Chris West and Orthodoxy?

[Vico]

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.

A little more accurate:

Tribunals declare that the substance of marriage was not really present even when there was an appearance of a marriage. However, nonconsummated sacramental and natural marriages may be dissolved, for a just cause, yet a nonconsummated sacramental marriage is presumed to be consummated with cohabitation, and must be proven otherwise. A nonconsummated sacramental marriage could also be declared non-substantive for reasons other than nonconsummation.

 

[Philthy]

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.

Im sorry if I have offended you and discouraged you from posting. You are on an apologetics forum -it is somewhere you need to be prepared to defend your position. I didnt feel like I was being disrespectful nor did I intend to talk down to you. You provided very little objective support for your position - I was trying to point that out to you in a reasonably respectful way. Clearly West did not achieve perfection in his presentation of the TOB. Do you have a recommendation of someone who did it better? Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good…

 

[urban-hermit]

Well I think part of the problem is that, since Christopher West has become so popular, people start to quote him as if they were quoting the catechism, and they (regular people who listen to him) do not always come away with all the subtleties of the theology which he probably intends and perhaps takes for granted that his audience will understand.

For example, i had an exchange online with some young pro-Life Catholics who i am sure were very earnest and orthodox Catholics, but who would not accept me telling them that the purpose of sex was not pleasure. This seems like a fine point, and can make the person (in this case me) who is arguing it look like some kind of prude, but i think the implications of believing that the purpose of sex is pleasure can be quite dangerous.

This is just one anecdotal example. I offer it not to make a definitive judgment one way or the other about Christopher West, but just to offer insight into what the possible problems IN PERCEPTION might be. Some people in the audience might be getting the wrong idea from his lectures, and some of his critics may also be hearing things he is not really intending to say.

One thing that should be of comfort to us all is that West is a theologian, not part of the teaching magisterium of the church. if one does not like the way West presents the theology of the body, one is free to differ, criticize or ignore him. He is speaking publicly so respectful criticism is fair game. if you are having an argument about some point and one of the parties to the argument says “well Christopher West said …”, remind them that Christopher West is not really a source of authority. It is better to quote the actual original TOB lectures given by John Paul II or (i think perhaps even better because it may be clearer and less open to interpretation) something like The Truth and Meaning of Sexuality which might help in the interpretation of TOB.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

I personally find Christopher West to be a bit annoying because he seems to think that no Catholic ever knew that sex was fun before - until the Pope clued us all in back in 1982 and now West is going to translate that and clue us regular folks in that we need to loosen up through his patented English comic-book translation of TOB, and if we don’t get it we’re prudes. I think this is silly because to my way of thinking helping people understand that sex is fun has never been the problem. That’s just my uncensored and exaggerated personal opinion and by itself isn’t worth squat - but i think there are other people out there who feel similarly.

I don’t normally go out of my way to diss Christopher West though because i figure he’s just sharing his point of view and he is a trained theologian and some people get a lot of good out of his talks. I’m simply not one of them and if you’re not one of them either that is nothing to feel bad about at all. Some people like Dominican spirituality, some like marian devotions more than others, some fast on Fridays some just abstain and some do extra works of charity. I think there is wiggle room in the real world implementation of TOB as well.

 

[ljsedivy]

One thing that should be of comfort to us all is that West is a theologian, not part of the teaching magisterium of the church. if one does not like the way West presents the theology of the body, one is free to differ, criticize or ignore him. He is speaking publicly so respectful criticism is fair game. if you are having an argument about some point and one of the parties to the argument says “well Christopher West said …”, remind them that Christopher West is not really a source of authority. It is better to quote the actual original TOB lectures given by John Paul II or (i think perhaps even better because it may be clearer and less open to interpretation) something like The Truth and Meaning of Sexuality which might help in the interpretation of TOB.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

I personally find Christopher West to be a bit annoying because he seems to think that no Catholic ever knew that sex was fun before - until the Pope clued us all in back in 1982 and now West is going to translate that and clue us regular folks in that we need to loosen up through his patented English comic-book translation of TOB, and if we don’t get it we’re prudes. I think this is silly because to my way of thinking helping people understand that sex is fun has never been the problem. That’s just my uncensored and exaggerated personal opinion and by itself isn’t worth squat - but i think there are other people out there who feel similarly.

I’m not getting in the debate here, but wanted to thank you for that vatican link. I’m printing so I can go over it carefully with a high lighter.

In joy,

 

[Pete_Holter]

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.

