Strong arguments against Christopher West's marriage/sexuality books

[LokisMom]

Honestly, I think the most disheartening thing about this thread is the fact that we have many decent Catholics here arguing in FAVOR of sodomy, which is really just sickening. And it shows how far our culture has fallen.

I recommend we open our hearts and read over the posts again from Longing Soul, she does an excellent job explaining truth.

Is it also sickening then, that Jone’s book, which states the act as licit, has been so highly regarded and used in confessionals, and received imprimaturs?

This is insulting.

 

[pensmama87]

Honestly, I think the most disheartening thing about this thread is the fact that we have many decent Catholics here arguing in FAVOR of sodomy, which is really just sickening. And it shows how far our culture has fallen.

I recommend we open our hearts and read over the posts again from Longing Soul, she does an excellent job explaining truth.

I think what’s disheartening is that people are being accused of being in favor of sodomy when they’ve said no such thing. What they have said is, “The Church doesn’t say definitively this is a sin. Couples should discern what is right for them, and we should trust them to be able to discern using available resources.”

Catholics are falsely accused enough of trying to police other people’s bedroom activities. Let’s not make those accusations reality.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Im sorry but this is very frsutrating to me. Im sorry if my frustration shows through on this post.

But it’s very frustrating and makes me upset that youre saying this because Ive repeated multiple times that of course, great care MUST be taken for the other person. It must be mutually enjoyable, mutually self giving, etc etc. There are precautions that can and should be taken for all those things you list above, and I have repeated this multiple times.

I’ve written whole posts dedicated to the issues of pain and hygiene/infections.
I
But again, these are thing that must be taken into account for EVERY sex act. ANY sex act that does not consider the other person or that is painful or disregarding to the other person becomes illict, not because of the act itself, but because of the disregard. This act is no different in that regard.

Maybe you’ve missed the many times Ive addressed this. So hopefully you’re reading it now and settling the issues.

Sigh. I’m not sure why it matters that you’ve repeated it various times.

The so called precautions you’ve mentioned can in themselves be problematic, for example condom use.

You have totally chosen to disregard WHAT Christopher west said about it, focusing on a paragraph from Jone’s. Have you read Jone’s completely?

Christopher West and others have said it was problematic due to the factors I’ve mentioned. I seriously know of NOT ONE Catholic writer who suggests it is a benign practice.

I vehemently disagree with your opinion.

 

[Xantippe]

Another Catholic priest’s viewpoint, in addition to his answer in relation to an earlier CAF thread, on this subject. The catechism too, would seem to back his views.

*CCC 2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “*This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm

So my answer to the above question is that neither the intention (purpose) to use an act as foreplay, nor any circumstances whatsoever, can justify a sexual act that is intrinsically evil. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil due to the deprivation of the procreative and unitive meanings. And the presence or absence of sexual climax does not change the moral object. An unnatural sexual act with sexual climax has the same evil moral object as an unnatural sexual act without sexual climax. The moral object has not changed, and so the moral nature of the act has not changed; it remains intrinsically evil. Therefore, no type of unnatural sexual act, with or without climax, can be used by a married couple at any time, regardless of whether or when an act of natural marital relations occurs.

All non-marital sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. All non-unitive sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. All non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

The answer of Catholic priests:
(updated 11 July 2012)

A similar question was asked, in Catholic Answers discussion group (forums.catholic-questions.org), as to whether “Anything goes within the marriage act as long as the seed goes in the right place.”

Fr. John Gow answered as follows:
“I have always taught that it is wrong. That part of the body is not meant for that. Sure, it might be physically possible and/or enjoyable, but it is not what makes the sexual act unitive. It is wrong to think that as long as a person concludes the sexual act in the appropriate place that they were justified in doing x, y, and z (which were non-unitive) before that conclusion happened. In the conjugal act, the husband and wife completely give the gift of themselves to each other. Part of that is their gift of fertility, the potentiality of new life.** My argument has always been that the sexual act is one act and that there should always be the unitive and procreative elements present; once either of them are taken away from the act itself, the nature of that sexual act has changed.**”

I’m afraid that a lot of these arguments are likewise arguments against kissing or foreplay or any sexual activity that isn’t strictly genital-genital. You gave your spouse a back rub? Tsk, tsk.

