E
eelpis
Guest
What does the criticism of Christopher West’s theology, from a traditional standpoint consist in?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
bilop
Guest
Well, I’m pretty traditional, and I like his work, but I’ll take a stab.What does the criticism of Christopher West’s theology, from a traditional standpoint consist in?
West says that oral, and manual stimulation, with the context of a completed act of intercourse is permissible. This stimulation may be to completion for the wife, but not for the husband.
This is in line with JP II’s writings and many older Catholic marriage manuals.
He also emphasizes the importance of the uniative aspects and has a very positive, joyful spin on marital sex.
However, SOME traditionalists, I emphasize some (and think it is a small number) believe no non-genital contact with the genitals is permissible. I’m not sure the basis for this.
They also view marital sex as basically for pro-creation only, or primarily. This is based on the mistaken teachings of some early theologians, that marital sex was a necessary evil, only for procreation, and maybe even venially sinful.
These beliefs have been rejected by the Church, but some cling to them.
God Bless
T
the_Gaudess
Guest
Since when did the Church start teaching that the primary reason for sex is pro-creation? That’s not what Genesis implies, and isn’t this opinion (pro-creation not being #1) pretty new?Well, I’m pretty traditional, and I like his work, but I’ll take a stab.
West says that oral, and manual stimulation, with the context of a completed act of intercourse is permissible. This stimulation may be to completion for the wife, but not for the husband.
This is in line with JP II’s writings and many older Catholic marriage manuals.
He also emphasizes the importance of the uniative aspects and has a very positive, joyful spin on marital sex.
However, SOME traditionalists, I emphasize some (and think it is a small number) believe no non-genital contact with the genitals is permissible. I’m not sure the basis for this.
They also view marital sex as basically for pro-creation only, or primarily. This is based on the mistaken teachings of some early theologians, that marital sex was a necessary evil, only for procreation, and maybe even venially sinful.
These beliefs have been rejected by the Church, but some cling to them.
God Bless
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
The traditionalists who endorse the belief that “non-genital contact with the genitals” is not permissible sound like Catholic Fundamentalists. They are a fringe element, and in no way represent the majority.However, SOME traditionalists, I emphasize some (and think it is a small number) believe no non-genital contact with the genitals is permissible. I’m not sure the basis for this.
To be honest, people who endorse such views are clearly odd balls, and religious nuts or fanatics. These are the people who give religion the stigma it has in some secular circles. They are the same as the Protestant Christian Fundamentalists who believe that the world was literally created in seven days.
It is these small groups who give the wider “Traditionalist” movement a bad name.
B
bilop
Guest
The goal of marriage is twofold, the good of the spouses (reaching Heaven) and the procreation of children.Since when did the Church start teaching that the primary reason for sex is pro-creation? That’s not what Genesis implies, and isn’t this opinion (pro-creation not being #1) pretty new?
It can’t be just procreation, b/c the Church allows the sterile and elderly to marry.
Likewise, the purpose of marital sex is two-fold: unitive (bonding the couple) and procreative.
Again, it can’t be just procreative b/c those unable to have children are still expected to have sexual relations.
God Bless
From the Catechism
1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84
III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
B
bilop
Guest
Agree completely.The traditionalists who endorse the belief that “non-genital contact with the genitals” is not permissible sound like Catholic Fundamentalists. They are a fringe element, and in no way represent the majority.
To be honest, people who endorse such views are clearly odd balls, and religious nuts or fanatics. These are the people who give religion the stigma it has in some secular circles. They are the same as the Protestant Christian Fundamentalists who believe that the world was literally created in seven days.
It is these small groups who give the wider “Traditionalist” movement a bad name.
God Bless
T
the_Gaudess
Guest
I’m not saying pro-creation was the only purpose, but the primary purpose. Isn’t putting pro-creation second a new “Catholic” opinion?The goal of marriage is twofold, the good of the spouses (reaching Heaven) and the procreation of children.
It can’t be just procreation, b/c the Church allows the sterile and elderly to marry.
Likewise, the purpose of marital sex is two-fold: unitive (bonding the couple) and procreative.
Again, it can’t be just procreative b/c those unable to have children are still expected to have sexual relations.
God Bless
From the Catechism
S
saint_rafael
Guest
This has always been the traditional teaching of the Church on Marriage:
**
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, the secondary end is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence**.
Marriage is procreative and unitive, however there is a hierarchy. Procreation is the** first **end and unitive is the second end.
Procreative and Unitive aspects are not on the same level. The unitive end always follows the procreative end.
Christopher West’s error is that he puts both procreative and unitive ends on the same level.
The Church has always forbidded sodomy within marriage. Oral Sex is sodomy.
Christopher West tries to get around Church teaching by saying oral sex is okay if it leads to intercourse. That is an error because the Church considers oral sex an act of lust and not permissible because the genitals are meant soley for the lawful act of intercourse.
