Marital Foreplay and Sex

[NFP1Kate]

I really like what Father Ford has to say. I think he was really taking on an unpopular topic and he speaks well in his writing.

Havard- My husband is an attorney and does the same things with moral ethics. He can read documents much better than I can and he can always point out where a term wasn’t clarified.

I believe that the Church wants couples to enjoy marital, loving, awesome sex- frequently. I am conflicted by a few things though about the boundaries surrounding that. It seems that sexual moral theology can be traced back to St. Thomas. I am very limited in my knowledge here and I can’t understand his writings for myself.

St. Thomas was against oral sex (if I understood him correctly), so why did the Church dismiss his views on that, but then accept his views on other issues? Was he right or wrong, or how did that come to be?

 

[Kithrus]

I wasn’t making the argument about accidents justify the intended effect.’

My case was that since the body by Gods design allows for night time emissions then maybe seed is not so sacred.

the attitude that only ‘tradition sex and climax during that’ is a tad harsh no? sex is about bonding as much and the act of creation. No one is arguing the main event shouldn’t happen in a happy finish but…

The beans don’t count up when God has a built in release for when you go without for the longest time.

My annoyance with this subject is based mainly on the fact of the misguided ‘succubus/incubus’ tales parents nuns and priest told young aduts to scare them out of wet dreams when they occur.

Now wet dreams are accepted as the norm.

This is not a matter of church doctrine so i feel that its safe for me to push my feels on the matter that as long as couples do as they do within the married bedrooms they own.

 

[Bookcat]

I wasn’t making the argument about accidents justify the intended effect.’

My case was that since the body by Gods design allows for night time emissions then maybe seed is not so sacred.

the attitude that only ‘tradition sex and climax during that’ is a tad harsh no? sex is about bonding as much and the act of creation. No one is arguing the main event shouldn’t happen in a happy finish but…

The beans don’t count up when God has a built in release for when you go without for the longest time…

This is not a matter of church doctrine so i feel that its safe for me to push my feels on the matter that as long as couples do as they do within the married bedrooms they own.

Wet dreams have nothing really to do with this. Involuntary occurrences are very very different than voluntary ones.

It is about the very nature of the the marital act and the grave disorder involved in misusing the sexual faculties.

It IS a matter of Church teaching. Such would be considered masturbation etc.

Certainly climax cannot be sought our consented to outside of the context of the marital act (and proper to each).

 

[twoangels]

I believe that the Church wants couples to enjoy marital, loving, awesome sex- frequently. I am conflicted by a few things though about the boundaries surrounding that. It seems that sexual moral theology can be traced back to St. Thomas. I am very limited in my knowledge here and I can’t understand his writings for myself.

St. Thomas was against oral sex (if I understood him correctly), so why did the Church dismiss his views on that, but then accept his views on other issues? Was he right or wrong, or how did that come to be?

St. Thomas writes very formally. I just found a blog complaining how he is easily misinterpretted to be stating that masturbation is a graver sin than rape.

My reading of St. Thomas Aquinas gives me the general understanding that his entire approach to sexual morality is about keeping sex oriented toward its intended end. The natural end of sexual arousal and desire is the procreative act of intercourse with the man spillig his seed inside of the woman. Thus all of sexuality in this sense is oriented toward attracting people to propogation of the specie. Its a pretty cold view of things and I believe this is where we get into the idea that the Church sees the purpose of sex as merely procreation.

I don’t believe St. Thomas denies the unitive ends of sex, but his writtings seem to leave room for such a denial. This is where JP II’s phenomology really advances us in our understanding of sexuality. Phenomology relies more heavily on the experiences people have. Thus it allows a greater emphasis for the emotional, psychological and spiritual unity that sex brings a married couple. This unifying end compliments the procreative end. It also further emphasises God’s plan for children to be raised by both their parents’ rather than say a tribe of females assisting each other in raising their offspring while the men play almost no role beyond sperm donor in their children’s lives.

