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

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

I wonder if the way Christopher West is presenting these teachings has something to do with being raised in American culture. Thus, for instance, I don’t think appreciating the body in a good way is a problem in some cultures that have been formed by Catholicism such as Italy or France. This can in part be demonstrated by some of the great art that celebrates the body in a good way.

On the other hand, our American culture had its genesis with the Puritans where it seems as if the body seemed to be something just to cover up in drab gray clothing as if it was something bad. And of course I’m not talking about a proper modesty, which is good. A false religion will make for a false culture in every area such as the attitute towards the body and the relations between the sexes (Islam would be another example of this).

So, I cringe at some of the techniques mentioned in the article, such as having everyone “Look at Jim’s body” (I’m a guy, why would I want to do that? And I certainly wouldn’t want any cajoling if it was a woman. However, perhaps Mr. West is reacting in a sometimes improper or suspect way to a legitimagte problem in American culture.

 

[proud2bcatholic]

Christopher West lacks prudence and modesty and thus does Pope John Paul II’s teachings a disservice.

So yes I have an issue with Christopher West and I pray that he cleans up his act.

 

[ericcantona71]

I saw the below in another thread this morning, it concerns me and I am interested in what others have to say (bold and underlining are mine):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=22036

(number 8)

*West addresses anal intercourse in his book Good News about Sex and Marriage, but doesn’t clearly say that it is wrong, which it is.

In Good News About Sex and Marriage West has this to say
5.What about anal sex? P93-94

A husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse. Still, there are some important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked. West then goes on to discuss these health and aesthetic considerations and concludes with

Since anal penetration is in so many ways a parody of vaginal intercourse I’d pose the following question to those who are attracted to it as a form of foreplay: Why not just skip that step with all its health risks and uncleanliness and enjoy the real thing with your spouse as God designed it?

He also indicates that engaged people are allowed to do things that people who are simply dating aren’t allowed to engage in, which is also incorrect.

1. Isn’t there some kind of difference between dating and engaged couples with regard to chastity?P77

…As Fr Paul Quay suggests in his insightful book The Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality: “Those who are engaged, since they are committed to each other, even though not yet fully, have sufficient reason to manifest their love, even by prolonged kissing and embracing … provided, of course, that this leads neither of them into sin [using the other for selfish gratification…]and provided the engagement does not go on forever.”*

 

[Sure]

I wonder if the way Christopher West is presenting these teachings has something to do with being raised in American culture. Thus, for instance, I don’t think appreciating the body in a good way is a problem in some cultures that have been formed by Catholicism such as Italy or France. This can in part be demonstrated by some of the great art that celebrates the body in a good way.

On the other hand, our American culture had its genesis with the Puritans where it seems as if the body seemed to be something just to cover up in drab gray clothing as if it was something bad. And of course I’m not talking about a proper modesty, which is good. A false religion will make for a false culture in every area such as the attitute towards the body and the relations between the sexes (Islam would be another example of this).

So, I cringe at some of the techniques mentioned in the article, such as having everyone “Look at Jim’s body” (I’m a guy, why would I want to do that? And I certainly wouldn’t want any cajoling if it was a woman. However, perhaps Mr. West is reacting in a sometimes improper or suspect way to a legitimagte problem in American culture.

Bingo…our inability to fully grasp the idea of Creation and sexuality is because of our puritan culture.

Fr. Thomas Loya once said to me: “It is nearly impossible to be a Catholic in the United States.” This is because are culture is so based on an incorrect view of the human person. People in our culture sensed that the radical suppression of natural things (sexuality, breastfeeding, natural childbirth, etc.) was wrong. They knew this was not the way man was created. Unfortunately, many of them (Hugh Hefner et al) found an equally untrue meaning of the human person in a culture of “free-love”.

 

[ChooseLove]

I saw the below in another thread this morning, it concerns me and I am interested in what others have to say (bold and underlining are mine):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=22036

(number 8)

*West addresses anal intercourse in his book Good News about Sex and Marriage, but doesn’t clearly say that it is wrong, which it is.

