Strong arguments against Christopher West's marriage/sexuality books

[LongingSoul]

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.

…“and then step out of that boat with our eyes on Him and then walk.” When I read that I actually envisioned it coming from the mouth of Pope St JPII! Beautifully said, mommamaree.

 

[LokisMom]

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.

I know i’ve seen anal foreplay stuff on here before, so a CAF search came up with this post from another CAF member a while ago:

I have a copy of Fr. Herbert Jone’s “Moral Theology”. This was one of the most common Pre-Vatican II Moral Theology text books.

It is set up as a confessional aid for priests, so it’s indexed by sin or potential sin and describes any mitigating factors and how serious the sin is.

So when someone enters the confessional and confesses something, Father can just look it up and see how serious the sin is

There is a section on sodomy. Jone distingueshes between what is called ‘perfect sodomy’ and 'imperfect sodomy".

**“Perfect Sodomy” is when it occurs between two members of the same sex or when the act results in the waste of seminal fluid. It is always gravely sinful.

“Imperfect Sodomy” is when neither of the above conditions are true.**

Jone had this to to say about “Imperfect Sodomy”

"it is neither sodomy nor a sin if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner with the intention of completing it in the natural manner" (Jone “Moral Theology” 757)

So if one went into the confession in most of the Western World ( Jone was published in 8 languages), during the 1920’s-1960’s and confessed anal intercourse as a form of foreplay, the priest would either learned that it wasn’t a sin during seminary, or looked it up in Jone’s and send you on your merry way.

I personally don’t see how that could be even close to hygenic, but that is not the realm of Moral Theology.

It still stands, of course, that the Church still has no official teaching on this… but I just don’t understand why people are complaining so much about CW’s short, neutral comment regarding anal foreplay when this other book explicitly says the act is perfectly licit. I don’t think the Church would have given this book an imprimatur and nihil obstat, let alone require its use in confessionals if it contained stuff that was against Church teaching. Just sayin.

 

[LongingSoul]

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 a theologian came up with the idea that vaginal penetration that was stopped before ejaculation was not technically forbidden and didn’t constitute fornication and should therefore be left to the conscience… would it be equally fair to say that the only way we could claim the immorality of the act, was to produce a doctrinal statement on the immorality of that very specific situation?

Really that would constitute legalism. The spirit of the law is a highly valued Catholic reality and is eminently credible in catechesis. Just as tribal cultures value cultural taboos alongside the letter of the law… so does Catholic culture. We all share in that charism to teach the spirit of the law. I think Christopher Wests timidity and ambiguity in addressing the question could be due to neglecting to fully appreciate the meaning of sodomy and the reason it violates nature and God. He just seems to have accepted that it only applies to the minute of ejaculation into the anus rather than any distortion of the desire or the act prior to that moment. Certainly biological wisdom would exclude such acts regardless of the absence of finality in that position.

Catholic catechesis is not a legalistic process. Issues can be very wonderfully addressed apart from approvals or prohibitions by directing the mind and spirit towards the goods of human sexuality and the joys of innocence before God.

 

[thewanderer]

If a theologian came up with the idea that vaginal penetration that was stopped before ejaculation was not technically forbidden and didn’t constitute fornication and should therefore be left to the conscience… would it be equally fair to say that the only way we could claim the immorality of the act, was to produce a doctrinal statement on the immorality of that very specific situation?

Two things, one, we do have an official Church teaching against this practice (also known as onanism), and two, for the last time, I am not saying that the only way to say anal foreplay is immoral is with an official Church teaching.

Please read what I said more carefully. What I said is that if you want to say the statement “The Church has no official teaching that anal foreplay is immoral, and so, the standard procedure applies” is to show an official teaching that it is, in fact, immoral. That is very different from saying the only way to argue for anal foreplay being immoral is by showing official Church teaching.

