Just How Authoritative Is Christopher West on Matters of Sexual Morality?

[Mary_ann_R]

No answer then…that’s what I expected. You don’t know. Thanks for your enlightenment.

Can anyone else out there answer my questions about foreplay? Is none allowed at all? What is allowable for a Catholic? How can couples help each other in the marital embrace with issues of feminine dryness or a slow male erectile response?

rlg ~ My husband and I use NFP, which was presented to us during pre-cana and citing the information on the phamplet from the Couple to Couple League…“Fellatio and cunnilingus are not condemned as part of foreplay to completed genital-genital intercourse, but they sould not occur out of the context…”
Nihil obstat
Imprimatur - Archdiocese of Cincinnati

 

[rlg94086]

rlg ~ My husband and I use NFP, which was presented to us during pre-cana and citing the information on the phamplet from the Couple to Couple League…“Fellatio and cunnilingus are not condemned as part of foreplay to completed genital-genital intercourse, but they sould not occur out of the context…”
Nihil obstat
Imprimatur - Archdiocese of Cincinnati

My wife and I use NFP, as well, and that is our understanding. West gives a good warning that goes with it, as I mentioned in another post. If they are not used for the purpose of lustful pleasure, then it is licit in my understanding.

 

[Mary_ann_R]

rlg94086;3061418]My wife and I use NFP, as well, and that is our understanding. West gives a good warning that goes with it, as I mentioned in another post. If they are not used for the purpose of lustful pleasure, then it is licit in my understanding.

That is our understanding, also. I like Christopher West, by the way.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically evil. Such acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstance. This is the clear and unequivocal teaching of the Church on morality. It is in the Catechism. It is in Veritatis Splendor.

Now concerning sexual acts, the Church does teach that certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral. This too is indisputable.

But West and others, ignoring that these acts are intrinsically evil, teach that these acts can be done in certain circumstances or for certain purposes. This position clearly contradicts the teaching that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.

If an act is intrinsically evil by itself, then even if you combine it with another act, it is still immoral, or even it you do it for another purpose, it is still immoral, or even if you do it only partially, and then continue on to a moral act, it is still immoral. An intrinsically evil act, used as foreplay prior to a moral act, does not make the former act moral. Nor can such acts become moral when used for a particular purpose, even if that purpose is moral.

“each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11).

One cannot perform, or partially perform, an act not intrinsically related to procreation, and then combine it with a moral act in order to justify it. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.

West’s teaching is popular, but it is not consonant with the basic moral teachings of the Church. And I’ve never found anything in Pope John Paul II’s writings that would justify West’s position (which he disingenuously attributes to John Paul).

Some quotes from Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor:

The Church has always taught that one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness” (Mt 19:17-18).

…it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general

1. In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”.134

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.

1. Furthermore, an intention is good when it has as its aim the true good of the person in view of his ultimate end. But acts whose object is “not capable of being ordered” to God and “unworthy of the human person” are always and in every case in conflict with that good. Consequently, respect for norms which prohibit such acts and oblige semper et pro semper, that is, without any exception, not only does not inhibit a good intention, but actually represents its basic expression.

 

[rlg94086]

Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically evil. Such acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstance. This is the clear and unequivocal teaching of the Church on morality. It is in the Catechism. It is in Veritatis Splendor.

Now concerning sexual acts, the Church does teach that certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral. This too is indisputable.

But West and others, ignoring that these acts are intrinsically evil, teach that these acts can be done in certain circumstances or for certain purposes. This position clearly contradicts the teaching that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.

If an act is intrinsically evil by itself, then even if you combine it with another act, it is still immoral, or even it you do it for another purpose, it is still immoral, or even if you do it only partially, and then continue on to a moral act, it is still immoral. An intrinsically evil act, used as foreplay prior to a moral act, does not make the former act moral. Nor can such acts become moral when used for a particular purpose, even if that purpose is moral.

“each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11).

One cannot perform, or partially perform, an act not intrinsically related to procreation, and then combine it with a moral act in order to justify it. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.

West’s teaching is popular, but it is not consonant with the basic moral teachings of the Church. And I’ve never found anything in Pope John Paul II’s writings that would justify West’s position (which he disingenuously attributes to John Paul).

Some quotes from Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor:

The Church has always taught that one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness” (Mt 19:17-18).

…it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general

1. In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”.134

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.

1. Furthermore, an intention is good when it has as its aim the true good of the person in view of his ultimate end. But acts whose object is “not capable of being ordered” to God and “unworthy of the human person” are always and in every case in conflict with that good. Consequently, respect for norms which prohibit such acts and oblige semper et pro semper, that is, without any exception, not only does not inhibit a good intention, but actually represents its basic expression.

I think your understanding of Humanae Vitae is flawed.

Is kissing allowed? Does it have an “intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life?” In the same manner that I believe kissing is okay, contact with the genitals, either by hand or mouth are licit. Or, are you saying that all foreplay is evil? Men are to just force themselves on their wives, no matter what the discomfort? I find that contrary to the teachings of John Paul II.

Who is teaching you this? Do you have any citations from a document with a *Nihil obstat *or Imprimatur, or is it just your personal opinion?

 

[Mary_ann_R]

DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith​

PERSONA HUMANA

IX

The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self (“ipsation”), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.

