Strong arguments against Christopher West's marriage/sexuality books

[mommamaree]

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 really try to stay far away from conversations about this particular sexual act, but curiosity has gotten the better of me. Pray tell, where does Moses condemn anal sex? I am aware of the prohibition of coitus interruptus, called onanism, but I do not recall any reference to anal sex, unless you are referring generally to the “sin of Sodom”, which a lot of people claim cannot be definitively attributed to anal copulation alone. I personally would love to see a more direct treatment of this subject, and it is troubling that such a dangerous practice is not explicitly condemned. Or if it is, why is it so hard to find out that it is…

 

[thewanderer]

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.

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.

If you want to claim that Church teaching prohibits anal foreplay then you must show either where the Church explicitly says so or give an argument based on Church teaching to try and convince others that it is at least implicitly taught by the Church.

However, this does not mean that others are duty bound to believe (or teach) that anal foreplay is implicitly immoral through Church teaching. What is required of everyone is that they honestly, and objectively investigate the matter, listening carefully to intelligent people on both sides of the issue to help them see which is true. So long as they do that, and so long as they are willing to submit to the Church’s authority should the Church ever speak out explicitly on the subject in the future they will not sin in holding anal foreplay to be morally permissible, or even in acting on it, even if it is an objectively moral act, because they will not have culpability for it.

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 .

LongingSoul, I am trying to be patient with you, and to read what you write charitably, but it is frustrating when you do not return the courtesy. First you claimed my logic was humane, then you went on to defend that completely false claim in a second post. Now, you are calling me a relativist just because I am not yet sure which of the two scenarios is true? Yes, if I held both that anal foreplay is objectively immoral and that it is moral for some I would be falling into moral relativism. However Seeing as what I actually said is that I think it is either objectively immoral or it is at least immoral for most people the claim that I am falling into moral relativism is clearly false.

I will remind you that as Catholics we have a duty under penalty of sin to always interpret others charitably and assume the best. Now, maybe you were not aware that this is a duty under pain of sin, but it is. Here is the relevant section from the Catechism.

III. Offenses Against Truth

2475 Christ’s disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."273 By “putting away falsehood,” they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander."274

2476 False witness and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness.275 When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused.276 They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.277 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;278
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478** To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:**

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.279

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[pepipop]

I really try to stay far away from conversations about this particular sexual act, but curiosity has gotten the better of me. Pray tell, where does Moses condemn anal sex? I am aware of the prohibition of coitus interruptus, called onanism, but I do not recall any reference to anal sex, unless you are referring generally to the “sin of Sodom”, which a lot of people claim cannot be definitively attributed to anal copulation alone. I personally would love to see a more direct treatment of this subject, and it is troubling that such a dangerous practice is not explicitly condemned. Or if it is, why is it so hard to find out that it is…

I totally agree. I am surprised that the CC has not stated officially that it is totally against nature and a sin in any circumstance, for foreplay or otherwise. Even in the secular world it is a taboo subject, in relation to heterosexuals. So, if the atheists, et al, find the subject somewhat abhorrent, there must be something very wrong with it indeed.

 

[Brendan]

While I’m not a big fan of West, he actually does have a point on 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 - 15th English Edition, copyright 1961. Imprimatur is from +John Wright, Bishop of Pittsburgh, dated Dec 8. 1961)

The premier Moral Theology text for the century preceding Vatican II indicted exactly what West had to say.

This text was primarily written for use in the confessional, so that if a priest heard a confession and was unsure as to the gravity of the act, he could look it up in the index determine the moral gravity of the act.

In the case above, if someone when into a confessional between the early 1900’s and Vatican II and confessed having engaged in anal foreplay, but with coatis completing in the normal way, they would have been told by their priest that such conduct was not a sinful act.

I personally consider that to be incredibly unhygienic and not exactly my cup of tea, but I could not claim that it would be a sinful act.

 

[thewanderer]

Ok, seeing as this thread is clearly derailing into a discussion of whether or not anal foreplay is moral, why don’t we try to steer back to the topic at hand? Namely, whether or not the article posted contains strong arguments against Christopher West’s writings.

To get back on track I will bring up one of the many little barbs in there against Christopher West. One of her arguments against West being a disciple of her husband (which is actually what the thesis of this paper is, not that West is a terrible person) is that West is willing to say that Mary had a normal birth. ie, that she birthed the placenta after Jesus was born in the normal fashion of humanity.

This defective attitude might explain why Christopher West also believes that after the Holy Virgin gave birth to our Savior, she ejected a bleeding placenta, just as his wife had done after delivering their son (“Born of a Woman,” syndicated column, December 8, 2006, ChristopherWest.com). He assumes that these details magnify the mystery of Bethlehem.

