Progressivism in the Church
Church Revolution in Pictures
Photo of the Week
'Catholic' sex shop in St. LouisIn the Archdiocese of St. Louis, MO, under the guidance of His Excellency Mitchell Rozanski, in the parish of St. Francis de Sales, under the direction of Rev. Canon Benjamin Coggeshall, there is a scandal going on.
A couple, James and Megan Walther, members of the mentioned parish, opened an online "Traditional Catholic" Sex Shop last November. The couple enjoys the good graces of Can. Coggeshall.
Further, Mr. Walther pretends to justify with "Catholic" arguments why a married couple is allowed to practice anal sex, oral sex and use toys in their marital lives.
The Sex Shop Catholic Intimacy can be accessed here. The products offered include electric vibrators in the shape of a male genital for women's masturbation, electrical and non-electrical rings for men's masturbation, electric genital suckers for both men and women, a gamut of different creams for sexual arousal as well as lubricants for anal sex.
Particularly offensive is the offering of a Christmas Gift Box at a sale price containing some of its most popular products, below, third row left.
When it comes to arguments, here, Mr. Walther takes this public position: He admits that anal sex, oral sex, the use of sex toys and masturbation are wrong, but when they are used to promote the sexual happiness of one's wife, they are not only admissible, but meritorious and virtuous – read below from the sixth row down. So, the base of his arguments is that a husband can use such things to help his wife overcome her sexual frigidity through diverse types of stimulation.
To take this subjective and grossly immoral position, he says he bases himself on the Personalism of John Paul II: Whatever is good for the "person" is morally acceptable. When a person does something looking for his own pleasure he is wrong – so also are those sexual unnatural actions – but when his purpose is for the good of his wife, they become good.
But attention, Mr. Walther warns, this liberty is only for married couples. Outside of marriage all these actions become sinful again...
Since the couple is "traditionalist," they are against condoms when used to contracept; but they can be used during anal sex for prophylactic protection against infections...
Different from Catholic Morals that was and is always objective, the subjective morality of the Conciliar Church inevitably ends by approving all types of sexual perversions and transforming the marital life into the life of a prostitution house.
In the last row left, Arch. Rozanski; center, the owner of the Sex Shop; at right, Can. Coggeshall, pastor who approves his activity and input.
Updated on January 1, 2023
Regarding the mentioned approval by Can. Coggeshall – see last paragraph above – we have received reliable information that we want to pass on to our readers. It is the following:
1. A parishioner asked Can. Coggeshall in person why he had allowed this website of a parishioner to be posted without condemning it. He assured the person that he had privately admonished the couple. This leads us to conclude that he disapproves of it. Supposing the veracity of this information and the sincerity of Can. Coggeshall, TIA responded to this person that a private admonishment is not enough; for a public scandal justice and charity demand a public condemnation, (read here).
2. Another parishioner sent us a report in which he affirmed that Can. Coggeshall as well as Can. Dumain were perfectly aware of the Catholic Intimacy website and its content, and approved it. The report mentions persons known by the signer who assured him that both Canons want to deal with the topic privately and discretely in orders to avoid "the puritans" who would not understand it (read here). Supposing the veracity of this witness, we are led to conclude that the two Canons actually approved the content of that website and are playing games to cover up their complicity before their parishioners.
3. When TIA exposed this scandal on December 11, 2022, it raised immediate repercussions on social media, particularly Instagram. On December 12, one person asked us what grounds we had to affirm that Can. Coggeshall approved the controversial website. We responded with a list of circumstantial evidence that explains why we supposed his approval. We reproduce below a screenshot of that Instagram comment for the benefit of our readers.
Posted December 11, 2022