Strong arguments against Christopher West's marriage/sexuality books

[underacloud]

I can’t speak for how other Catholics were taught conscience formation… but I was raised by a vocational Catechist in a traditional Catholic home and developing the virtues was the most significant aspect in conscience formation and moral discernment.

You missed my point entirely.

Yes, of course conscience formation and the vitures are important.

What is arrogant on your part is to suggest that a person who is advanced in conscience formation and the virtues will naturally hold your position on this matter.

Such an attitude has no place in a reasoned debate on the topic. It is, to be blunt, rude.

 

[LongingSoul]

No one has said anything like “if the Church hasn’t spoken on it then it is permissable”.

What has been said, directly or implicitly, is that when the Church has no direct teaching, we look to the opinion of moral theologians who apply established Church teaching to the matters at hand, and see what opinions they hold. We rely on them to guide us, and their opinions are often directly or implicitly stated through our bishops or other leaders.

But what about when there are differing views among theologians? Well, in this case people rightly cite the old adage: “in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity” (an old saying quoted by Pope John XXIII in Aa Petri Cathedram).

So, in doubtful matters, there is liberty. With strong opinion on either side, help by repected theologians on either side, this matter is certainly doubtful.

The only theologian cited that comments on the act of anal penetration as foreplay, is Fr Jone. This is a guide for Priests of his time and was re issued at least 13 times during his life. It’s a document that is never cited or referred to in any other official Church teachings on the morality of sexual acts and we can know that Fr Jone is addressing a particular type of penitant in a particular era by other situations he addresses like the indecent touching of animals so long as they aren’t brought to ‘pollution’. So we don’t have an act that has great swathes of theologians arguing each side.

Valid point - The prevalence of masturbatory and non procreative sex acts among the young is significant and to continue to cite theory regarding these practices as foreplay within marriage as a positive and workable moral Catholic option… without actually citing the high likelihood of ‘accidental’ or ‘spontaneous’ unnatural completion of these acts due to physiological factors… is just so deceptive and ignorant and a curse on the young coming through.

As Aquinas says “divine law presupposes natural law” and people by reason can know good from evil and discern the morality of acts through thier submission and obedience to the natural tenets of the law. This whole process of discernment depends of developing the virtues. Having done the spiritual exercises of St Ignatius and continuing to see my spiritual director for over 3 years… I value the development of virtues as equal to my obedience to the letter of the law.

 

[LongingSoul]

You missed my point entirely.

Yes, of course conscience formation and the vitures are important.

What is arrogant on your part is to suggest that a person who is advanced in conscience formation and the virtues will naturally hold your position on this matter.

Such an attitude has no place in a reasoned debate on the topic. It is, to be blunt, rude.

That’s your skewed impression of my post.

 

[thewanderer]

The only theologian cited that comments on the act of anal penetration as foreplay, is Fr Jone. This is a guide for Priests of his time and was re issued at least 13 times during his life. It’s a document that is never cited or referred to in any other official Church teachings on the morality of sexual acts and we can know that Fr Jone is addressing a particular type of penitant in a particular era by other situations he addresses like the indecent touching of animals so long as they aren’t brought to ‘pollution’. So we don’t have an act that has great swathes of theologians arguing each side.

Valid point - The prevalence of masturbatory and non procreative sex acts among the young is significant and to continue to cite theory regarding these practices as foreplay within marriage as a positive and workable moral Catholic option… without actually citing the high likelihood of ‘accidental’ or ‘spontaneous’ unnatural completion of these acts due to physiological factors… is just so deceptive and ignorant and a curse on the young coming through.

As Aquinas says “divine law presupposes natural law” and people by reason can know good from evil and discern the morality of acts through thier submission and obedience to the natural tenets of the law. This whole process of discernment depends of developing the virtues. Having done the spiritual exercises of St Ignatius and continuing to see my spiritual director for over 3 years… I value the development of virtues as equal to my obedience to the letter of the law.

Fr. Jones is not the only moral theologian to hold such an opinion.

