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.
manualman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mistreated and undervalued by fulfilling their God-given talents as wives and mothers? Are you denigrating those roles?

The short answer is no. Not at all.

It’s a straw argument, and that’s exactly how Satan works, whether through class envy or the battle of the sexes. EVERYONE can harbor resentment, and the father of lies uses this to drive a wedge between people and God.
 
Find some family members who remember the 1950’s. Don’t watch Leave it to Beaver reruns.

When a woman chooses to be a wife and mother and embraces all the opportunities to grow in holiness that that vocation offers, it is a great thing. When a woman feels she has no options, it is a bad thing. When a woman trains for years for a profession and is denied a job opening and told “I never hire young women if I have other choices. They just leave the position after a few years to have babies anyways.” THAT is where Gloria Steinem gets her power.

When a woman is battered and abused by a husband and the cops “refuse to get involved in a domestic issue.” That’s another place it happens.

When men begin to think it is their RIGHT to come home to hot food every day from work, to never change a poopy diaper in their life, to have drawers ever full of clean socks and underwear… These are the things that fuel cultural explosions.

Had these things not been happening, Steinem would never have sold a book, never made the newspapers. Nobody listens to a complete kook. They ony listen to those whose message resonates somewhere inside.
 
I lived through it. I remember it first-hand.

Steinem set up straw arguments and willing accomplices leapt upon it and touted it as ‘truth.’

Everyone has resentments, I don’t care who you are, and this is how Satan operates to drive a wedge between people and God, and thus destroy the family.
 
I’ve read Christopher West’s book The Good news…. I don’t mind his style of writing and I don’t know how he speaks but friends of mine have and they like it.

However, it was a very BIG mistake of him to even mention Hugh Hefner in the interview at all. Christopher West as an intelligent adult should know that the MSM will manipulate what he says to make it more marketable to their target market. He should have known that 8 hours of interviews transformed into 7 minutes of news is going to alter the meaning of what he says.

Also it needs to be clarified about the Sexual Revolution was not to correct the errors of Puritanism. The Sexual Revolution came in full force in the 60s and 70s promoting “free sex” the pill and abortion. It revolutionized how most people view sex as something casual and not special at all between husband and wife.

Puritanism was wrong but the Sexual Revolution was a revolution against the Catholic teaching of abstinence. Puritanism was not about abstinence.
 
manualman said:
Find some family members who remember the 1950’s. Don’t watch Leave it to Beaver reruns.

When a woman chooses to be a wife and mother and embraces all the opportunities to grow in holiness that that vocation offers, it is a great thing. When a woman feels she has no options, it is a bad thing. When a woman trains for years for a profession and is denied a job opening and told “I never hire young women if I have other choices. They just leave the position after a few years to have babies anyways.” THAT is where Gloria Steinem gets her power.

When a woman is battered and abused by a husband and the cops “refuse to get involved in a domestic issue.” That’s another place it happens.

When men begin to think it is their RIGHT to come home to hot food every day from work, to never change a poopy diaper in their life, to have drawers ever full of clean socks and underwear… These are the things that fuel cultural explosions.

Had these things not been happening, Steinem would never have sold a book, never made the newspapers. Nobody listens to a complete kook. They ony listen to those whose message resonates somewhere inside.
Click to expand...
My grandmothers and great aunts never resented being wivesand/or mothers. Most of them had worked from the age of 18, or in some cases 12, and were thrilled to stop working when they got married. Most women, then, as now, don’t have professions or careers, they have jobs.

Men felt it was their right to have a hot meal and clean close, just like women felt it was a right to have a husband who supported them, and couldn’t divorce them at will.

They were both correct. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reciprocal and complimentary obligations.

The family relationships of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s were WAY healthier than they are today.

God Bless
 
bilop said:
My grandmothers and great aunts never resented being wivesand/or mothers. Most of them had worked from the age of 18, or in some cases 12, and were thrilled to stop working when they got married. Most women, then, as now, don’t have professions or careers, they have jobs.

Men felt it was their right to have a hot meal and clean close, just like women felt it was a right to have a husband who supported them, and couldn’t divorce them at will.

They were both correct. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reciprocal and complimentary obligations.

The family relationships of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s were WAY healthier than they are today.

God Bless
Click to expand...
AMEN.
 
“The family relationships of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s were WAY healthier than they are today.”

Well, not MY family 😃 They didn’t call Valium and alcohol “mommy’s little helper” for nothing. One grandmother was a drug addict (although a well-to-do pill popper, so everybody looked the other way) and the other was in a very unhappy marriage. The great-grandmothers weren’t so happy, either.

