Christopher West’s ideas on sexuality ignore ‘tremendous dangers,’ Alice von Hildebrand says

[agapewolf]

I think it is bizarre that Christopher West believes Hugh Hefner started Playboy out of some benign “ache” that resulted from puritanism. Hugh Hefner started Playboy because he knew he could make tons & tons & tons of money based upon the explotation of women and by appealing to the basest desires of men.

And honestly, how bad was puritanism? It’s not as if society didn’t reproduce during that time. Indeed, most couples, Catholic or not, ended up having nine/ten children. Hardly an indicator that nothing was going on in the bedroom.

The sexual revoluation occurred because women wanted “freedom” from bearing children. Once the pill went on the market, it started the all sex, all the time mentality because it gave the false perception you could have sex without consequences.

You think its bizarre? Well, Hugh hefner said it himself. You need to hear the FULL explanation about this before going off on it. Seriously. There is a whole long story here.
Hugh hefner said himself that he was never hugged…never had physical affection and he started all of it because the body wasn’t bad, which is what his family taught him.

Thinking puritanism isn’t bad is a mannicheistic heresy. Exalting the spirit over the body is heresy. Puritianism does not mean lack of sexual activity.

Where do you get the idea that this is where the sexual revolution came from?

The sexual revolution is a reaction to puritanism. And, by the way, it was men that invented the pill, that wanted the freedom from the consequences of sex. The pill is a reaction of the sexual revolution, not the start or cause of it.

 

[Dtmccameron]

.
Thinking puritanism isn’t bad is a mannicheistic heresy. Exalting the spirit over the body is heresy. Puritianism does not mean lack of sexual activity.

Oh, but surely you must admit, it’s easy to see how some could come to exalt the immortal over the mortal? The heavenly over the earthly?

Of all heresies, I think this one made the most sense. For to whom at all times is the dignity of the person visible? Sometimes, it’s hard not to just curse the flesh to die, to die to this world and wish only to live in the spirit.

And that’s precisely why they didn’t let the peasants get a hold of St. Paul. You definitely need a pious priest to not fall into something less than orthodox.

It’s just funny to think that both ends of the spectrum, both extremes, with different battle cries, essential are the same thing, the devaluing of the person. Though, both refuse to see the flesh as holy, Pornography I think, takes it a step further and devalues the person as a whole, body and soul.

 

[laomath]

I, too, love Christopher West and the message that he brings. His talks and conferences have changed my life.

That being said, I thought the interview was poorly cut, but I give Christopher West the benefit of the doubt because I have read his books, listened to his audio, and I am going to place blame on the secular media that wants to do what it can to scandalize.

However, that being said, there are hundreds of millions of people in this country that have not been exposed to ToB. This includes many, many Catholics. Perhaps this interview will intice some of them to find out more about it. Isn’t that his purpose? He doesn’t need to evangelize those of us who already know about it, but he is trying to expose those who haven’t heard it yet. Maybe, even if the interview didn’t portray everything we would want it to, there will be people who watched it whose interest will be piqued precisely for that reason.

 

[GhostMan]

Go read some of the old Puritan love letters between a husband and a wife - they were not repressed in the slightest. Some of the things they write - to each other with the expectation that no one else would read them - would shock many of you.

Don’t blame the Puritans.

 

[whatevergirl]

I think that instead of saying ‘connections’ between Pope JP2 and Hefner, perhaps he meant to say ‘parallels.’ Meaning, that one person took the message of sexuality, and presented it to the world in a very sick, and twisted way (Hefner) while Pope JP2 took the theme of sexuality, and presented it in a pure, and beautiful way. God’s way.

So, same theme, different path each took. I thought West did an okay job though, in the interview. *

 

[agapewolf]

Go read some of the old Puritan love letters between a husband and a wife - they were not repressed in the slightest. Some of the things they write - to each other with the expectation that no one else would read them - would shock many of you.

Don’t blame the Puritans.

uh, we aren’t. We are not talking about the group the puritans. We are talking about a heresy called puritanism.

 

[Jennifer_J]

As an aside:
pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=1769

<<Pilgrims and Puritans alike promoted sex as a gift and duty from God, but only within the confines of marriage. To contemporary ears, that may not sound progressive.

“But it’s an important and radical departure from traditional Catholic teaching, which then saw sex, even within marriage, as morally tainted, as almost a necessary evil,” said Richard Godbeer, author of the new book “Sexual Revolution in Early America.”>>

Interesting and wrong? perspective of what the Church used to teach?