To Fr. Gow, I would point out that it isn’t a question of removing either the unitive or the procreative aspect, but a question of adding other stuff to an occasion of lawful intercourse between a married couple.

 

[LokisMom]

I think what’s disheartening is that people are being accused of being in favor of sodomy when they’ve said no such thing. What they have said is, “The Church doesn’t say definitively this is a sin. Couples should discern what is right for them, and we should trust them to be able to discern using available resources.”

Catholics are falsely accused enough of trying to police other people’s bedroom activities. Let’s not make those accusations reality.

Yes, Exactly this.

 

[Xantippe]

Honestly, I think the most disheartening thing about this thread is the fact that we have many decent Catholics here arguing in FAVOR of sodomy, which is really just sickening. And it shows how far our culture has fallen.

I recommend we open our hearts and read over the posts again from Longing Soul, she does an excellent job explaining truth.

Sodomy refers to completed non-procreative acts outside the context of lawful marital intercourse. If the activities are not done to climax of the male and there is lawful intercourse, sodomy is not accurate terminology.

Example:

1. Spouse A and Spouse B bring each other to climax manually. There’s no intercourse.
2. Spouse C and Spouse D touch each other in much the same way, but there is intercourse.

It would not be correct to say that Spouse C and Spouse D are committing sodomy.

 

[LokisMom]

Sigh. I’m not sure why it matters that you’ve repeated it various times.

The so called precautions you’ve mentioned can in themselves be problematic, for example condom use.

You have totally chosen to disregard WHAT Christopher west said about it, focusing on a paragraph from Jone’s. Have you read Jone’s completely?

Christopher West and others have said it was problematic due to the factors I’ve mentioned. I seriously know of NOT ONE Catholic writer who suggests it is a benign practice.

I vehemently disagree with your opinion.

It matters that I’ve repeated it many times because I feel like Im being accused of not taking those things into account. Those things you mentioned, pain, disregard, degradation, hygiene, infection, are things to watch for with EVERY sex act. Including intercourse itself. Intercourse can be painful if not handled carefully. There can be degradation in intercourse if there isn’t mutual self giving and enjoyment. There can be bad hygene and as a result, infections in intercourse if not taken the proper precautions.

I suggested condom use during anal foreplay only, but also said that showering or baby wipes could work too. I don’t see why using a condom during foreplay with the intention of taking it off for the actual intercourse is wrong, but that’s beyond the matter. Don’t like it? Fine. There’s showering.

What other problematic precaution are you talking about? Using a lot of lube? Going slowly? Stopping at any time? Keeping the other’s best interest in mind? How are any of those problematic? Those can apply to any sex act.

Ive never done anal play and never will, so I cant comment on whether or not I’d suggest it to someone, or whether or not it’s a good idea.

The point is, the Church does not teach that the act itself is a sin, and that leaves it up to us to form our own opinions, carefully. AND if a couple decides they wanna try it, we cannot say they are going against Church teaching, because they are not.

It’s ok that we disagree on the morality of this act, but it is not ok that we accuse each other of going against Church teaching.

That is all.

 

[pepipop]

1. Jone only discussed how it was not the sin of “pollution”.
2. The factors having to do with hygiene, pain, injury, contamination, or infection were not addressed in that 1 quote.
3. These factors WERE considered by Christopher West, Greg Popcak, and John Kippley. All of them state that these issues preclude the activity from being licit.

You seem to think the "pollution ’ part being not a sin, that the whole kit and kaboodle is just fine. You are excluding all the other issues. Is it moral to subject one’s spouse or one’s self to pain, infection,injury and contamination? Would disregard for those factors be lustful?

I don’t see how that disregard is prudent, or loving.

Precisely, as he also states in his book the following:

In Section 230 he gives the correct definition of sodomy as follows.
Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone: “230. – II. Sodomy. 1. Definition. Sodomy is unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or of the opposite sex; the latter of heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercourse (imperfect sodomy). Either kind of sodomy will be consummated or non-consummated according as semination takes place or not.”

