This article examines Fr. Ripperger’s claims about marital chastity in light of St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas, and traditional Catholic moral theology. It challenges several of his interpretations of marital intimacy, distinguishing binding moral obligations from disputed theological opinions. It also addresses the pastoral consequences of excessive rigor, particularly the risk of deepening scrupulosity among married Catholics seeking to live their faith.
For Catholic spouses, questions about marital intimacy are also questions about how to love one another faithfully and grow together in holiness. The guidance they receive can profoundly shape both their life together and their peace of conscience. Disturbances in these areas of life can bring about lasting harm that can require years of corrective formation to alleviate.
We offer this response to Fr. Ripperger, therefore, out of concern for married Catholics striving to live faithfully according to the Church’s teaching on chastity. Fr. Ripperger’s considerable public influence makes precision especially important when he addresses matters that touch so directly upon the consciences of spouses. We have seen how some of his claims have contributed to scrupulosity, leaving sincere Catholics burdened by fears of grave sin in their married lives. That pastoral concern deserves a careful examination of the claims themselves and the authorities invoked to support them. With respect for his priesthood, we believe that several of his conclusions impose a rigor the moral tradition does not warrant, and that his presentation of that tradition requires correction. Our purpose is to help spouses form their consciences in fidelity to the Church, distinguishing what she requires from theological opinions that cannot simply be imposed as binding obligations. This article will be broken up into a few categories of topics taken from one of his lectures on the virtue of chastity.
Self-Stimulation Within Conjugal Sexual Relations
This is an area where it is perhaps easiest to demonstrate beyond any doubt that Fr. Ripperger is flatly misrepresenting not only the consensus of moralists but also the thought of St. Alphonsus himself. Keep in mind that we are not even discussing the scenario where spouses self-stimulate in the absence of the other spouse, which is a scenario hotly contested among different moralists. We are speaking here of a situation where spouses self-stimulate in the presence of the other spouse in preparation for the marriage act. On this point, Fr. Ripperger asserts:
“So as I mentioned, sometimes masturbation is called pollution. Most [moralists] say that masturbation—by masturbation is self-stimulation—that done in the context of foreplay, self-stimulation is considered by every moralist [to be gravely sinful]”
He goes on to attribute this opinion to St. Alphonsus: “In connection to this, St. Alphonsus Liguori observes that those who touch themselves in mutual masturbation sin gravely.”
As I said, this is not only out of step with the consensus of moralists, but we can here and now prove that all of these claims are false. For one, it is simply not the case that moralists conflate self-stimulation with masturbation. Traditional moralists prior to the Second Vatican Council almost always understood the sin of masturbation to essentially consist in solitary pollution which was regarded as a sin against nature because it directly contravenes the teleology of the generative faculty. This was sharply distinguished from what they would refer to as “actus imperfecti solitarii” or “incomplete solitary sexual acts”. This was sharply distinguished from masturbation primarily because by virtue of being incomplete and therefore not terminated in orgasm, they did not directly oppose the finality of the generative faculty. The sinfulness of such acts, therefore, would have to be located in something other than opposing the order of nature and would have to be judged as either sinful or non-sinful depending on their ordination toward or away from the ends of marriage. When moralists discussed this category of sexual act, they would typically divide the question into two scenarios: whether these acts are performed in the absence of one’s spouse or whether they are done either in preparation for conjugal relations or in the presence of the other spouse.
Now St. Alphonsus, contrary to Fr. Ripperger’s claim, asserts that such acts are mortally sinful when done in the absence of the other spouse with no intention to perform conjugal relations but are morally lawful when done in preparation for conjugal relations about to be had. While many other moralists [1] believe they are either venially sinful or licit when performed in the absence of the other spouse without a proximate danger of pollution[1], St. Alphonsus and others regarded this as gravely sinful not because they opposed the order of nature but because, according to the mind of Alphonsus, they violate the Pauline principle that a spouse does not have authority over his or her own body. This Pauline principle, however, according to Alphonsus, is not violated when spouses are preparing for conjugal relations. Here is what Alphonsus says on the matter:
Question 3: Are the carnal touches which a spouse has with himself, while the other spouse is absent, outside the danger of pollution, mortal? The first opinion denies: which Paulus a) Escobar, Bossius, with Perez, Hurtado and Ochagavia, and Sanchez with Paludano and Lopez hold; and for this opinion the Salmanticenses also cite D. Thomas. The reason is, that such touches are permitted by the conjugal state itself, since by their nature they are ordered to copulation; and therefore, apart from the danger of pollution, they cannot be gravely illicit in the spouse, even if he could not consummate the marriage act at the present time.
