Chris West and Orthodoxy?

[fix]

Well, this is the point that I’m going to have to request some proof, most especially on the Canon Law saying that the mere fact that a couple hasn’t had sex yet is grounds for an annulment.
Because by your reasoning, if a couple got married, and on the way to their honeymoon to consumate their marriage they decided that it was a mistake and they haven’t consumated yet, that they can just go get an annulment because they changed their minds. But if there was no impediment to their consent freely given at the time that the Rite was performed, then the mere fact that they haven’t had sex does not seem sufficient to me to declare that marriage invalid. So I ask again for proof.

As far as going to his talks, yes, I have been to one of his talks, and the words “Sex is a sacrament” came out of his mouth. And no, it is not. Marriage does not equal sex, and sex does not equal marriage.

Quite frankly I don’t even really see a point in arguing over the man. His work is not a part of the deposit of faith, is not necessary for your or my salvation, and in a hundred years history will look back on theology of the body (and especially Chris West’s often sexually explicit illustrations of it) as just another odd theological trend.

A marriage which is not consummated can be dissolved by the Church

The Holy Father, for a just cause, at the request of one or both of the parties, will dissolve a valid, sacramental marriage that is not consummated (c. 1142). He will also dissolve a valid, non-sacramental marriage that is not consummated (c. 1142).
There are specific legal procedures to be followed in these cases (c. 1697-1706). Ultimately, the Apostolic See alone adjudicates the case. However, the local tribunal instructs the initial phases of the case at the request of the bishop. Everything is then forwarded to Rome.
The present procedures respect the personal dignity of both parties. These cases are processed with a great deal of discretion and tact. They are in fact rare.
When an allegation of non-consummation surfaces, efforts are made to determine the parties’ willingness to submit a petition of this nature to Rome. Given the sensitive nature of the case, parties may wish to exhaust another avenue first…

rcab.org/Information/Annulment/marriage7.html

From the CCC

1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.[144]

 

[GrandInquisitor]

The Holy Father,** for a just cause**, at the request of one or both of the parties, will dissolve a valid, sacramental marriage that is not consummated

my emphasis added.

I never said that the Church cannot dissolve an unconsummated marriage. However, by your own quote, a just cause must be present. Once a valid sacramental marriage has been consummated by the involved parties with full consent, then the Church has NO power to dissolve it, but it will only dissolve an unconsummated marriage for a just cause.

The simple lack of consummation is not grounds for an annulment.

 

[fix]

my emphasis added.

I never said that the Church cannot dissolve an unconsummated marriage. However, by your own quote, a just cause must be present. Once a valid sacramental marriage has been consummated by the involved parties with full consent, then the Church has NO power to dissolve it, but it will only dissolve an unconsummated marriage for a just cause.

The simple lack of consummation is not grounds for an annulment.

I agree.

 

[Saint_Michael]

my emphasis added.

I never said that the Church cannot dissolve an unconsummated marriage. However, by your own quote, a just cause must be present. Once a valid sacramental marriage has been consummated by the involved parties with full consent, then the Church has NO power to dissolve it, but it will only dissolve an unconsummated marriage for a just cause.

The simple lack of consummation is not grounds for an annulment.

That’s my understanding too, the fact that the marriage wasn’t consumated allows the Church to dissolve the marriage even if it is a sacramental marriage, but there needs to be a cause to dissolve the marriage, not just the fact that it wasn’t consumated yet. If the marriage is consumated it can never be dissolved if it is a valid Sacramental marriage.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, I have heard him say sex is a sacrament. Last time I checked there were only seven sacraments, and sex wasn’t one of them. If they recently added an eigth and I wasn’t aware, I would love for someone to point me to where I could find the new rite for that.

It is also said that the Church is a sacrament.

There are seven Sacraments, but a sacrament, notice the difference in capitalization?

Here are some parts of the definition of sacrament to help you understand this.

outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual divine grace

a thing of mysterious and sacred significance; a religious symbol

 

[dch1983]

It is also said that the Church is a sacrament.

There are seven Sacraments, but a sacrament, notice the difference in capitalization?

