Strong arguments against Christopher West's marriage/sexuality books

[VeritasLuxMea]

I am sorry you view sex this way. I am proud to say that my intimacy with my wife is both Holy and Spiritual and one in which God is very much involved. I have no problem thanking him for the joys that he bestows on us through this great gift. Prayer and a relationship with God should be a involved with sexuality. Often on these very boards people are told to pray and discern if a certain time is good to have sex with their spouse. Sex for humans is a Holy and Divine act. Given to us by God himself to have the power not only to be unitive with each other but with Him as well. It is within this framework that we view Catholic sexuality, it is within this framework that we must view what the Church says in things like TOB. We are called to be Holy in our actions and our deeds. All of them, even between the sheets. We are not animals but are made in God’s image. Our Bodies are temples for the Holy spirit. And God does not shut his eyes in the bedroom.

Hey, you read between the lines a lot. I guess that’s OK because I do it too. I never said that I wasn’t grateful for my wife nor that I do not respect and treasure our sexuality.

I simply asked you what “sexual action that glorify God” are.

As to going to adoration and discussing specific sexual acts with God, no I’ve never done that. Nor have I prayed to God during sex; I have no idea how you can ignore what is occurring for long enough to do that, nor even why one would want to do it. No one has ever taught me to do any of these things, I don’t know how they could and I’m not sure I would ask even they did know how.

If indeed anal sex is part of a Holy Union blessed in a sacramental marriage then you would have no problem saying it is part of a sacrament?

If it was? Sure. I’m not convinced that it is and I have never done it nor do I have much of a desire to even try it. So I won’t say that.

I would put it less on a level of Oral, and more on the level of gag reflex stimulation.

Now you’re trying to ruin all of our fun.

 

[LokisMom]

If you’re writing seriously on sex these days, you do actually have to address non-vanilla practices or be irrelevant to your audience’s needs.

I think he had to address the issue, just as it would be necessary to mention that oral-genital stimulation is acceptable in the context of intercourse.

The act has been explicitly condoned on a much more important, noted, used piece of Catholic work (Moral Theology). Of course, no good Catholic is going to attack Heribert Jone and Moral Theology, so they go after Chris West… the little guy who, in ONE of his books, commented that the Church has no official position in anal foreplay… before he went on to say why he personally would NOT recommend the act.

It’s pretty mind boggling, but it’s what people do. Go after the easy target

 

[Estevao]

Does Chris West ever use the words “Natural Law” or “Mortification”? I’m just wondering.

Edit: this will be my last post ITT because I cam in here basically to give my opinion of Chris West, not to discuss the morality of sexual acts which I would rather not consider too deeply at this point in my life. Of course this may come across as “repressive”, but you see I have a different notion of the meaning of “freedom” than most modern folks do. For me it’s not just pure, unadulterated choice to do what I will, but always with reference to what is good.

If you’re writing seriously on sex these days, you do actually have to address non-vanilla practices or be irrelevant to your audience’s needs.

I think he had to address the issue, just as it would be necessary to mention that oral-genital stimulation is acceptable in the context of intercourse.

I’m pretty sure St. Paul was addressing these “non-vanilla” practices as you call them in Romans 1:26-27. It’s not new.

Just because the magisterium hasn’t spoke on the sin of anal sex, doesn’t mean we can’t see that. There are three pillars to the Catholic Church, one of which is Scripture.

I’ve also said that this discussion is degrading to both sexes. It makes men out to be perverse monsters for their (normal, IMO) desires, and women out to be victims in situations where they aren’t. It minimizes the woman’s choices and makes the man look forceful. This attitude is damaging to both sexes in different ways, and bad for couples.

I never called anyone a misogynist, though it is certainly possible for women to be so. But no one has said anything on this thread that would even point to such a charge.

Uh you implied here that people who disagree with your views are making men into monsters and women into victims. If that’s not claiming misogyny I don’t know what is, but then again misogyny, like homophobia, is a made up word that really just boils down into a shaming tactic the left uses.

 

[underacloud]

Don’t worry about it.

The logic was something like this:

1. Alice von Hildebrand said X.
2. Alice von Hildebrand is a woman.
3. If you disagree with von Hildebrand on X you are a misogynist!!!

Nobody said it made any sense.

As an aside, do any Australian’s see a parallel here?

1. Julia Gillard said X.
2. Julia Gillard is a woman.
3. If you disagree with Julia Gillard on X you are a misogynist!!!

Sorry - I figured while we’re talking religion and sex, we might as well bring politics in too. I’m working on topics of conversation for my next dinner party.

 

[LokisMom]

As an aside, do any Australian’s see a parallel here?

