V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
You’ve said that you can’t be bothered to clarify her arguments, so it’s not clear to me why you’re still participating in this discussion.
peppipop:
What did West say that contradicted Church teaching?
Strong arguments against Christopher West's marriage/sexuality books
- Status
peppipop:
P
pepipop
Guest
Where does church teaching stipulate sodomy is acceptable?
P
pensmama87
Guest
Blergh. Here we go again.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Pepipop, the position that is being attributed to Christopher West is not that Sodomy is moral, but that in the absence of a definitive teaching from the Church about the specific scenario he is speaking of we must all do our best on our own to figure out how to treat it. Which, so long as there is no explicit teaching on the matter, makes sense. Thats how determining morality always works, we look first to the Church, but if the Church doesn’t have a teaching on it we have to do the best we can on our own, and, so long as we make the best effort we can it doesn’t matter if we come to the wrong conclusion, we will not be culpable for having done something that is objectively immoral.
So, if you think that this is wrong, the only way to argue against it is to show that the Church does in fact have an official teaching that the particular situation in question is immoral. So, either show us where the official teaching is or accept that this is one of those cases where we are allowed to come to different conclusions so long as we make an honest effort to objectively determine the truth, and so, there is nothing at all incorrect in the statement that is here attributed to Christopher West.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Alice von Hildabrand is a much needed womans voice on these matters. A good, holy, faithful and wise woman who was part of a godly and exemplary marriage. Lets be blunt and face the bottom line… sodomy is for the man alone. Women submit to many things to please a man and meet his needs and feel honourable doing it. Look at how some of the Muslim women defend their diminished status as godly. The risk of her infection by fecal matter and the damage to her anus seem to mean nothing in the face of mans need to have sex anally. Why do men like sodomy? Because it provides a more tight and firm experience for him than a womans vagina… especially one that has brought forth a number of children.
I cannot even believe such a subject is brought forward as something worth examining for Catholic morality. It should not even be addressed from the first standpoint of the womans dignity let alone make it as far as finding moral acceptability in a Catholic book.
How far off will it be before we are examining the moral quality of urinating or defecating on each other for pleasure? Those practices are also popular in pleasure seeker cultures.
Is is morally acceptable to do those things? According to the wisdom and logic of the current Wests and Popcaks… yes. The Church has nothing against those practices per se.
A
agapewolf
Guest
Where does C. West “stipulate that sodomy is acceptable?” he doesn’t…in fact…DISCOURAGES it.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’ve witnessed rogue lawyers of which there are many… get rapists and murderers off with the same flawed inhumane logic.
A
Allegra
Guest
What the heck are you even talking about? Did you even read those books?BWAHAAAHAHAHAHAHA! >puritanical< “Woohoo! We’re saved by Saint Hugh Hefner from puritanicalism!”Meanwhile Hannah Montana’s perpetual oral sex pose (mouth open, eyes gazing upward) mutates into jailbait with pigtails and lollipops twerking with teddy bears and an adult male singing “I know you want it but you’re a good girl” in a striped jail outfit. That’s prime time, folks. Will Smith and Jada Pinckett grimaced with dropped jaws and made their kids cover their eyes. This tasty essay addresses Will & Jada’s sensibilities, and may be entitled “Alice on Love VS Chris on Sexxx.” Hellooo? Chris? We don’t have a problem with “puritanical” we have a problem with “pervertanical.”
I have always been in awe that the hammer of heretics, thugs and dupes, Dietrich Von Hildebrand, was so blessed by the Almighty with a wonderful spouse, herself a fine scholar, young and wise, and able to carry on his work after his death. Here we have Alice crushing pop culture under her womanly heel. “TUA CULPA”? That’s untarnished gold.
Gregory Popculture’s book, Holy Sex, and Chris West’s gushy review, with its new rule for marriage that anything goes as long as the conjugal act culminates inside a woman’s body, is demeaning, perverse and pseudo-Catholic. Holy Sex appears to be a grooming aid, “grooming” being a term usually applied to pedophiles using pornography to desensitize children. “See? It’s OK. It has “holy” and “Catholic” in the title.”
