Theology of the body

[bilop]

I think the biggest problem with Christopher West’s teaching is this: He teaches that oral sex and anal sex are acceptable as foreplay. It may be technically true that they are not sinful in the sense that ejaculation outside the vagina is sinful. But they are sodomitic acts – just not completed ones. That in and of itself is troubling. Moreover, I think it may be an occasion of sin. If married people are doing what homosexuals do, it might well make them more prone to condone homosexual conduct.

Another thing that bothers me about Christopher West is that he makes it sound like everything that comes out of his mouth echoes John Paul II. I seriously doubt it. I would really like to see a clear citation to statements by John Paul II that oral and anal sex are just fine in marriage because I doubt one can be found.

I was just looking at West’s “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” last night.

He actually is very negative about anal sex as foreplay, for sanitary/health and other reasons and cautions strongly that oral stimulation if over done can lead to lust and an inappropriate using of the spouse.

West is far from a cheerleader for oral stimulation. He’s just making the point that it is not inherently sinful. I believe his quote is “no part of the body is inherently unkissable”.

I do not have JP II’s original work, but I have seen the citation where he says that if the wife has not orgasmed through intercourse, the husband can and should bring her to climax afterwards. This necessitates manual or oral stimulation.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

You are mixing up the goal of marriage with its ends. I was sloppy with the words earlier myself.

The goal of marriage is salvation because all the sacraments are supposed to give the grace for salvation. That is not the argument.

The argument is over the ends of marriage. The Baltimore Catechism lists the ends. It does not rank the ends. The Baltiomere Catechsim like I have aready said does not go into detail over the ends.

The heresy is that you are putting the two ends together, when the Church teaches with infallibility that procreation is the first end and unity the second end.

I think we may be getting bogged down over terms. I’m not sure about your distinction between goals and ends.

God Bless

 

[Solitude]

I was just looking at West’s “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” last night.

He actually is very negative about anal sex as foreplay, for sanitary/health and other reasons and cautions strongly that oral stimulation if over done can lead to lust and an inappropriate using of the spouse.

There was another thread on this topic a few weeks ago where the information emerged that there are at least two editions of the book you are referring to, one published in 2000 and the other in 2004. The latter one has the more moderate statements about anal sex (with the health cautions) while the earlier one has the less moderate statements referred to in the article in The Remnant that somebody linked earlier in this thread.

The 2004 edition has the approval of Archbishop Chaput. No one posted as to whether the earlier edition did. One could speculate that West had to moderate his statements in order to get Archbishop Chaput’s approval. It would be helpful if someone who has the 2000 edition could check to see whether it has Archbishop Chaput’s approval or not. I also wonder whether West’s in-person presentations are in line with the 2000 edition or the 2004 edition.

But even if such conduct isn’t technically a sin, there is still the question of whether it is appropriate behavior that comports with the dignity of persons and the dignity of marriage. There is an article online that also has an imprimatur and nihil obstat that discourages oral sex and suggests it is inconsistent with natural law. presentationministries.com/brochures/OralSex.asp

 

[Windmill]

That linked article includes the following statement:

"I remember an old Jesuit from my college days counseling his students that the pursuit of sanctity within the married state must inevitably lead to a weaning away from the marital privilege, the idea being that spiritual pursuits must take precedence over all else as we age and prepare to face the judgment of the Almighty. This may not wash with the pathetic spectacle of old Bob Dole hawking Viagra years ago when he was decrepit enough to be shilling for Depends, but it does have a decidedly Catholic ring to it, wouldn’t you say? "

I don’t know about a “Catholic ring,” but maybe an Augustinian one. Implicit in this statement is that the marital privilege is somehow suspect, somehow shameful or at least inappropriate as a couple ages, and certainly something to abandon in contemplation of “judgment.” It explicitly says that “sanctity” is somehow incompatible with intimate relations between a sacramentally-married husband and wife. I must have missed the pre-Cana class that taught separate bedrooms by 50 or else. It does have a decided ring to it after all…a Manichean ring methinks.

