Christopher West?

[Cari]

and how is

I sometimes like to count how many posts it takes on threads dealing with issues of sexuality before someone suggests one of his books. It never, ever fails

sigh

Here is the point of my initial post, which for whatever reason is being read as a “If you like West, you now need to defend yourself” tirade, which it wasn’t:

Go through and read some of the “my wife insists on using ABC”/“my husband is addicted to porn”/“my spouse has a masterbation issue” threads here. You will, many times, find a poster who is writing in agony, their hearts wounded and broken. They turn to this board, for good or ill, looking for not only help, but a little bit of human compassion. And then look at SOME (READ: SOME, people! I’m not accusing YOU of doing this) of the glib, one-line responses people post, throwing out a recommendation for West as if a) that’s all it’s going to take to fix everything and b) assuming the person hasn’t already read it. No empathy, no compassion, just a “read West” that verges on robotic.

End of my point. It has nothing to do with West (who I again, have never read, and have no comment on). It has nothing to do with you and your experience of West. It has everything to do with people throwing out a compassion-free response in the face of human pain. And since this thread was about West, that’s who I’m commenting on. People do it about lots of different things, West is one of them.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree with you here. CW is probably an American authority on the topic. But Waldstein is the authority according to those who have studied TOB in depth.

I started studying TOB long before I ever heard of CW. Without Waldstein, we would not have an accurate translation of TOB.

I agree. Waldstein’s work is great. However, it depends on what your purpose is. If you purpose is to make a comprehensive study of the Theology of the Body, then Waldstein’s book is the best. If, however, you are a light reader and want to understand the basics of the Theology of the Body, then I think West (and others) have some good resources.

Now, that said, what percentage of the Catholic population (or anyone else that matter) enjoys reading books on theology and has a strong enough interest in the Theology of the Body to read the complete works? On the other hand, what percentage of people don’t read profusely and would benefit from a shorter, easier-to-read book on the subject?

I would posit that there are more in the latter group, and my goal would be to have as many people as possible understand this important Church teaching. To me, recommending someone read Waldstein’s book, or any other serious theological work without knowing whether they are the type who will take the time to read a large book would be akin to recommending the unabridged versions of Moby **** (oops…er…Moby Richard…the one with the big white whale ) or War and Peace to someone who had just decided they would like to read more fiction.

Therefore, I generally recommend West’s works, if someone is asking about sexual issues in regards to Church teaching. It is a good place to start. If they want more serious works, then they will be led to read them. I’m sure Christopher West would be the first one to encourage them to dig deeper into John Paul II’s writing.

 

[LittleDeb]

I agree. Waldstein’s work is great. However, it depends on what your purpose is. If you purpose is to make a comprehensive study of the Theology of the Body, then Waldstein’s book is the best. If, however, you are a light reader and want to understand the basics of the Theology of the Body, then I think West (and others) have some good resources.

Now, that said, what percentage of the Catholic population (or anyone else that matter) enjoys reading books on theology and has a strong enough interest in the Theology of the Body to read the complete works? On the other hand, what percentage of people don’t read profusely and would benefit from a shorter, easier-to-read book on the subject?

I would posit that there are more in the latter group, and my goal would be to have as many people as possible understand this important Church teaching. To me, recommending someone read Waldstein’s book, or any other serious theological work without knowing whether they are the type who will take the time to read a large book would be akin to recommending the unabridged versions of Moby **** (oops…er…Moby Richard…the one with the big white whale ) or War and Peace to someone who had just decided they would like to read more fiction.

Therefore, I generally recommend West’s works, if someone is asking about sexual issues in regards to Church teaching. It is a good place to start. If they want more serious works, then they will be led to read them. I’m sure Christopher West would be the first one to encourage them to dig deeper into John Paul II’s writing.

Very well said. I completely agree that lighter reads bring TOB to many more people.

It was years of study before I even realized what I was really reading. CW is a much easier start than I took.

 

[newbetx]

sigh

Here is the point of my initial post, which for whatever reason is being read as a “If you like West, you now need to defend yourself” tirade, which it wasn’t:

Go through and read some of the “my wife insists on using ABC”/“my husband is addicted to porn”/“my spouse has a masterbation issue” threads here. You will, many times, find a poster who is writing in agony, their hearts wounded and broken. They turn to this board, for good or ill, looking for not only help, but a little bit of human compassion. And then look at SOME (READ: SOME, people! I’m not accusing YOU of doing this) of the glib, one-line responses people post, throwing out a recommendation for West as if a) that’s all it’s going to take to fix everything and b) assuming the person hasn’t already read it. No empathy, no compassion, just a “read West” that verges on robotic.

End of my point. It has nothing to do with West (who I again, have never read, and have no comment on). It has nothing to do with you and your experience of West. It has everything to do with people throwing out a compassion-free response in the face of human pain. And since this thread was about West, that’s who I’m commenting on. People do it about lots of different things, West is one of them.