Here are some parts of the definition of sacrament to help you understand this.

outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual divine grace

a thing of mysterious and sacred significance; a religious symbol

I too have recently started reading his book “Good News About Sex and Marriage” after it was highly recommended to me by multiple Catholics. It has been endorsed by numerous Catholic theologians, instructors, authors, and scholars, not to mention clergy. What is to be said of that? From what I have read thus far, it seems that his words intend to defend the sacramentality of marriage and the seriousness and holiness of sex within that marital covenant.

 

[Ghosty]

Here is an example of Christopher West’s odd interpretation of theology of the body (http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/cwest-tob.htm):

*"A Sensual Religion *
*Far from eschewing the body, Catholicism is a very physical, sensual—dare I say sexual—religion—much more so than some *
*kinds of piety might wish it to be. Indeed, when the real richness of Catholic ceremonies, symbols, and sacraments is unveiled, it *
*often scandalizes people. *
*For instance, have you ever noticed the symbolism of the blessing of the baptismal waters at the Easter Vigil? As one priest I’ve *
*read about describes it, “Oh, that erotic rite!” Here, at the highlight of the most solemn liturgy of the year, the Easter candle is *
*plunged in and out of the baptismal font as a symbol of Christ impregnating the womb of the Church from which many children will *
be “born again.” I’m not making this up!"

That isn’t West’s “odd interpretation”, that’s actually the understanding of the Rite as I’ve heard it explained as well, completely seperate from anything West said. It’s not a purely sexual ritual by any means, but the sexual imagery is there because of the fact that the Church is the “Bride of Christ”. This ties in also with the Song of Solomon, for example, in which the relationship between Israel and God is depicted within the imagery of sexually explicit (for the time and culture; it actually depicts sexual activity rather than merely mentioning it occuring) love song.

Furthermore, the sensual (not just sexual per se) aspect of Catholicism is deeply ingrained in traditional theology, especially that of St. Thomas Aquinas. It is one of the fundamental aspects of Sacramental Theology in the Latin Church especially. It was, and is, especially emphasized in Dominican spirituality, which rose up in response to the Albigensians, and why almost everything we do spiritually has a physical component to it (and this is most obvious in the Sacraments).

Grandinquisitor: The fact remains that Marriage is the Sexual Sacrament, the Sacrament for the bringing forth of children. An un-consummated Marriage is simply not the same as a consummated one (as shown by the fact that they can be dissolved, whereas a consummated Marriage can’t be), even though all Marriages are presumed to be consummated.

Also, as Byzcath said, sacrament doesn’t automatically mean one of the Seven Sacraments. Such a sole emphasis in language is actually peculiar to the Latin Church, and even then relatively recent.

I’m kind of suprised that any of this is all that controversial, really. The objections seem to come from a standpoint that is more Puritanical than traditional Catholic. I’ve never heard or read such an intent seperation of Marriage and sexuality before, let alone Catholics bothered by the inherent sensuality of the various Catholic traditions. That is one of our key differences from the Protestants, for example, and most of the heresies the Church has fought against since ancient times were in some way attempting to divorce sensuality from the Faith, from Nestorianism to Iconoclasm to Protestant “mere symbolism”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I too have recently started reading his book “Good News About Sex and Marriage” after it was highly recommended to me by multiple Catholics. It has been endorsed by numerous Catholic theologians, instructors, authors, and scholars, not to mention clergy. What is to be said of that? From what I have read thus far, it seems that his words intend to defend the sacramentality of marriage and the seriousness and holiness of sex within that marital covenant.

That’s exactly what his work is about: keeping sex holy, and in the Marriage Covenant. Did you know that in Judaism it’s a mitzvah (good deed/rule) to have sex with your spouse? That’s the context that Catholicism grew from.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dch1983]

That’s exactly what his work is about: keeping sex holy, and in the Marriage Covenant. Did you know that in Judaism it’s a mitzvah (good deed/rule) to have sex with your spouse? That’s the context that Catholicism grew from.

Peace and God bless!