In Good News About Sex and Marriage West has this to say
5.What about anal sex? P93-94

A husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse.* Still, there are some important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked. West then goes on to discuss these health and aesthetic considerations and concludes with

Since anal penetration is in so many ways a parody of vaginal intercourse I’d pose the following question to those who are attracted to it as a form of foreplay: Why not just skip that step with all its health risks and uncleanliness and enjoy the real thing with your spouse as God designed it?

 

[ChooseLove]

I saw the below in another thread this morning, it concerns me and I am interested in what others have to say (bold and underlining are mine):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=22036
(number 8)
West addresses anal intercourse in his book Good News about Sex and Marriage, but doesn’t clearly say that it is wrong, which it is.
In Good News About Sex and Marriage West has this to say
5.What about anal sex? P93-94
A husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse. Still, there are some important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked. West then goes on to discuss these health and aesthetic considerations and concludes with

Since anal penetration is in so many ways a parody of vaginal intercourse I’d pose the following question to those who are attracted to it as a form of foreplay: Why not just skip that step with all its health risks and uncleanliness and enjoy the real thing with your spouse as God designed it?

what book are you getting this from??? mine doesn’t say this… it says this…
What about anal sex?
Again, a husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. What, then, are we to say about anal penetration as a form of foreplay to normal intercourse?
Some might conclude based on a legalistic application of the “so long as it leads to intercourse” principle that anything goes when it comes to foreplay. But spouse who truly love each other aren’t looking to get away with as much as possible efore “breaking the rules”. They’re looking to symbolize and renew their marriage commitment as sincerely as possible.
For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can’t be overlooked. To begin with, the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive organs. Futhermore, since the anus and rectum are simply not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm.
Aesthetically speaking, such behavior involves contact with human waste, which is tolerated when necessary but not something joyful, beautiful., and pleasing. Marital intimacy is meant to be joyful, beautiful, and pleasing to both spouses. Is it truly loving to subject one’s wife the health risks, not to mention the discomfort or even pain associated with such behavior?
Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking, for all of the above reasons it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment."
sounds to me like he is saying don’t do it that way.

 

[ChooseLove]

He also indicates that engaged people are allowed to do things that people who are simply dating aren’t allowed to engage in, which is also incorrect.
9. Isn’t there some kind of difference between dating and engaged couples with regard to chastity?P77
…As Fr Paul Quay suggests in his insightful book The Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality: “Those who are engaged, since they are committed to each other, even though not yet fully, have sufficient reason to manifest their love, even by prolonged kissing and embracing … provided, of course, that this leads neither of them into sin [using the other for selfish gratification…]and provided the engagement does not go on forever.”

again, taken out of the full content of what is in the book. it reads…

“As the Catechism states: “Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence… They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love.” Still, it’s right to recognize a degree of intimacy appropriate for engaged couples that isn’t appropriate for those who are merely ‘dating’.
Remember that physical manifestations of affection are meant to be outward signs that express inward realities. There’s an inward reality present in the hearts of the engaged that isn’t present in the hearts of those who are dating. As Fr. Paul Quay suggests in his insightful book, The Chrisitan Meaning of Human Sexuality: “Those who are engaged, since they are committed to each other, even though not yet fully, have sufficient reason to manifest their love, even by prolonged kissing and embracing… provided, of course, that this leads neither of them into sin [using the other for selfish gratification, for examply], provided they do not get themselves violently overwrought [to the point of climax or temptation to masturbate, for example], and provided the engagement does not go on forever.”
His counsel is clearly not given as a license to push the envelope.”

 

[bilop]

I think Mr. West’s approach is the only one that will work in modern society.

The “old way” of viewing sex as something “dirty” is just not going to fly in a sexually open/debauched society like ours.

On top of that, it’s wrong. Marital sex is a great thing. It’s supposed to be.

We’re not going to win this cultural battle by saying sex is something to be ashamed of.

The only approach that has a chance is to say, “Sex is great and powerful. It is so great and powerful that it must be confined to marriage.”

God Bless

 

[tcraig]

From Moral Theology by Fr. Heribert Jones:

"Imperfect Sodomy, i.e., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted. Excluding the sodomitical intention, it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution. "

So actually, Christopher West discusses anal intercourse between a husband and wife in a much better and more sensititive manner.

