course. The Church is supported
by The Holy Spirit, but too by humans, and humans fail. Don´t talk about
Cathecis. Cathecism is not God Speak. Church, teaching of the Church,
Cathecism, and the Religion by itself, are only tools to try the humans reach
God. But only tools. And the tools fails. And the Church fails. Listen to
Matthew 11, 25: “At that time, taking Jesus the floor, said: “I bless
you, Father, Lord of the Heaven and The Earth, because you have hidden 
this things to intelligent and wise people and you have revealed them to the
small. Yes, Father, Then so it has been your approval.”” Jesus
undermines the future authority, teaching of the Church. The Church is plenty
of intelligent and wise people. This people constructed throughout more than
two thousand years the Church teaching and the Cathecism. Re-read Matthew 11,
25. This teaching and this Cathecism lack value to reach the Salvation. Jesus
says, not me. There are not my ideas, literally, there is the God Speaking, The
Gospel, isn´t it? Re-read Matthew, please. I insist on this idea: they are only
tools try to reach the Salvation, but nothing else. You can´t make Church
teaches nor Cathecism God. This is a sin, a very big sin, a mortal sin: Pride
sin, of course. It’s obviously. This is a real mortal sin: as Pharisees and
Scribas, you confuse sheeps and do,t allow them to reach the Salvation. Nor you
nor they. Uh, uh! A really mortal sin… At the present,Church as acting as
false prophets in several issues. One of that issues is sex. Sex comes from
God, isn’t it? Church, Pope, Cardinals, Bishop, Priest, and so must act with
humility and admit their multiple mistakes. All af them are too proud. Mainly
in the Church teaching, and return to origins: G-O-S-P-E-L. I insist on this.
You are preventing most of young people belongs to Church. You are
preventing…Remember to. Finally, Matthew 18, 3-4: “I assure to you that
if you do not change and you do like children, you will not enter the Kingdomof
Heaven.Therefore, who becomes small like this boy, that one is the major in the
Kingdom of Heaven.” See you.

Replied at 03:04 am on September 09th 2008

Dear Carlos: Yes, we are afflicted with our fallen nature, with original sin and with temptations. But this is not the whole story, we are not just nature, but also grace and with God’s help we can overcome temptations.

We can feel many temptations, but being tempted is, in itself no sin. Christ was tempted by the Devil, but did not consent. We often feel tempted, the question is how we react to this. Do we consent or do we reject the temptation? This is where we can show if we wish to be faithful to God or not. 

Replied at 04:03 am on September 09th 2008

most men can not help but in the first split seconds of seeing an attractive woman imagine and fantasize these lustful ideas about her.

If a woman dressed decently then we may not have lustful ideas.

and Adolfo , a lot of what you say is partly true and a lot of what Father John says is partly true too. I don’t think anyone can be 100% right on this topic because circumstances change for every situation and individual.

Replied at 04:28 am on September 09th 2008

Well, Adolfo, let’s see what you are saying. You argue we should not accept what the Pope says, what the Church says, what the Catechism says. And you also apparently regard yourself as having the only true interpretation of what the Bible says.

You are, of course, free to hold these opinions, but if this is really what you believe then you can no longer call yourself a Catholic. You are, unfortunately, simply picking out some isolated quotes from Scripture to justify your personal opinions.

The Church teaching on this matter is, of course, well founded on the Bible.

Genesis 2: 24: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.”

Thus, sexual intimacy is between a husband and wife, in the bond of marriage.

Matthew 5: 27-8 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

And if Jesus says that impure thoughts are sinful how can you possibliy argue that sexual relations outside marriage are morally licit.

For our other Xt3 members who are seeking guidance on what the Church teaches on this subject I recommend the Apostolic Exhortation by John Paul II on the family, full text here.

Here is the section regarding the point in question.

11. God created man in His own image and likeness(20): calling him to existence through love, He called him at the same time for love.

God is love(21) and in Himself He lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in His own image and continually keeping it in being, God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion.(22) Love is therefore the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being.

As an incarnate spirit, that is a soul which expresses itself in a body and a body informed by an immortal spirit, man is called to love in his unified totality. Love includes the human body, and the body is made a sharer in spiritual love.