From the link to Janet Smith’s response to the original article

The fact is the Church does not have a formal teaching about the morality of such an action. And not because it is an issue that has not been discussed; if it were obviously wrong, one would think it would be easy enough for the Church to say so – or at least to stop giving imprimaturs to books that teach what West stated. Moral theologians for centuries have debated the issue, and respected theologians whose books have received imprimaturs have argued both sides of the issue. For instance, in the 1912 edition of Theologia Moralis, Editio Nova by St. Alphonsus Liguori (written in 1748), we read this question: “Whether a man sins mortally by beginning intercourse in the posterior receptacle (the anus), so as to consummate it afterwards in the appropriate receptacle (the vagina)?” The answer given to that question is: “[Various theologians] deny it is a mortal sin as long as there is no danger of pollution [ejaculation outside of the vagina] because all other touches (as they say), even if sexual, are not gravely illicit among spouses. But it is more generally and truly affirmed [to be a mortal sin] by [various theologians], because coitus itself of this kind (even if without insemination) is true sodomy, although not consummated, just as copulation in the natural vessel of another woman is true fornication, even if insemination does not take place.”[1] Liguori supports the view of those who argue that anal penetration as foreplay is a mortal sin.

But St. Alphonsus’ view did not settle the debate. Over the centuries, theologians continued to teach both opinions. Gerald Kelly, S.J. and John Ford, S.J. who were strong defenders of the Church’s teaching on sexual matters, counseled for caution against letting one’s own sexual sensitivities determine moral judgment. As Kelly and Ford state: “Practices such as these are repugnant and shocking to a great many people, and intolerable to some, but their morality cannot be decided on the basis of emotional reactions which, though normal, are apparently not universal. People differ very widely in their estimates of what is shameful or disgusting in sexual matters, these differences being the result of differing cultural backgrounds, family attitudes, sexual education, natural temperament, and other factors.” [2]

 

[thewanderer]

That’s your skewed impression of my post.

Then hopefully you can clarify because that is also the impression I received from your post.

Do you believe that if a person is holy enough they will see that anal foreplay is immoral, yes or no?

 

[underacloud]

This is a guide for Priests of his time and was re issued at least 13 times during his life.

Re issued at least 13 times?

Wow, I didn’t know his work was *that highly regarded *that they kept asking him for more of it!

 

[LongingSoul]

Then hopefully you can clarify because that is also the impression I received from your post.

Do you believe that if a person is holy enough they will see that anal foreplay is immoral, yes or no?

My strong sense is that yes, that anal sex regardless of whether ejaculation happens there or not, is sodomy. The simulation of an unnatural act even when it includes the relatively unlikely pause for a cleanup and restart naturally in the vagina, is an expression contradicting the natural process.

However, my address above was in response to this couple of posts…

Originally Posted by Loki(name removed by moderator)
Hmm… If something is licit, then I dont see why it would be immoral and not permissible. Just MHO, of course.

That is implying that any discernment has nothing to do with moral discernment, only with personal taste and preference. I think that that as a Catholic attitude does our youth and the following generations a great disservice. It does not serve the already degraded state of women as objects. Catholics used to be esteemed for high moral standards and contributed to the positive mores of the culture. Now we have Catholics here who are happy to encourage the most minimal moral standard that can possible be squeaked past. 'Tis a shame I think.

 

[LongingSoul]

Re issued at least 13 times?

Wow, I didn’t know his work was *that highly regarded *that they kept asking him for more of it!

Ha. No he kept revising it to address the different issues that popped up at the time like the wars etc.

 

[underacloud]

This whole process of discernment depends of developing the virtues. Having done the spiritual exercises of St Ignatius and continuing to see my spiritual director for over 3 years… I value the development of virtues as equal to my obedience to the letter of the law.

I do not wish to extend this already tired conversation, but it would be remiss to let this comment pass without making one important observation, since you raise spiritual direction for your cause.

The book by Jone was for the specific purposes of confession and spiritual direction. Thus, a person who was seeking to grow in virtue and was meeting regularly with a spiritual director, who used Jone’s book as a reference, would have been assured that anal foreplay was not inherently sinful, had that topic been raised.

 

[pepipop]

That is so true for most sins. The more quieted and devoted to prayer, penance and desiring to do God’s will we grow… the more repulsive our sinful acts become to us. That is why concepts like chastity don’t need to defined in minute detail for us. We are all capable of appreciating the subtle erosion of sin. That is why Christopher West missed the mark in addressing this issue. The Church normally addresses these intimate things by steering the heart and mind towards the virtues that lead to awareness. Things like humility, kindness, patience, dilligence prudence, justice, self control, courage, faith, hope and charity. Practicing these virtues turns everything we do into a prayer and innocence before God.

 

[LokisMom]

You missed my point entirely.

Yes, of course conscience formation and the vitures are important.

What is arrogant on your part is to suggest that a person who is advanced in conscience formation and the virtues will naturally hold your position on this matter.