I’d say one major difference between Aquinas and JPII is how they evaluate foreplay. In my limited understand, Aquinas doesn’t give an adequate moral criteria for evulating whether you are engaging in lust or sexual love. He rather keeps his focus on “Just do it naturally.” This gives the implication that pleasure needs to be moderated - only so much as you need to engage in the procreative act.

JPII though, because he puts a greater emphasis on the unitive aspect of sex, refines how we understand lust. “Love and Responsibility” is a great book about this. I suppose to summarize his point, its all about whether or not you are using the person or loving the person. It gets more deeply into allowing the act to be what it is rather than rejecting the person due to a desire to avoid the procreative function. Sex is after all oriented toward this, so it would be lust that would motivate you to thwart the function. But JPII’s work seems to allow couples to pleasure each other as much as they want provided that the two subjects are engaging in an mutual action of love, rather than taking turns using each other to sexually gratify themselves.

Another way this I believer diverges is how we define masturbation. A thomastic view of masturbation would be based solely on whether or not the procreative aspect is there. This is why some people interpret Aquinas to claim that masturbation is more gravely evil than rape. With JPII’s philosophy, masturbation is sinful not only because it denies the procreative end of sex, but because it denies the unitive end of sex. You are not uniting with anyone. Your focus can only be inward. As such, it could be said that any sexual act using the other person as a mere stimulation toy is truly using your spouse as a masturbation toy. It doesn’t matter if intercourse is occuring. Because masturbation is more clearly understood in relation to lust, a more clearer understanding can be found that differientates between touch within a sexual encounter with your spouse, and what might occur when you are alone.

This is why the Theology of the Body is seen as one of the greatest doctrial developments i the area of sexual morality. It does not deny any of the truths Aquinas makes. It defines new ways of aquiring an understanding of the natural order of things and it refines ideas that needed refining.

 

[NFP1Kate]

I bought Love & Responsibility yesterday. I haven’t started it yet, I am pretty intimidated by it (although St. Thomas is much more intimating to try and understand).

I will probably be back on the forum with more questions as I work my way through this.

 

[Marybeloved]

St. Thomas writes very formally. I just found a blog complaining how he is easily misinterpretted to be stating that masturbation is a graver sin than rape.

My reading of St. Thomas Aquinas gives me the general understanding that his entire approach to sexual morality is about keeping sex oriented toward its intended end. The natural end of sexual arousal and desire is the procreative act of intercourse with the man spillig his seed inside of the woman. Thus all of sexuality in this sense is oriented toward attracting people to propogation of the specie. Its a pretty cold view of things and I believe this is where we get into the idea that the Church sees the purpose of sex as merely procreation.

I don’t believe St. Thomas denies the unitive ends of sex, but his writtings seem to leave room for such a denial. This is where JP II’s phenomology really advances us in our understanding of sexuality. Phenomology relies more heavily on the experiences people have. Thus it allows a greater emphasis for the emotional, psychological and spiritual unity that sex brings a married couple. This unifying end compliments the procreative end. It also further emphasises God’s plan for children to be raised by both their parents’ rather than say a tribe of females assisting each other in raising their offspring while the men play almost no role beyond sperm donor in their children’s lives.

I’d say one major difference between Aquinas and JPII is how they evaluate foreplay. In my limited understand, Aquinas doesn’t give an adequate moral criteria for evulating whether you are engaging in lust or sexual love. He rather keeps his focus on “Just do it naturally.” This gives the implication that pleasure needs to be moderated - only so much as you need to engage in the procreative act.

