Good News About Sex and Marriage...what is the deal with this book?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bingbang
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Manualman, you’re right. I was deceived.

The popes, Christopher West, and other Catholic apologists know full well what the Catholics for most of Church history thought about sex and marriage. They cannot plead ignorance. That makes their actions seem that much more malicious.

But I cannot blame them. I was not deceived by them. I deceived myself. **I allowed myself to be blinded. **

Three years before I converted, when I began to be insterested in Catholicsm, my mom asked me why I was interested in the Church. “This isn’t rational. There’s no rational reason to join the Catholic Church. You’re interested in this because you want this to be true. This appeals to a need you have that isn’t being met.” She was right. As always, my mom knows me far better than I know myself. A part of me, for whatever reason, wanted the Church to be true, enough for me to turn off my capacity to question and to reason. I ignored anything that went against it. When my medieval history professor told our class that there was no historical basis for papal primacy, I brushed it aside. I didn’t bother to investigate it further. When she told us that the concept of marriage being a sacrament was an invention of the High Middle Ages (the period from 1000-1300) I ignored her. I have no one to blame but myself for my present predicament. I had plenty of warnings.

Don’t worry. I won’t leave the Church. I have too much pride. As much as I love my mom, it would be too humiliating to tell her that she was right all along. **I’d rather die than have to swallow that much pride and admit how foolish I was. **

There was a time for studying, questioning, critical thinking, and reason. And that was before my conversion. The second after I entered the Church, it was too late. That time has passed. I’ve made my bed, and now I have to sleep in it. 😦
Lucy… I think you are allowing yourself to become confused.
  1. You are in the right Church…
  2. You are willing to give more credence to a medieval history professor than Pope John Paul ii or Pope Benedict? Not only are they holy…they are incredibly intelligent.
  3. Look at the Gospels…look how often Jesus Himself compares His kingdom to a wedding feast.
 
I keep hearing that this is a good book. Anyone want to reveal some details about it and some of the stuff that it says? I am interested in maybe getting the book but would like to know some of the basics. Anyone who has read the book want to share their thoughts and maybe a small synopsis?
Hi bingbang,

Christopher West’s writing and talks are aimed at helping the people who’ve grown up after the sexual revolution. Often they have great difficulty with the Church’s teaching on sexuality. His style is very open about sex like the present day society is, which can be disturbing for some people who are used to a certain traditional catholic attitude that treats sex as something evil that should not be discussed openly. This is why he has been criticized by some conservatives who really don’t have any need for his work - they aren’t the lost souls that West is reaching out to.

If you already understand 100% of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality don’t have any difficulties with it, it might not be what you need. But for most of today’s Catholics its an excellent resource that tries to explain it in ways that a post-sexual-revolution society can understand.
 
Lucy… I think you are allowing yourself to become confused.
Maybe Or maybe I’m finally allowing myself to think clearly. 🤷
  1. You are in the right Church…
Whether I am or not, I’m stuck now.
  1. You are willing to give more credence to a medieval history professor than Pope John Paul ii or Pope Benedict? Not only are they holy…they are incredibly intelligent.
I **didn’t **give my medieval history professor more credence than Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI. And it was a very stupid decision. I wasn’t Catholic yet. I had no allegience to them. And yet I chose to ignore a woman with whom I had a professional relationship for a year, and instead listen to two men whom I had never met, **and who had every reason in the world to lie! ** How naive could I possibly get? :doh2:
  1. Look at the Gospels…look how often Jesus Himself compares His kingdom to a wedding feast.
The Bible teaches, and has always taught, that marriage is good. That’s why Protestant Christians have always had a high view of marriage. They’ve never taught that marriage was a crutch for weak Christians or that being married decreased your holiness or that married couples couldn’t be holy.

If I hadn’t been so committed to the idea of becoming Catholic, perhaps I could have allowed myself to see that the Church had to “rebrand” its teachings about marriage and sex in order to compete with Protestantism. Talking about how weak and inferior married Christians were and how bad sex was would have been even more devastating to the Church. They could have lost even more members, because there was a competing brand of Christianity that didn’t view married Christians as second class citizens. So they had to change what they taught. If I had allowed myself to think, perhaps I could have seen that. But I had shut off my critical thinking ability.

I won’t leave. But I no longer wish to stay.
 
The Bible teaches, and has always taught, that marriage is good. That’s why Protestant Christians have always had a high view of marriage. They’ve never taught that marriage was a crutch for weak Christians or that being married decreased your holiness or that married couples couldn’t be holy.

If I hadn’t been so committed to the idea of becoming Catholic, perhaps I could have allowed myself to see that the Church had to “rebrand” its teachings about marriage and sex in order to compete with Protestantism. Talking about how weak and inferior married Christians were and how bad sex was would have been even more devastating to the Church. They could have lost even more members, because there was a competing brand of Christianity that didn’t view married Christians as second class citizens. So they had to change what they taught. If I had allowed myself to think, perhaps I could have seen that. But I had shut off my critical thinking ability.