Dietrich von Hildebrand would have absolutely opposed such ideas. I recall attending my husband’s talks in his apartment on Central Park West. He meditated on the Holy Mass, and on numerous passages of the New Testament. When talking about the Annunciation or the Nativity, he made his hearers realize that we were entering a "holy zone”, which called for silent adoration. The Archangel Gabriel’s visit to Mary is clothed in mystery. But in a way, Bethlehem is still more mysterious: St. Luke tells us absolutely nothing concrete: we know that Mary gave birth to a son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes.

The moment calls for silent adoration. Angels are not mentioned . St. Joseph is not mentioned. We do know, however, and this is a dogma of our faith, that she was a Virgin, prius ac posterius. The conception was miraculous; the delivery was miraculous. Any intrusion into this mystery would have been a source of grief to Dietrich von Hildebrand who, because he recited Vespers and Compline every day, knew Psalm 130 well: “I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me”.

The claim being not only that the birth must have been miraculous just because the conception was miraculous, but also that when presented with a mystery it is wrong to seek to better understand what occurred.

To the first part of the argument, while there is a tradition that holds that the birth was miraculous, free of pain etc, this is a subject on which there is no official Church teaching and we are free to hold either that the birth proceeded normally or that it proceeded in a miraculous manner.

To the second part, even if we believe it happened in a mysterious way it is wrong to claim that it is wrong to try to better understand a mystery. At least, seeing as this is pretty much what Saint Thomas spent his life attempting to do through his great works for which the Church praises him it seems disingenous to blame one person for attempting to better understand a mystery while overlooking the fact that one of the greatest Dr.s of the Church is greatly praised for doing the exact same thing.

In conclusion, I do not see that this is a good argument against Christopher West and his work either.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

While I’m not a big fan of West, he actually does have a point on 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 - 15th English Edition, copyright 1961. Imprimatur is from +John Wright, Bishop of Pittsburgh, dated Dec 8. 1961)

The premier Moral Theology text for the century preceding Vatican II indicted exactly what West had to say.

This text was primarily written for use in the confessional, so that if a priest heard a confession and was unsure as to the gravity of the act, he could look it up in the index determine the moral gravity of the act.

In the case above, if someone when into a confessional between the early 1900’s and Vatican II and confessed having engaged in anal foreplay, but with coatis completing in the normal way, they would have been told by their priest that such conduct was not a sinful act.

I personally consider that to be incredibly unhygienic and not exactly my cup of tea, but I could not claim that it would be a sinful act.

Why are you not a fan of West then. That is actually the point of this thread. Care to elaborate?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I would LOVE for someone to show that Anal penetration is not disordered, or is procreative or unitive or Holy in any way. I ask this as a former sodomite.

 

[LongingSoul]

If you want to claim that Church teaching prohibits anal foreplay then you must show either where the Church explicitly says so or give an argument based on Church teaching to try and convince others that it is at least implicitly taught by the Church.

And this is what I have done. Sodomy as it is known in not only Christian circles but also legal circles and among the general population, involves a particular act. Other than some Catholics, people normally don’t dissect the sexual act to draw the line between the greater majority of the act and the final act of ejaculation. A rapist is still a rapist if he has entered into penetration but couldn’t finish off the act. Fornication is still fornication if the whole act bar the ejaculation has taken place.

So when the Church teaches that sodomy is a sin… we can very confidently say if the greater majority of the act bar the ejaculation has been desired, chosen and engaged in, that the act meets the critierior for sodomy.

However, this does not mean that others are duty bound to believe (or teach) that anal foreplay is implicitly immoral through Church teaching. What is required of everyone is that they honestly, and objectively investigate the matter, listening carefully to intelligent people on both sides of the issue to help them see which is true. So long as they do that, and so long as they are willing to submit to the Church’s authority should the Church ever speak out explicitly on the subject in the future they will not sin in holding anal foreplay to be morally permissible, or even in acting on it, even if it is an objectively moral act, because they will not have culpability for it.

One of the beautiful sources of teaching that the Church in the West has lost, is the vibrant group of women of the faith called the religious sisterhood. The numbers are so depleted that their natural role as teachers and defenders of children and women is finding faint and lopsided expression (as per LCWR). In the near and far past, these women of faith were carriers and conveyors of the spirit of the law… bringing context and common sense (mother wit) to the patriarchal church. This role which remains a very necessary role to the world today has to be picked up and worn by the rest of us women and mothers until this unique source of authority is strong enough to ‘convene’ in the physical sense. It is interesting that the word convent comes from the Latin ‘conventus’ which denotes a legitimate authority to assemble. In Australian aboriginal culture, we have protected sacred sites that were specifically designated for ‘Secret womens business’. This assembly of women had a legitimate authority to guide and teach women, girls and children as an extention to the ‘civil’ and ‘legal’ law of the tribe. This is a natural vocation.