Christian revelation recognizes two specific ways of realizing the vocation of the human person in its entirety, to love: marriage and virginity or celibacy. Either one is, in its own proper form, an actuation of the most profound truth of man, of his being “created in the image of God.”

Consequently, sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is by no means something purely biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and a woman commit themselves totally to one another until death. The total physical self-giving would be a lie if it were not the sign and fruit of a total personal self-giving, in which the whole person, including the temporal dimension, is present: if the person were to withhold something or reserve the possibility of deciding otherwise in the future, by this very fact he or she would not be giving totally.

This totality which is required by conjugal love also corresponds to the demands of responsible fertility. This fertility is directed to the generation of a human being, and so by its nature it surpasses the purely biological order and involves a whole series of personal values. For the harmonious growth of these values a persevering and unified contribution by both parents is necessary.

The only “place” in which this self-giving in its whole truth is made possible is marriage, the covenant of conjugal love freely and consciously chosen, whereby man and woman accept the intimate community of life and love willed by God Himself(23) which only in this light manifests its true meaning. The institution of marriage is not an undue interference by society or authority, nor the extrinsic imposition of a form. Rather it is an interior requirement of the covenant of conjugal love which is publicly affirmed as unique and exclusive, in order to live in complete fidelity to the plan of God, the Creator. A person’s freedom, far from being restricted by this fidelity, is secured against every form of subjectivism or relativism and is made a sharer in creative Wisdom.

Replied at 04:44 am on September 09th 2008

Hi Adolfo.  Why don’t you marry your girlfriend?  Do you plan to?  – Rod

Replied at 04:08 am on September 09th 2008

You said: “Adolfo, a lot of what you say is partly true and a lot of what Father John says is partly true too. I don’t think anyone can be 100% right on this topic because circumstances change for every situation and individual.”
This is a common idea in Western culture, a form of relativism, but it doesn’t have a good basis in logic. Either the truth about human love exists, and is discoverable, or it isn’t. If no one can be 100% right about the topic, then the assertion that “no one can be 100% right” is itself suspect — and can only be partly true.  Do you see the problem with relativistic logic?
Circumstances are only one factor in morality, and some actions are always wrong, regardless of circumstance. One can be more or less guilty, but the action itself remains wrong. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church says it:

1754  The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
and a couple of paragraphs later, it says:

1756  It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Replied at 06:13 am on September 09th 2008

Clayton. I still stick to what I said and maybe you could word it better than me. A priest who was a Doctor of theology told me that in not so may words.
btw; I had to take you and a couple of other chaps off my friends list because it was causeing problems with my interface. I suspect it was because you didn’t join my group. …who knows….but I had to do it and all is fine now.

Replied at 09:33 am on September 09th 2008

Albert – Just to clarify: What I was reacting to was Adolfo’s claim that adultery / fornication (sexual relations outside the marriage bond) could be okay if the intentions were good. Adultery is an action that is in every case evil. No intention or circumstance could make it into a good act.

Replied at 04:21 pm on September 09th 2008

Apart from Father John’s good reply, I recommend to anyone who is asking questions about why the church teaches what it teaches with regards to sex to listen to a lively speech given during WYD in Sydney on “theology of the body”. You can download it from: I got a lot out of it.

Replied at 05:51 am on September 11th 2008

Ok, its things like this that really get me and result back to the question about nature. Nature in the way that God created man with large abundances of sexual urges. In reference to that quotation and the sexual urges of men, most men can not help but in the first split seconds of seeing an attractive woman imagine and fantasize these lustful ideas about her. There is no control over this, our mind thinks faster then then the small part of it that decides what to think.


Here’s how I think about issues like that. It seems to be a problem of evil question to me. Why did God “create” evil, in general? The Liebniz response is that evil isn’t so much a “something” as it is a privation of good, but more importantly, evil exists because we have free will, so we must choose good freely (meaning it must be possible for us not to choose good), etc etc… I think we can agree that we’re better off with free will, even if it means that people will often make the wrong choices.

