Does anybody else have concerns about Christopher West's teachings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ericcantona71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ericcantona71

Guest
I have been reading bits of Christopher’s west articles and books over the years and I have been noticing things in them that have been making me feel pretty uncomfortable. Whilst undoubtedly he has some good things to say about todays sex saturated society, some of his slants seem not very prudent, or a bit flowery, more based on psychological principles then Catholic ones, and at times in error.

I was surfing the internet the internet recently and saw this article and wondered what others think of it:

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-theology_of_the_body.htm

It really got me thinking, that maybe I wasn’t the only one who was feeling this way. Would be interested in other people’s view, as I am not to sure if my concerns are unfounded or not.
 
Thank you for this post and the linked article. Although I think John Paul II’s catechesis that has become known as Theology of the Body is very beautiful, I have never been comfortable with Christopher West.
 
Having passed that stage in life some time ago I have never read Christopher West. In reading Matt’s comments, however, I agree he has a point about before whom and where such information should be discussed. I have a problem, however, that a book that seems(and I think this only second hand) mostly aimed at married or about to be married couples somehow degrades and besmirches those who are called to chastity as singles, i.e. religious, priests, and blessed singles. If West is able to remedy the old time attitudes about sex for married people that were prevalent in my early years, more power to him. It always seemed to me that even licit sexual relationships were somehow looked on as being at least a little dirty or smutty. That, if I understand my history, was a Victorian(Queen Victoria’s times) attitude and gave us the gift of Bowdlerism(sic), which frowned on even the use of that 3 letter word in public. Only debauched married women liked the marital embrace. It was better to see it as a duty demanded by husbands. In that respect how far we have come when 10 year old girls make liberal use of the “F word” in their conversations. When I was ten, I used it once in front of my Dad and promptly got a talking to and my mouth cleaned out with Fels Naptha soap. I had no idea at the time what it meant even though I grew up on a farm. My Dad and Granddad never used that kind of language.
 
I have use his materials that are intended and presented in different formats for marriage preparation or pre-cana, for teens, for college students, for catechist education, and for general faith formation for adults and found them to be uniformly excellent, and more importantly, to accurately present Pope John Paul’s vision and teaching on the topic of the theology of the body in a form readily accessible to those differing audiences. They compare favorably to other resources commonly used in parishes to address these groups.
 
Is this like the scandal caused by him using our relationship with Christ in the Eucharist as an example of a marital relationship?
 
hasikelee said:
Is this like the scandal caused by him using our relationship with Christ in the Eucharist as an example of a marital relationship?
Click to expand...
I think something like that was mentioned in the article:

" The whole concept of the Theology of the Body, as presented by the latest sex-ed gurus, most especially Christopher West, seems to do little more than promote the sacramentalization of sex. It’s ludicrous! Again, it would be good if those who espouse the Theology of the Body (as it is now presented by some “teachers” in today’s Catholic Church) could be more virtuous in both speech and in their writings."
 
puzzleannie said:
I have use his materials that are intended and presented in different formats for marriage preparation or pre-cana, for teens, for college students, for catechist education, and for general faith formation for adults and found them to be uniformly excellent, and more importantly, to accurately present Pope John Paul’s vision and teaching on the topic of the theology of the body in a form readily accessible to those differing audiences. They compare favorably to other resources commonly used in parishes to address these groups.
Click to expand...
The thing is I was going to use them too in my catechetical work,
but in the article this is what disturbed me most:

On Page 93 of Christopher West’s troubling book “Good News About Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching” (Christopher West, Charis Books, Servant Publications, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000), Mr. West presumes to dish out advice on a type of intercourse that’s unnatural even within marriage. I have no intention of quoting the man verbatim since that would constitute yet another scandal. Let it suffice to say that Mr. West teaches there’s nothing “inherently wrong” with this act within marriage so long as it’s used as “foreplay to normal intercourse” even though there are, according to West, “some important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked.”

So I am finding it hard now to promote Christopher West’s work when he writes thing like that.
 
ericcantona71 said:
The thing is I was going to use them too in my catechetical work,
but in the article this is what disturbed me most:

On Page 93 of Christopher West’s troubling book “Good News About Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching” (Christopher West, Charis Books, Servant Publications, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000), Mr. West presumes to dish out advice on a type of intercourse that’s unnatural even within marriage. I have no intention of quoting the man verbatim since that would constitute yet another scandal. Let it suffice to say that Mr. West teaches there’s nothing “inherently wrong” with this act within marriage so long as it’s used as “foreplay to normal intercourse” even though there are, according to West, “some important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked.”