I don’t agree with your assessment of St. Thomas. His focus is the moral law rooted in nature and human reason which discovers it, This is the moral law of the church and humanity for all time. I think there’s an assumption that “Do it naturally” misses something- I don’t see how it does, unless we also believe that the designs of nature as God made it are deficient! I find that St. Thomas and Humane Vitae are essentially speaking the same language of the church’s understanding of the moral order- God’s deliberate design in nature, which is the expression of the will of God in nature. To us, obviously, the will of God is the source of all morality. I found a critique of Christopher West’s personal take/interpretation on JP II’s writings (which many Catholics take as though it were coming from the mouth of the Pope himself)- It was by a highly placed moral theologian at the Vatican who accused him essentially of misrepresenting Pope JPII’s teaching by assuming that John Paul II was breaking with or revolutionizing the past teaching of the church. The Pope’s writings are part of the same tradition from which St. Thomas is speaking. Taking it out of that long tradition is doing something akin to what Martin Luther tried to do with his own “revolution” (of taking the scriptures out of the long tradition of the Church from which alone the authentic interpretation of its truths could be made).

 

[Nate13]

I bought Love & Responsibility yesterday. I haven’t started it yet, I am pretty intimidated by it (although St. Thomas is much more intimating to try and understand).

I will probably be back on the forum with more questions as I work my way through this.

Monsignor Vincent M. Walsh created a simplified version of Love and Responsibility if your interested. He takes it apart into paragraphs that all have separate titles that make it so its not long winded and gets you the information you need. It also makes it a lot easier to go back and find things later on, when you want to refer back to something in the book. Love and Responsibility will not give you a direct answer to the question you asked here, but it will give you a better sense of the innate reasoning behind why the Church teaches what it does about sexuality. It really focus’ in on the unitive meaning of sex.

 

[FSGRY]

LOLhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I bought Love & Responsibility yesterday. I haven’t started it yet, I am pretty intimidated by it (although St. Thomas is much more intimating to try and understand).

I will probably be back on the forum with more questions as I work my way through this.

May the Holy Spirit enlighten your mind as you struggle with this.

God bless you.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t agree with your assessment of St. Thomas. His focus is the moral law rooted in nature and human reason which discovers it, This is the moral law of the church and humanity for all time. I think there’s an assumption that “Do it naturally” misses something- I don’t see how it does, unless we also believe that the designs of nature as God made it are deficient! I find that St. Thomas and Humane Vitae are essentially speaking the same language of the church’s understanding of the moral order- God’s deliberate design in nature, which is the expression of the will of God in nature. To us, obviously, the will of God is the source of all morality. I found a critique of Christopher West’s personal take/interpretation on JP II’s writings (which many Catholics take as though it were coming from the mouth of the Pope himself)- It was by a highly placed moral theologian at the Vatican who accused him essentially of misrepresenting Pope JPII’s teaching by assuming that John Paul II was breaking with or revolutionizing the past teaching of the church. The Pope’s writings are part of the same tradition from which St. Thomas is speaking. Taking it out of that long tradition is doing something akin to what Martin Luther tried to do with his own “revolution” (of taking the scriptures out of the long tradition of the Church from which alone the authentic interpretation of its truths could be made).

I think TOB is not meant to be revolutionary, but meant to bring us back to correct teaching following the fallout of dissent after HV.

Pope John Paul II taught similarly as Dietrich Von Hildebrand did in the 1930’s. Father Ford quotes Von Hildebrand, many times in his book, that I mentioned. He wrote in the early 1960’s.

It isn’t that the Church had no teachings on sexuality until JPII or that he changed them, or certain ideas originated with JPII. Or that Popcak, Chistopher west came up with a new teachings that never existed.

I think perhaps that heterodox ideas of human sexuality have broken the time line of orthodox teaching. TOB is putting us back on track.

 

[Marybeloved]

I think TOB is not meant to be revolutionary, but meant to bring us back to correct teaching following the fallout of dissent after HV.

Pope John Paul II taught similarly as Dietrich Von Hildebrand did in the 1930’s. Father Ford quotes Von Hildebrand, many times in his book, that I mentioned. He wrote in the early 1960’s.