I see what you’re saying, but I think it is along the same lines as fasting, mortification, penance, etc… As the Catechism quote above states, one purpose of marriage is a “remedy against concupiscence.” We know what this refers to. Now, the author of the article does not state that a person should eventually become celibate, but that the use of the marital privilege would be weaned away from. Not because marital relations are bad, but because it assumes that one has slowly grown in self-mastery and does not need as frequent a recourse to the “remedy”. The couple is able to practice self-denial without as much a downward pull from concupiscence.

It’s the same thing as any other pleasure - it can create earthly attachments that can draw our affections away from God. Mortifications are meant to detach us from created goods so that we can focus on eternal, supernatural goods. It’s not that the created things are inherently polluted or evil (as Manichaeism would state), but, rather, that they are passing away and incapable of satisfying us completely. If we focus our hearts too much on created goods, we have no room for eternal things.

So, for example, one may have a strong attachment to luxurious foods. You spend tons of money on gourmet items, you travel the world seeking out new tastes, you are caught up in the idolization of food. Food, itself, is good - it supplies nutrition. However, when you let your attraction to food become disordered (IOW, it’s secondary pleasurable aspect is overinflated), you find yourself becoming too attached to this created good. Hopefully, as you grow and mature, you can moderate this impulse.

 

[Sure]

A few points…

Pope John Paul II never addresses oral or manual stimulation nor should he. Theologians for a very long time have made it clear that a husband and wife can and should stimulate each other prior to and leading up to intercourse. This should, of course, occur in a respectful and holy fashion.

We have a very great “puritan” influence in this country which leads us to view Nature and the body as very corrupt and not good. The idea that Truths about God our Creator can be found in Nature is nothing new. It is classical theology noted by St. Thomas Aquinas. We learn about God in the workings of Nature. Certain things about God are revealed to us, through his creation. For this reason, I think it would be better to call “Theology of the Body” Theology of Creation, but whatever.

The primary end of marriage is procreation. This is nothing new. Pope Pius XI declared: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.” Now, what does “primary” mean? Does it mean “more important”? NO, it is “primary” philosophically meaning it is prior to or necessary.

Think of it this way, it is possible to have a marital act that is “procreative” but not “unitive”. Obviously, this would be a bad thing. On the other hand, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a marital act that is “unitive” but not “procreative.” Such an act may feel unitive, but is not in any sense. In this way, the end of “unitive” is dependent on the existence of the end of “procreative.” Hence it can be said that, in a philosophical sense, “procreative” is primary and “unitive” is dependent upon, or secondary.

The beauty of Pope John Paul’s work is that it takes the ideas of Nature of Aristotle and Aquinas and puts them into terms which can demolish the arguments of modern philosophy. That said, I can see why some might not like West’s “gushy” approach to his portrayal of “Theology of the Body”. But I suppose that is better than a dry philosophical approach to which no one would listen.

 

[latinmass]

A few points…

Pope John Paul II never addresses oral or manual stimulation nor should he. Theologians for a very long time have made it clear that a husband and wife can and should stimulate each other prior to and leading up to intercourse. This should, of course, occur in a respectful and holy fashion.

We have a very great “puritan” influence in this country which leads us to view Nature and the body as very corrupt and not good. The idea that Truths about God our Creator can be found in Nature is nothing new. It is classical theology noted by St. Thomas Aquinas. We learn about God in the workings of Nature. Certain things about God are revealed to us, through his creation. For this reason, I think it would be better to call “Theology of the Body” Theology of Creation, but whatever.

The primary end of marriage is procreation. This is nothing new. Pope Pius XI declared: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.” Now, what does “primary” mean? Does it mean “more important”? NO, it is “primary” philosophically meaning it is prior to or necessary.