To be honest, I also tend to agree that it is probably immoral, and even if its not strictly and absolutely immoral it is immoral for most couples and that the closer one comes to understanding the true nature of the sacredness of the marital act the less one would even think of performing such an act. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the only way to say that Christopher West’s particular statement is incorrect is to show official Church teaching on the matter.

 

[LokisMom]

If a theologian came up with the idea that vaginal penetration that was stopped before ejaculation was not technically forbidden and didn’t constitute fornication and should therefore be left to the conscience…. would it be equally fair to say that the only way we could claim the immorality of the act, was to produce a doctrinal statement on the immorality of that very specific situation?

It doesn’t matter, because any book that said this, would never receive an imprimatur from the Church. Because the Church does specifically teach that ejaculation must finish vaginally, thus making the act both unitive/procreative… which is in fact a Catholic requirement for licit sex.

 

[LongingSoul]

Two things, one, we do have an official Church teaching against this practice (also known as onanism), and two, for the last time, I am not saying that the only way to say anal foreplay is immoral is with an official Church teaching.

Onanism involves ejaculation outside the vagina and falls under the sin of contraception or perhaps masturbation. I’m talking about a choice that deliberately stops the act prior to any ejaculation in an effort to call the act chaste according to the single state. If desiring anal intercourse and performing most of the act apart from ejaculation there, is not sodomy… then the same could be said of normal fornication.

Please read what I said more carefully. What I said is that if you want to say the statement “The Church has no official teaching that anal foreplay is immoral, and so, the standard procedure applies” is to show an official teaching that it is, in fact, immoral. That is very different from saying the only way to argue for anal foreplay being immoral is by showing official Church teaching.

I maintain that as Catholics, we are duty bound to convey that the Church teaching prohibits sodomy and Christopher Wests answer gives too much weight to what is essentially a loophole. His answer should have encouraged readers to examine the nature of sodomy rather than to make this scenario a case of prudential judgement.

To be honest, I also tend to agree that it is probably immoral, and even if its not strictly and absolutely immoral it is immoral for most couples and that the closer one comes to understanding the true nature of the sacredness of the marital act the less one would even think of performing such an act.

If you believe something is immoral in nature it can’t be said to be “immoral for most couples”. That is subscribing to relativism. Sodomy is objectively immoral .

 

[LokisMom]

Onanism involves ejaculation outside the vagina and falls under the sin of contraception or perhaps masturbation.** I’m talking about a choice that deliberately stops the act prior to any ejaculation in an effort to call the act chaste according to the single state**. If desiring anal intercourse and performing most of the act apart from ejaculation there, is not sodomy… then the same could be said of normal fornication.

This is still against Church teaching. The Church teaches that every sexual act between spouses MUST at least have the intent of being ended in vaginal ejaculation.

I maintain that as Catholics, we are duty bound to convey that the Church teaching prohibits sodomy and Christopher Wests answer gives too much weight to what is essentially a loophole. His answer should have encouraged readers to examine the nature of sodomy rather than to make this scenario a case of prudential judgement.

Did you see where I quoted a book called Moral Theology? The church does NOT teach the prohibition of anal foreplay. You may hold the opinion that it is immoral. I may hold the opinion that it is not. But the Church does not prohibit it, as has been made clear by Moral Theology having received an imprimtur, a nihil obstat, and being required for priests in the confessional.

If you believe something is immoral in nature it can’t be said to be “immoral for most couples”. That is subscribing to relativism. ** Sodomy is objectively immoral** .

The Church does NOT teach that anal foreplay is immoral. You may or may not hold the opinion that it is. But the Church does not teach it.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The Church does NOT teach that anal foreplay is immoral. You may or may not hold the opinion that it is. But the Church does not teach it.

I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why there would be one specific body part that would be sinful to enjoy as part of sex/foreplay. Especially since there is no official teaching, it seems like quite a stretch to assume that it is wrong. Sure, it may not be something that everyone wants to try, but I’m not sure that thinking it’s gross or painful is grounds enough to call it sinful.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

West lost me at Sodomy. He will forever be overlooked as anything more than a teen speaker by actual theologians for that very reason.