It isn’t that the Church had no teachings on sexuality until JPII or that he changed them, or certain ideas originated with JPII. Or that Popcak, Chistopher west came up with a new teachings that never existed.

I think perhaps that heterodox ideas of human sexuality have broken the time line of orthodox teaching. TOB is putting us back on track.

I agree with you 100%. I’m not referring to the actual teachings of the Pope (TOB) as being revolutionary or intended as such (They are not). I’m talking about some of the interpretations that modern writers have given it-like it’s a revolution, as if before TOB the Church was just steeped in prudishness and needed some kind of liberation- which leads to throwing away centuries of Church wisdom as if it needed updating and not even realizing it. By the way, have you read Alice Von Hildebrand’s critique of Popcak and West’s interpretations of the late Pope’s teachings? It’s on the net.

 

[NFP1Kate]

By the way, have you read Alice Von Hildebrand’s critique of Popcak and West’s interpretations of the late Pope’s teachings? It’s on the net.

I have read parts of her critique. She, as I understood her, was pretty unhappy the way they present the teachings. She used the word, vulgar, to describe how they present it. I really like Popcak. I have hesitated to read Christopher West because he was sooooo commercialized (and American, for some reason I can’t seem to believe that an American would have good theology, but that is a biased that doesn’t really make sense, I know).

I think both Popcak and West are speaking to a different audience than Von Hildebrand or her husband spoke to. It is a different era with a different kind or people. To keep the interest of the common American, I think they had to speak in such a *colorful *manner.

 

[mpsguard]

This is her quote from her thread on the Family life forum:

I was always under the belief that intentional climax for either spouse outside intercourse was not permitted either.

Fr. Heribert Jone:
"Apart from the marriage act which the couple cannot or do not desire to perform:
Mutual acts that are sexually stimulating are lawful when done with a just cause (e.g. as a sign of affection) if there is no danger of pollution (orgasm) (even though this should sometimes accidentally follow) or even if there is such danger but there is also a reason justifying the action (e.g. to avert suspicion, to restrain one’s consort from adultery, in obedience to a request).

“What is said of the danger of pollution holds if the acts naturally tend to have such an effect; not, however, if such an effect is only accidental, e.g., on account of the peculiar disposition of a person. Actions apt to result in pollution are grave sins if performed without a just cause; actions unlikely to have this effect would not be more than venially sinful, unless performed with the intention of pollution”.

My take: if OP is doing this to satisfy her husbands request she is permitted to engage in the acts even if they are “apt to result in” orgasm (that request gives her just cause). She is not permitted to intend any resulting orgasm however. If she intends the orgasm, then the act falls into the category of masturbation. If orgasm becomes habitual, then one needs to really take a step back and ask if that’s not the real intended outcome.

Fr Jone also answers the question about a wife’s ability to experience an orgasm without physical union. It must be “immediately before or after coition”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

NFP1Kate
Presently, if I understand you, you are concerned that you are acting sinfully in Phase2. You come across as a dedicated Catholic who takes being obedient to Church teaching seriously - you practise NFP (where many Catholics do not) and now, being told you are acting sinfully, want to find out exactly what the Church has to say about what goes on in the privacy of your bedroom so that you can presumably also be obedient in that regard. You are having some difficulty finding solid ground wrt the latter. Your approach to eliminating this tension of not knowing is well summed up you say “With a great lack of direction in parishes, couples cannot live out their vocations correctly and fruitful.”

As you’ve opened more during this discussion an ambiguity has emerged. That is, you show great maturity and human insight, as others have noted, when you say “I don’t mind completely abstaining during phase 2. If I can’t finish, then I don’t want to start.” But then you later seem to say the opposite “If the intention is purely wanting to be together but refraining from intercourse, can we mess around a lot if we both don’t orgasm? I know that would drive most people crazy, but we like it.”

It seems you have come to the point that you accept that orgasm (male or female) is meant to be in the context of a procreative act and not even unitive purpose of conjugal sex can override that.

