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

[Pope_Noah_I]

This whole conversation reminds me of “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off”. However, I don’t want to get involved in the debate at hand. I just got out of my anti-sex rut, and so, I want to get to depth of this…

“Pope John Paul II says ‘marital intercourse, next to the Mass, is the most powerful way to combat the devil’”

[insert picture of enraged Al Pacino here]

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in…

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

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.

If I’m not mistaken, married Eastern priests may not engage in sexual activity with their wife 24 hours prior to Sunday Liturgy.

 

[Sunflower15]

Is this like the scandal caused by him using our relationship with Christ in the Eucharist as an example of a marital relationship?

In all my years of Catholic education I heard over and over that the relationship of Christ to the Church is analogous with the relationship between a man & his wife in marriage…
ALL of it…you can’t take the marital act out of marriage and still have a valid, healthy, human and holy marriage…the same as taking the Eucharist out of the Church’s relationship to Our Lord.

I think this view of the marital embrace is out of a dualist view, which has been considered a heresy for centuries now, though it keeps resurfacing every few years. It is important to eradicate this tendency because when followed to its conclusion, it always undermines the human nature of Jesus, and therefore our salvation…since He can only save us by dying and resurrecting, IF He is fully human as well.

God designed humans and marriage…some even see the reason for the separation of God’s image into man & woman at the very beginning, so that we can learn the other lesson, the community that exists within the Godhead of the Father, the Son & their love, the Holy Spirit.
you think of a better human analogy than marriage where the man, the woman & their love [marriage] are as one?

Christopher West is trying to teach people to separate the marital embrace from lust…which is an aberration, the evil mirror-image of healthy natural human desire for union. It is the intent in the heart, not the act, that is unholy.

If you find scandal in West’s teachings…you should stay away from the mystics and their descriptions of the ecstasies that envelop them when contemplating Our Lord! Now, those are racy!

 

[Sunflower15]

In my humble opinion,

If anyone feels a dissonance between marriage and the relationship of Christ to His bride - the Church, maybe thinking backwards will help…[similar to looking at the back of a math book for the right answer & trying to work the problem again…]

Maybe taking a deep look at the Christ - Church relationship in light of the greatest gift of Self [the Eucharist]; and then, taking a look at marriage and working towards that ideal of complete gift of self. If a human completely gives him/herself, the sexuality will have by necessity to come along…or otherwise, we are speaking of a different nature of being, the angelic ones not the humans.

In peace and the love for the Trinity,

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

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.

Scott Hahn has said things that should rightly be questioned such as referring to the Holy Ghost as a “she” as well as some truly novel ideas concerning Adam & Eve, the serpent, and death.

 

[Sunflower15]

Scott Hahn has said things that should rightly be questioned such as referring to the Holy Ghost as a “she” as well as some truly novel ideas concerning Adam & Eve, the serpent, and death.

Well, I’m not sure what he has said about Genesis, but in regards to the HS as “she”…well, we know that the Father is male because Jesus refers to Him as the Father [though Scriptures also refers as the Mother], Jesus is male because He was a man, in terms of the HS, Who is neither…since a spirit has NO gender, but we really don’t want to say “IT” and the English language doesn’t provide a neutral gender that other languages provide, as for example Spanish does.

Therefore, it is equally erroneous to refer to the HS as HE as it is to refer to the HS as SHE…our languages sometimes limit us.

In traditional Jewish mysticism though, there is the “shekinah” which seems to correspond very well to our HS, and they refer to “shekinah” as SHE.

Don’t let small stuff like that bother you, though. Male and Female, He made us, according to His Own Image…

 

[Phemie]

looks like there are 2 copyrights on in 2000 and one in 2004
my book says revised edition, but even still to be that different in what is written, i’d say either it is misquoted or taken out of context of what was written.

I don’t think it’s misquoted. I’ve read in another forum that when the book was revised they changed that segment quite drastically.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Well, I’m not sure what he has said about Genesis, but in regards to the HS as “she”…well, we know that the Father is male because Jesus refers to Him as the Father [though Scriptures also refers as the Mother], Jesus is male because He was a man, in terms of the HS, Who is neither…since a spirit has NO gender, but we really don’t want to say “IT” and the English language doesn’t provide a neutral gender that other languages provide, as for example Spanish does.

Therefore, it is equally erroneous to refer to the HS as HE as it is to refer to the HS as SHE…our languages sometimes limit us.

Jesus: “But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. … But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you” (John, chapter 16).

There’s eleven divinely inspired reasons to believe that the Holy Ghost is a he. Yet in spite of this Scott Hahn persist in claiming that the Holy Ghost is a she.

 

[Shin]

Jesus: “But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. … But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you” (John, chapter 16).

There’s eleven divinely inspired reasons to believe that the Holy Ghost is a he. Yet in spite of this Scott Hahn persist in claiming that the Holy Ghost is a she.

Yes, both Hahn and West have problems.

Not to knock some of the good works Hahn has done, but he has made some serious mistakes too.

And West’s promotion of sodomy and similar sexual sins, as well as his casual approach to impurity and improper understanding of self restraint, are very deep and fundamental problems that should prevent anyone from using his books and work.

It’s called going too far, and that is what West has done on the business he has started supposedly supported by TOB, which is also not some sort of dogma I might add but can only be properly approached in the context of all of Catholicism.

 

[PaulinVA]

Jesus: “But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. … But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you” (John, chapter 16).There’s eleven divinely inspired reasons to believe that the Holy Ghost is a he. Yet in spite of this Scott Hahn persist in claiming that the Holy Ghost is a she.