1. Julia Gillard said X.
2. Julia Gillard is a woman.
3. If you disagree with Julia Gillard on X you are a misogynist!!!

Sorry - I figured while we’re talking religion and sex, we might as well bring politics in too. I’m working on topics of conversation for my next dinner party.

 

[LokisMom]

but then again misogyny, like homophobia, is a made up word that really just boils down into a shaming tactic the left uses.

I’ve used the word misogyny to describe things that I think are misogynist, and I’m a conservative, Obama loathing, Republican.

 

[underacloud]

On the other hand, another several posters, including myself, posted regarding the medical concerns: anal fissures, rectal tears, rectal cancer, and anal incontinence. These are not about the ick factor, but rather about trauma/injury to delicate tissue not designed to accommodate penetration.

Questions about sinfulness aside, the medical concerns are pretty significant.

I agree that medical concerns are worthy of great weight in this particular debate.

I’d exclude cancer concerns though. They are related to STIs, so are a red herring when we’re talking about faithful marital relations.

 

[mommamaree]

The act has been explicitly condoned on a much more important, noted, used piece of Catholic work (Moral Theology). Of course, no good Catholic is going to attack Heribert Jone and Moral Theology, so they go after Chris West… the little guy who, in ONE of his books, commented that the Church has no official position in anal foreplay… before he went on to say why he personally would NOT recommend the act.

It’s pretty mind boggling, but it’s what people do. Go after the easy target

I was not going after an easy target (West). Was anyone else here doing so? I don’t recall it.

I very much dislike West’s perspective and style of delivery. It has absolutely nothing to do with the one topic that had taken over this thread. I have read more than his Good News book, and listened to his talks on CD. One little paragraph in one book is not going to be enough to prompt me to pitch a book.
There are a lot of people who strongly objected to his talks, and he ended up taking some time off. He revised his book (I had an original edition) during that time, btw.
It would be stupid to take on Fr.Jone, anyhow. That manual is no longer in use and the priest has passed on. Why would we rail against him? For people for whom this one topic is a sticking point with regard to Catholic literature, it makes far more sense to address any concerns in modern publishing, not something written almost a hundred years ago.
But for many people who dislike West (and Popcak, whom I actually find more objectionable) it is a lot more than this one topic, that always consumed every thread where it is ever mentioned.

 

[LokisMom]

**I was not going after an easy target (West). Was anyone else here doing so? I don’t recall it.
**
I very much dislike West’s perspective and style of delivery. It has absolutely nothing to do with the one topic that had taken over this thread. I have read more than his Good News book, and listened to his talks on CD. One little paragraph in one book is not going to be enough to prompt me to pitch a book.
There are a lot of people who strongly objected to his talks, and he ended up taking some time off. He revised his book (I had an original edition) during that time, btw.
It would be stupid to take on Fr.Jone, anyhow. That manual is no longer in use and the priest has passed on. Why would we rail against him? For people for whom this one topic is a sticking point with regard to Catholic literature, it makes far more sense to address any concerns in modern publishing, not something written almost a hundred years ago.
But for many people who dislike West (and Popcak, whom I actually find more objectionable) it is a lot more than this one topic, that always consumed every thread where it is ever mentioned.

No, you weren’t one of the posters who was, Mamamaree.

There are a few people who certainly were though.

 

[Walking_Home]

In response to the issue of “anal sex” – this is the response of one of the most consulted moral theologian and advisor to several Vatican discasteries.

Rome, Italy, Jul 3, 2009 / 02:33 pm (CNA).- Fr. Maurizio Faggioni, OFM, a professor at the top pontifical institute for moral theology, the Pontifical Academy “Alphonsianum,” said in a recent interview with Catholic News Agency that the teachings of the Church suggest “far more prudence” in approaching some of the issues raised by Christopher West in his presentation of the Theology of the Body.

Faggioni, a Franciscan who teaches at the Alphonsianum, an academy named upon the father of modern Moral theology, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, is one of the most consulted moral theologians and is an advisor to several Vatican dicasteries.

In a conversation with CNA, Fr. Faggioni explained that some of the issues discussed publicly by West, such as the appropriateness of anal sex or other forms of sexual “foreplay” in married relationships, have to be dealt with using great care, since “the risk is of displacing the attention from marital love and the anthropologic meaning of lovely gestures to merely the genital aspects.”

“Sexuality,” Fr. Faggioni said, launching into his analysis of West’s presentation of the Theology of the Body, “is the language of love and this language is authentic only when it is respectful of the meaning of human love.”

According to the moral theologian, “the traditional moral theology certainly does not prohibit intimacy among spouses, but it never regards them as a substitute for the marital embrace and accepts intimacy only as a path toward a complete sexual union.”