So looking at the above a few questions come to mind that it may be beneficial to look at more closely:

(1) Who actually wants so much sexual activity for the whole month, even in Phase 2?

• It starts out looking like your husband with you being the dutiful wife who, left to your own devices, would prefer not to start what cannot be finished.
• However you end up saying “we want to be intimate… I know that would drive most people crazy, but we like it.”
• I may be wrong but I do get an uncomfortable impression you are saying “we” but really mean “he.” “Deeply dishearted” also seems a lot of pressure to put on you (or to put unnecessarily upon yourself).

(2) How would the two of you define “lust.” At times we all have to keep our eating and drinking in moderation, and our legitimate irritations and anger. Sexual desire seems no different in this regard.

• Almost daily desire for ‘action” does seem excessive but maybe I am misreading this impression. When we love people we make sacrifices for them as the daily circumstances of life/nature “ask” that of us. Is abstinence in Phase2 (as would be required in times of sickness, absence etc) an impossibility?
• While the Church teaches that the free giving of conjugal rights to each other is in the nature of marriage I don’t believe that means it has to be in all particular cases/requests. Requests can at times be unreasonable or excessive.

(3) Why the great need for authority, for someone to tell you exactly what is right/wrong?

• As many have noted in different ways, the Church wisely seems to provide the principles and doesn’t get too much into detailed rules in the bedroom. As others have also noted, morality is a personal WIP (work-in-progress) in adult life. We learn mature ethics by doing, seeking info, praying,reflecting and then doing better. Gradually we shape a wise ethical character – we don’t simply learn more and more rules.
• In the end noone can fine tune the details for you. Only you two know what your true intentions are and where, in doubtful mattters, the practical boundaries lie that separate, for example, lust from love.
• “following the rules” is necessary, but noone said it is sufficient. I do not think adults are saved by “not breaking the rules.” That’s lawyer thinking!

(4) Sinfulness?
This is what seemd to spark your quest off - “The last few days I have been told that is sinful.” OK, so what. My father’s temper is sinful and he knows it and he worked on it every day of his life. Are we not in the Church because we know we are sinners who battle daily and need God’s mercy (and each others) NOT because we are (plaster) saints (“I keep the rules”) who have made it.

If at the end of the day you ocassionally find it is impossible to align your situation with Church teaching (and you keep trying your best) then I do not think you are on the outer. If you are then we all are in one way or another.

Sinful acts and mortal culpability are not the same thing. A direct connection between the two requires full intention/freedom, full understanding and “grave matter.” In the context of a loving marriage/NFP, excessive hormones and a desire to do the right thing … well you do the maths.

 

[twoangels]

I don’t agree with your assessment of St. Thomas. His focus is the moral law rooted in nature and human reason which discovers it, This is the moral law of the church and humanity for all time. I think there’s an assumption that “Do it naturally” misses something- I don’t see how it does, unless we also believe that the designs of nature as God made it are deficient!

People disagree with what is natural sexual expression and that is ultimately where most of our arguments lie. People can’t even seem to agree as to what the unitive purpose of sex is. I’ve seen plenty of people on this dismiss what I and many others have seen as the “unitive” part of sex as “No that’s just hormones. That’s artificia.l”

I found a critique of Christopher West’s personal take/interpretation on JP II’s writings (which many Catholics take as though it were coming from the mouth of the Pope himself)- It was by a highly placed moral theologian at the Vatican who accused him essentially of misrepresenting Pope JPII’s teaching by assuming that John Paul II was breaking with or revolutionizing the past teaching of the church.

1. Christopher West is not a theologian. He shouldn’t be held up to the standards of one. 2. All the criticisms I’ve ever heard of Christopher West occured because of an interview he did on 20/20 (I believe it was). 20/20 dumbed down things further than Christopher West does. 3. Regardless of Christopher West, JPII’s work is a theological development, and theological developments do happen. Its important to understand that theological developments do not break with the past. It is much more like a plant that grows and expands.