The second and true opinion, itself more probable and in practice entirely advisable, affirms. And this is what Laymano, Diana, Sporer hold because of Amilla and Vasquez, and the Salmanticenses with Aversa, Sanctio, Salas, Montesino, Dicastillo, and Antonio a Spiritu. Reason: both because the spouse does not have a right per se to his own body, but only per accidens, namely only so that he can dispose himself for the marriage act: hence, since the marriage act is not possible for such a person, touch with himself or herself is altogether unlawful. Also because touch of the private parts, when done morosely and with carnal commotion, per se tend to pollution, and are closely connected with this danger.
This is directly contrary not only to the opinion of Fr. Ripperger on the matter but to his representation of the mind of Alphonsus. Fr. Ripperger, knowingly or unknowingly, is, by making this claim, bearing false witness against a Saint, and he should publicly retract his statements.
Oral Stimulation of the Man
Fr. Ripperger’s claim:
“What St. Thomas says is, is that given the nature of the natural law and the structure of the generative faculties, it is clear, he says, that the male organ is designed by nature to be placed in the vaginal canal […] of his wife and not in her mouth. So for St. Thomas it’s clear that… oral sex […] is [immoral].”
This claim from Fr. Ripperger may not be as egregiously false as his claims about self-stimulation and what St. Alphonsus thought about the matter, but it is still misleading. St. Thomas never says in the Summa, and nor can it be found in any of his other writings, that the male member is only “designed by nature to be placed in the vagina canal”. This is not a direct quote of his, nor even a paraphrase. Of course, I would never claim that St. Thomas would therefore be okay with oral stimulation of the man within the context of marital foreplay, but he simply never addresses the matter explicitly. What he does condemn is not observing the “natural manner” of copulation as a subspecies of the sin against nature. But what does this mean? For St. Thomas, the vice against nature means something very specific. It must consist in those sexual acts which by their very nature impede the generation of offspring (impeditur generatio), which St. Thomas identifies as the constitutive element that defines the sin against nature to begin with. Now it is clear that, unless an act of oral stimulation involves a foreseen proximate danger of male orgasm outside the vagina, the generation of offspring is simply not impeded. Thus, when St. Thomas refers to sexual intercourse that does not observe the “natural manner of copulation” between a man and a woman, one can only logically conclude that he has in mind any consummated sexual act which involves pollution. Again, this does not mean St. Thomas approves of oral stimulation as a means of foreplay, but neither can one claim that he explicitly condemned it.
It is worth noting, furthermore, that when St. Alphonsus and other moralists do condemn the oral stimulation of the male member, there is no citation of St. Thomas’ words here. In fact, these moralists identify this act, which they term irrumation, as a “new” species of lust, which they would not do if they could simply cite St. Thomas’ teaching in the Summa to settle the matter or at least provide support for their arguments.
I would also point out that in the last century, the greater consensus of moralists do not regard this practice as mortally sinful, so long as such stimulation does not involve an unjustified risk of orgasm outside natural conjugal intercourse.
Oral Stimulation of the Wife
Fr. Ripperger’s claim: “Other theologians, I should say, asked the question, ‘Well, what about oral sex with respect to women?’ […] When men perform oral sex on women, [however,] the principles have to still be applied. There has to be no danger of pollution, and the issue of the [vas] has to be rightly observed. That means there’s just certain things that don’t belong in the vaginal canal of a woman. So that means no sex toys in that respect. It also means that oral sex is permitted on the women as long as it’s purely external and there’s no possibility of pollution.”
While I do commend Fr. Ripperger for adding more nuance to this question, he is yet again guilty of unsubstantiated claims here. There is, for example, little to no basis in the opinions of orthodox moralists for morally distinguishing between oral stimulation that involves insertion of the tongue inside the vagina and oral stimulation that merely engages the exterior of the vagina. Not only is this distinction a direct provocation to debilitating scrupulosity, it is also laughably absurd. Are we really going to claim that the difference between salvation and damnation lies in whether a man’s tongue was x number of millimeters away from the interior of the vagina during oral foreplay? This reasoning does not meaningfully differ from atheistic caricatures of the natural law tradition that invoke the chewing of gum or walking on one’s hands as reductio ad absurdam counterexamples to natural law arguments from sexual teleology.