**
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, the secondary end is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence**.
Marriage is procreative and unitive, however there is a hierarchy. Procreation is the** first **end and unitive is the second end.
Procreative and Unitive aspects are not on the same level. The unitive end always follows the procreative end.
Christopher West’s error is that he puts both procreative and unitive ends on the same level.
The Church has always forbidded sodomy within marriage. Oral Sex is sodomy.
Christopher West tries to get around Church teaching by saying oral sex is okay if it leads to intercourse. That is an error because the Church considers oral sex an act of lust and not permissible because the genitals are meant soley for the lawful act of intercourse.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Hmmm, well, I was a Christian Protestant Fundamentalist who believed in literal seven day creation, though I don’t any more. I wouldn’t describe such people as religious nuts. They have their own strict, sometimes stridently expressed beliefs, and many of those beliefs are wrong. But religious nuts? No…The traditionalists who endorse the belief that “non-genital contact with the genitals” is not permissible sound like Catholic Fundamentalists. They are a fringe element, and in no way represent the majority.
To be honest, people who endorse such views are clearly odd balls, and religious nuts or fanatics. These are the people who give religion the stigma it has in some secular circles. They are the same as the Protestant Christian Fundamentalists who believe that the world was literally created in seven days.
It is these small groups who give the wider “Traditionalist” movement a bad name.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Agreed.This has always been the traditional teaching of the Church on Marriage:
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, the secondary end is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence.
Marriage is procreative and unitive, however there is a hierarchy. Procreation is the** first **end and unitive is the second end.
Procreative and Unitive aspects are not on the same level. The unitive end always follows the procreative end.
Christopher West’s error is that he puts both procreative and unitive ends on the same level.
The Church has always forbidded sodomy within marriage. Oral Sex is sodomy.
Christopher West tries to get around Church teaching by saying oral sex is okay if it leads to intercourse. That is an error because the Church considers oral sex an act of lust and not permissible because the genitals are meant soley for the lawful act of intercourse.
B
bilop
Guest
I don’t know if it’s new. In Matthew, Ch 19, when Jesus talks of marriage he talks of the unitive dimension, not the procreative.I’m not saying pro-creation was the only purpose, but the primary purpose. Isn’t putting pro-creation second a new “Catholic” opinion?
4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
God Bless6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
B
bilop
Guest
These are your teachings, not the Church’sThis has always been the traditional teaching of the Church on Marriage:
**
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, the secondary end is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence**.
Marriage is procreative and unitive, however there is a hierarchy. Procreation is the** first **end and unitive is the second end.
Procreative and Unitive aspects are not on the same level. The unitive end always follows the procreative end.
Christopher West’s error is that he puts both procreative and unitive ends on the same level.
The Church has always forbidded sodomy within marriage. Oral Sex is sodomy.
Christopher West tries to get around Church teaching by saying oral sex is okay if it leads to intercourse. That is an error because the Church considers oral sex an act of lust and not permissible because the genitals are meant soley for the lawful act of intercourse.
Here’s the Baltimore Catechism for you, old school enough?
- What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?
A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:
- To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
- To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
Notice what comes first?
- To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.
God Bless
T
the_Gaudess
Guest
But what comes first is in response to “matrimony,” not the physical union. I could be wrong, that’s just what I noticed.These are your teachings, not the Church’s
Here’s the Baltimore Catechism for you, old school enough?
Notice what comes first?
God Bless
B
bilop
Guest
I think the two are so intertwined that it is impossible to make a distinction. Marriage presupposes the marriage act, and the goals should be the same.But what comes first is in response to “matrimony,” not the physical union. I could be wrong, that’s just what I noticed.
After all, man can procreate perfectly well without marriage, as we are unfortunately seeing in modern society.
If the Church’s primary worry were procreation, it wouldn’t restrict sex to marriage.
Sacramental marriage is ordered first of all to the salvation of the partners.
Take 1 Corinthians, Ch 7
God Bless1 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. 10 But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
That is not my definition. It is the definition of the Church.These are your teachings, not the Church’s
Here’s the Baltimore Catechism for you, old school enough?
Notice what comes first?
God Bless
“The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, the secondary end is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence.”
- (Summa theologiae, Supplementum, Q. 67, a. 1, ad 4th; Catechism of Trent, Part II, VII, §§ 13-14).
The Baltimore Catechism in Q 1010, merely provides a list of the ends of marriage. The question aked what the ends were. If you notice, the Catechism just lists them without providing further clarification such as primary and secondary end.
The definition I provided has been the precise definition including a ranking of the ends which the Church has used for centuries. Every theologiand knew the exact words decades ago.
B
bilop
Guest
I think St. Paul trumps Trent, and Aquinas, and I love Aquinas.That is not my definition. It is the definition of the Church.
“The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, the secondary end is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence.”