The Pope’s writings are part of the same tradition from which St. Thomas is speaking. Taking it out of that long tradition is doing something akin to what Martin Luther tried to do with his own “revolution” (of taking the scriptures out of the long tradition of the Church from which alone the authentic interpretation of its truths could be made).

I was not even talking about Christopher West, but my exposure to him tells me that he isn’t saying anything about JPII breaking away with tradition.

 

[rjm54]

In my marriage, I am completely giving myself to my husband because he wants to please me. I don’t see how that is lustful.

I don’t either. But it sounds like a big factor here is your husband’s desire, and reluctance to moderate his behavior accordingly.

I’m in a similar situation: a young husband who finds it far more difficult to get through the abstinence periods than my wife does. Every month I find myself wanting to push things to a level of arousal. And often I do. But it just makes it more difficult. In my case–and many males–arousal without climax causes severe pain in the testicles, so there’s an incentive to avoid it. Even if your husband doesn’t experience that, my guess is that arousal just makes the abstinence periods more difficult.

I admire your study and prayer about this–keep it up. Think about the longterm, too, and not just the questions of immediate urgency. What do you want your relationship and practice of NFP to look like in 5 years, in 10? Wouldn’t it be improved if you could gracefully suffer the abstinence periods with less frustration and a variety of habits and traditions that mark that period as special? If you could set some long-term goals for both of you together–however vague and idealistic–that could help you think about how you want to deal with the immediate difficulties.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Is this really intimacy, or is it merely lust? “As long as we don;t…”

That’s one extreme… “as far as we can take it.”

Is that the approach you want to take? You can, I suppose a lot of people come at Church teachings like that. It’s a shame though, because God wants more for us.

Now, what is the other extreme?

That, to me, is the question - because the apparent opposite to “as far as we can take it,” would seem to be something along the lines of, “let’s abstain altogether and live as brother and sister,” which is also not what we are looking for.

Yet due to the fact that the Church hasn’t been explicit here, those who would strive to follow Catholic teaching to the fullest would seem to be led to the “brother and sister,” option. For you can find theologians (both professional and amateur) at all ends of the spectrum. Thus to live the teaching to the fullest, you are drawn to obey the strictest of sources and those can undermine marital life by taking almost everything and putting it “off the table.”

I pray that the Church be more explicit than it has been to date on such matters.

 

[NFP1Kate]

Blue Horizon
Wow, that was very well thought and said. I really appreciate everything you said.

1. I think some of my comments might contradict others (as in, sometimes my husband initiates sex and I go along for his needs to be met, but then other times I initiate it) Either way, I fully engage in it. I know he means it out of love, and even when I don’t really want to begin, I still end up enjoying it.
2. As far as lust goes…I guess I don’t know how to define it. I didn’t really think a married couple could lust after each other. I started another thread asking that question.
3. This is going to take time and growth. I know I wont be perfect at it. We used to engage in even more mutual masturbation, in which he would climax outside of me. When we found out that was sinful we tried to stop, but it still took time…It became less and less frequent and eventually we didn’t do it at all. A priest told us that NFP is something that is learned, and Confession is always available when we need it. At that time, we didn’t know my orgasm wasn’t allowed, so we continued doing that part.
4. The sinfulness of it makes me feel just terrible. I know I am very imperfect, and I have a long history of sexual mistakes- my first pregnancy was the result of a freshman college dorm. (He is now 6, I did choose life)

I just hope that one day when I meet God face to face, I will be able to tell Him that no matter how sinful I was during my life I never justified my sins. I trusted in Confession and in the Eucharist and I continually sought redemption and graces to overcome them. Sometimes I don’t seem to find the graces, and especially this week, I have lacked them extensively. I pray the rosary and I go to daily Mass once or twice a week. I don’t know why I find chastity so difficult.