That’s what I thought. So I guess you can imagine why questioning the orthodoxy of West’s theology is something I needed to look into. Like I said, multiple Catholics recommended his book as an excellent representation of the late Pope’s ‘Theology of the Body’. It’s difficult to understand how some Catholics sing his praises and others call him a heretic…

 

[alexaustralia]

My sister in law gave my a copy of “naked without shame” . I found it overall pretty orthodox. While in 3 occassions (can’t remember now which exactly) I thought he was stretching things a bit too far. A friend of mine has also read some of West’s works and he finds him too orthodox. Conclusion …different ppl will have different opinions.
As for orthodox or wishy washy … I’ll say somewhere in between

 

[martyr86]

Your question is something that has also recently come up in my own church. The pro-life committee was discussing the other week whether or not to invite Christopher West to speak. The controversy regarding his teaching came up and we discussed it at length. The main objection that is levied against him is that in an attempt to evangelize and spread the good news of the Theology of the Body he does not provide present sex with the modesty and respect for its sacredness that it deserves. Others like Alice Von Hildebrand feel as though West does not address the role of concupiscence in the struggle for sexual purity. From listening to his presentations it does seem to me like he presents sexual promiscuity as something that can be mastered by sheer will power in this lifetime without regarding our wounded nature and the need for patient cooperation with grace. Lastly a bone of contention that some of my theology professors had with him is that when presenting the complex realities of John Paul II’s theology of the body he does so in a way that alters the meaning of John Paul II’s original text. For example, John Paul II speaks of marriage as the primordial or first sacrament established by God at the creation of man from which all other sacraments come forth and owe their origin to. Christopher West tries to explain this by using the physical analogy of a bottle (representing marriage) being shattered by the fall which collectively becomes the seven sacraments. This gives the impression that marriage is greater than all the other sacraments combined (including the Eucharist). In summary it’s been said that his presentation is not reverent toward the topic of sex, does not allow for the basic Christian belief in concupiscence, and oversimplifies John Paul II’s teachings to the point it strips them of or alters their meaning altogether. I am somewhat torn because I have also viewed the fruit of his work and agree with a lot of what he has to say, but there seems to some to be a better way for him to do it.

 

[Philthy]

Well, this is the point that I’m going to have to request some proof, most especially on the Canon Law saying that the mere fact that a couple hasn’t had sex yet is grounds for an annulment.

I take this to mean you cannot prove the assertion wrong?

Because by your reasoning, if a couple got married, and on the way to their honeymoon to consumate their marriage they decided that it was a mistake and they haven’t consumated yet, that they can just go get an annulment because they changed their minds. But if there was no impediment to their consent freely given at the time that the Rite was performed, then the mere fact that they haven’t had sex does not seem sufficient to me to declare that marriage invalid. So I ask again for proof

.
Just out of curiousity, why, if you are ignorant of canon law would you be so adamant in your position?

As far as going to his talks, yes, I have been to one of his talks, and the words “Sex is a sacrament” came out of his mouth. And no, it is not. Marriage does not equal sex, and sex does not equal marriage.

Did he follow up the claim that “Sex is a sacrament” with anything such as, “Now, what do I mean by that?” and go on to explain it?

Quite frankly I don’t even really see a point in arguing over the man. His work is not a part of the deposit of faith, is not necessary for your or my salvation, and in a hundred years history will look back on theology of the body (and especially Chris West’s often sexually explicit illustrations of it) as just another odd theological trend.

Wow - how amazing - 2000 thousand years without a prophet and now you and Christopher West show up with prophetic messages!
You sound like you have an axe to grind…Im not sure why. I listened to West’s “Naked without Shame” 10 CD set. I found it interesting and educational. I didnt find anything particularly controversial, really. I dont remember the “Sex is a sacrament” claim, but it’s so ridiculous that I doubt it was said at all or that if it was it was meant as hyperbole to explain a deeper point. If that’s the extent of the claim to taint his character and orthodoxy, it’s pretty weak and, completely unsubstantiated.

 

[Shin]

Where’s the ‘bad influence’ poll option because of some of his filthy mixing of sacred and carnal things?