Such an attitude has no place in a reasoned debate on the topic. It is, to be blunt, rude.

Agreed.

 

[LokisMom]

That is implying that any discernment has nothing to do with moral discernment, only with personal taste and preference. I think that that as a Catholic attitude does our youth and the following generations a great disservice. It does not serve the already degraded state of women as objects. Catholics used to be esteemed for high moral standards and contributed to the positive mores of the culture. Now we have Catholics here who are happy to encourage the most minimal moral standard that can possible be squeaked past. 'Tis a shame I think.

No my position is not that at all.

I was coming from a place where, given all the sources I’ve seen, and given what I know about Church teaching on sexuality, I had ALREADY established that this act is not a sinful act, in my opinion. So if an act is not a sinful act, in and of itself, then the next step to figuring out if it’s something a couple should do is to see if it’s something they can do with each other’s best care at heart, and if it’s something they would both enjoy and be comfortable with.

The fact that I said it’s not a sinful act in my opinion, shows that I have already established the morality of it. So I’m not sure why you’re saying that I’m treating this on the basis of enjoyment alone rather than on the basis of morality. It makes absolutely 0 sense, Im sorry.

 

[LokisMom]

Also, LongingSoul, you keep saying that whoever does not hold your position on this issue (the position that it is immoral to have anal foreplay), does not have a well formed conscience, does not have a good enough understanding of the faith, is not holy enough, etc etc…

And then when underacloud called you out on that, you denied it and said he had a skewed perception of your posts… but then when thewanderer asked you point blank “Do you believe that if a person is holy enough they will see that anal foreplay is immoral, yes or no?” Your answer was YES.

So Im having a very hard time understanding what exactly it is you are saying.

And one more thing, Id still like to see your explanation of why Jone’s book is one of the most regarded moral theology works of the Catholic Church in the whole 20th century, if he says something is licit when it (according to you) absolutely is not, and when you believe people who say so are not holy enough and not knowledgeable enough of the faith.

You’ve said things to downplay or misrepresent what Jones actually said, claiming it was different at the time, or claiming he wrote that for priests and priests would already know that it actually IS immoral, so therefore he wrote that it is moral assuming priests would actually know it isn’t and be able to tell that to the person in the confessional… or something??

I’m sorry, but once again, I’m just not even seeing or understanding where you are on this, and am having a very hard time making sense of what youre saying here in this thread.

 

[LokisMom]

LongingSoul, you’re one of my favorite people on CAF, and you’re a good, intelligent person.

That is why I just don’t understand why you seem to be having such a hard time grasping the truth, and the truth is this:

The Church has not spoken on the morality of this act.
Therefore, it is open for individuals to discern, study the Church’s position on sexual morality, and come up with their own well formed opinion on the morality of this act.

You may believe it is an illicit act.
And as has been made evident by the imprimatur and high regard of Jone’s work, I may believe it is a licit act.

So what exactly is the problem here? Seems very simple, cut, and dry. So this whole conversation is really boggling my mind.

 

[pepipop]

Another Catholic priest’s viewpoint, in addition to his answer in relation to an earlier CAF thread, on this subject. The catechism too, would seem to back his views.

*CCC 2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm

So my answer to the above question is that neither the intention (purpose) to use an act as foreplay, nor any circumstances whatsoever, can justify a sexual act that is intrinsically evil. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil due to the deprivation of the procreative and unitive meanings. And the presence or absence of sexual climax does not change the moral object. An unnatural sexual act with sexual climax has the same evil moral object as an unnatural sexual act without sexual climax. The moral object has not changed, and so the moral nature of the act has not changed; it remains intrinsically evil. Therefore, no type of unnatural sexual act, with or without climax, can be used by a married couple at any time, regardless of whether or when an act of natural marital relations occurs.

All non-marital sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. All non-unitive sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. All non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

The answer of Catholic priests:
(updated 11 July 2012)

A similar question was asked, in Catholic Answers discussion group (forums.catholic-questions.org), as to whether “Anything goes within the marriage act as long as the seed goes in the right place.”

Fr. John Gow answered as follows:
“I have always taught that it is wrong. That part of the body is not meant for that. Sure, it might be physically possible and/or enjoyable, but it is not what makes the sexual act unitive. It is wrong to think that as long as a person concludes the sexual act in the appropriate place that they were justified in doing x, y, and z (which were non-unitive) before that conclusion happened. In the conjugal act, the husband and wife completely give the gift of themselves to each other. Part of that is their gift of fertility, the potentiality of new life. My argument has always been that the sexual act is one act and that there should always be the unitive and procreative elements present; once either of them are taken away from the act itself, the nature of that sexual act has changed.”*

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No my position is nnt that at all.