 

[LokisMom]

Precisely, as he also states in his book the following:

In Section 230 he gives the correct definition of sodomy as follows.
Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone: “230. – II. Sodomy. 1. Definition. Sodomy is unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or of the opposite sex; the latter of heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercourse (imperfect sodomy). Either kind of sodomy will be consummated or non-consummated according as semination takes place or not.”

One of the lines clearly states “it is neither sodomy nor sinful if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner and ended in the proper manner.”

He did NOT say “it is not a sin of pollution, but it is still an inherently sinful act.”

Come on guys, trying to twist his words to the benefit of your argument is just not going to work.

 

[thewanderer]

My strong sense is that yes, that anal sex regardless of whether ejaculation happens there or not, is sodomy. The simulation of an unnatural act even when it includes the relatively unlikely pause for a cleanup and restart naturally in the vagina, is an expression contradicting the natural process.
.

You answered the question “Is anal foreplay sodomy and so immoral?”

That is not the question I asked. The question I asked is “Do you believe that every person that is holy enough will recognize anal foreplay as immoral, yes or no?”

Seeing as I want to make sure I am not misunderstanding you or putting words in your mouth can you please answer the particular question I asked? Doing so will help clear up the confusion multiple posters have had about your previous posts.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

It seems to me as though most people are primarily discussing anal intercourse and whether or not it’s sinful. But what if we take it down a notch and discuss anal play and the whether or not that is sinful. Then we don’t have to worry about condom use, either.

 

[newf]

Is it also sickening then, that Jone’s book, which states the act as licit, has been so highly regarded and used in confessionals, and received imprimaturs?

This is insulting.

No, actually what is insulting is to place someone’s penis inside another person’s anus. And it is also insulting that you call this licit.

I seriously am not interested in your arguments. I’ve read enough of your comments to know you don’t really understand what is true and you don’t seem willing to learn.

 

[LongingSoul]

Sodomy refers to completed non-procreative acts outside the context of lawful marital intercourse. If the activities are not done to climax of the male and there is lawful intercourse, sodomy is not accurate terminology.

Example:

1. Spouse A and Spouse B bring each other to climax manually. There’s no intercourse.
2. Spouse C and Spouse D touch each other in much the same way, but there is intercourse.

It would not be correct to say that Spouse C and Spouse D are committing sodomy.

What sodomy is and what renders a person culpable of the sin of sodomy are two different things , as per pepipops contribution here.

Precisely, as he also states in his book the following:

In Section 230 he gives the correct definition of sodomy as follows.
Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone: “230. – II. Sodomy. 1. Definition. Sodomy is unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or of the opposite sex; the latter of heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercourse (imperfect sodomy). Either kind of sodomy will be consummated or non-consummated according as semination takes place or not.”

Fr Jone’s confessional guide is specifically dealing with situations addressed by penitants in the confessional and at a time where a woman was more likely to be expected to be submissive to a husbands needs. Europe was the first area to begin decriminalising sodomy and even Denmark decriminalised homosexuality in the early 1930’s. It’s feasible that the sexual mores of males in that environment made the issue a significant one in the confessional… especially with regards to the woman in the scenario.

 

[PaulinVA]

“It might not be sinful but I won’t do it” is a perfectly acceptable response to Jone and West.

It’s funny, though. The orthodox view is to look down on people who say that something might be called a sin by the Church but they will do it anyway. It’s amusing to see the shoe on the other foot and have people arguing that the Church doesn’t say it’a a sin but it should be and berate people who dare to actually take the Church’s position, as articulated by a priest in a book with a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

 

[phillylawyer]

It matters that I’ve repeated it many times because I feel like Im being accused of not taking those things into account. Those things you mentioned, pain, disregard, degradation, hygiene, infection, are things to watch for with EVERY sex act. Including intercourse itself. Intercourse can be painful if not handled carefully. There can be degradation in intercourse if there isn’t mutual self giving and enjoyment. There can be bad hygene and as a result, infections in intercourse if not taken the proper precautions.

I suggested condom use during anal foreplay only, but also said that showering or baby wipes could work too. I don’t see why using a condom during foreplay with the intention of taking it off for the actual intercourse is wrong, but that’s beyond the matter. Don’t like it? Fine. There’s showering.