I’m not trying to refute anybody who says their female family members were happy back in the day; I’m just saying there are a lot of us who didn’t have such happy women ancestors. And I suspect that’s why the crazy message of Gloria Steinem and others resonated with so much of society.

I have much older family relatives who talk about how their grandparents/great-grandparents had owned slaves who stayed with them after the emancipation and how sad it was because these african-americans had been so much happier when they were slaves. Who knows, it may have even been true for some slaves. What is known can be a whole lot more comfortable than what is new and different. That doesn’t mean it was right to own slaves. Just because a person was “happier” in a certain situation does not make that situation morally right or preferable. I’m just sayin’.
 
bilop said:
My grandmothers and great aunts never resented being wivesand/or mothers. Most of them had worked from the age of 18, or in some cases 12, and were thrilled to stop working when they got married. Most women, then, as now, don’t have professions or careers, they have jobs.

Men felt it was their right to have a hot meal and clean close, just like women felt it was a right to have a husband who supported them, and couldn’t divorce them at will.

They were both correct. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reciprocal and complimentary obligations.

The family relationships of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s were WAY healthier than they are today.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Wow. Just, wow. I’ve been speechless for days.

For the record, I’m the sole breadwinner in my own house. My wife stays home with the kids and is heavily involved in their school. We made this choice together. She doesn’t have a RIGHT to expect me to earn a certain living, she is grateful that we make enough to get by. I don’t believe I have a RIGHT to hot dinner on the table when I get home, I get home far too late for that. When clothes get dirty, why should SHE always have to wash 'em? She has as much to do in the 10 hours a day I’m gone as I do.

I saw in my parents (now divorced) and still see it in her parents how things used to be. Man puts in his hours at the shop and expects to be waited on when he gets home. His work day is done. Hers continues until bedtime. If you still don’t see anything wrong with that you’re contributing to Gloria Steinem’s success.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
Mistreated and undervalued by fulfilling their God-given talents as wives and mothers? Are you denigrating those roles?

The short answer is no. Not at all.

It’s a straw argument, and that’s exactly how Satan works, whether through class envy or the battle of the sexes. EVERYONE can harbor resentment, and the father of lies uses this to drive a wedge between people and God.
Click to expand...
Are you for real? No college for women? No choices if a husband was a wifebeater? No choices if husband was unfaithful? Unequal pay if they could get a job? No voting until 1920?

I am a stay at home mother, my husband values me and I have wonderful Dad who has always treated the women in his life well. I am not a man hater nor do I have an axe to grind. Your opinion sounds so wonderfully traditional until you look at the reality of history!
 
manualman said:
Find some family members who remember the 1950’s. Don’t watch Leave it to Beaver reruns.

When a woman chooses to be a wife and mother and embraces all the opportunities to grow in holiness that that vocation offers, it is a great thing. When a woman feels she has no options, it is a bad thing. When a woman trains for years for a profession and is denied a job opening and told “I never hire young women if I have other choices. They just leave the position after a few years to have babies anyways.” THAT is where Gloria Steinem gets her power.

When a woman is battered and abused by a husband and the cops “refuse to get involved in a domestic issue.” That’s another place it happens.

When men begin to think it is their RIGHT to come home to hot food every day from work, to never change a poopy diaper in their life, to have drawers ever full of clean socks and underwear… These are the things that fuel cultural explosions.

I couldn’t have said it better myself!

Had these things not been happening, Steinem would never have sold a book, never made the newspapers. Nobody listens to a complete kook. They ony listen to those whose message resonates somewhere inside.
Click to expand...
 
My mother and grandmothers all loved being at home. When my maternal grandmother was in her fifties my grandfather left her for another woman. She didn’t think she could fight back. She didn’t feel she could at least have a share of his wealth. It was so sad.

My other grandmother never had a job in her life. She loved raising my dad and taking care of my grandfather. Still when her friends were mistreated at work or in the home it made her blood boil. She was also happy to encourage my sisters and I to pursue college and a career. When I married she was happy that I was going to stay home but would have been fine if I had wanted to have a career.

I think this hatred of anything that sounds like feminism is a backlash against Miss Gloria and her crowd. Well not everything they said was bad. To repeat the other folks bad treatment of women is what made this crazy revolution possible.
 
lovemysix said:
“The family relationships of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s were WAY healthier than they are today.”

Well, not MY family 😃 They didn’t call Valium and alcohol “mommy’s little helper” for nothing. One grandmother was a drug addict (although a well-to-do pill popper, so everybody looked the other way) and the other was in a very unhappy marriage. The great-grandmothers weren’t so happy, either.