Moreover, Fr. Faggioni said that “it is simply not true that the traditional Catholic moral supports the use of acts that Thomas Aquinas call contra naturam -against nature- (such as anal sex) as something ordinary.”

“Catholic moral theology calls us to be very discrete in discussing these issues, and encourages being particularly respectful to the sensibilities of persons and couples,” the Italian Franciscan explained.

“Regarding this type of intercourse or others, no one can pretend to accept from another person something that offends that person’s sensibility on sexual issues or that does not respect the structure and natural complementarity of the bodies of man and woman****.”

The moral theologian warned that “today’s youth, in a special manner, have to be protected from unnecessary exposure to sexual-genital issues that can lead to a morbid curiosity.”

“This is not prudishness, but the wisdom of the Church that has time and again demonstrated the importance of discretion and prudence when it comes to sexual issues,” he added.

“When we make these types of assertions in an indiscriminate manner, we are actually getting into the beds of married couples, and that is something the moral teaching of the Church does not encourage at all.”

Regarding the practice of blessing the genitals before a sexual relationship, Fr. Faggioni expressed “real perplexity.” “Without doubt, all the body in each one of its parts is God’s creation and deserves honor. We precisely respect our private parts by surrounding them with greater respect and modesty.”

“In itself,” he continued, “nothing forbids thanking God for the sexual body of oneself or the spouse, but from the perspective of Christian anthropology, it is not right to emphasize the genitals as if our sexuality could be reduced to them.

“Love is made with all the body, with the entire person’s humanity, not only with the genitals.”

Fr. Faggioni also explained that Pope John Paul never intended to specifically address the sexual Puritanism of the United States. “Pope John Paul wanted to distance himself equally from the moral relativism that trivializes sex, as much as from the Puritanism that considers sex as taboo,” he explained.

The late Pope, the moral theologian also said “exalted the beauty of the body and sexuality, but also taught that the body cannot be used as an instrument, as if it would not be the bearer of a meaning and values that man and woman are called to embrace and live with gratefulness and fidelity,” he said on ending.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m pretty sure St. Paul was addressing these “non-vanilla” practices as you call them in Romans 1:26-27. It’s not new.

Just because the magisterium hasn’t spoke on the sin of anal sex, doesn’t mean we can’t see that. There are three pillars to the Catholic Church, one of which is Scripture.

**There has been LOTS of thought on the subject over the years (as demonstrated from the quotation from Moral Theology), and this is not an oversight.

If the act isn’t to climax, it isn’t (from the Catholic point of view) anal sex, just stimulation. There is a huge difference for Catholics between doing that sort of thing as part of lovemaking versus using it as a substitute for lovemaking. **

**There are pretty big practical and relational problems with the activity in question (hygiene/medical risks/does the other person actually want to do it?), but it isn’t necessarily sinful. It could be sinful (under certain circumstances) and it might be harmless (under different circumstances). **

 

[Xantippe]

Estevao,

If you look upthread, I wrote a checklist for deciding whether to try certain more exotic practices.

Here’s what I wrote:

"1. Is the act as a whole procreative?
2. Is it reasonably safe?
3. Is it painful for either spouse in a way that is out of proportion to their enjoyment?
4. Does either spouse find it degrading?

"#1 is where we go to our moral theology textbooks (like the 1929 one).
For #2 we might consult our doctor or common sense.
For #3 and #4 we would consult ourselves and our spouse as to personal tastes.
If an activity doesn’t pass every single test (procreative, safe, not unreasonably painful, not degrading), it’s a no. If it is procreative, safe, not unreasonably painful and not degrading, it’s an option.

“This isn’t relativism, it’s just that the question of what is and isn’t painful or degrading is genuinely going to vary considerably from person to person.”

 

[LongingSoul]

In response to the issue of “anal sex” – this is the response of one of the most consulted moral theologian and advisor to several Vatican discasteries.

Rome, Italy, Jul 3, 2009 / 02:33 pm (CNA).- Fr. Maurizio Faggioni, OFM, a professor at the top pontifical institute for moral theology, the Pontifical Academy “Alphonsianum,” said in a recent interview with Catholic News Agency that the teachings of the Church suggest “far more prudence” in approaching some of the issues raised by Christopher West in his presentation of the Theology of the Body.

You see this is why I LOVE the Franciscans.:heaven::hug3::flowers:

Thanks for contributing that, WalkingHome. All my kids are Franciscan educated from Grade 1 to senior and to know that this is a Franciscan representative makes me so happy.

 

[LongingSoul]

The moral theologian warned that “today’s youth, in a special manner, have to be protected from unnecessary exposure to sexual-genital issues that can lead to a morbid curiosity.”