 

[agapewolf]

As an aside:
pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=1769

<<Pilgrims and Puritans alike promoted sex as a gift and duty from God, but only within the confines of marriage. To contemporary ears, that may not sound progressive.

“But it’s an important and radical departure from traditional Catholic teaching, which then saw sex, even within marriage, as morally tainted, as almost a necessary evil,” said Richard Godbeer, author of the new book “Sexual Revolution in Early America.”>>

Interesting and wrong? perspective of what the Church used to teach?

The CHURCH never taught such a thing. Puritan like thinking and fallen humans taught it.

The Church has always upheld the dignity and beauty of a marital relations.

And again, we are not talking about the group of puritans. we are talking about puritanistic thinking.

 

[turtle18]

You think its bizarre? Well, Hugh hefner said it himself. You need to hear the FULL explanation about this before going off on it. Seriously. There is a whole long story here.
Hugh hefner said himself that he was never hugged…never had physical affection and he started all of it because the body wasn’t bad, which is what his family taught him.

Thinking puritanism isn’t bad is a mannicheistic heresy. Exalting the spirit over the body is heresy. Puritianism does not mean lack of sexual activity.

Where do you get the idea that this is where the sexual revolution came from?

The sexual revolution is a reaction to puritanism. And, by the way, it was men that invented the pill, that wanted the freedom from the consequences of sex. The pill is a reaction of the sexual revolution, not the start or cause of it.

That’s ridiculous. We have the sexual revolution because Hugh Hefner wasn’t hugged by his parents? I’ve got news for you–that would probably include at least 50% of humanity throughout all of time. What about the millions of orphans throughout history who have literally no one to love, hug or take care of them?

It’s time for the psychobabble nonsense of the baby boom generation to end.

 

[agapewolf]

That’s ridiculous. We have the sexual revolution because Hugh Hefner wasn’t hugged by his parents? I’ve got news for you–that would probably include at least 50% of humanity throughout all of time. What about the millions of orphans throughout history who have literally no one to love, hug or take care of them?

It’s time for the psychobabble nonsense of the baby boom generation to end.

This isn’t psycho babble, and if you READ about it instead of taking it out of context, as I said before. The hugging thing was one symptom of many many things that he lived through. And I never said the sexual revolution started because hugh hef wasn’t hugged

Quit putting out judgements on things you know nothing about.

 

[agapewolf]

It would be so much better if people would read up on this:

From Christopher’s web site:

christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=118

Regarding the connection between John Paul II and Hugh Hefner, Christopher often points out the interesting historical “coincidence” of the work of these two profoundly influential men. In the early 1950s, as Hefner was founding Playboy magazine, Karol Wojtyla began to lecture and write about the need for Christians to experience a redemption of their bodies and sexuality. In their respective work, both Hefner and John Paul II responded to a puritanical/Manichean approach to sexuality, but they offered completely different solutions to the problem. This is the historical “connection” of which Christopher spoke in the Nightline interview. ABC latched onto this point, but they failed to provide the larger context Christopher offered in his extended interview with Nightline’s correspondent. This lack of proper context has led some to misinterpret Christopher’s remarks as somehow endorsing Hefner’s views.

The point Christopher made—but which wasn’t included in the Nightline piece—was that, as Catholics, we agree with Hugh Hefner’s diagnosis of the disease (i.e., a puritanical rejection of the body and sexuality is utterly contrary to Catholic faith), but we radically disagree with his cure. Christopher told the Nightline correspondent that the Theology of the Body is the true cure for the disease that Hefner diagnosed. These distinctions were lost in the seven-minute piece that ABC aired. Indeed, Nightline made it sound as if West considered Hefner a “hero” of his, which he certainly never said. West has dedicated his life to fighting the terrible distortions of pornography. West’s “love” for Hugh Hefner is a Christian love—a hope that Hefner would come to discover the riches of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the profound insights of the Theology of the Body. To see the full context of what Christopher said visit: youtube.com/watch?v=gqRKvNX4IKU.

 

[wanner47]

Unfortunately, I think that Dr. von Hildebrand (for whom I have the highest respect) has not actually read CW’s works and is basing her opinions off of the highly skewed ABC interview. I wish she would have first contacted CW privately to discuss her concerns before going public with her criticism.