I won’t leave. But I no longer wish to stay.
The irony is, if they had simply stuck with the “we don’t like marriage and we think sex is evil,” as opposed to adopting the more positive Protestant interpretation, I would have respected them. I would never have joined (I would have run for the hills!) but at I could have at least respected them for holding such an unpopular belief, and for being honest about what they believed.

Neil_Anthony talked about the traditional Catholic attitude that sex is evil, and how Christopher West doesn’t adopt that. At least the people in the former group are honest. I can respect that. I don’t agree with it, but I can respect that. The latter just leaves people feeling deceived.
 
Maybe Or maybe I’m finally allowing myself to think clearly. 🤷

Whether I am or not, I’m stuck now.

I **didn’t **give my medieval history professor more credence than Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI. And it was a very stupid decision. I wasn’t Catholic yet. I had no allegience to them. And yet I chose to ignore a woman with whom I had a professional relationship for a year, and instead listen to two men whom I had never met, **and who had every reason in the world to lie! ** How naive could I possibly get? :doh2:

The Bible teaches, and has always taught, that marriage is good. That’s why Protestant Christians have always had a high view of marriage. They’ve never taught that marriage was a crutch for weak Christians or that being married decreased your holiness or that married couples couldn’t be holy.

If I hadn’t been so committed to the idea of becoming Catholic, perhaps I could have allowed myself to see that the Church had to “rebrand” its teachings about marriage and sex in order to compete with Protestantism. Talking about how weak and inferior married Christians were and how bad sex was would have been even more devastating to the Church. They could have lost even more members, because there was a competing brand of Christianity that didn’t view married Christians as second class citizens. So they had to change what they taught. If I had allowed myself to think, perhaps I could have seen that. But I had shut off my critical thinking ability.

I won’t leave. But I no longer wish to stay.
😦 Rather than admit you could be mistaken about your ideas, that you might not have complete understanding of the Church teaching, you say Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have lied. 😦
.
BTW if the
The Bible teaches, and has always taught, that marriage is good
and Protestantism did not exist until the middle ages, and the Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church, perhaps your hypothesis is incorrect?

The celibate Monks who copied and recopied the Bible didn’t read the scriptures over and over? Yet the beauty of marriage remained in the Bible…

I beg to differ about Protestanism and marriage. Anglicanism came about because a certain King could not get divorced. A Saint was martyred in defense of Marriage. 🤷
 
And yet I chose to ignore a woman with whom I had a professional relationship for a year, and instead listen to two men whom I had never met, **and who had every reason in the world to lie! ** How naive could I possibly get? :doh2:

.
You have to take a step back and think about a few things.

The history professor is not a theologian. She is giving you history from a very secular perspective. There is such a thing as secular history and theological history. They are two arms of one discipline.

For example, in secular history we find very little about Jesus of Nazareth. There are suggestions that there was such a man and that he was crucified in Jerusalem. That’s it. However, we do not use that as the criteria to decide that there is no reason to believe in Christ. There is a great deal of theological history that supports not only his existence, but also his identity.

The same thing happens with the Sacrament of Marriage and the other sacraments too. Historically, they are often canonized much later in history. This is a secular historical fact. On the other hand, this does not mean that the faith was not there. In fact, the reason why marriage is canonized as a sacrament at the end of the first millenium is because it had been held and tuaght as such from the time of Christ himself, through Paul and Peter and their followers. Peter and Paul speak at great length about the sanctity of marriage and the roles of spouses toward each other. They elevate marriage to the status of sign of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Anything that is a sign, not symbol, is a proof. This means that it actually does what it says. It sanctifies those who participate in the sign.

The argument about married people being second class citizens in the Church has little or no basis in reality. The real issue was that heretics were attacking the celibate state. The Church came to the defence of the celibate state by redirecting our attention to the writings of Paul who said that this was the highest vocation that one could be called to live.

When Paul says this, he is not reducing married people to second class citizens. He is being very practical. The highest call that God can make to anyone is to live only for him, in intimacy with him, without the mediation of grace that comes through a spouse. Think of it another way. The Office of the Presidency or that of a Monarch is the highest office in a nation. That does not make other people less citizens. But not everyone can be the President, Prime Minister or Monarch. Most peope don’t even want that office. They are not called to it.

As to sex being bad, that has never been the teaching of the Church. The Church has always taught that lust is wrong and she still teaches this. There is a difference between a healthy sexual appetite and lust. Lust seeks its own satisfaction with little concern for the good of the other. Sexuality seeks unity with another person in an intimate relationship. The key word here is “relationship.” That word does not exist in lust.

Relationship and religion come from the same Latin roots “re” and “legare” or in English, “to bind again”. Here is the key. Sexual activity is part of binding, not entertainment.

I’m still a little confused why you believe that John Paul II and Benedict XVI have a reason to lie, lie about what?

The fact that you have never met them is not a requirement to establish their credibility. I never met our Holy Father Francis. He lived and died 800 years ago; but I vowed to live the Gospel according to his rule and his manner until my death. Why? Because his life and work are credible and have never been proven otherwise. He achieved something that I want, great holiness.

