Fornication (Today Commonly Called “Living Together”)
Listen to the vile teaching of these Jesuits, these bachelor-priests of Rome, supposedly sworn to celibacy, who not only commit fornication themselves, but readily teach others to commit it – and then excuse it.
“‘He,’ says Father Francis Zaver Fegeli (in his Practical Questions regarding the Functions of Father Confessor, Augsburg, 1750, p. 284), ‘who leads astray a young maiden with her own consent, is not guilty of sin, because she is mistress of her own person, and can dispense her favours according as she wishes.’ Father Escobar affirms precisely the same in his Moral Theology, which he caused to be printed at Lyons, in folio, in the year 1655, and also Father Moullet expresses himself in a similar manner in his Compendium of Morals.”
The Jesuits do not care at all that what they teach is the very opposite of what the Word of God teaches! For they say it is no sin for a man to have sex with a young woman, if she consents to it; whereas the Bible distinctly calls a sexual relationship between two unmarried people the sin of fornication (e.g. 1 Cor. 6:13-20). And in fact, the Jesuit Fegeli’s words, quoted above, prove that he himself knew it was a sin! – for although he says it is not, he speaks of a man “leading astray” a young maiden. Well now, if she is “led astray” by him, this must be a sin. To “stray”, after all, is not to do right, but to do wrong!
And note, too, how this slippery Jesuit serpent says the young maiden is free to “dispense her favours as she wishes”. But the Word of God teaches virginity before marriage (e.g. Deut. 22:13-21; 1 Cor. 7:25-28,34) – the very opposite of the moral filth which this wicked man spewed out!
Now consider the western world today. Marriage is considered “old-fashioned” and unnecessary, and everywhere young people shack up together, either with no intention to ever marry, or to “test the waters” to see if they want to marry each other eventually. And society has departed so far from biblical truth that this is fully accepted. Jesuit “morality” has so permeated western society that this is now considered normal, even preferable. And even very many “churches” (unworthy of the name!) accept it by turning a blind eye to it.
I say this is the fruit of Jesuit “moral theology”. Some might argue and say, “But the western world is not solely Roman Catholic, and there are multitudes who were not raised by Jesuit educators, or even by Roman Catholic educators in general! How then can you say that what we are seeing in the West is the fruit of Jesuit teaching?” But the one who asks such a question does not understand the nature and power of Jesuitism in society. The Jesuits, themselves, are hardly understood by most people today. The majority, in fact, do not even know who the Jesuits are. But when one studies and understands the true nature and power of Jesuitism; the vast influence it has had on western societies for over four centuries – yes, even non-Papist ones; the vast influence of the Jesuits over Hollywood, which has vomited out this kind of twisted “morality” for decades, as I show in my book, Jesuit Hollywood; etc., etc. – when one has carefully studied Jesuitism in the world, and in particular the West, then it is easy to understand that it is no exaggeration whatsoever to say that the way young people in the West live is the fruit, to a very extensive degree, of Jesuit “moral theology”.
“Father Moullet further teaches [in his Compendium of Morals]: ‘If anyone enters into a guilty relationship with a woman, not on account of her being married, but on account of her being beautiful, the sin of adultery is not chargeable in such a case, even although she may be married, but simply that of impropriety.’”
Here we see, again, that although this Jesuit claims it is not a sin, he nevertheless states that it is a “guilty relationship”. If the couple are in a “guilty relationship”, then it is a sinful relationship! One is not guilty if what one does is right, but only when it is wrong. This is Jesuitism at work.
And note: the sin of adultery is not committed if the woman is beautiful! How is that for an example of the sheer wickedness of Jesuit “morality”! Has the reader ever come across such outright evil being passed off as “Christian doctrine”?
We may imagine the following exchange taking place in the confessional, when a Roman Catholic confesses to a Jesuit priest:
“Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned. I committed adultery. The woman was married.”
“Was she beautiful, my son?”
“Oh, very beautiful, Father.”
“Then, my son, you have nothing to fear and nothing to confess. You are innocent. After all, is it your fault that she is beautiful? Of course not. She was a temptation to you, and you could not resist.”
How opposite to the teaching of God’s Word, in Prov. 6:25: “Lust not after her beauty in thine heart”. God’s Word views adultery in a very different light to how the Jesuits view it (Exod. 20:14; Prov. 6:32; 1 Cor. 6:9).
And with this kind of Jesuit “moral theology” being pumped into Roman Catholics the world over for centuries, in their confessionals as well as in their educational establishments, and considering the vast influence of the Jesuits and their stooges in the western world, is it any wonder that this attitude to adultery is displayed night after night on TV screens throughout the West, in the so-called “soapies”? These are one of the most popular genres on television. The actresses are all considered beautiful, and adultery is frequently committed and excused. These shows have had an immense influence on the morals of the western world, for decades! In addition, the same kind of “morality” plays itself out in all kinds of other TV shows, and of course in the movies. Considering the huge Jesuit influence in Hollywood and other forms of “entertainment”, we should not be surprised that Jesuit “morality” has so thoroughly permeated society. It is significant, too, that so many of these films and TV shows depict Roman Catholic priests, who are frequently the close friends of the “heroes” and “heroines” of the stories, and yet who either turn a blind eye to their adulterous affairs or give some mild rebuke. Anything to keep them all as “good Roman Catholics”, attending their “church” and – above all – paying their dues.
No wonder one in two marriages in western countries end in divorce today. Adultery is considered nothing more than the “sin of impropriety”. No longer is marriage “till death do us part”; now it is, “Till someone more beautiful comes along.”
And there is still more. “Liguori asks whether a woman, accused of the crime of adultery, which she has really committed, may deny it under oath. He answers: ‘She is able to assert equivocally that she did not break the bond of matrimony, which truly remains. And if sacramentally she confessed adultery, she can answer, “I am innocent of this crime,” because by confession it was taken away. So Card, who, however, here remarks that she cannot affirm it with an oath, because in asserting anything the probability of a deed suffices, but in swearing certainty is required. To this it is replied that in swearing moral certainty suffices, as we said above. Which moral certainty of the remission of sin can indeed be had, when any, morally well disposed, receives the sacrament of penance’ [Moral Theology, tom. ii. p. 322. Mech. 1845].”