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

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
agapewolf said:
It made you cringe? Really? How sad. We all came from our mothers created by God. Apparently you haven’t done the research into the beginnings of Hugh Hef that Christopher has done. If you read Christopher’s book “the love that satisfies” you will see more in depth.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you are saying. I’m saying the comparison of Hugh Hefner and JP II made me cringe, which is what Dr. von Hildebrand said. Why is that sad? Also, I’ve got to tell you, I really don’t want to research someone like Hugh Hefner. I see the result of what he has done, and I know it’s the result of turning his back on God.
 
I thought perhaps it was language that was getting in the way of communication here.

I am not saying they started from the same place as though they had the same intent, or background, or anything like that.

I am simply saying that they started with the same proposition. The same idea. As in, if they were writing a paper, they would have the same problem in the thesis.

HH’s: Sexuality has gone very wrong in our culture today, and the way to fix is to let everyone do want they want.

JP: Sexuality has gone very wrong in our culture today, and the way to fix it is to listen to God’s original plan for our sexuality.
 
Brooklyn said:
I don’t understand what you are saying. I’m saying the comparison of Hugh Hefner and JP II made me cringe, which is what Dr. von Hildebrand said. Why is that sad? Also, I’ve got to tell you, I really don’t want to research someone like Hugh Hefner. I see the result of what he has done, and I know it’s the result of turning his back on God.
Click to expand...
You said when the video said they started at the same place, that made you cringe. I quoted you directly.
 
Brooklyn said:
I don’t understand what you are saying. I’m saying the comparison of Hugh Hefner and JP II made me cringe, which is what Dr. von Hildebrand said. Why is that sad? Also, I’ve got to tell you, I really don’t want to research someone like Hugh Hefner. I see the result of what he has done, and I know it’s the result of turning his back on God.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t interest you at all to figure out the motivation behind people’s sins? I think that is the number one way we can reach people. I think that really most people’s actions are motivated by a desire to be loved, to do good. They just get it really, really wrong. Isn’t that why St. Augustine said our hearts are restless until they rest in you?
 
agapewolf said:
You are taking the statement way too far, far beyond what was meant.

Please read my past statements. They started in the same place meaning they are reacting to puritanical thinking. Simple
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that Hugh Hefner looked at society and said, “What a sad place, all these people are suffering so badly and dying from misunderstanding”, which is what our great Pope basically said, or did Hugh Hefner say, I’m just not getting enough sex in my life and it’s because of this uptight society, and I’m going to change it.

They did not start from the same place.
 
lizziebits said:
It doesn’t interest you at all to figure out the motivation behind people’s sins? I think that is the number one way we can reach people. I think that really most people’s actions are motivated by a desire to be loved, to do good. They just get it really, really wrong. Isn’t that why St. Augustine said our hearts are restless until they rest in you?
Click to expand...
Okay, that’s it. I feel that you’re all ganging up on me, and we are not going to be changing each other’s minds. We have a very different way of looking at things. I totally agree with Dr. von Hildebrand, and you don’t. We’ll let it go at that.

God bless you all, and may he lead us all to his truth.

Mary
 
Sorry you feel ganged up on, I hope my tone wasn’t too confrontational. I get very passionate when I argue, just ask me husband.

I think the difficulty is that I see West as doing something very good – encouraging people to see that God has a plan for our sexuality, and it is very very good, and to then see him be maligned by people who haven’t even read his work.
 
Brooklyn said:
Do you honestly believe that Hugh Hefner looked at society and said, “What a sad place, all these people are suffering so badly and dying from misunderstanding”, which is what our great Pope basically said, or did Hugh Hefner say, I’m just not getting enough sex in my life and it’s because of this uptight society, and I’m going to change it.

They did not start from the same place.
Click to expand...
More or yes, He DID say that…again, read the quotes

When Hefner was asked why he started playboy he said:

“a personal response to the hurt and hypocrisy of the puritan heritage”
 
I think some of what West said was right, he just delivered it in an odd way.
 
agapewolf said:
More or yes, He DID say that…again, read the quotes

When Hefner was asked why he started playboy he said:

“a personal response to the hurt and hypocrisy of the puritan heritage”
Click to expand...
Sure, Hefner is going to say something “noble” sounding. What do you expect him to say? “I wanted to make millions and millions of dollars and have naked women treating me like a mini-god all day long.” Money is the root of all evil.

There is absolutley nothing wrong with keeping sex between a husband and wife private–if you want to call that “Puritanism” then be my guest. No one on this forum has ever said the body is wrong or shameful. But is meant to be shared in private with your spouse, not to be exposed and flaunted.

I have read West’s entire TOB series. So please don’t make comments like, “you haven’t read him” etc. Just because I do not agree with his approach or his style doesn’t mean I don’t understand him. As long as I have been alive, the Catholic Church has always taught that the body is beautiful, life giving and meant to be shared with your spouse.

Every poster on this forum who doesn’t worship Christopher West ends up being zinged.
 
turtle18 said:
Sure, Hefner is going to say something “noble” sounding. What do you expect him to say? “I wanted to make millions and millions of dollars and have naked women treating me like a mini-god all day long.” Money is the root of all evil.

There is absolutley nothing wrong with keeping sex between a husband and wife private–if you want to call that “Puritanism” then be my guest. No one on this forum has ever said the body is wrong or shameful. But is meant to be shared in private with your spouse, not to be exposed and flaunted.