Think of it this way, it is possible to have a marital act that is “procreative” but not “unitive”. Obviously, this would be a bad thing. On the other hand, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a marital act that is “unitive” but not “procreative.” Such an act may feel unitive, but is not in any sense. In this way, the end of “unitive” is dependent on the existence of the end of “procreative.” Hence it can be said that, in a philosophical sense, “procreative” is primary and “unitive” is dependent upon, or secondary.

The beauty of Pope John Paul’s work is that it takes the ideas of Nature of Aristotle and Aquinas and puts them into terms which can demolish the arguments of modern philosophy. That said, I can see why some might not like West’s “gushy” approach to his portrayal of “Theology of the Body”. But I suppose that is better than a dry philosophical approach to which no one would listen.

Another vague statement which have all up to now been proven untrue, i.e. JP2 stating oral sex is licit previous to the marital act. Can you cite which theologians for a long time have said that a husband and wife can and should stimulate each other before the marital act. The previous post giving a link against oral sex speaks to this and the reasoning.

 

[Sure]

Another vague statement which have all up to now been proven untrue, i.e. JP2 stating oral sex is licit previous to the marital act. Can you cite which theologians for a long time have said that a husband and wife can and should stimulate each other before the marital act. The previous post giving a link against oral sex speaks to this and the reasoning.

TAN books used to sell a reprint of a book, Moral Theology, by Fr. Jones from 1946, that basically said the same thing as Christopher West.

Years ago I read another pre-Vatican II book on Marriage that said the same type of thing.

If a husband wants to kiss or touch every inch of his wife’s body, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so, provided that the act is respectful and intended toward consummation in the marital act.

 

[latinmass]

TAN books used to sell a reprint of a book, Moral Theology, by Fr. Jones from 1946, that basically said the same thing as Christopher West.

Years ago I read another pre-Vatican II book on Marriage that said the same type of thing.

If a husband wants to kiss or touch every inch of his wife’s body, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so, provided that the act is respectful and intended toward consummation in the marital act.

I did a little background on Fr. Jone, this book Moral Theology is not without controversy with the same problems that West is having.

 

[saint_rafael]

The issue not about stimulation and foreplay. Of coarse that is allowed in the unitive aspect of the Christian marriage before intercourse.

The issue is over oral sex, which are sex acts that involve the genitals and is different from normal foreplay. The genitals specifically were made for only intercourse.

Fellatio is forbidden because in the moral tradition of the Church, the male member and the male seed only belongs in one place, which is in the women during intercourse.

Oral Sex has always been considered a perversion and not an authentic act of love.

It seems the basic morality of the past decaeds has been completely overturned by the sexual revolution.
I am amazed at how all the modern Catholics have been corrupted.
This wasn’t even an issue for anyone over the age of 75. It seems everyone after the WWII generation has lost their mind.

 

[Sure]

The issue not about stimulation and foreplay. Of coarse that is allowed in the unitive aspect of the Christian marriage before intercourse.

The issue is over oral sex, which are sex acts that involve the genitals and is different from normal foreplay. The genitals specifically were made for only intercourse.

Fellatio is forbidden because in the moral tradition of the Church, the male member and the male seed only belongs in one place, which is in the women during intercourse.

Oral Sex has always been considered a perversion and not an authentic act of love.

It seems the basic morality of the past decaeds has been completely overturned by the sexual revolution.
I am amazed at how all the modern Catholics have been corrupted.
This wasn’t even an issue for anyone over the age of 75. It seems everyone after the WWII generation has lost their mind.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that oral sex to completion is permissible. Certainly, West does not advocate such action. We’re only talking about stimulation prior to intercourse.

 

[Solitude]

It seems the basic morality of the past decaeds has been completely overturned by the sexual revolution.
I am amazed at how all the modern Catholics have been corrupted.
This wasn’t even an issue for anyone over the age of 75. It seems everyone after the WWII generation has lost their mind.

There is an excellent sermon by an FSSP priest available in mp3 online that clearly states the traditional view of marriage.

Web page:
audiosancto.org/categories/marriage-and-family.php

Sermon: “Holy Matrimony”