When I look at Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI I see two men who have also lived holy lives. What’s there not to want about their lives?

Remaining in the Catholic Church, to avoid proving your mother right, is signing your own spiritual death sentence. One can be in the Church and be in grave spiritual danger. It is not the Church that is putting you in danger, but pride. You have to place distance between you and this pride. You have to get to the point where you allow God to strengthen that faith that you had when you entered the Church.

You know, I have found that part of the process of growing in the spiritual life is going through these peaks and valleys. We often go down in order to bounce to a higher plane of spiritual living. Pray for that gift.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Lucy, it is very easy and convenient to criticize people in situations that we ourselves have never experienced. Haven’t you ever wondered how the Israelites could have been so STUPID to build a golden calf and worship it after God himself had parted the sea and thrown it back down upon their pursuers? DUH!

Haven’t you ever wondered how any human being with the tiniest shred of conscience could believe it acceptable to own a human being as property? Yet this was common in our OWN country less than 200 years ago!

People have an ENORMOUS difficulty seeing objective moral truths undistorted by the culture in which they grew up. This is true of believers as well as unbelievers.

It’s nice and easy to criticize Augustine for his alleged remaining unsanctified opinions about sex and to praise protestant leaders centuries later who arguably had a more developed understanding of the meaning of human sexuality. But those later guys had the BENEFIT of CENTURIES of progress in understanding of the revelation we have been given in the Church (Scripture and Tradition). They stood on the shoulders of the giants who threw off horrifically toxic ideas about sex that once permeated the Roman world not so long after the time of Jesus. Pre-conversion Augustine would have gotten along just fine with Hugh Hefner. Like any of us, our experiences shape our views. Just because he was Augustine doesn’t mean he didn’t have to struggle with his past and his fallen nature!

It is Jesus’ own words that affirm that in marriage it is GOD who joins together a man and wife. It may have taken centuries to comprehend all the implications of that reality, but it happened. And it happened in catholicism independent of protestantism. Your history is, frankly, lacking when you claim there was a change to compete.

What catholicism DOES treasure about celibacy is the free offering of it to God as a sacrifice of something great for something ELSE that is great: the single-minded offering of ones self and LIFE for the service of Christ in His Church. It isn’t the celibacy that makes them holier, it is the freedom that celibacy provides to utterly give oneself to God that enables miraculous feats of service. It’s not the end, it’s a means.

In a certain sense, I do feel that those who have willingly made the sacrifice of celibacy to answer the call are holier than I am. Not because married sex makes me dirty somehow, but because they’ve taken a bigger leap of faith than I have. Intimacy wit God is a lot harder to achieve than intimacy with a spouse. I wouldn’t make it as a priest. I don’t have that gift. But I also recognize that there would be no priests and religious if there were no faithful families raising children. It is not a matter of being second class citizens, it is a matter of realizing that there are a variety of vital roles. Some ARE harder than others, but harder doesn’t mean more important.
 
I feel like some traditionalists see celibacy as something we should all try to attain because of the leftover Gnostic and Greek/Roman view that worldly pleasure is a bad thing. There were many schools of thought at the time that said that worldly pleasure was a bad thing. This was carried on for thousands of years. I even heard that St. Francis would often be invited to eat huge feasts at people’s houses and when they weren’t looking he would sprinkle ashes in his meal so he wouldn’t offend his hosts but also wouldn’t enjoy the meal.

Worldly pleasure shouldn’t be looked at as a bad thing. Jesus did tell the rich man to sell all his belongings but he also was not opposed to drinking and partying on special occasions.
 
I wanted to clarify what I said earlier. Basically, when my prof mentioned that there was no historical evidence for papal primacy or petrine supremacy, I brushed it aside. At no point did I say, “Hmm. Maybe I need to think a little more carefully about this. After all, I know my prof, at least professionally. I’ve never met Pope John Paul II, I’ve just seen him on TV for 30 second bursts. Yeah, he seems holy, but anybody can appear holy for 30 seconds. Plus, my professor isn’t proselytizing. She’s got no motivation to win convets. Maybe I need to slow down and think about this a little more.” I never did that, and in retrospect, that seems a little gullible.
 
I’m also writing to announce that I’m retiring from this thread permanently. I’m also taking a minium 3 month hiatus from CAF. I was talking to my mom two nights ago. She said, “Lucy, you always do this. You get obsessed with finding the answer to something and it becomes an obsession and it drives you mad. I do the same thing. It’s time to stop looking.” She’s right. it’s time to stop looking.

So, thanks to everyone for your help and prayers. 🙂 I’ll remember you in my prayers as well. Good bye.
 
Too bad she’s gone. Sorry if it got a bit intense, a good discussion often does.

To anybody else out there, PLEASE don’t assume your university professor has no bias and no agenda. EVERYBODY is biased. It comes with human nature. Some people try harder than others to be objective, but only God himself is truly objective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top