 

[NFP1Kate]

I hope CAF wont delete this, but I wanted to share something I wrote the other night after hours of crying and praying for guidance. I have been finding other NFP couples online, and I wrote to them:

*Tonight I am writing you to offer my solidarity in NFP and Catholic family life. I recognize the taboo nature of real Catholic sex in the modern world and how deeply it effects all married couples. There are so few people that understand us…and there are so many people ready and willing to criticize us. From well meaning family, to the medical doctors, and cashiers…everyone has an unwanted opinion on the rules of Catholic sex.

There are few places to turn when we are struggling- Not our liberal Catholic friends, not our lapsed Catholic families, not our devout Protestant neighbors, or our shy and anxious priests. It seems our outlet for discussion is not a willing party, and our very release that is sex is not available to us. Our husbands and wives look away from our intimate advances and we are left alone in the dark of the night wondering why we suffer this at all.

How does anyone make this work?

I confide in you in each and every post, I am here, I am real, I am struggling too. I love NFP and I love my faith. I love my husband and I love my misunderstanding family and friends.** But that does not lessen the intensity of the virtue of chastity** and it does not hold me through the pain. I am here and I offer my Solidarity to you. Through this site you will know that you are not facing this alone. You are one in many that persevere though the frustration. God will supply you with those graces, but you must first ask.

I offer you my solidarity. I know it is not easy, and I know you have struggled as I have. I will pray for you and your spouse, please pray for me and mine.*

 

[Marybeloved]

People disagree with what is natural sexual expression and that is ultimately where most of our arguments lie. People can’t even seem to agree as to what the unitive purpose of sex is. I’ve seen plenty of people on this dismiss what I and many others have seen as the “unitive” part of sex as “No that’s just hormones. That’s artificia.l”

I know that people disagree on a lot. But I have never seen anywhere where St. Thomas is said to be wrong or has had his teaching repudiated in his masterpiece (Summa). Given his authority in Catholic theology and understanding, I would raise my eyebrow at any modern writer who claimed to understand the natural Law better, and would ask what argumentation they used to say St. Thomas was wrong on this teaching. He’s very systematic in his presentation, yes. But his teaching and explanation on what descends from nature is very consistent with the principles of catholic moral Law.

1. Christopher West is not a theologian. He shouldn’t be held up to the standards of one.

Christopher West claims to be presenting the teaching of JPII to millions of lay Catholics. Where others feel he departs from it, they must say so and for the benefit of the millions who look to him as an authority on catholic sexual morality, and theologians are best suited to do this given their knowledge of Catholic teaching, past and present.

1. All the criticisms I’ve ever heard of Christopher West occured because of an interview he did on 20/20 (I believe it was). 20/20 dumbed down things further than Christopher West does.

Since these critiques are directed at his works, I don’t really see how the fact that many began after the interview diminishes them in any way. They are not just criticizing what he said in the interview but what he says in his books too.

1. Regardless of Christopher West, JPII’s work is a theological development, and theological developments do happen. Its important to understand that theological developments do not break with the past. It is much more like a plant that grows and expands.

Yes, but whose developments are we talking about? JPII’s or West’s? Theological developments do not break with the past but there’s an underlying notion behind West (per these experts) that seriously departs from tradition and is no-where found in JPII’s own works, which diminishes the effects of concupiscence in human nature and sees sex as the end of love rather than the opposite and gives it an overwhelming importance in human life beyond its place in the traditional teaching. It assumes almost like Protestants that human nature is already redeemed in Christ and does not suffer from concupiscence and the need for asceticism and other-self restraints and equates catholic modesty with prudishness.

I was not even talking about Christopher West, but my exposure to him tells me that he isn’t saying anything about JPII breaking away with tradition.

Well, these are the greatest minds in the Church who study John Paul II’s works and Our moral theology of 2,000 years and are highly regarded and consulted by Our top hierarchy in Rome. I wouldn’t dismiss their critique so easily.