A treatise on "sexual lust" by - A Sedevacantist? A talented parody artist?


#1

Came across this in one of the wilder corners of the web.

johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/books/rjmi/br52_sexual_lust.pdf

There’s a site full of insanity where it came from.

  1. How would you rebut this nonsense?
  2. Is this just a Catholic tribute to the Landover Baptist Church? He says everyone since Innocent II is an antipope; I’ve usually heard Pius XII as the reference point.

#2

I read the document then went to the underlying home website. I don’t think this is a parody at all – someody’s gone to a lot of effort to pull all that material together. Hard to know how many followers this person has. A quick review of some of the material on the site shows that this individual also is a 9/11 “truther,” a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, and denies that the earth rotates around the Sun, but holds that all of the universe, including the Sun, rotates around the Earth. There’s no rebutting someone so wedded to such a collection of conspiracies and false understandings.


#3

He also claims to be one of the witnesses of Revelation 11, and to have the “spirit of Elijah”.

He also is “revising” the Challoner Bible.

Stuff like this makes me wonder if he’s an atheist taking swipes at us - I mean, even the Sedevacantists, for their errors, don’t usually go this far!


#4

It is best that you just pray for this man instead of ridiculing him and what he has to say. I am not implying that anyone on this thread has been doing that. I’m familiar with him and know something about his past. People don’t become like this overnight.

He really does need your prayers more than anything.


#5

your position that foreplay was not sinful indicated to me that you are possessed by a powerful demon of lust which is preventing you from seeing the truth; and hence I do not want to waste my time on someone who makes excuses for lust:

Wow. :eek:

That said, can someone address the following points, please?

Mr. X, you asked for Church laws which teach that
spouses must fight against or
quiet sexual pleasure when they have relations or else they commit in the very least a
fault for seeking to enjoy the sexual pleasure. Here are three Church teachings that I will
extrapolate upon in this letter:
1.
The March
4, 1679, Holy Office decree on the errors of various moral
subjects condemns spouses who have relations for sexual pleasure and
teaches they are guilty in the very least of a fault;
2.
Canon Law 1013 teaches that the secondary motive for the marital act is
mutual aid to remedy concupiscence but does not mention mutual love or
indulging in sexual pleasure;
3.
Pope Pius XI‘s
Casti Connubii
teaching on the quieting of
concupiscence rules out seeking to enjoy sexual pleasure or else the
quieting of concupiscence has no real meaning.
And I will provide you with empirical evidence as to how at one time all or at least
most Catholics followed these laws in the way they performed the marital act

Are those accurate?


#6

Oh, and I wonder if these people have any relationship with the makers of the movie “the Principle,” as they both seem to share ideas regarding anti-semitism, geocentrism, 9/11 conspiracies, speaking for the Church as if they represent her, etc.


#7

Sorry to hear that. I shall certainly pray for him. :frowning:


#8

Some of them are quoted out of context.

The author has a doubtful understanding of what “mutual aid” and “quieting concupiscence” actually mean.

I’ve always found it helpful to return ad fontes, to St. Paul, the original Theologian of the Body. In particular, 1 Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5.

And if sexual pleasure is wrong, why did the Holy Spirit inspire Solomon to use it as an extended metaphor for an entire book of the Bible? :wink:


#9

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.