This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church—in the course of a constant tradition—and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19] The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty** outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."**

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFCERTN.HTM

 

[blessedtoo]

Is kissing allowed? Does it have an “intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life?” In the same manner that I believe kissing is okay, contact with the genitals, either by hand or mouth are licit. Or, are you saying that all foreplay is evil? Men are to just force themselves on their wives, no matter what the discomfort? I find that contrary to the teachings of John Paul II.

Who is teaching you this? Do you have any citations from a document with a *Nihil obstat *or Imprimatur, or is it just your personal opinion?

rlg, obviously kissing is not an instrinsically immoral act. Kissing, hugging, carressing, etc., - acts of affection such as these do not fall under the categories of masturbation or sodomy, acts that we all can agree are considered disordered.

I did post a link with a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.
presentationministries.com/brochures/OralSex.asp

 

[rlg94086]

rlg, obviously kissing is not an instrinsically immoral act. Kissing, hugging, carressing, etc., - acts of affection such as these do not fall under the categories of masturbation or sodomy, acts that we all can agree are considered disordered.

I did post a link with a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.
presentationministries.com/brochures/OralSex.asp

The provided link doesn’t post anything contrary to Church teaching, which is a valid reason for a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. However, he doesn’t make definitive statements, and I would posit that his assumptions are wrong.

Second, I have been asked to counsel over a hundred married couples about oral sex as foreplay. After some time of discernment, not one has maintained that oral sex was a true expression of love. The motivation behind oral sex is often lust. The spouse is not the focus of the sexual foreplay; rather, sexual stimulation is the focus. It could almost be said that one spouse is having sex with sex rather than with the other spouse. This focus on sex rather than on the spouse is a poison to love and marriage.

I agree that it “often” is…and when it is, that would be a sin. However, brief oral stimulation as foreplay for the conjugal act may not be lustful, and in those cases it is okay.

 

[Chancellare]

My opinion is that the ‘object’ of oral stimulation is immoral even though the ‘intention’ of the spouses is to eventually consummate what they have started.

Hold it, please.

Where is it in the CCC that says spouses stimulating each other prior to vaginal intercourse constitutes an immoral act?

Where is it in the CCC that defines “oral stimulation between husband and wife” equals “oral sex”?

I did not see oral stimulation mentioned in any of the provisions between articles 1756 and 1761 which mention acts that are intrinsically immoral.

Is it logical to force-classify all oral stimulation as lumped together as oral sex?

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

***My opinion ***is that the ‘object’ of oral stimulation is immoral even though the ‘intention’ of the spouses is to eventually consummate what they have started.

Unlike the heart surgery example, where one act required another, vaginal intercourse does not require that the couple perform various different acts involving their genitalia which are not pro-creative before they consummate them in an act that is.

Since vaginal intercourse does not require oral stimulation as a need for heart surgery requires the incision in the chest then they really can’t be compared in the way you have compared them.

Vaginal intercourse does not require hugging, kissing, petting talking, laughing, removing all the clothes. Does that mean that these things should not be done either?

The whole purpose of the marital act is to give yourself completely to your spouse; heart mind body and soul, so much so that the self donation of both spouses can result in a new life being created. Pope JPII said in “Love and Responsibility” that the spouses should aim to climax together in the marital act. Because this helps to stop the act becoming selfish, and is a fuller sign of love and unity within the sacrament.

This being said some people are arosed very easily; others are not. What should be done if these two types of people are married to each other? How are they to achieve simultaneous climax without foreplay that stimulates at least one of them?

Don’t get me wrong, I do agree that there are many acts which some married (Catholics) get involved in that are contrary to self donation and pure love. :yup:
But I do not agree that ***all ***contact with the genitals of your spouse except for vaginal intercourse is sinful. :nope:

 

[rpp]

I think some of the people posting here who reject any type of oral or manual stimulation must be very young. Those who are older know that it takes a bit more for older people, men and women, to “ramp-up” as it were, for normal vaginal sex to be physically possible. Also, if a the woman is not sufficiently stimulated prior to the marital embrace, it is quite unlikely, due to the different patterns of male vs. female excitation, that the woman will be satisfied. The result is that much of the unitive effect is lost.

Masturbation, like all sin, is more than just an act, it requires intent. Spouses stimulating one another for the purpose of proper and normal (that is reproductive) intimate contact is morally acceptable. While no one says you must to do it, when you get older, you will figure it out.

 

[rlg94086]

I think some of the people posting here who reject any type of oral or manual stimulation must be very young. Those who are older know that it takes a bit more for older people, men and women, to “ramp-up” as it were, for normal vaginal sex to be physically possible. Also, if a the woman is not sufficiently stimulated prior to the marital embrace, it is quite unlikely, due to the different patterns of male vs. female excitation, that the woman will be satisfied. The result is that much of the unitive effect is lost.

Masturbation, like all sin, is more than just an act, it requires intent. Spouses stimulating one another for the purpose of proper and normal (that is reproductive) intimate contact is morally acceptable. While no one says you must to do it, when you get older, you will figure it out.

This is what I was getting at…thank you for your tactful and succinct description. If the stimulation is part of the self-giving leading up to the conjugal act, then I think it is a good thing…and I’m not that old…I don’t think…depends on your perspective I guess.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.