So what about love and lust? I’ve only begun reading Deus Caritas Est, but the same idea seems to be present there. There are different kinds of love — eros (romantic), agape (selfless or divine), storge (familiar), philia (friendship). Untamed, immature eros is basically lust, but we have the opportunity to purify it, to mature in love by appealing to agape and lifting eros up to that level, and then it becomes something beautiful and astonishing. Queue Theology of the Body.

The point I’m trying to make is… yes, it’s a huge challenge to tame lust and to control it… but it’s a challenge that God presents us with because we’re so much better off for it. If eros were easy, it wouldn’t be so beautiful. It takes sacrifice and perserverance and piety and all those things to refine it, but we can do it.

Anyway, I’m not sure if what I’m saying here makes much sense or accurately reflects the Church’s view (I hope so), but it’s how I often think about lust when confronted with these questions.

Replied at 10:22 am on September 24th 2008

Hi all.

Here’s how I think about issues like that. It seems to be a problem of
evil question to me. Why did God create evil, in general?

Evil is not a God Creation, of course… Evil is an absence, a mistake, a fault, an error, a shortage, a deficiency, a failure…

An absence of Love. If the absence is total, there is the most terrible evil.

Love exists, is something, mental, material, spiritual. Love can be created. But evil is a damage, a pain, a suffering. Love can be created, evil can be caused. That’s the difference.

Bye… Be Happy!

Replied at 05:04 pm on September 24th 2008

In regards to Nuno Santos coment maybe Im late but oh well
I belief the point is that masturbation is an abuse of sexuality in general. Every time you masturbate your supposed to be having sex. Don’t masturbate go have sex with your spouse.
There are many ways to use (not suppress) sexual energy, and not all masturbation is brought on by purely sexual motivations. Seriously I met this friend of mine a few years back who was a big huger at first it was awkward because I’m not a touchy feely sort. Then after awhile I noticed I masturbated about half as much(TMI I know). What I learned was that it was in fact a lack of genuine human contact that created in me a need. I tried to fill that need with masturbation. Im still not touchy feely but I realized that what I perceive myself to be and what I need may not always jive so well.
learn to channel the energy into something else or come to grips with the fact that desires and frustrations are often projected onto our sexuality. So perhaps you don’t want sexual gratification as much as you want companionship or non sexual physical contact. Honestly I know how absurd this might sound. I used to masturbate, and think it was absurd to think it wasn’t ok. Especially when even many medical professionals said it was part of being healthy. Many things can contribute to masturbation those things should be dealt with in their own right not glossed over and made up for in masturbation.
I don’t take credit for all these ideas but I can say they work. Most of my “healthy” masturbation was simply stress and a lack of fulfillment in my friendships but the culture even the medical industry puts such warped infuses on sex it causes great confusion. Obviously a little bit of it is just good ole sex drive. As I said earlier the energy can be used to do other more productive things than selfishly turning inwards instead of reaching outside oneself as our sexuality is intended to inspire us to do.
So take up gardening buy your girlfreind flowers or go have sex with your spouse.

Replied at 08:09 pm on October 03rd 2008

Sex isn’t just about having a baby. To quote Jason Evert who has a master’s degree in theology in his book Pure Manhood:

“As for the meaning of sex, look at God’s design for it. When a couple is married, they promise at the altar that their love will be free, total, faithful, and open to life. When they make love, they speak those wedding vows with their bodies. Their love is free: It is not coerced or driven by lust. It is total: Until death do they part. They hold nothing back from each other, including their fertility. It is faithful: It includes the mind, eyes, and heart, as well as the body. It is open to life: Not deliberately steralized.”

I hope that helped.

Replied at 05:16 pm on May 05th 2010

I’m a little unclear.

If a couple who is infertile are allowed to have sex because it’s about a union that is focused on their love for each other then couldn’t this argument be applied to homosexual couples? That is, they are unable to procreate but can still have sex because it unites them.


If you think about it, homosexuals cannot really have sex.      
Additionally, couples that cannot have sex can be denied marriage in the Church.
This is just one more reason the church has for not allowing same-sex marriages.
Truly, we dont have the authority to do so anyway

Replied at 08:27 pm on June 21st 2010