So I am finding it hard now to promote Christopher West’s work when he writes thing like that.
Click to expand...
Actually he is correct. It is morally allowed as foreplay only.
 
On Page 93 of Christopher West’s troubling book “Good News About Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching” (Christopher West, Charis Books, Servant Publications, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000), Mr. West presumes to dish out advice on a type of intercourse that’s unnatural even within marriage. I have no intention of quoting the man verbatim since that would constitute yet another scandal. Let it suffice to say that Mr. West teaches there’s nothing “inherently wrong” with this act within marriage so long as it’s used as “foreplay to normal intercourse” even though there are, according to West, “some important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked.”
Click to expand...
this is not even in the book! i just read the whole page and NO WHERE was this said!
 
ericcantona71 said:
I think something like that was mentioned in the article:

" The whole concept of the Theology of the Body, as presented by the latest sex-ed gurus, most especially Christopher West, seems to do little more than promote the sacramentalization of sex. It’s ludicrous! Again, it would be good if those who espouse the Theology of the Body (as it is now presented by some “teachers” in today’s Catholic Church) could be more virtuous in both speech and in their writings."
Click to expand...
Isn’t marriage a sacrament? :confused:
 
Why scandal because of comparison of the marital embrace to the Eucharist. After all aren’t we taught that marriage is so sacred and unbreakable because it is on the human level a model of Christ’s love and attachment to his Church which he feeds with his own body, blood, soul, and divinity. :confused:
 
rwoehmke said:
Why scandal because of comparison of the marital embrace to the Eucharist. After all aren’t we taught that marriage is so sacred and unbreakable because it is on the human level a model of Christ’s love and attachment to his Church which he feeds with his own body, blood, soul, and divinity. :confused:
Click to expand...
John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society has an excellent talk on this subject as well.

I frankly don’t see what the problem is. I like Christopher West’s books and I think GNAS&M helps laypeople really understand both Theology of the Body as well as the CC’s teachings on marriage and related issues.
 
ChooseLove said:
this is not even in the book! i just read the whole page and NO WHERE was this said!
Click to expand...
Interesting, I was just quoting the article, I hope the author of that article isn’t being naughty, I will have to look at it myself, thanks for the info.
 
i do not have a problem with Christopher West’s writings, but I do have a problem with the Remnant. They do not like quite a few theologians in good standing, among them Scott Hahn.
 
the book “sex and marriage” also has the nihil obstat and imprimatur therefore the book is FREE from doctrinal or moral error.
i personally thought the article was out of content of what the book was actually saying.
 
rwoehmke said:
Why scandal because of comparison of the marital embrace to the Eucharist. After all aren’t we taught that marriage is so sacred and unbreakable because it is on the human level a model of Christ’s love and attachment to his Church which he feeds with his own body, blood, soul, and divinity. :confused:
Click to expand...
One reason may be that some of us grew up at a time when a married couple had to choose between intercourse the night before or Communion the next day. “The Church” may not have officially taught that, but local churches in my part of the country certainly did. Having marital intercourse and the Eucharist compared in these terms is a “culture shock” at least.
 
ThuribleGuy45 said:
One reason may be that some of us grew up at a time when a married couple had to choose between intercourse the night before or Communion the next day. “The Church” may not have officially taught that, but local churches in my part of the country certainly did. Having marital intercourse and the Eucharist compared in these terms is a “culture shock” at least.
Click to expand...
I think that the local ordinary in the “old days” used to exercise more restraint and actually had the right to do so. The Bishop can move Holy days to the following Sunday for example. Fore example, Bishops can reject allowing girls as altar servers. I wonder if this is why many people thought they couldn’t do certain things and it was just thought to be CC teaching. If the local Bishop said we must fast the night before recieving, I wonder if we would be required to do so.
Here’s something else. A bishop doesn’t have to have deacons from what I understand. It is sad, but true I belive. Correct me if I’'m wrong on that.
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
i do not have a problem with Christopher West’s writings, but I do have a problem with the Remnant. They do not like quite a few theologians in good standing, among them Scott Hahn.
Click to expand...
I’m not a big fan of Scott Hahn either. Why is that so wrong?
 
I have no problems with Christopher West’s writings, either. In an age where the sexual revolution has tainted and twisted the sacramental union of man and wife, and with many of us exposed to this wrongful view, Mr. West has presented JPII’s Theology of the Body in a language and manner that many young adults today can relate to, myself included.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top