He will either have to clarify and retract or realize that in the realm of theologians people will say Christopher who?

 

[LokisMom]

West lost me at Sodomy. He will forever be overlooked as anything more than a teen speaker by actual theologians for that very reason.

He will either have to clarify and retract or realize that in the realm of theologians people will say Christopher who?

Did you see this?

I have a copy of Fr. Herbert Jone’s “Moral Theology”. This was one of the most common Pre-Vatican II Moral Theology text books.

It is set up as a confessional aid for priests, so it’s indexed by sin or potential sin and describes any mitigating factors and how serious the sin is.

So when someone enters the confessional and confesses something, Father can just look it up and see how serious the sin is

There is a section on sodomy. Jone distingueshes between what is called ‘perfect sodomy’ and 'imperfect sodomy".

“Perfect Sodomy” is when it occurs between two members of the same sex or when the act results in the waste of seminal fluid. It is always gravely sinful.

“Imperfect Sodomy” is when neither of the above conditions are true.

Jone had this to to say about “Imperfect Sodomy”

“it is neither sodomy nor a sin if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner with the intention of completing it in the natural manner” (Jone “Moral Theology” 757)

So if one went into the confession in most of the Western World ( Jone was published in 8 languages), during the 1920’s-1960’s and confessed anal intercourse as a form of foreplay, the priest would either learned that it wasn’t a sin during seminary, or looked it up in Jone’s and send you on your merry way.

I personally don’t see how that could be even close to hygenic, but that is not the realm of Moral Theology.

I don’t understand why CW is catching so much flack for it when books such as this one very clearly state that anal foreplay is not wrong. It’s easy to pick on Chris West, but much more difficult to pick on the author of such an important, noted word as “Moral Theology.”

 

[LokisMom]

I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why there would be one specific body part that would be sinful to enjoy as part of sex/foreplay. Especially since there is no official teaching, it seems like quite a stretch to assume that it is wrong. Sure, it may not be something that everyone wants to try, but I’m not sure that thinking it’s gross or painful is grounds enough to call it sinful.

Catholics are certainly free to have the opinion that it is immoral. But the Church has not spoken on it.

I think its gross too, but will not say that it is against Church teaching when there is no Church teaching on it and when the Church gives imprimaturs to books that condone it. If I said this was against Church teaching, I would be telling a lie.

 

[Tigg]

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).

**YES! ** To this! How does one intellectually explain the virtue of chastity even in sex, which originates with the very voice of God and is honored by a choice of the will to practice purity.

 

[PaulinVA]

West lost me at Sodomy. He will forever be overlooked as anything more than a teen speaker by actual theologians for that very reason.

He will either have to clarify and retract or realize that in the realm of theologians people will say Christopher who?

If you look at the posts above yours, you will see that a confession guide from before Vatican II did not have a problem with it, from a* moral theology* point of view. If West is simply repeating what a Catholic Priest author said in 1929, whats the problem? 1929!

 

[agapewolf]

West lost me at Sodomy. He will forever be overlooked as anything more than a teen speaker by actual theologians for that very reason.

He will either have to clarify and retract or realize that in the realm of theologians people will say Christopher who?

He doesn’t speak to teens. He speaks to adults.

many scholars and bishops do back him up.

 

[sdegutis]

If you look at the posts above yours, you will see that a confession guide from before Vatican II did not have a problem with it, from a* moral theology* point of view. If West is simply repeating what a Catholic Priest author said in 1929, whats the problem? 1929!

The Nicolaitans, whom our Lord warned about in the Apocalypse of John, have existed through all ages of the Church. They are those who twist the Scriptures just as Satan did in the desert when our Lord was being tempted. They create permissions for themselves to continue in their passions, rather than letting the past suffice for doing what the Gentiles like to do. They do not perceive that our Lord’s grace is sufficient for them in their weaknesses, so they do not need to give in to the passions of the flesh. For whatever has overcome a man, to that he is enslaved.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

But painful would be enough to call it sinful.