 

[Philthy]

Your question is something that has also recently come up in my own church. The pro-life committee was discussing the other week whether or not to invite Christopher West to speak. The controversy regarding his teaching came up and we discussed it at length. The main objection that is levied against him is that in an attempt to evangelize and spread the good news of the Theology of the Body he does not provide present sex with the modesty and respect for its sacredness that it deserves. Others like Alice Von Hildebrand feel as though West does not address the role of concupiscence in the struggle for sexual purity. From listening to his presentations it does seem to me like he presents sexual promiscuity as something that can be mastered by sheer will power in this lifetime without regarding our wounded nature and the need for patient cooperation with grace. Lastly a bone of contention that some of my theology professors had with him is that when presenting the complex realities of John Paul II’s theology of the body he does so in a way that alters the meaning of John Paul II’s original text. For example, John Paul II speaks of marriage as the primordial or first sacrament established by God at the creation of man from which all other sacraments come forth and owe their origin to. Christopher West tries to explain this by using the physical analogy of a bottle (representing marriage) being shattered by the fall which collectively becomes the seven sacraments. This gives the impression that marriage is greater than all the other sacraments combined (including the Eucharist). In summary it’s been said that his presentation is not reverent toward the topic of sex, does not allow for the basic Christian belief in concupiscence, and oversimplifies John Paul II’s teachings to the point it strips them of or alters their meaning altogether. I am somewhat torn because I have also viewed the fruit of his work and agree with a lot of what he has to say, but there seems to some to be a better way for him to do it.

Great post!
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees, though. Who else has gotten so much interest and attention to the topic?! No one I can think of…if you have something better - lay it out there, but don’t squash the guy for doing an imperfect job…especially when his intent seems pure. I was under the impression that certain concerns were brought to his attention and he was open to modifying his approach.
I dug out my “Naked without Shame” 10 cd set. Talk 6 on disc 7 is titled, “Sacramentality of Marriage”…I’ll listen to it and see if the “Sex is a sacrament” comes up… He certainly seems passionate, respectful and reasonably balanced. For example, he devotes considerable time to the complementarity of Marriage and celibacy and notes,"Celibacy is not a sacrament, why not? Because a sacrament is an earthly foreshadowing of a heavenly reality. Celibacy is the state in heaven…it is a more direct participation of the ultimate reality in Heaven…Because marriage and celibacy are so inter-related, when one is devalued, so is the other. "
I happen to personally know Fr Walter Schu, LC who wrote “The Splendor of Love” which includes a summary of JPlls theology of the body. It has a Nihils Obestat. I will ask him what he thinks of West, and get back to you guys…

Blessings!

 

[martyr86]

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees, though. Who else has gotten so much interest and attention to the topic?! No one I can think of…if you have something better - lay it out there, but don’t squash the guy for doing an imperfect job…especially when his intent seems pure.

We must always remember that the ends does not justify the means and that the path to hell is paved in good intentions. Even though I don’t doubt his intentions and agree that compared to most presentations of sex in our culture Mr. West’s presentation is pretty mild, it still lacks a sense of sacred that can be very detrimental to our view of sex. For example, on his ABC interview he compared John Paul II to Hugh Hefner and said he believed John Paul II’s teaching to be a continuation of what the sexual revolution started. This is a horrible comparison! And John Paul II’s teaching was not continuing of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution was an evil distortion of the truth about sex, if anything John Paul II was responding to it and presenting an alternative, totally different teaching. I do not agree with the way Christopher West presents the theology of the body and do not consider myself a prude for thinking so.

 

[Philthy]

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees, though. Who else has gotten so much interest and attention to the topic?! No one I can think of…if you have something better - lay it out there, but don’t squash the guy for doing an imperfect job…especially when his intent seems pure.

We must always remember that the ends does not justify the means and that the path to hell is paved in good intentions. Even though I don’t doubt his intentions and agree that compared to most presentations of sex in our culture Mr. West’s presentation is pretty mild, it still lacks a sense of sacred that can be very detrimental to our view of sex. For example, on his ABC interview he compared John Paul II to Hugh Hefner and said he believed John Paul II’s teaching to be a continuation of what the sexual revolution started. This is a horrible comparison! And John Paul II’s teaching was not continuing of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution was an evil distortion of the truth about sex, if anything John Paul II was responding to it and presenting an alternative, totally different teaching. I do not agree with the way Christopher West presents the theology of the body and do not consider myself a prude for thinking so.