I have read West’s entire TOB series. So please don’t make comments like, “you haven’t read him” etc. Just because I do not agree with his approach or his style doesn’t mean I don’t understand him. As long as I have been alive, the Catholic Church has always taught that the body is beautiful, life giving and meant to be shared with your spouse.

Every poster on this forum who doesn’t worship Christopher West ends up being zinged.
Click to expand...
I do not worship…and that was not appropriate.

2nd, Puritanical views are not just about keeping talking sex in the bedroom. If you have read his books you would know that.

Puritanical views are about exalting the soul void of the body, which is heresy. Talking about these heresies is not “flaunting” sex. It is the opposite. It is holding the sexual relationship up to what it is supposed to be.
 
*Lets’ say West’s statement is true…‘they started at the same point’ (Hefner and Pope JP2)…it’s where one ends up that counts.

I don’t believe that Hefner wanted to teach anyone anything…Pope JP2 is a messenger…was our Vicar of Christ on earth to help his flock learn the Gospel, and learn the beauty of Church teachings, part of which is human sexuality. I read a few of his books, and in Love & Responsibility…no way is he coming from the same vantage point as Hefner.

But, even if he was…the end result is what matters. If I start off with the intent to go to work…but then I head to the beach. If I call up my boss and say…‘Well, I intended* to come to work,’ will that matter? I have prayed for Hugh Hefner, and all people involved with the degradation of women, and the women who allow themselves to be degraded like that–I think that West’s choice of wording was strictly to make a parallel. It got everyone’s attention, that’s for sure! 😃
 
agapewolf said:
I don’t think you can know that. It seems in our times that it is more prevelant, but again, the puritanical viewpoint does as much damage, it is just manifest in other ways.
Click to expand...
If you can demonstrate clearly how that viewpoint manifests its damage, I would be happy to hear it.

In the meantime, I can only look upon the number of drug-related deaths, teenage prostitution, the rise of STDs among children, child pornography, child molestation being touted as almost a right, and child suicides as reflecting the influence of those ‘progessives’ who embraced Hefner’s no-holds-barred ‘morality.’
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
If you can demonstrate clearly how that viewpoint manifests its damage, I would be happy to hear it.

In the meantime, I can only look upon the number of drug-related deaths, teenage prostitution, the rise of STDs among children, child pornography, child molestation being touted as almost a right, and child suicides as reflecting the influence of those ‘progessives’ who embraced Hefner’s no-holds-barred ‘morality.’
Click to expand...
Serious question: are you suggesting that there is nothing damaging about that viewpoint?
 
lizziebits said:
It doesn’t interest you at all to figure out the motivation behind people’s sins? I think that is the number one way we can reach people. I think that really most people’s actions are motivated by a desire to be loved, to do good. They just get it really, really wrong. Isn’t that why St. Augustine said our hearts are restless until they rest in you?
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure about figuring out motivations, lest we end up with a mess in which everyone is excused everything because ‘no one hugged me as a child.’

Not everyone who went through a less-than-ideal childhood chooses to commit acts of evil. Some just go on as best they can, while others rise to sainthood.
 
I am not a CW fan. I don’t dig his delivery. For matters on TOB I read Michael Waldstein.

That said, I think charity demands that we give CW the benefit of the doubt in the ABC interview. I mean, can you honestly believe for 2 seconds that he admires Hef? Give me a break. This is a convenient excuse for people to jump all over him. Read his work in entirety, then judge the man.
 
Perhaps some similar examples would help people understand West’s comparison of JPII and Hugh Hefner.
  1. Karl Marx correctly identified some enormous systemic injustices in the socio-economic systems of his day. Marxism was an attempt to address those injustices. It was a horrible “solution” that actually made the problems worse. The Church in the same era produced the encyclical “Rerum Novarum” which describes some catholic principles for bringing about economic justice. Far too few have read it.
  2. Gloria Steinem correctly identified some enormous sexual discrimination and oppression in the society of her day. Radical feminism is an attempt to address those injustices which has created WORSE injustices (abortion and denigration of motherhood). JPII wrote Mulieris Dignitatis to describe the catholic principles that establish and defend the inherent dignity of women AS women.
  3. Hugh Hefner correctly identified that far too much of American culture tried to control their sexual urges by treating them as ‘dirty’ somehow and a necessary evil at best. His solution was to throw out traditional sexual morals and proclaim a false ‘liberty’ of sexual gluttony and lust. JPII responded with the Theology of the Body which affirmed human sexuality as a GIFT of God and that it has a divinely intended and thus HOLY and GOOD purpose.
Does that make more sense to you guys?

It does no good to demonize Hugh Hefner when there are charitable ways to understand the man and his apparent motivations. Whether his personal motivations were thus motivated or merely greedy, the enormous RESPONSE he got was (IMO) based on America’s agreement with him that the old Manichean attitudes were wrong and had to go. (Nothing so good could be inherently dirty, after all…) Same goes for Marx and Steinem. If their messages hadn’t hit fetile soil, they would not have grown so well.

If he doe it well, West is in a position to make a POWERFUL message to those who have tried Hefners way and now see the evil effects and damages IT contains. He can point out that everything they found attractive in Hefner’s philosophy that DIDN’T turn out to be destrictuve is also present in genuine catholic teaching. It’s a potential bonanza.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
All except the part about Gloria Steinem.
Click to expand...
You don’t think American women were largely mistreated and undervalued in the 50’s and 60’s?? I got some stories to tell you from my own close family… Like Hefner, Steinem’s a nut case. But nut cases don’t convince large groups of people unless they hit on a message that is partly true. Partly true can still be MOSTLY dead wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top