We also are called to convey the spirit of the law for the sake of women and children and we’ve been failing in this necessary role by saying things like ‘if the Church doesn’t teach it, then you are good to go’. We are duty bound to do this by the authority of nature and God. It isn’t good enough to just say that although I am repulsed by this practice, men seem to like it and the Church doesn’t teach that it specifically is wrong when you don’t finish up there, so each to his own.

 

[LokisMom]

So when the Church teaches that sodomy is a sin… we can very confidently say if the greater majority of the act bar the ejaculation has been desired, chosen and engaged in, that the act meets the critierior for sodomy.

If the Church teaches that anal foreplay is evil, as you claim, can you do 2 things for me?

1. Can you please show us where in any Catholic document this claim is made?
2. Can you please explain why the Church would not only give an imprimatur to a book that condones the act, but also require its use by priests in the confessional?

Thanks!

 

[LokisMom]

I would LOVE for someone to show that Anal penetration is not disordered, or is procreative or unitive or Holy in any way. I ask this as a former sodomite.

If it is something that both spouses enjoy, and if it helps “get them more in the mood”, and if it is used as foreplay to full, uncontraceptive, vaginal intercourse, then I personally don’t see on what moral grounds it would be any different from any other type of consensual foreplay. (other than the gross factor, but that has nothing to do with moral theology, as Brandon stated)

But then again, we are perfectly fine to disagree on this, so I respect your opinion.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If it is something that both spouses enjoy, and if it helps “get them more in the mood”, and if it is used as foreplay to full, uncontraceptive, vaginal intercourse, then I personally don’t see on what moral grounds it would be any different from any other type of consensual foreplay. (other than the gross factor, but that has nothing to do with moral theology, as Brandon stated)

But then again, we are perfectly fine to disagree on this, so I respect your opinion.

Unfortunately I do not feel comfortable refuting this. I will attribute that to the limitations of the forums we are on.

 

[LokisMom]

Unfortunately I do not feel comfortable refuting this. I will attribute that to the limitations of the forums we are on.

I can respect that. It is a gross thing for many people, and not pleasant to talk about.

 

[thewanderer]

And this is what I have done. Sodomy as it is known in not only Christian circles but also legal circles and among the general population, involves a particular act. Other than some Catholics, people normally don’t dissect the sexual act to draw the line between the greater majority of the act and the final act of ejaculation. A rapist is still a rapist if he has entered into penetration but couldn’t finish off the act. Fornication is still fornication if the whole act bar the ejaculation has taken place.

So when the Church teaches that sodomy is a sin… we can very confidently say if the greater majority of the act bar the ejaculation has been desired, chosen and engaged in, that the act meets the critierior for sodomy.

It is very clear that you can confidently say that, however, the fact that the Church, eve before the turmoil that followed vatican II, gave an imprimitur and nihil obstat to a book that explicitly says that anal foreplay is not immoral, and, even more than that, the Church set said book out as the moral theology book to be used by priests in the confessional to determine whether or not something is truly sinful makes it pretty clear that there is room for disagreement on this topic. However, again, seeing as this thread is not about whether or not anal foreplay is moral I suggest we drop the discussion about the morality of anal foreplay. This thread is about Van Hilderbrandt’s article criticizing Christopher West and whether or not the article has strong arguments. It has already been shown that the argument against him because he admitted that the Church has no official Church teaching on anal foreplay is not a strong argument against him. So I believe we should move onto other arguments. If you believe that any of the other arguments presented in the article are good strong arguments please bring them forward and explain why you think they are a strong argument against West and his works.

One of the beautiful sources of teaching that the Church in the West has lost, is the vibrant group of women of the faith called the religious sisterhood. The numbers are so depleted that their natural role as teachers and defenders of children and women is finding faint and lopsided expression (as per LCWR). In the near and far past, these women of faith were carriers and conveyors of the spirit of the law… bringing context and common sense (mother wit) to the patriarchal church. This role which remains a very necessary role to the world today has to be picked up and worn by the rest of us women and mothers until this unique source of authority is strong enough to ‘convene’ in the physical sense. It is interesting that the word convent comes from the Latin ‘conventus’ which denotes a legitimate authority to assemble. In Australian aboriginal culture, we have protected sacred sites that were specifically designated for ‘Secret womens business’. This assembly of women had a legitimate authority to guide and teach women, girls and children as an extention to the ‘civil’ and ‘legal’ law of the tribe. This is a natural vocation.