I’m sorry, but anecdotal claims taken out of context (JPll and Heffner) are just that: claims. He isnt a complete idiot, for cryin’ out loud! The obvious explanation is that he was trying to engage the audience he was presenting to. This is something he was/is good at - getting lapsed Catholics/non-Catholics/secular folks to listen to his CD and written materials - and draw them back to the faith. That obviously has gone entirely over your head. Getting them interested by saying something “shocking” re: JPll and Heffner is simply how he engaged them. Perhaps you would prefer that he deliver the “perfect” message even if no one bothers to listen to it? Could you provide something substantial - something he wrote, something he distributed, etc. to support your allegations - so that what he said, and what you claim he was saying can be truly compared? The examples you provided indicate an inability - on your part - to appreciate what he was attempting to accomplish by what he said, though perhaps I am wrong and my opinion of him based merely on his CD series is incomplete. Try listening to his “Naked without Shame” CD set and reference anywhere that he undermines what JPll was attempting to convey in his theology of the body, where he deviates from Orthodoxy or anything like that.

Blessings!

 

[DairyWife]

Pope John Paul II spent years (130+ weekly Wednesday audiences from 1979 to 1984) teaching the faithful his “Theology of the Body”, and GrandInquisitor calls it an “odd theological trend”?

Christopher West has not said that sex is a sacrament as in the Seven Sacraments. It is a sacrament in that it is a sign that points to an invisible reality. Conjugal union of man and wife points to the communion with God that we will experience in heaven. Mr. West points out quite clearly that the “spousal analogy” is limited. “For all the value of the spousal analogy, it is critical (lest we end in heresy!) to recognize its limits. As John Paul II points out, “analogy” always indicates, at the same time, both similarity and substantial dissimilarity (see TOB 33:3). It should be obvious that the spousal analogy ‘cannot offer an adequate and complete understanding of the absolutely transcendent Reality.’” (Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II’s Man and Woman He Created Them, page 28)

When my husband and I were experience difficulties in our marriage, our deacon gave us Christopher West’s Theology of the Body for Beginners*. It impacted our relationship in a truly positve way. We are still together because of it and working hard to keep it that way.*

 

[Philthy]

Pope John Paul II spent years (130+ weekly Wednesday audiences from 1979 to 1984) teaching the faithful his “Theology of the Body”, and GrandInquisitor calls it an “odd theological trend”?

Christopher West has not said that sex is a sacrament as in the Seven Sacraments. It is a sacrament in that it is a sign that points to an invisible reality. Conjugal union of man and wife points to the communion with God that we will experience in heaven. Mr. West points out quite clearly that the “spousal analogy” is limited. “For all the value of the spousal analogy, it is critical (lest we end in heresy!) to recognize its limits. As John Paul II points out, “analogy” always indicates, at the same time, both similarity and substantial dissimilarity (see TOB 33:3). It should be obvious that the spousal analogy ‘cannot offer an adequate and complete understanding of the absolutely transcendent Reality.’” (Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II’s Man and Woman He Created Them, page 28)

When my husband and I were experience difficulties in our marriage, our deacon gave us Christopher West’s Theology of the Body for Beginners**. It impacted our relationship in a truly positve way. We are still together because of it and working hard to keep it that way.

 

[martyr86]

I presented the problems expressed by others in relationship to Christopher West’s theology of the body in an attempt to provide information on the original thread post. I don’t agree with everything that they say, but I do think that he is a bit crass in presenting. If you don’t agree with me that is fine. I still disagree with what has been said in response to my posts. I don’t appreciate the disrespectful responses and being talked down to. I have heard the entire 10 disc set and read the entire TOB by JPII and think there could be a better way for Christopher West to present it. I will think long and hard about posting on another thread.

 

[Nita]

My last issue of the National Catholic Register had an article on Christopher West. Mr. West is just ending a 6 month sabbatical - which I think he may have taken due to the controversy over his interpretation of Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body.
The headline reads: “Christopher West ends sabbatical, says he will respond to critics”
You can read the article here,.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/christopher-west-ends-sabbatical-says-he-will-respond-to-critics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+(CNA+Daily+News