Ok, so maybe I’m a bit sensitive on the subject. You know this is not the first “I wish those CW fans would shut-up thread.” Ok. maybe that isn’t exactly what the OP meant… again, some of us can be touchy.

I always try to relate how CW helped me understand something I was opposed to. How easy it is to read, blah blah blah… In fact I might suggest that you get a copy… oh, wait… there I go again.

 

[CuriousInIL]

sigh

Here is the point of my initial post, which for whatever reason is being read as a “If you like West, you now need to defend yourself” tirade, which it wasn’t:

Go through and read some of the “my wife insists on using ABC”/“my husband is addicted to porn”/“my spouse has a masterbation issue” threads here. You will, many times, find a poster who is writing in agony, their hearts wounded and broken. They turn to this board, for good or ill, looking for not only help, but a little bit of human compassion. And then look at SOME (READ: SOME, people! I’m not accusing YOU of doing this) of the glib, one-line responses people post, throwing out a recommendation for West as if a) that’s all it’s going to take to fix everything and b) assuming the person hasn’t already read it. No empathy, no compassion, just a “read West” that verges on robotic.

End of my point. It has nothing to do with West (who I again, have never read, and have no comment on). It has nothing to do with you and your experience of West. It has everything to do with people throwing out a compassion-free response in the face of human pain. And since this thread was about West, that’s who I’m commenting on. People do it about lots of different things, West is one of them.

This post actually (especially the highlighted parts) expresses my point much better than my OP. It’s not so much about CW (although I will freely admit that some of his stuff that I have read is okay–and other stuff of his that I have read is not so good in writing or substance IMO) as it is about those posters–not citing anyone specific here–that seem to think that the incantation of CW’s name and a title (or two or ten) should magically fix whatever problem there is in the area of sexuality. Also, the ones that really annoy me are those posters who later in the same thread have follow-up posts that essentially read to me as:

“I already fixed this problem by telling the poster to read CW, why are all you others posting specific answers? You are wasting your time and mine–BECAUSE I ALREADY FIXED THIS.”

and, yes, in my head they are shouting the last part.

Ok, so maybe I’m a bit sensitive on the subject. You know this is not the first “I wish those CW fans would shut-up thread.” Ok. maybe that isn’t exactly what the OP meant… again, some of us can be touchy.

I always try to relate how CW helped me understand something I was opposed to. How easy it is to read, blah blah blah… In fact I might suggest that you get a copy… oh, wait… there I go again.

The very fact that you do the blah blah blah part takes you out of the really annoying attitude that I am talking about and do see often with some posters.

This is NOT a “I wish those CW fans would shut-up thread.”

This is a “I wish all CW fans would actually answer posts and none would just say ‘Read CW’ as if the incantation of his name solves everything.”

 

[rlg94086]

This post actually (especially the highlighted parts) expresses my point much better than my OP. It’s not so much about CW (although I will freely admit that some of his stuff that I have read is okay–and other stuff of his that I have read is not so good in writing or substance IMO) as it is about those posters–not citing anyone specific here–that seem to think that the incantation of CW’s name and a title (or two or ten) should magically fix whatever problem there is in the area of sexuality. Also, the ones that really annoy me are those posters who later in the same thread have follow-up posts that essentially read to me as:
and, yes, in my head they are shouting the last part.

The very fact that you do the blah blah blah part takes you out of the really annoying attitude that I am talking about and do see often with some posters.

This is NOT a “I wish those CW fans would shut-up thread.”

This is a “I wish all CW fans would actually answer posts and none would just say ‘Read CW’ as if the incantation of his name solves everything.”

No offense, CuriousinIL, but that doesn’t match with the second sentence in your OP:

I have tried to read two of his books and must say that I didn’t think they were very good in any way. So, the constant references to them on this board really irritate me.

It is clear that the constant references irritate you because you don’t think CW’s books (at least the two you read) are “very good in any way.”

I do agree that people should answer the questions that are posted, in addition to making a reading recommendation, but I’m not convinced that is what bothers you. In a lot of cases, other posters have answered the person asking the question, and I have posted something along the lines of “in addition to what other posters have said, I would recommend you read…” Hopefully, you don’t have a problem with that…not that your having a problem with that will affect my future posts.

Also, again, you are imputing emotions (“you are wasting your time and mine - BECAUSE I ALREADY FIXED THIS”) that probably don’t exist in those posters. More likely, they are thinking, "this really helped me, and I hope it will help you just as much. This is something you may want to pray about. It isn’t good to think the worst of people.

 

[CuriousInIL]

No offense, CuriousinIL, but that doesn’t match with the second sentence in your OP:

It is clear that the constant references irritate you because you don’t think CW’s books (at least the two you read) are “very good in any way.”

Yeah, I understand how they are contradictory. My first statement was too strong and my more recent one more accurate. One book was BAD IMO and that affected my initial statement. The other was okay—but nothing I would recommend.