TAN Books sells this as a reprint; I believe the original publishing date was in the 1940’s, maybe earlier and it was meant to be a handbook for priests. Many traditional Catholics who continually want to say that JPII or VII taught things contrary to Catholic teaching would do well to buy this book and read it thoroughly. I think the original writer of the Remnant article should, too.

 

[ericcantona71]

what book are you getting this from??? mine doesn’t say this… it says this…
What about anal sex?
Again, a husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. What, then, are we to say about anal penetration as a form of foreplay to normal intercourse?
Some might conclude based on a legalistic application of the “so long as it leads to intercourse” principle that anything goes when it comes to foreplay. But spouse who truly love each other aren’t looking to get away with as much as possible efore “breaking the rules”. They’re looking to symbolize and renew their marriage commitment as sincerely as possible.
For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can’t be overlooked. To begin with, the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive organs. Futhermore, since the anus and rectum are simply not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm.
Aesthetically speaking, such behavior involves contact with human waste, which is tolerated when necessary but not something joyful, beautiful., and pleasing. Marital intimacy is meant to be joyful, beautiful, and pleasing to both spouses. Is it truly loving to subject one’s wife the health risks, not to mention the discomfort or even pain associated with such behavior?
Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking, for all of the above reasons it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment."
sounds to me like he is saying don’t do it that way.

Hey ChooseLove thanks for the info, looks like I am going to get to the bottom of this myself, there seems be a discrepancy(maybe people are quoting from different editions-which have since been revised) and I certainly don’t wont to misquote Christopher West, even if I am quoting from someone else. I am going to borrow a friends copy, as I left my copy back home-abroad, I am studying over here in the US for a bit, so I don’t have an immediate copy. Thanks for looking into it. If you see any other apparent misquotes, please let us know.

God bless:thumbsup:

 

[ChooseLove]

So actually, Christopher West discusses anal intercourse between a husband and wife in a much better and more sensititive manner.

I agree:thumbsup:

 

[saint_rafael]

The Church has always condemned sodomy as an intrinsic evil. Sodomy is mortally sinful even in marriage, it is forbidden.

A blatant error of West is that he sees nothing wrong with oral sex, anal sex as part of foreplay when it leads to the marital act.
He refuses to condem it as objectively wrong in every instance. Anal sex is so sick I don’t know how any Catholic can entertain it.

Oral sex has always been declared by the Church to be wrong in every instance and forbbiden in marriage as a perversion and lust.

 

[wanner47]

The Church has always condemned sodomy as an intrinsic evil. Sodomy is mortally sinful even in marriage, it is forbidden.

Correct, but I think you’re confusing SEX with foreplay.

A blatant error of West is that he sees nothing wrong with oral sex, anal sex as part of foreplay when it leads to the marital act.
He refuses to condem it as objectively wrong in every instance. Anal sex is so sick I don’t know how any Catholic can entertain it.

Again, I think you’re confusing SEX with foreplay. There is a difference between the two. While I agree that it’s distasteful, I don’t think the Church has ever said that anal penetration in foreplay is objectively wrong in every instance. If I am wrong, can you provide a source for this claim?

Oral sex has always been declared by the Church to be wrong in every instance and forbbiden in marriage as a perversion and lust.

Again, source?

The above sounds like your personal opinion, not authoritative Church teaching.

 

[saint_rafael]

Anal Sex has always been described as Sodomy.
The Church has always condemned Sodomy in the catechisms and writings.
The Church has never given permission for sodomy in foreplay.

That anal sex can justified by claiming that it could be done during foreplay is astouding that perversion has become that pervasive in modern thinking. It is not simply distasteful but an abomination.

 

[hasikelee]

The author of the book brought up in this thread sounds similar to the anti-EWTN book that’s been floating around in Pius X circles.

I wonder if those who are unhappy with Christopher West have attended his seminars, or read his materials before making their conclusions. It really is an uplifting and rejuvenating experience to attend his seminar. I can’t recall anything even remotely distasteful or nonCatholic at his seminars, both the ones I’ve attended and the ones I’ve volunteered at.

As has been noted on this thread, it appears that West is being misquoted and taken out of context to support an argument.

 

[wanner47]

Anal Sex has always been described as Sodomy.
The Church has always condemned Sodomy in the catechisms and writings.
The Church has never given permission for sodomy in foreplay.