This is just so urgently true. I watch the dynamic between these young barely cooked men and women that my kids are amongst and fight a sense of despair for what is a lost generation nurtured by my own generation. The kids choosing chastity in this culture are the ones who are essentially the martyrs of their age. The pool of young that make this countercultural commitment is a very small pool. It’s so sad for them.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Uh you implied here that people who disagree with your views are making men into monsters and women into victims. If that’s not claiming misogyny I don’t know what is, but then again misogyny, like homophobia, is a made up word that really just boils down into a shaming tactic the left uses.

I don’t get you. You come here all the time and complain that people are too hard on men for their desires. I say the same, but disagreeing with me is so important to you that you’ll twist what I say to provoke an argument rather than read and respond to what I actually posted.

Read what I wrote. I was responding to people who were saying that men who engage in this act are selfish, dehumanizing, and guilty of objectifying their wives. Sure, they could be. But that’s a bold assumption to make. And in a healthy marriage where communication and trust are both strong, both partners should feel comfortable bringing up things they would like to do. And both partners should feel comfortable saying ‘no’ and have it be respected.

In the scenario that I brought up, both partners were willing and excited. But the man was still called selfish and the woman was still called a victim. Again, this is bad for both genders for a lot of reasons.

 

[LokisMom]

I don’t get you. You come here all the time and complain that people are too hard on men for their desires. I say the same, but disagreeing with me is so important to you that you’ll twist what I say to provoke an argument rather than read and respond to what I actually posted.

Read what I wrote. I was responding to people who were saying that men who engage in this act are selfish, dehumanizing, and guilty of objectifying their wives. Sure, they could be. But that’s a bold assumption to make. And in a healthy marriage where communication and trust are both strong, both partners should feel comfortable bringing up things they would like to do. And both partners should feel comfortable saying ‘no’ and have it be respected.

In the scenario that I brought up, both partners were willing and excited. But the man was still called selfish and the woman was still called a victim. Again, this is bad for both genders for a lot of reasons.

Good post. Especially the first paragraph.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t get you. You come here all the time and complain that people are too hard on men for their desires. I say the same, but disagreeing with me is so important to you that you’ll twist what I say to provoke an argument rather than read and respond to what I actually posted.

**Yes.

**

Read what I wrote. I was responding to people who were saying that men who engage in this act are selfish, dehumanizing, and guilty of objectifying their wives. Sure, they could be. But that’s a bold assumption to make. And in a healthy marriage where communication and trust are both strong, both partners should feel comfortable bringing up things they would like to do. And both partners should feel comfortable saying ‘no’ and have it be respected.

In the scenario that I brought up, both partners were willing and excited. But the man was still called selfish and the woman was still called a victim. Again, this is bad for both genders for a lot of reasons.

I think there is reasonable concern that men are getting loaded up from porn with all sorts of weird ideas that wouldn’t work out well in the real world or that there are men who will make their wives’ lives a misery if they don’t indulge every perverted whim. It strikes me, though, that a guy like that is unlikely 1) to care much what the pope of Rome says and 2) unlikely to only be a selfish, controlling spouse just with regard to anal stimulation. I would expect much more global selfishness and manipulation.

I’d say that the sin is not so much in the actual activity (assuming appropriate precautions), but in the steamrolling of an unwilling spouse and the selfish insistence on one’s own enjoyment in the face of discomfort or danger to another.

 

[Xantippe]

Come to think of it, I think I have to say that the demand for even standard intercourse can be every bit as selfish, if the circumstances are dire enough–the wife has been told by her doctor to abstain for medical reasons (like the bladder surgery example from earlier this week or postpartum abstinence), the couple has life and death reasons to delay pregnancy or avoid it indefinitely, etc.

I feel like we shouldn’t treat a desire for anal stimulation as uniquely horrible.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I can’t be long, I’m in the hospital with my son (please see my prayer request here and in Prayer Requests)

Christopher West says regarding the topic, that although it might not be a sinful act per se, too many variables such as pain, injury, contamination, infection etc, preclude it from being a loving act appropriate for a Catholic couple.

Other predominant Catholic writers such as John Kippley and Greg Popcak have stated similarly.

Just because something isn’t a sin, does not equal it is morally good and permissible.

 

[sdegutis]

Estevao,

If you look upthread, I wrote a checklist for deciding whether to try certain more exotic practices.

Here’s what I wrote:

"1. Is the act as a whole procreative?
2. Is it reasonably safe?
3. Is it painful for either spouse in a way that is out of proportion to their enjoyment?
4. Does either spouse find it degrading?

Several things my wife and I used to do, we did not find degrading at the time. But they were demeaning to our inherent dignity as creations in the Image and Likeness of God. In our fallen nature, we did not see this at the time.