Uhm, I don’t know that I care one way or another, but to argue your point from an english translation and not from the original is rather pointless. Do your own translation (from the greek?) and explain the use of the pronouns, and then it is useful.

 

[PaulinVA]

Yes, both Hahn and West have problems.

Not to knock some of the good works Hahn has done, but he has made some serious mistakes too.

And West’s promotion of sodomy and similar sexual sins, as well as his casual approach to impurity and improper understanding of self restraint, are very deep and fundamental problems that should prevent anyone from using his books and work.

It’s called going too far, and that is what West has done on the business he has started supposedly supported by TOB, which is also not some sort of dogma I might add but can only be properly approached in the context of all of Catholicism.

Shin, do you have examples where West contradicts the TOB? Actual examples of “the Pope said this, but Christopher West says the opposite?”

 

[Shin]

Shin, do you have examples where West contradicts the TOB? Actual examples of “the Pope said this, but Christopher West says the opposite?”

Sigh. Not immediately on hand, it is my impression from reading about both works and of them. I am rather quite certain if I broke out both books I could find them for you.

But I believe in one of my clearing houses, I threw out the West book, since it disgusted me so much, and so I doubt I can perform this task for you – unless by chance it survived in a box somewhere.

So I suggest, if you have doubts as to the problems in this regard, if you have both books that you read TOB in the light of Catholic tradition in regards to purity and marriage, and -not- West’s interpretations (the links below could help, I believe the book was mentioned in one of the sermons), and then contrast them with West. Or perhaps someone else who has already done this can help you.

This subject is far from my favorite subject so I would hope that would be the case.

 

[PaulinVA]

Sigh. Not immediately on hand, it is my impression from reading about both works and of them. I am rather quite certain if I broke out both books I could find them for you.

But I believe in one of my clearing houses, I threw out the West book, since it disgusted me so much, and so I doubt I can perform this task for you – unless by chance it survived in a box somewhere.

So I suggest, if you have doubts as to the problems in this regard, if you have both books that you read TOB in the light of Catholic tradition in regards to purity and marriage, and -not- West’s interpretations (the links below could help, I believe the book was mentioned in one of the sermons), and then contrast them with West. Or perhaps someone else who has already done this can help you.

This subject is far from my favorite subject so I would hope that would be the case.

No, I have read a few a West’s books, I have heard him speak, and I have read a few of the TOB talks that the Pope gave. I don’t remember anything jumping out at me as West being wrong. I think he is given a little too much credit as an original source, when the source is really Pope John Paul II. West is just a writer, I know that.

I asked because I have no problem with West’s writings and the burden is on those who disagree with him to show why they disagree.

 

[Shin]

No, I have read a few a West’s books, I have heard him speak, and I have read a few of the TOB talks that the Pope gave. I don’t remember anything jumping out at me as West being wrong. I think he is given a little too much credit as an original source, when the source is really Pope John Paul II. West is just a writer, I know that.

I asked because I have no problem with West’s writings and the burden is on those who disagree with him to show why they disagree.

It is difficult to do so when some of what the person says is so sacrilegious it cannot be properly thought about or repeated. In any case, your use of rhetoric in this case is off.

The burden is on each person to find out what is sin and what is not, through the Lord’s guidance.

I have indicated there are serious problems with West, and other threads on this forum will bear that out. If you go look you will find some examples of what you seek, especially if you are willing to take on the necessary perspective to see them. And it has already been demonstrated clearly that he has directly said certain things that are wrong, such as certain sexual positions being permitted as foreplay, which are not permitted at all, as well as taking spiritual matters and describing them in a blasphemously carnal fashion.

These sins are indicative of other likely sins.

For the sake of your soul, it is up to you whether you seek out the answers on this or not. I say this in all charity, your soul is my responsibility only in so far as I am capable of helping you, you are the one who is chiefly responsible. If you take lightly the problems with West, and these problems are mortally sinful matter, it will be on your own head when I have done my duty so far as I am capable of warning you and intervening for you.

I’m not here for debate about West or proving points. I don’t care about that. I care about the souls of people who read this man’s work and fall partly due to it.

And I pray for all who encounter these books.

 

[LJN21]

Hrmm anyone have an issue with West that doesn’t stem from the idea that oral foreplay are morally offensive?

As far as I can tell here we’ve got a bunch of conflicting OPINIONS and no official Church teachings. I must admit after getting married 10 years ago in a traditionalist Church and having discussed this issue then and heard it discussed many times since, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone trying to say that caressing/kissing each other in forplay is remotely problematic.

 

[PaulinVA]

Hrmm anyone have an issue with West that doesn’t stem from the idea that oral foreplay are morally offensive?

As far as I can tell here we’ve got a bunch of conflicting OPINIONS and no official Church teachings. I must admit after getting married 10 years ago in a traditionalist Church and having discussed this issue then and heard it discussed many times since, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone trying to say that caressing/kissing each other in forplay is remotely problematic.

Well, obviously someone needs to introduce you to Ron Conte. From what I can tell, he doesn’t believe in any type of foreplay at all.

About Christopher West - I think that his stark language and sexual imagery at times is off putting, but when you listen to the message, it actually makes sense.

I also think that a number of people mistake anticipation for lust. You can do things to create anticipation that can be misused, but then again, you can also misuse the ultimate act itself. We are dealing with a subject in which people have closely held beliefs that come from their upbringing and their experience. It’s hard to break out of that for some people.