 

[CTA1967]

It would be so much better if people would read up on this:

From Christopher’s web site:

christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=118

Regarding the connection between John Paul II and Hugh Hefner, Christopher often points out the interesting historical “coincidence” of the work of these two profoundly influential men. In the early 1950s, as Hefner was founding Playboy magazine, Karol Wojtyla began to lecture and write about the need for Christians to experience a redemption of their bodies and sexuality. In their respective work, both Hefner and John Paul II responded to a puritanical/Manichean approach to sexuality, but they offered completely different solutions to the problem. This is the historical “connection” of which Christopher spoke in the Nightline interview. ABC latched onto this point, but they failed to provide the larger context Christopher offered in his extended interview with Nightline’s correspondent. This lack of proper context has led some to misinterpret Christopher’s remarks as somehow endorsing Hefner’s views.

The point Christopher made—but which wasn’t included in the Nightline piece—was that, as Catholics, we agree with Hugh Hefner’s diagnosis of the disease (i.e., a puritanical rejection of the body and sexuality is utterly contrary to Catholic faith), but we radically disagree with his cure. Christopher told the Nightline correspondent that the Theology of the Body is the true cure for the disease that Hefner diagnosed. These distinctions were lost in the seven-minute piece that ABC aired. Indeed, Nightline made it sound as if West considered Hefner a “hero” of his, which he certainly never said. West has dedicated his life to fighting the terrible distortions of pornography. West’s “love” for Hugh Hefner is a Christian love—a hope that Hefner would come to discover the riches of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the profound insights of the Theology of the Body. To see the full context of what Christopher said visit: youtube.com/watch?v=gqRKvNX4IKU.

I’m glad at least some people don’t take things out of context just to shock the public. How many of the people criticizing Cristopher West have actually heard one of his talks?

 

[monicatholic]

Unfortunately, I think that Dr. von Hildebrand (for whom I have the highest respect) has not actually read CW’s works and is basing her opinions off of the highly skewed ABC interview. I wish she would have first contacted CW privately to discuss her concerns before going public with her criticism.

THis is what I’m wondering, too. How much did Dr. von Hildebrand read? If I learned she’s well-versed in his works, I would attend to her criticisms carefully, as I respect her immensely.

perhaps she hasn’t read or heard anything more of West’s works than the skewed 7 minutes. though, there are sections (though few) of West’s “***Good News” ***that I take (significant) issue with also.

 

[Shin]

I am glad people are started to speak out and be more heard about the grave problems in Christopher West’s works.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

That’s ridiculous. We have the sexual revolution because Hugh Hefner wasn’t hugged by his parents? I’ve got news for you–that would probably include at least 50% of humanity throughout all of time. What about the millions of orphans throughout history who have literally no one to love, hug or take care of them?

It’s time for the psychobabble nonsense of the baby boom generation to end.

Hefner and the ‘progressives’ did more damage to the moral fabric of this society, and did it faster, than all the puritanical thought throughout history.

 

[agapewolf]

Hefner and the ‘progressives’ did more damage to the moral fabric of this society, and did it faster, than all the puritanical thought throughout history.

This is the manicheistic misunderstanding that causes more problems. Puritanical thinking (spirit good body bad) is just as harmful than pushing the body over soul.

You can’t have one without the other.

 

[Tezza]

This is the manicheistic misunderstanding that causes more problems. Puritanical thinking (spirit good body bad) is just as harmful than pushing the body over soul.

You can’t have one without the other.

Yeah, let’s go back to seeing flesh as evil. I’m sure God was kidding about the whole, made in His image, temple of the Holy Spirit thing.

angelism vs. animalsim–they’re both disorders of the HEART! What did Christ come to do? Change our hearts!!!

 

[Ella]

Even to mention Hugh Hefner and the Catholic church in the same interview…

Here’s how they do things:

(Any Catholic in any media interview): Satan is a fallen angel and works through divisiveness, which is not representative of Church teachings.

Media headline: Catholic spokesman claims Satan is representative of Church teachings

AGREED. It was very foolish of West to even mention Hefner in the interview. VERY foolish, for the exact reason you state. Hopefully he has learned from this mistake.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

This is the manicheistic misunderstanding that causes more problems. Puritanical thinking (spirit good body bad) is just as harmful than pushing the body over soul.

You can’t have one without the other.

I’m saying it’s done more damage. Look around you. Look what our young people are doing to themselves. Listen to Satan’s laughter.