I was coming from a place where, given all the sources I’ve seen, and given what I know about Church teaching on sexuality, I had ALREADY established that this act is not a sinful act, in my opinion. So if an act is not a sinful act, in and of itself, then the next step to figuring out if it’s something a couple should do is to see if it’s something they can do with each other’s best care at heart, and if it’s something they would both enjoy and be comfortable with.

The fact that I said it’s not a sinful act in my opinion, shows that I have already established the morality of it. So I’m not sure why you’re saying that I’m treating this on the basis of enjoyment alone rather than on the basis of morality. It makes absolutely 0 sense, Im sorry.

1. Jone only discussed how it was not the sin of “pollution”.
2. The factors having to do with hygiene, pain, injury, contamination, or infection were not addressed in that 1 quote.
3. These factors WERE considered by Christopher West, Greg Popcak, and John Kippley. All of them state that these issues preclude the activity from being licit.

You seem to think the "pollution ’ part being not a sin, that the whole kit and kaboodle is just fine. You are excluding all the other issues. Is it moral to subject one’s spouse or one’s self to pain, infection,injury and contamination? Would disregard for those factors be lustful?

I don’t see how that disregard is prudent, or loving.

 

[PaulinVA]

Okay, here is a scenario:

Husband or wife is talking about this thread to his/her heterosexual spouse. They discuss it. Together, they decide to see what all the fuss is about. They purchase the requisite supplies and give it a go. They are sure to end the session the correct way.

According to the references stated, Jone, et al, this couple has not sinned.

The rest of these arguments are over intent and submission and ick factor and health and other issues other than the morality of the actual (non-completed) act. That discussion is good, but the actual act seems to be settled in terms of whether it is sinful or not.

 

[newf]

Honestly, I think the most disheartening thing about this thread is the fact that we have many decent Catholics here arguing in FAVOR of sodomy, which is really just sickening. And it shows how far our culture has fallen.

I recommend we open our hearts and read over the posts again from Longing Soul, she does an excellent job explaining truth.

 

[LokisMom]

1. Jone only discussed how it was not the sin of “pollution”.
2. The factors having to do with hygiene, pain, injury, contamination, or infection were not addressed in that 1 quote.
3. These factors WERE considered by Christopher West, Greg Popcak, and John Kippley. All of them state that these issues preclude the activity from being licit.

You seem to think the "pollution ’ part being not a sin, that the whole kit and kaboodle is just fine. You are excluding all the other issues. Is it moral to subject one’s spouse or one’s self to pain, infection,injury and contamination? Would disregard for those factors be lustful?

I don’t see how that disregard is prudent, or loving.

…And Ive repeated multiple times that of course, great care MUST be taken for the other person. It must be mutually enjoyable, mutually self giving, etc etc. There are precautions that can and should be taken for all those things you list above, and I have repeated this multiple times.

I’ve written whole posts dedicated to the issues of pain and hygiene/infections.

 

[LokisMom]

1. Jone only discussed how it was not the sin of “pollution”.
2. The factors having to do with hygiene, pain, injury, contamination, or infection were not addressed in that 1 quote.
3. These factors WERE considered by Christopher West, Greg Popcak, and John Kippley. All of them state that these issues preclude the activity from being licit.

You seem to think the "pollution ’ part being not a sin, that the whole kit and kaboodle is just fine. You are excluding all the other issues. Is it moral to subject one’s spouse or one’s self to pain, infection,injury and contamination? Would disregard for those factors be lustful?

I don’t see how that disregard is prudent, or loving.

Im sorry but this is very frsutrating to me. Im sorry if my frustration shows through on this post.

But it’s very frustrating and makes me upset that youre saying this because Ive repeated multiple times that of course, great care MUST be taken for the other person. It must be mutually enjoyable, mutually self giving, etc etc. There are precautions that can and should be taken for all those things you list above, and I have repeated this multiple times.

I’ve written whole posts dedicated to the issues of pain and hygiene/infections.

But again, these are thing that must be taken into account for EVERY sex act. ANY sex act that does not consider the other person or that is painful or disregarding to the other person becomes illict, not because of the act itself, but because of the disregard. This act is no different in that regard.

Maybe you’ve missed the many times Ive addressed this. So hopefully you’re reading it now and settling the issues.