We also are called to convey the spirit of the law for the sake of women and children and we’ve been failing in this necessary role by saying things like ‘if the Church doesn’t teach it, then you are good to go’. We are duty bound to do this by the authority of nature and God. It isn’t good enough to just say that although I am repulsed by this practice, men seem to like it and the Church doesn’t teach that it specifically is wrong when you don’t finish up there, so each to his own.

It is not a matter of “to each his own” as that would mean that we could ignore the question of whether or not it is immoral and do whatever we want. That is seriously wrong. Rather it is a matter of Doing our best to figure out the Truth, whether or not that aligns with our preferences and whether or not that is convenient for us. When we do not have an official teaching from the Church to guide us the only thing we have left to guide us is our own reason and conscience. And so, so long as a person honestly and objectively searches for the truth on this issue, they will not be culpable of sin even if they perform an action that is, in fact, immoral. This is because they would be ignorant of the sinfulness of the action through no fault of their own, ie, they would have invincible ignorance on that subject. This is true no matter how much you want it to be false. So, while you are right that saying “to each his own” is horribly negligent that is a far cry from what either I or West have said.

 

[LongingSoul]

pepipop:
I totally agree. I am surprised that the CC has not stated officially that it is totally against nature and a sin in any circumstance, for foreplay or otherwise. **Even in the secular world it is a taboo subject, in relation to heterosexuals. **So, if the atheists, et al, find the subject somewhat abhorrent, there must be something very wrong with it indeed.

The Church always affirms that we can know truth through human reason so truth is not the exclusive privilege of Catholics who are acquainted with doctrine and theology. In teaching of natural moral law the CCC says…

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

This is the whole entry regarding the natural moral law.

I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

**1957 **Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11

**1959 **The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I can respect that. It is a gross thing for many people, and not pleasant to talk about.

I can say this however. The idea of anal sex as enjoyed by women is a lie of the porn industry.

 

[LokisMom]

I can say this however. The idea of anal sex as enjoyed by women is a lie of the porn industry.

I have personally spoken to women who enjoy it.

 

[pepipop]

A discussion between priests, in relation to this issue.

australianmarianacademy.blog.com/2012/04/16/marital-foreplay-discussion-fathers-david-watt-and-brian-harrison/

*One reason these theologians say that is because they look back in our tradition and, as I have said above, find hardly any written mention of oral or anal foreplay – either favorable or unfavorable. So they think, “Well, it seems the Church has never forbidden this. Looks like it must be legitimate! The existence of any law against such foreplay is doubtful; so couples have a green light to ‘go ahead’ here (if they like that sort of thing).” That would be the typical probabilist approach.

But it would not be mine. For one thing, arguments from silence can cut both ways: the silence might also be due to the fact that earlier Catholic bishops and theologians took for granted the sinfulness of such actions, considering them so obviously impure that it was hardly necessary to spell this out in writing.

For instance, Fr. Thomas G. Morrow has stopped holding his breath waiting for the magisterium to speak on this issue. Instead, he has boldly ‘taken the plunge’ and published an article expressing what millions of devout and chaste married Catholics have undoubtedly intuited over the centuries without ever talking about it (Cf. “Rethinking Marital Foreplay”, Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2010, pp. 58-63). According to Fr. Morrow, oral and anal foreplay partially simulate unnatural mortals sins, are therefore acts of lust that treat one’s spouse as a pleasure object rather than as a person, and consequently do not measure up to true standards of conjugal love and respect for human dignity. Thus, he concludes, such acts “should be considered illicit, in (or out of) marriage” (p. 63).

The total data available to me up till now ground a more probable opinion against that sort of foreplay, even though I can’t prove I’m right by citing a magisterial document condemning it. And as a probabiliorist, I will continue to tell Catholics who ask my opinion that those practices are mortal sins against purity and should definitely not be carried out.

We can say even more. Not only is it impossible to establish a consensus for Fr Harrison; there actually seems to be a powerful consensus against him (see above paragraphs 10-11); the most important part of which is not the contrary opinion of moralists such as Heribert Jone, but the silence of the Church. In the well-known legal adage, silence gives consent. The Church, while knowing full well that the above types of foreplay are happening, has not so much as breathed a whisper against them. Whereas if Fr Harrison is right, for the last 2000 years she should have been raising her voice like a trumpet.*

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have personally spoken to women who enjoy it.

They may have gotten to that point. But I can tell you it is disordered. And it’s main point is pain and degradation.

 

[LokisMom]

They may have gotten to that point. But I can tell you it is disordered. ** And it’s main point is pain and degradation.**

I’m sure it probably isn’t the same for everyone.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m sure it probably isn’t the same for everyone.

In my experience it has been.

Have you ever heard Matt Fradd Address the issue?