I’m not trying to refute anybody who says their female family members were happy back in the day; I’m just saying there are a lot of us who didn’t have such happy women ancestors. And I suspect that’s why the crazy message of Gloria Steinem and others resonated with so much of society.

I have much older family relatives who talk about how their grandparents/great-grandparents had owned slaves who stayed with them after the emancipation and how sad it was because these african-americans had been so much happier when they were slaves. Who knows, it may have even been true for some slaves. What is known can be a whole lot more comfortable than what is new and different. That doesn’t mean it was right to own slaves. Just because a person was “happier” in a certain situation does not make that situation morally right or preferable. I’m just sayin’.
Click to expand...
It bears repeating: Yes, life was saner back then. And individual stories, while causing pain, can not in any way compare to the mass destruction of sanity and decency we have made for ourselves, and feminism played its malicious part in our downfall.

ANY resentment that an individual bears is what Satan uses to drive a wedge between a person and God.
 
I think most people feel resentment when being mistreated and abused. I don’t think that’s a bad thing—it’s a natural emotion in response to being at the mercy of people treating you badly. Like any other feeling, it’s neutral. What you DO with it is what matters. If you let it fill you with hatred and dwell on the anger, that’s a bad thing. If you take that resentment and use it as a catalyst to try to effect a change in your life (and the lives of others) for the better, it can be a good thing.
 
West supporters should have trouble defending this: “there’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse,". This is very troubling since sodomy is one of the sins that cries to heaven for punishment.

I will re-post this article since no one has given concrete refutations to the criticisms of West it contains: headlinebistro.com/hb/en/news/west_schindler2.html

as to the criticism of this article: scripturecatholic.xanga.com/701670434/11-theology-of-the-body/ it has been wholly inadequate, and the criticism that he rejects NFP is untrue, he is rejecting abuse of NFP which seems widespread considering the low birthrates around the world.
 
rosetta_stone said:
as to the criticism of this article: scripturecatholic.xanga.com/701670434/11-theology-of-the-body/ it has been wholly inadequate, and the criticism that he rejects NFP is untrue, he is rejecting abuse of NFP which seems widespread considering the low birthrates around the world.
Click to expand...
I hardly think it is abuse of NFP that is causing widespread low birthrates. I don’t have any statistics, my in my own personal experience those using NFP tend to have larger than average family sizes.
 
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052510.html
Christopher West Controversy Fuels Debate about the Problem of Modesty
By Alex Bush and John Jalsevac - Monday May 25, 2009

…

Nevertheless, in the opinion of David Schindler, a professor at the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Catholic University of America, even with the clarifications Christopher West’s take on the “Theology of the Body” is open to criticism on a number of significant points.

…

A number of West’s ideas and choices of language, says Schindler, are “vulgar and in bad taste, not to mention sometimes bordering on the just plain silly” and “indicate a disordered approach to human sexuality.”

Despite his criticisms of West, however, Schindler adds the caveat that “I agree with those who vigorously defend West’s intention of fidelity to the Church. Certainly he has had positive results in drawing many Catholics into a deeper understanding of their faith.”

He continues, however, to say that “It is important to understand … that good will is not synonymous with sound thought; and I must say, not without reluctance, that West’s work seems to me to misrepresent in significant ways the thought of John Paul II.”

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand is another highly influential figure who has also expressed concerns about some aspects of West’s teaching since the airing of the Nightline segment. A professor emerita at Hunter College of the City University of New York and Catholic philosopher and theologian, von Hildebrand told the Catholic News Agency that “before the Fall, there was no inner temptation to impurity between Adam and Eve even though they were naked. After they sinned, the two started to look at one another with concupiscence.”

…

Despite the controversy, however, West’s following, especially in the Catholic world, remains strong. His supporters have pointed out that West’s work has made accessible to millions the profound teachings of John Paul II, and has significantly affected countless people’s lives. Currently there is a note on Christopher West’s website saying that he is aware of the controversy over his remarks, and that he will issue a further clarification in the near future.
 
rosetta_stone said:
West supporters should have trouble defending this: “there’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse,". This is very troubling since sodomy is one of the sins that cries to heaven for punishment.

I will re-post this article since no one has given concrete refutations to the criticisms of West it contains: headlinebistro.com/hb/en/news/west_schindler2.html

as to the criticism of this article: scripturecatholic.xanga.com/701670434/11-theology-of-the-body/ it has been wholly inadequate, and the criticism that he rejects NFP is untrue, he is rejecting abuse of NFP which seems widespread considering the low birthrates around the world.
Click to expand...
Actually no trouble at all. Please read the following article:

headlinebistro.com/hb/en/news/janetsmithresponse.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top