What other problematic precaution are you talking about? Using a lot of lube? Going slowly? Stopping at any time? Keeping the other’s best interest in mind? How are any of those problematic? Those can apply to any sex act.

Ive never done anal play and never will, so I cant comment on whether or not I’d suggest it to someone, or whether or not it’s a good idea.

The point is, the Church does not teach that the act itself is a sin, and that leaves it up to us to form our own opinions, carefully. AND if a couple decides they wanna try it, we cannot say they are going against Church teaching, because they are not.

It’s ok that we disagree on the morality of this act, but it is not ok that we accuse each other of going against Church teaching.

That is all.

This analysis is correct. There is no church teaching that explicitly outlaws this type of activity. People are free to disagree with another person’s prudential and moral judgment on the matter, but they should not claim that their personal view on morality is explicitly confirmed by the Church.

As with most things in life, the Church gives us very few hard and fast rules regarding sexuality (there are only three “rules” that I have alluded to in other posts and anal foreplay does not violate any of them), and it is up to the wisdom and discernment of each couple to prayerful apply these principles to actions that are not explicitly prohibited by church teaching.

To be completely honest, the modern world (which has gone so far afield and crazy with sexuality) has a hard enough time with the three minimal rules that the Church does clearly spell out. I’m not sure how it’s beneficial for a Catholic to impose additional rules that he/she personally believe but are not required by the church on all other people.

 

[LokisMom]

**No, actually what is insulting is to place someone’s penis inside another person’s anus. And it is also insulting that you call this licit. **

LOL. That’s my point though! That is precisely what Heribert Jone, Author of Moral Theology, has said is licit “if ended in the proper manner.”

I seriously am not interested in your arguments. I’ve read enough of your comments to know you don’t really understand what is true and you don’t seem willing to learn.

This is very rude.

 

[LokisMom]

This analysis is correct. There is no church teaching that explicitly outlaws this type of activity. People are free to disagree with another person’s prudential and moral judgment on the matter, but they should not claim that their personal view on morality is explicitly confirmed by the Church.

As with most things in life, the Church gives us very few hard and fast rules regarding sexuality (there are only three “rules” that I have alluded to in other posts and anal foreplay does not violate any of them), and it is up to the wisdom and discernment of each couple to prayerful apply these principles to actions that are not explicitly prohibited by church teaching.

To be completely honest, the modern world (which has gone so far afield and crazy with sexuality) has a hard enough time with the three minimal rules that the Church does clearly spell out. I’m not sure how it’s beneficial for a Catholic to impose additional rules that he/she personally believe but are not required by the church on all other people.

Exactly!!!

 

[LokisMom]

“It might not be sinful but I won’t do it” is a perfectly acceptable response to Jone and West.

It’s funny, though. The orthodox view is to look down on people who say that something might be called a sin by the Church but they will do it anyway.** It’s amusing to see the shoe on the other foot and have people arguing that the Church doesn’t say it’a a sin but it should be** and berate people who dare to actually take the Church’s position, as articulated by a priest in a book with a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

THANK YOU!!

 

[LokisMom]

No, actually what is insulting is to place someone’s penis inside another person’s anus. And it is also insulting that you call this licit.

I seriously am not interested in your arguments. I’ve read enough of your comments to know you don’t really understand what is true and you don’t seem willing to learn.

Reported for graphic, inappropriate language. (first paragraph)

And for uncharitable personal remark to a fellow CAF member. (second paragraph)

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

“It might not be sinful but I won’t do it” is a perfectly acceptable response to Jone and West.

It’s funny, though. The orthodox view is to look down on people who say that something might be called a sin by the Church but they will do it anyway. It’s amusing to see the shoe on the other foot and have people arguing that the Church doesn’t say it’a a sin but it should be and berate people who dare to actually take the Church’s position, as articulated by a priest in a book with a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

Christopher West’s book carried a Nihil obstat and imprimitur as well. He acknowledges that it isn’t technically a sin, agreeing with Jone. BUT, he does not condone the practice. In fact he gives many reasons why its is wrong for a couple.

I find it really odd that some defenders of West actually are making the opposite*argument that he makes.

Read the book to see what west actually said.