I do agree that people should answer the questions that are posted, in addition to making a reading recommendation, but I’m not convinced that is what bothers you. In a lot of cases, other posters have answered the person asking the question, and I have posted something along the lines of “in addition to what other posters have said, I would recommend you read…” Hopefully, you don’t have a problem with that…not that your having a problem with that will affect my future posts.

Not so much a problem with those posts. It really is primarily the ones that just use the magical CW incantation as a cure-all.

Also, again, you are imputing emotions (“you are wasting your time and mine - BECAUSE I ALREADY FIXED THIS”) that probably don’t exist in those posters. More likely, they are thinking, "this really helped me, and I hope it will help you just as much. This is something you may want to pray about. It isn’t good to think the worst of people.

I am not “imputing emotions” I am reacting to expressed attitudes—and some are so clearly expressed that I don’t see how anyone misses them. I am perfectly willing to believe that they have the best intentions–they still express them in less than the best way. And that is what I react to–expressions. I don’t think I am thinking the best or the worst of folks—just being a human and reacting to what they post and how they post it. But, I am flattered that you think that I am so important that irritating me is a “worst” thing.

 

[graceandglory]

I

For example a paragraph in his book conflicts directly with the advice I have been given by the National Catholics Bioethics Center and another moral theology book I’ve read. I’ve seen the same position( the one CW wrote) expressed by a website run by a famous priest .

When you state something like this that could damage somebody’s credibility, please STATE YOUR SOURCE!

I know CW and the only way he would conflict with the National Catholic Bioethics Center is if they contradict the Holy Catholic Church.

CW isn’t infallible and neither are any of us. He might make a mistake, but he would never knowingly contradict Catholic moral teaching; he is a very humble man.

 

[Seatuck]

When you state something like this that could damage somebody’s credibility, please STATE YOUR SOURCE!

I know CW and the only way he would conflict with the National Catholic Bioethics Center is if they contradict the Holy Catholic Church.

CW isn’t infallible and neither are any of us. He might make a mistake, but he would never knowingly contradict Catholic moral teaching; he is a very humble man.

I’ll describe the situation. You can email the NCBC yourself since I don’t have permission to quote with a name.
CW says that if a married woman takes the pill for a medical reason she must abstain from the marital act. This is in Good News about Sex and Marriage. P 128.Dr Hogan also says this I believe in his answers on EWTN but I’m not 100 % certain as I couldn’t find a quote just now in the Q&A’s.( Search is not working there for me at the moment )When I emailed this question to the NCBC that is not the answer that I got. Or the friend I was asking for got when she finally asked them. So it seems that there is a difference of moral opinion here. Possibly allowed by the church. The email I got from the NCBC also doubts the abortifacient action of the pill . This was from a priest who has been a guest on Catholic Answers several times by the way. He states that even if it were so it is still allowable for the woman to engage in the marital act. I believe Father Serpa has also said it is allowable.

Here’s the quote without the name since he did not give me permission to use it.

Insofar as the pill is medically indicated for treatment of a specific and serious ailment, the unintended loss of fertility is not a problem from the moral angle, because this represents an instance of the application of the principle of double effect, assuming that all the requirements of the principle are met. If there were to be an effect on rates of miscarriage (and there is considerable controversy and doubt regarding whether the pill has that effect), it would still be permissible to take the pill under such circumstances, in virtue of the same principle, again assuming the conditions for its application were validly met. The activity of shared marital intimacy would not be causing the miscarriages (if they, in fact, occurred), because the kind of action that marital intercourse represents is not a miscarrying kind of act, but rather a kind of act that engenders new life. Whether that life, after having been engendered, is enabled to implant or not does not depend on the decision to engage in the sexual act itself, but may depend on another act, namely, the taking of the contraceptive pill. The taking of the contraceptive pill will not be licit for contaceptive purposes, but may be licit for the abovementioned therapeutic purposes, and the couple would be free to participate in conjugal relations in that properly therapeutic scenario. I hope this is helpful.

Do the research yourself. Email them. The question I asked was “Does a married woman have to abstain while she must take the pill as a medical treatment” .

 

[Seatuck]

Here’s an Ask An Apologist link with the Answer to the question as well

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618&highlight=pill+for+medical+reasons

The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time.

So , there is definitely a conflict between advice that CW is giving and others are giving. It is possible both positions are acceptable. Which is why I said a person must look at several resources.

 

[Seatuck]

I got EWTN to offer up one link with a question answered by Dr. Hogan.

He says that the woman should make an attempt to abstain on days that she might have been fertile if she was not on the pill. Which really seems odd since most of the women who end up on the pill for medical reasons experience irregular periods as part of their symptoms.

Anyway , that’s what he says and is similiar to the advice I give women I know and I can’t tell you how I formed that opinion. Mostly on common sense. If you can prevent a death it’s good to try and do it sort of logic.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=376671&Forums=11&Experts=39&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=&pgnu=1&groupnum=1&record_bookmark=43&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ID+DESC&start_at=