“Pudeur” is pronounced “pyoo-durr.” Only people can blush, the best evidence that humans have divinely-granted souls.I think Our Lady told Fatima seer, Jacinta, that most souls would damn themselves for eternity for sexual sins; and that immodesty is a deadly affront to God. May God deliver us from the world, the flesh and the devil.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Instead of throwing out an ad hominem by implying my logic is “inhumane” why not show me what I am saying that is incorrect?
A
Allegra
Guest
Did you read the same books I read? Both authors address the issue of anal stimulation used as forplay and while they admit that there isn’t a specific Church teaching against it, they both strongly discourage it and point out that it is unhealthy, painful for the woman, and self-serving for the man.
P
pepipop
Guest
Yes, I take your point - it’s not something I have ever looked into before.
However the Bible, nature, natural law and common sense would indicate it’s not a ‘natural’ practice and the act, by its’ nature, ‘could’ be detrimental to the health of either partner. Possibly, something the church never felt it needed to actually spell out or address.
However, I now note that the church has not make any official teaching in relation to it.Romans 1: 24-26
*24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
*
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.I am sure there are atheists that would find sodomy abhorrent, IMO it’s not something the church ‘needs’ to address as off limits I would have thought it would be assumed.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Which passages lead many to believe the particular scenario in question is always immoral. However, this does not change the fact that the opinion attributed to Christopher West in no way discredits him because it is, in fact, simply the truth.Yes, I take your point - it’s not something I have ever looked into before.
However the Bible, nature, natural law and common sense would indicate it’s not a ‘natural’ practice and the act, by its’ nature, ‘could’ be detrimental to the health of either partner. Possibly, something the church never felt it needed to actually spell out or address.
Romans 1: 24-26
*24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
*
*26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. *27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.I am sure there are atheists that would find sodomy abhorrent, IMO it’s not something the church ‘needs’ to address as off limits I would have thought it would be assumed.
I have found, on reading through the article linked to in the OP that pretty much all of the points that apparently discredit Christopher West have similar issues to this one.
P
pepipop
Guest
True, in theory, CW has not veered from Catholic teaching however from ‘gut’ instinct, my own sense of morality, or potentially God’s law written on one’s heart (?), this section has definitely put me off reading any of his literature, and hence why ‘I’ would agree with the points made in the article.Which passages lead many to believe the particular scenario in question is always immoral. However, this does not change the fact that the opinion attributed to Christopher West in no way discredits him because it is, in fact, simply the truth.
I have found, on reading through the article linked to in the OP that pretty much all of the points that apparently discredit Christopher West have similar issues to this one.
I can only assume he could have left that section out of his book, as the church although not stating it is wrong - even though the bible does - the church does not condone the act either.
But each to their own, I suppose.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Oh yes, thats totally understandable, but it does help go to show my point that the article posted to this thread is not, in fact, full of solid arguments based on actual Church teaching. Which was the point I was trying to make earlier. I’ve read some of Von Hildebrandt’s writings and thought they were wonderful and I can definitely see why some people would prefer them over Christopher West’s. But that doesn’t make Christopher West’s writings wrong or against Church teaching. And I know you aren’t saying that, but it seemed like that is the conclusion we are supposed to reach after reading the article in question. Thats what I was responding to really, the implication that Christopher West is not dangerous to read or untheologically sound.True, in theory, CW has not veered from Catholic teaching however from ‘gut’ instinct, my own sense of morality, or potentially God’s law written on one’s heart (?), this section has definitely put me off reading any of his literature, and hence why ‘I’ would agree with the points made in the article.
I can only assume he could have left that section out of his book, as the church although not stating it is wrong - even though the bible does - the church does not condone the act either.
But each to their own, I suppose.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
You said "*So, if you think that this is wrong, ***the only way to argue against it **is to show that the Church does in fact have an official teaching that the particular situation in question is immoral."
You’ve basically said that anyone who believes that sodomy as foreplay is immoral has no argument and therefore is irrelevant. That if the Church doesn’t have an official teaching that the particular situation in question is immoral… our voice has no Catholic merit. The Church does not have a commandment or statement “sodomy as foreplay is a sin”… therefore according to you, we cannot speak as Catholics on the subject.
