Strong arguments against Christopher West's marriage/sexuality books

[VeritasLuxMea]

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

Used to repeat this mantra and it led to a bit of scrupulosity with sex.

 

[pensmama87]

Used to repeat this mantra and it led to a bit of scrupulosity with sex.

I could see that happening if used as a mantra, but it’s still a good guideline.

There’s a lot of areas of our lives where the answer is, “God doesn’t say no, but that doesn’t mean yes.”

We have brains for a reason. We’re supposed to figure it out. I have a feeling that if we’re making an honest effort out of it, trying to learn more about our faith, genuinely do good by other people, and admit when we screw up (which will be often), then we’re not going to be surprised when we die by God saying, “Gotcha! I know the Church didn’t make a rule about this but you still should have known better!”

 

[LokisMom]

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

Hmm… If something is licit, then I dont see why it would be immoral and not permissible. Just MHO, of course.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

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

 

[Xantippe]

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

I think that would probably not be very helpful to somebody who had a specific question–first get to be amazingly virtuous, and then you’ll know the answer. While true to some extent, people need answers now.

 

[Xantippe]

Hmm… If something is licit, then I dont see why it would be immoral and not permissible. Just MHO, of course.

Yes. If an activity is licit and both spouses find it enjoyable and they both feel safe, loved and respected throughout, why not?

There are quite enough real, official teachings without making new ones up out of thin air.

 

[LokisMom]

Yes. If an activity is licit and both spouses find it enjoyable and they both feel safe, loved and respected throughout, why not?

There are quite enough real, official teachings without making new ones up out of thin air.

Agreed.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think that would probably not be very helpful to somebody who had a specific question–first get to be amazingly virtuous, and then you’ll know the answer. While true to some extent, people need answers now.

Not necessarily true. Of course if someones behaviour is putting them or others in immediate danger, of course an urgent directive is needed… but as humans we are incapable of black and white answers for every question. One of the most important Catholic tenets is free will and while it is prudent to address our children with language like “you are committing a sin” or “God isn’t happy with you right now” or something like that… adults and their unique relationship with their Creator, must be respected in the way we address things to each other. We can address Church teaching to them along with the wisdom of the other sciences and humanities that we trust in… we can say that sodomy is the gravest of mortal sins… but to try and unravel the web of behaviours that are trying to establish a line of no crossing into sin… is impossible.

The Church doesn’t do that. That doesn’t respect the persons relationship with his Creator. West has created the false tenet… “if the Church hasn’t spoken on it then it is permissable”. Look back over this thread and see that being confidently stated by any number of folks.

 

[underacloud]

LongingSoul;12377273:

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

I think that would probably not be very helpful to somebody who had a specific question–first get to be amazingly virtuous, and then you’ll know the answer. While true to some extent, people need answers now.

Not only is it unhelpful, but I find it quite arrogant. The direct implication being that those of us who are not in agreement must lack virtue and guidance by the spirit.

Please, if you wish to debate this topic, try to convince us by reasoned discourse of the moral principles that frame the subject, but do not dismiss us - or West - as lacking virtue.

 

[underacloud]

The Church doesn’t do that. That doesn’t respect the persons relationship with his Creator. West has created the false tenet… “if the Church hasn’t spoken on it then it is permissable”. Look back over this thread and see that being confidently stated by any number of folks.

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

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

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

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

 

[LokisMom]

Not only is it unhelpful, but I find it quite arrogant. The direct implication being that those of us who are not in agreement must lack virtue and guidance by the spirit.

Please, if you wish to debate this topic, try to convince us by reasoned discourse of the moral principles that frame the subject, but do not dismiss us - or West - as lacking virtue.

 

[LokisMom]

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

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

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

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

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hmm… If something is lt, then I dont see why it would be immoral and not permissible. Just MHO, of course.

My quote was longer. I’m not sure why u shortened it.

Christopher West said it was probably not sinful per se
But there are too many factors precluding it from being an act for a Catholic couple. (Risk of pain, injury, infection, contamination).

Jone’s didn’t touch on these factors in the quote. Probably because he was discussing the specific sin of “pollution” which means ejaculation outside of the vagina.

A man who did this act but finished regularly did not “pollute”. Other factors, such as pain, contamination, lust etc make it an act that is not proper for a Catholic couple.

Jone’s did not write for the laity, but for priests , who were expected to have a level of education and knowledge of church vocabulary.

It isn’t correct to read Jone and say, “its OK for foreplay,” when he was addressing a specific sin, pollution.

I do not know of any legitimate Catholic theologian who writes on married sexuality who says this practice is legitimate.

 

[LokisMom]

My quote was longer. I’m not sure why u shortened it.

Christopher West said it was probably not sinful per se
But there are too many factors precluding it from being an act for a Catholic couple. (Risk of pain, injury, infection, contamination).

Jone’s didn’t touch on these factors in the quote. Probably because he was discussing the specific sin of “pollution” which means ejaculation outside of the vagina.

A man who did this act but finished regularly did not “pollute”. Other factors, such as pain, contamination, lust etc make it an act that is not proper for a Catholic couple.

Jone’s did not write for the laity, but for priests , who were expected to have a level of education and knowledge of church vocabulary.

It isn’t correct to read Jone and say, “its OK for foreplay,” when he was addressing a specific sin, pollution.

I do not know of any legitimate Catholic theologian who writes on married sexuality who says this practice is legitimate.

I guess I would disagree.

If something is not a sin, then I dont see why it would be immoral. Of course, it would be immoral if it was done without care, without mutual consent and enjoyment, without the other’s best interest, etc etc… but that’s not specific to this act, that’s all sex acts. If thats what you mean though, then I agree. But like I said, that’s true for all sex acts.