Im sorry if I have offended you and discouraged you from posting. You are on an apologetics forum -it is somewhere you need to be prepared to defend your position. I didnt feel like I was being disrespectful nor did I intend to talk down to you. You provided very little objective support for your position - I was trying to point that out to you in a reasonably respectful way. Clearly West did not achieve perfection in his presentation of the TOB. Do you have a recommendation of someone who did it better? Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good…

I appreciate Martyr86’s general assessment.

I think that Christopher West is great. I am thankful to God for him and for his work. I think he is fully orthodox. I think he has some bad emphases in his presentation.

I agree that he has not given sufficient attention to the power of concupiscence in the life of the believer, which can lead to a more than otherwise casual attitude towards sexual sin and its lures, and prevent us from seeing, or dull our eyes to, the sin that remains to be violently extirpated from our souls by constant vigilance with all the power that God powerfully works within us.

May God bless Christopher West and his work. May he continue to become more sensitive to the immense struggle for purity experienced by the vast majority of our brothers in the Lord, and may he continue to grow in his awareness of our constant battle against sin and the stratagems of our demonic foe.

As for recommendations for something better, I offer St. Augustine’s On Marriage and Concupiscence and Against Julian.

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[utunumsint]

I was listening to the first CD in Christopher West’s 10 CD Naked Without Shame series. In the first CD he spends a good 15 minutes talking about what he means by sex as sacramental. He distinguishes his meaning from the formal 7 sacraments and explicitly mentions that he is not talking about an 8th sacrament. He mentioned that he is using the term in a broader sense, as it was originally used in the Greek. I forget exactly what his explanation was, but I can easily find out and post it here if you want.

As for the comments about his talks being too explicite, I think he just knows that his audience contains people who have been super saturated in porn, sex-ed, MTV, etc… You have to come to people where they are at. Granted, you can take this strategy too far, but you can’t deny that he is reaching people who would quickly fall asleep reading what the Catechism has to say on the subject.

As for his pet theories, I find some of them interesting, but he always specifies that this is only his personal theories. For example, he speculates that the reason God demanded circumcision from Abraham was as a reminder that you cannot be fruitful and multiply without sacrifice. Specifically, blood sacrifice. Women don’t need this reminder because they go through this sacrifice every time they give birth (are fruitful). He compares this to Christ’s most fruitful sacrifice on the cross that brought us our redemption. Frankly, it is a beautiful thought. Even inspirational. But you have to take it for what it is worth.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Darnrarejob]

I started reading Christopher West’s ‘TOB Explained’ about 5 years ago and I absolutely LOVE it.

I think most of the criticism around him is stemming form that horrific interview he gave to ‘Nightline’. I just watched it on Youtube and I was furious. They made him out to be a sex guru instead of a theologian. In one of the comments below the video on Youtube, someone pointed out the fact that that whole interview was about 8 hours long, and it was reduced to about 6 minutes.

As to him being considered irreverent, those of you who have degrees in theology that are criticizing his method need to remember that his books like ‘TOBE’ (which was endorsed on the back of the book by the very orthodox Bishop Charles Chaput) and ‘Good New About Sex and Marriage’ weren’t written for you. They were written for regular Joes like me that don’t have a degree. I bought TOB and tried to read it, and for a second I thought I was reading Shakespeare. So I went back to my Catholic bookstore and bought TOBE and it was written at my level. He actually says towards the beginning of the book that much of the old material written on the matters of sexual ethics were prude and authoritative in tone.

I used to be a CORE member of Life Teen and if we didn’t at least try to relate to our very young audience, we would have lost all of our teens. Sure, he might come up with some silly sexual analogies, but the people he’s trying to reach would not have listened to it otherwise. I’m sure if he was talking to a group of his fellow theologians, he would phrase things very differently. I’m sure St. Paul said things differently to the Romans then he did to the people in Corinth. I have no problem with Christopher West relating to his audience (provided he doesn’t compromise the truth).

Personally, I (and I think I speak for many people who have never known a world without the bad effects of the Sexual Revolution) wouldn’t believe anything the church teaches about sex if it wasn’t for Christopher West.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ancient thread, guys.

 

[Kelley_Green]

Hello All,

I’m a student at one of the two most renowned Orthodox Catholic Colleges in America. Recently, I’ve been hearing rumors attacking the Orthodoxy of Christopher West to the point that he supposedly is not allowed to speak at either school. This disturbes me. I’ve heard, met, and read Christopher West, and I have never heard him say one word contrary to Church teaching. I’m very curious as to what you all have to say.

I voted never heard of him before so… I followed through and listened.
youtube.com/watch?v=gu2UKAz1arg
Sounds like he’s doing a very good job relating encyclicals in layman’s terms. I’m glad he’s doing it. Without a doubt it’s needful in main stream culture.