The whole point of Theology of the Body is to affirm that although men and women are equal, they are different by nature. There are more nuances in treating each other respectfully than can be captured by black and white rules. The moral meaning in all our behaviours cannot be fully quantified by a dot point sentence otherwise we could rightly have eternal assurance standing before God on judgement day. Relationship morality has to involve the (name removed by moderator)ut of many factors too numerous to commit to one simple doctrinal sentence.
The reason that I mentioned the tactics of rogue lawyers is that we still value the idea of ‘common law’ in jurisprudence and that allows for the significance of tradtions and customs that support belief in a higher authority (such as a monarchy) or God. If all cases were solely determined on strict black and white laws, there’d be no real need for the courts and jury system we know today. Lawyers who unjustly negate the relevance of moral absolutes (which can be known from an inner authority and a sensei fidelium)… have been responsible for some horrible miscarriages of justice.
So what you said ie. that if we can’t show you a doctrinal sentence addressing foreplay sodomy… we are basically not to speak… is simply wrong.
S
sdegutis
Guest
I have received my position as the answer to prayer and meditation. I will hold fast to it as a gift from our Lord and our Lady.
M
mommamaree
Guest
Definitely the right way to go. I was very troubled by the books and talks of both West and Popcak. The way they presented their theses, the tone they took, the analogies they used, and with Popcak, the heavy-handed way he pushed for “infallible loving”, completely ignoring situations where wives had valid reason to be hesitant in the bedroom, it all really upset me, so much that I threw away the books. My husband also was very put off by their presentation in their books and talks. While they may have not technically said anything that directly contradicts what the Church teaches, I had a sense of dread about adopting their attitude. Still, their books were so popular and I couldn’t find any other sources for a while. Now I know that there are many other good sources to form one’s conscience, but a fellow forum member here (shout out to LongingSoul) helped me to understand that the intellect can only take a person so far, and then one must rely upon the Holy Spirit to illuminate the conscience. Beyond the specific teachings of the Church is a tremendous opportunity to grow in discernment and holiness, and prayer and patience and the sacrament of Confession are the way to step into that region. The specific teachings of the Church cannot cover every single aspect of human life. Life is too varied and complex for that. So once we are sure we are already in obedience to the basic teachings, the only thing we can do next is ask Jesus to call us to Him, and then step out of that boat with our eyes on Him and then walk. That is the hope and the vision that I perceive in von Hildebrand’s and Grisez’s writings. That is why I have personally rejected the writings of Popcak and West (although I have still mentioned them to others at times as a primer in Catholic sexual ethics).
L
LokisMom
Guest
This is craziness. Chris West is GREAT!!!
He came to my school and gave a talk back when I was in school. Awesome, awesome message.
He came to my school and gave a talk back when I was in school. Awesome, awesome message.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Actually, no, that is not what I said. At all. There is a legitimate space for Catholics to have discussion about whether or not anal foreplay is moral. Of course there is. My point was that seeing as Christopher West did not say that such foreplay is moral, rather all he said is that since the Church has no official position on it we should follow the normal procedure for determining the morality of acts for which there is no official Church teaching, seek the truth, work on informing your conscience according to Church teaching, listen to those wiser then you etc etc and then do your best to objectively discern whether or not the action is immoral. Basically, all West said is that since this topic does not have an official teaching from the Church Catholics are morally allowed to disagree about it. My point is that since West correctly described the process for determining morality when there is no explicit teaching by the Church the only way you could possibly say that West’s statement is false is if you show us that the Church officially teaches against it. Otherwise, his statement that since the Church has no teaching against it standard Church procedure applies cannot be false. If you believe I am incorrect and there is another way for this statement to be false please, as I asked, show me where I am wrong.
If I were indeed telling people not to speak on the topic of anal foreplay if they don’t have an official teaching from the Church to present I would be seriously in the wrong. However, since that is not at all what I said or in any way intended to imply I hope you will stop thinking of me as a moral relativist with inhumane logic.
U
underacloud
Guest
It’s funny how people can read an article and come out with very differing impressions of it. For example, I’d suggest a better title for this thread would be “Weak arguments against Christopher West’s marriage/sexuality books”. 
I don’t mean to be flippant. I will note, though, that this very article has been discussed many times before on this forum, as has the more particular issue that some people are discussing in this thread.
I don’t mean to be flippant. I will note, though, that this very article has been discussed many times before on this forum, as has the more particular issue that some people are discussing in this thread.
- Status