The Wife’s Orgasm Outside Vaginal Penetration
While it has been claimed of Father Ripperger that he has said that it is a grave sin for a husband to bring his wife to orgasm manually or orally after penetrative intercourse, I have not been able to verify this claim myself. Therefore, this section only serves as a rebuttal to Fr. Ripperger on the supposition that he actually does hold and teach this. Nevertheless, to those who do make this claim (as many do online), they run up against the thought of Alphonsus and against sound moral reasoning. While Alphonsus does not make a firm judgment one way or another on this question, he does affirm that the moral reasoning that supports the liceity of this act is stronger than the moral reasoning that would condemn the act. As he says in the Theologiae Moralis, ““Hence, just as a wife can prepare herself for copulation by touch, so too can she complete the act of copulation”.
Furthermore, the only reason why it is gravely wrong for the husband to have an orgasm outside vaginal penetration is because it directly opposes the procreative dimension of the conjugal act. The wife’s orgasm outside vaginal penetration, on the other hand, does not in any way oppose the procreative dimension of the conjugal act. She in fact has a right to orgasm by virtue of the fact that the Creator has ordained that both man and woman have a joint capacity to consummate their respective sexual impulses through the conjugal act. Orgasm perfects these sexual impulses, and belongs by nature to the conjugal act. Therefore, if the wife cannot orgasm during penetration, she has a right to orgasm either before or after (or even both).
Sexual Stimulation Outside the Conjugal Act
In the talk, Fr. Ripperger also seems to imply that sexual stimulation of the genitals can only take place in preparation of the marriage act, but not even St. Alphonsus takes this rigorous stance. St. Alphonsus and the greater consensus of moralists [3] since him teach that so long as the husband or wife does not engage in genital stimulation that would unjustifiably pose a proximate risk of orgasm, they can engage in such incomplete expressions of sexual love without an intention to perform the conjugal act.
Concluding remarks
I would like to reiterate that the purpose of this article is not to cast aspersions against Fr. Ripperger, nor are we claiming he is a bad priest. Married Catholics simply deserve guidance that faithfully reflects both the true demands of chastity and the breadth of the Church’s moral tradition. Where that tradition permits legitimate disagreement, a stricter opinion should not simply be presented as a binding obligation under pain of mortal sin. We therefore hope that Fr. Ripperger will revisit these claims and correct the misrepresentations identified here. Such clarification would serve both the truth and the peace of conscience of spouses sincerely seeking holiness in their married lives.
Footnotes:
Among theologians who hold that this would either be licit or at most venially sinful are: Pauludanus, Sanchez, Noldin; Regatillo, Archbishop Lanza, Bucceroni, Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, Noldin, Tanquerey, Vermeersch, Cappello, Genicot-Salsmans, Marc, Aertnys, Matharan; Merkelbach, Caharel, McHugh-Callan (“solidly probable”); Slater (“the probable opinion of many”), Lynch, Cardinal Eijk, and others. Those who believe they are mortally sinful are: Alphonsus, Diana, Sporer, Billuart, De Smet, Vasquez, Bishop Kenrick, and others. We at the Apostolate for Marital Intimacy prefer to endorse and counsel the safer course of action. You can analyze perspectives on both sides by reading our Compendium.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theologiae moralis, q. 919
Among moralists who believe such acts are licit: Alphonsus (qq. 916, 933), resting on St. Thomas (Suppl. 49.6); Laymann; Palaus; Lessius; Bonacina; Sporer; Sanchez, with Abulensis, Victoria, Angelus, Armilla, Sa, Medina, Ledesma; the Salmanticenses, with Vasquez, Fagnanus, Hurtado; La Croix, with Soto, Toletus, Cajetan, Coninck; Cappello; Noldin; Merkelbach; Ballerini (n. 610), Jone-Adelman, Gury, McHugh-Callan, Sabetti Barrett; Aertnys-Damen; Prümmer; Ferreres; Arregui; Zalba, Regatillo, Lanza, Bucceroni, Lehmkuhl; Tanquerey; Vermeerscet al.