There is no way anyone can convince me that anal penetration is a Holy thing. Never. And sex must be a Holy thing. So when all of you are pointing out that it may be used as foreplay just remember that the Holy Spirit is involved.

There is no winning this argument on CAF because the forum does not provide for a frank discussion. Nor should it.

But I will just say that anyone who says that anal sex is morally ok is running afoul of Holy and Godly theology. period.

 

[LokisMom]

But painful would be enough to call it sinful.

There is no way anyone can convince me that anal penetration is a Holy thing. Never. And sex must be a Holy thing. So when all of you are pointing out that it may be used as foreplay just remember that the Holy Spirit is involved.

There is no winning this argument on CAF because the forum does not provide for a frank discussion. Nor should it.

But I will just say that anyone who says that anal sex is morally ok is running afoul of Holy and Godly theology. period.

You are free to have that opinion. However, you may not say that the Church teaches it. It doesn’t look like that’s what you did, so you’re okay…

I just wanted to make sure you knew that much higher and more important works have been written that also condone the act, and I personally don’t think it’s fair to give CW so much flack just because he is an easier target.

 

[sdegutis]

You are free to have that opinion. However, you may not say that the Church teaches it. It doesn’t look like that’s what you did, so you’re okay…

I just wanted to make sure you knew that much higher and more important works have been written that also condone the act, and I personally don’t think it’s fair to give CW so much flack just because he is an easier target.

I am curious what citations you have of “higher and more important works” that condone anal sex. I am aware of one, namely, the Holy Spirit speaking through Moses to condemn anal sex as not only against the law of moses, but indicating it as disgusting in God’s eyes, thereby proclaiming that it is against the natural and moral laws as well.

 

[LokisMom]

I am curious what citations you have of “higher and more important works” that condone anal sex. I am aware of one, namely, the Holy Spirit speaking through Moses to condemn anal sex as not only against the law of moses, but indicating it as disgusting in God’s eyes, thereby proclaiming that it is against the natural and moral laws as well.

I have posted it twice on here already, but here it is again… a post from another CAF member that came up during a CAF search:

I have a copy of Fr. Herbert Jone’s “Moral Theology”. This was one of the most common Pre-Vatican II Moral Theology text books.

It is set up as a confessional aid for priests, so it’s indexed by sin or potential sin and describes any mitigating factors and how serious the sin is.

So when someone enters the confessional and confesses something, Father can just look it up and see how serious the sin is

There is a section on sodomy. Jone distingueshes between what is called ‘perfect sodomy’ and 'imperfect sodomy".

"Perfect Sodomy" is when it occurs between two members of the same sex or when the act results in the waste of seminal fluid. It is always gravely sinful.

“Imperfect Sodomy” is when neither of the above conditions are true.

Jone had this to to say about “Imperfect Sodomy”

"it is neither sodomy nor a sin if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner with the intention of completing it in the natural manner" (Jone “Moral Theology” 757)

So if one went into the confession in most of the Western World ( Jone was published in 8 languages), during the 1920’s-1960’s and confessed anal intercourse as a form of foreplay, the priest would either learned that it wasn’t a sin during seminary, or looked it up in Jone’s and send you on your merry way.

I personally don’t see how that could be even close to hygenic, but that is not the realm of Moral Theology.

acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2009/12/moral-theology-by-rev-heribert-jone.html

 

[PaulinVA]

I am curious what citations you have of “higher and more important works” that condone anal sex. I am aware of one, namely, the Holy Spirit speaking through Moses to condemn anal sex as not only against the law of moses, but indicating it as disgusting in God’s eyes, thereby proclaiming that it is against the natural and moral laws as well.

Where is this in Mosaic law? That would certainly to be useful to this conversation.

There are books referenced below that say it is okay between a husband and a wife - with an imprimtur, and nihil obstat.