 

[underacloud]

But there are too many factors precluding it from being an act for a Catholic couple. (Risk of pain, injury, infection, contamination).

These are medical matters. So would you say a couple is sinning if they consult their doctor on the physical/medical risks of anal sex (as foreplay) and their doctors says it is not a problem?

 

[on_the_hill]

I’m not going to read through 13 pages of posts.

Can someone give me a brief description of who Christopher West is? I’ve never heard of him before. At least, I don’t think I have.

And who are the von Hildebrands?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Not necessarily true. Of course if someones behaviour is putting them or others in immediate danger, of course an urgent directive is needed… but as humans we are incapable of black and white answers for every question.

It’s confusing why you would say that, considering you are attempting to give a black and white answer. Those who disagree with you are giving you a gray answer.

The Church doesn’t do that. That doesn’t respect the persons relationship with his Creator. West has created the false tenet… “if the Church hasn’t spoken on it then it is permissable”. Look back over this thread and see that being confidently stated by any number of folks.

If the Church hasn’t spoken on it, then it may be either permissible OR impermissible and it is for the conscience of the couple to decide how to proceed based on Catholic principles. Which is, incidentally, EXACTLY WHAT CHRISTOPHER WEST said about this.

He then went on to explain why he thinks it’s not a good idea.

Which part of that do you all disagree with?

 

[LokisMom]

it’s confusing why you would say that, considering you are attempting to give a black and white answer. Those who disagree with you are giving you a gray answer.

If the church hasn’t spoken on it, then it may be either permissible or impermissible and it is for the conscience of the couple to decide how to proceed based on catholic principles. Which is, incidentally, exactly what christopher west said about this.

He then went on to explain why he thinks it’s not a good idea.

Which part of that do you all disagree with?

bingo!!

 

[LongingSoul]

Not only is it unhelpful, but I find it quite arrogant. The direct implication being that those of us who are not in agreement must lack virtue and guidance by the spirit.

Please, if you wish to debate this topic, try to convince us by reasoned discourse of the moral principles that frame the subject, but do not dismiss us - or West - as lacking virtue.

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

Virtues and Sin

The Seven “Heavenly Virtues” consist of the three Theological Virtues and four Cardinal Virtues.>

The Theological Virtues: (Faith, Hope, and Charity)

1.Faith is concerned about things revealed by God which exceed the ability of human reason to grasp. Faith is a gift, a supernatural virtue that people cannot acquire naturally on their own initiative.

2.The supernatural virtue of hope (a gift as well) looks expectantly to the future. Through the virtue of hope, a person awaits the fulfilment of the promises of God

3.The most important of the virtues and the one most important for the development of the human person, is the virtue of charity. Charity is the love of God under the aspect of friendship. That is why human friendship is the best way of explaining humanity’s relationship to God brought about through charity.

The Cardinal Virtues

The four cardinal virtues are prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance.

1.Prudence
Prudence makes it possible for people to choose that act which here and now best helps them to move in the direction of their final end. The parts of prudence include reasoning, understanding, circumspection, foresight, docility, caution, and memory. But the entire process of prudence has its source in understanding. Without understanding human nature and the fundamental precepts of natural law, prudence is not possible.

2.Justice
Justice is the virtue that perfects the will. Unless all people are by nature equal before God, there is no natural requirement on humanity’s part to be just. Justice regulates the voluntary actions whereby one person is brought into contact with another. Justice is divided into distributive, commutative (particular) and legal (general) justice.

3.Fortitude
Fortitude is a general virtue in that it implies a certain firmness of mind, which is necessary for the practice of any of the virtues. Fortitude is the virtue that enables us to curb our fears and to moderate our daring. It is the virtue that binds the will to the good of reason in the face of the greatest evils.

4.Temperance
Temperance is principally, but not solely, concerned with the pleasures of food and drink and about sexual pleasures - those pleasures connected with the preservation of human life. The use of such pleasurable things must be judged according to the needs of this life. This calls for prudence, above all.

The Seven Deadly Sins

1.Pride is excessive belief in one’s own abilities that interferes with the individual’s recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

2.Envy is the desire for others’ traits, status, abilities, or situation.

3.Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

4.Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

5.Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

6.Covetousness is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Greed.

7.Slothfulness is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work

.

rec.bne.catholic.edu.au/Pages/Theological-Background-Details.aspx?tbid=161

If that aspect is offensive to you, you have to take it up with the Church… or the Australian Church at the least.

 

[Xantippe]

It’s confusing why you would say that, considering you are attempting to give a black and white answer. Those who disagree with you are giving you a gray answer.

If the Church hasn’t spoken on it, then it may be either permissible OR impermissible and it is for the conscience of the couple to decide how to proceed based on Catholic principles. Which is, incidentally, EXACTLY WHAT CHRISTOPHER WEST said about this.

He then went on to explain why he thinks it’s not a good idea.

Which part of that do you all disagree with?

Yes.

It’s definitely not something on my bucket list, but if we think honestly about this area, I think a lot of us will realize that there are a number of things that we do sexually that would also not sound great in print. And yet the activities themselves are licit, safe and enjoyable and in practice we do not find them either degrading or embarrassing.

It’s quite possible that each of us married people has something in our normal repertoire that is licit, but would squick a lot of people out. They might find it degrading and unenjoyable. Fine–they shouldn’t do the stuff. And we shouldn’t do anything that we find degrading and impossible to enjoy.

It’s the being unable to enjoy an act or experience it as anything other than degrading that makes some licit sex acts unsuitable for some couples, not anything inherent in the particular practice.