That anal sex can justified by claiming that it could be done during foreplay is astouding that perversion has become that pervasive in modern thinking. It is not simply distasteful but an abomination.

Here’s what you don’t understand. Anal penetration is not sodomy, nor is it anal sex. I agree that both sodomy and anal sex are abominations. But anal penetration is not sodomy, nor is it anal sex. Both sodomy and anal sex are when ejaculation occurs. That does not happen in the context of foreplay.

A small distinction, perhaps. But it makes a difference.

Can you provide **sources **for your earlier claims as well as the claims in this post? If not, I can only conclude that you cannot back up your statements.

If that is the case, then you shouldn’t state opinions as if they were facts. It is dishonest.

 

[tcraig]

The Church has always condemned sodomy as an intrinsic evil. Sodomy is mortally sinful even in marriage, it is forbidden.

Sodomy between two men resulting in ejaculation* is* intrinsically evil. So you are partially correct. “Imperfect sodomy”, however, as anal sex not resulting in ejaculation, and done as a type of foreplay between a willing husband and a willing wife who will then complete the act with normal vaginal intercourse is not mortally sinful, nor is it forbidden between married partners.

A blatant error of West is that he sees nothing wrong with oral sex, anal sex as part of foreplay when it leads to the marital act. He refuses to condem it as objectively wrong in every instance. Anal sex is so sick I don’t know how any Catholic can entertain it.

I think West was pretty clear that he wasn’t giving two-thumbs-up on anal sex as foreplay. However, it isn’t objectively wrong in every instance, and neither is oral sex. I think West does a good job of separating his opinion from Church teachings - something may on this forum fail to do. And while everyone might have different tastes in the sexual department the question has obviously come up in the past (pre-VII) or there wouldn’t be a Moral Theology handbook for priests that addresses such topics.

Oral sex has always been declared by the Church to be wrong in every instance and forbbiden in marriage as a perversion and lust.

No, it hasn’t. It may not be your cup of tea, but it is morally permissible between a husband and wife as long as the male ejaculates within the female. As others have said, please do not state opinion as fact.

 

[holdencaulfield]

He sounds vaguely heretical and blasphemous.

 

[SilentKnight]

When you quote him out of context and put words in his mouth, yes. He does. As would the Baltimore Catechism, encyclicals of the pope and anything else one wants to twist and turn.



SK

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I had a link to the website of Christopher West on my blog and took it down after I found other writings which provided alternate explanations which did not coincide with West. For example, Fr. Albert Lauer in this online brochure, has a completely different viewpoint on oral sex in marriage than Christopher West.

I have submitted the link above, which carries both imprimatur and nihil obstat to the Ask an Apologist forum, which frequently quotes Christopher West and pleaded that they present Fr. Albert Lauers interpretation of Church teaching on such questions, as well and let Catholics use their conscience as a guide after seeing both explanations. The Church has not specifically addressed this issue which is why there can be diverging opinions. Catholic.com follows that of West and I wish they would consider presenting both sides.

My question to Ask an Apologist was never addressed. In all fairness, it’s possible they did not see it due to volume. This site does like to quote Chris West. I even started a thread in the Marriage and Family section to discuss the very topic above and to find out if others were as uncomfortable as I was, only to find my post deleted shorthly after I put it up. Yet, other threads on oral sex in marriage remained. I never could understand why it was deleted and never got any answers. I was discussing information that is public and carries an imprimatur and nihil obstat.

I believe Fr. Lauer’s position, which is also my pastor’s position, is the purest of all. I just can’t, in good conscience, accept Chris West’s teaching on this particular issue. My conscience followed Fr. Lauers thinking before I ever seen his brochure. I had always been troubled by Chris West’s teaching on this subject and had solace in the fact that I was not alone in that discomfort.

I have wanted to submit a paper to the CDF asking for clarification since there are such divergent viewpoints on the same topic. The Church has not addressed it which is why this is so. It can’t be both, imho but that is up to Holy Mother Church to figure out.

Truth be told, I wish I could reach Chris West and ask him what he thinks about Fr. Lauers teaching on the same subject. I know Chris is a fine Catholic who means well, but it doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong or open to dialogue. However, how do you reach him?

I would like to hear from other moral theologians after they read both viewpoints - that of West and Lauer - on the subject of Oral Sex in Marriage.