This defintion came out of the Council of Trent, Catechism of Trent, and the dogmatic theologian of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas.
- (Summa theologiae, Supplementum, Q. 67, a. 1, ad 4th; Catechism of Trent, Part II, VII, §§ 13-14).
The Baltimore Catechism in Q 1010, merely provides a list of the ends of marriage. The question aked what the ends were. If you notice, the Catechism just lists them without providing further clarification such as primary and secondary end.
The definition I provided has been the precise definition including a ranking of the ends which the Church has used for centuries. Every theologiand knew the exact words decades ago.
I don’t see how one Catechism has any more weight than another.
Some theologians have been excessively anti-sex, even marital sex, but his has never been the doctrine of the Church.
However, if we go to the Biblical discussions about marriage, we find that the concerns are spiritual, not physical.
Animals and pagans procreate just fine. What is special about Christian Matrimony is its effect on the souls of the spouses.
Therefore, Christian Matrimony is primarily concerned with the salvation of the spouses.
God Bless
S
saint_rafael
Guest
St. Paul, Trent, and Aquinas can never be in contradiction because the Catholic faith does not contradict itself.I think St. Paul trumps Trent, and Aquinas, and I love Aquinas.
I don’t see how one Catechism has any more weight than another.
Some theologians have been excessively anti-sex, even marital sex, but his has never been the doctrine of the Church.
However, if we go to the Biblical discussions about marriage, we find that the concerns are spiritual, not physical.
Animals and pagans procreate just fine. What is special about Christian Matrimony is its effect on the souls of the spouses.
Therefore, Christian Matrimony is primarily concerned with the salvation of the spouses.
God Bless
St. Paul was not even talking about the ends of mariage in those verses. St. Paul is talking about something else.
St. Paul was asked by the Corinthians wether it was expedient to marry. St. Paul is talking to the married about staying together and to observe their marital duty. Then in verse 8 he starts talking to the unmarried.
You sound like a Protestant or secularist criticizing the Church and past theologians.
The Catechisms do not contradict each other because like I have said, Baltimore only provided a list of the ends. Baltimore Catechism is a basic teaching of the faith. It does not get in to the theological ranking and specifics of the teaching of the Church on the ends.
The sacrament of Christian marriage is a visible sign that gives grace and that helps the spouses achieve salvation for each other, but the ends remain the same: fist procreative and then unitive.
Marriage was instituted for procreation in order for spouses to have children for the glory of God. They populate heaven. They save each other by being faithful to their vocation and by completing the ends of marriage.
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
I apologise if my comments in the previous post offended you. From what I’ve seen on a couple of documentaries, those who are categorised as “Fundamentalists” come across as strange, extreme individuals based both on their opinions and behaviour. They hold very extreme views with regards to sexuality; and rather than try to explain their views in a clear, articulate, and intelligent manner, instead they opt to shout and condemn all those who hold different views.Hmmm, well, I was a Christian Protestant Fundamentalist who believed in literal seven day creation, though I don’t any more. I wouldn’t describe such people as religious nuts. They have their own strict, sometimes stridently expressed beliefs, and many of those beliefs are wrong. But religious nuts? No…
Everyone is free to choose what to believe and what not to belive. However, people should realise that the way they choose to present and express their beliefs will change the way they are viewed by society as a whole. If anyone is going to take a stand, make sure to present your points in an educated manner, explaining why you hold your particular views.
This is why traditionalists often come across as arrogant extremists. The reason for this is not so much the views they hold, but the manner in which they present them. Rather than explain why they hold a particular opinion, they have a tendency to simply condemn all others who believe differently. I have found Christian Fundamentalists to be quite similar in this regard.
M
monorail
Guest
Can someone elaborate on this? I’m confused what this means.
- To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.
B
bilop
Guest
Of course they don’t conflict, what I’m saying is some have placed the emphasis incorrectly.St. Paul, Trent, and Aquinas can never be in contradiction because the Catholic faith does not contradict itself.
St. Paul was not even talking about the ends of mariage in those verses. St. Paul is talking about something else.
St. Paul was asked by the Corinthians wether it was expedient to marry. St. Paul is talking to the married about staying together and to observe their marital duty. Then in verse 8 he starts talking to the unmarried.
You sound like a Protestant or secularist criticizing the Church and past theologians.
The Catechisms do not contradict each other because like I have said, Baltimore only provided a list of the ends. Baltimore Catechism is a basic teaching of the faith. It does not get in to the theological ranking and specifics of the teaching of the Church on the ends.
The sacrament of Christian marriage is a visible sign that gives grace and that helps the spouses achieve salvation for each other, but the ends remain the same: fist procreative and then unitive.
Marriage was instituted for procreation in order for spouses to have children for the glory of God. They populate heaven. They save each other by being faithful to their vocation and by completing the ends of marriage.
Another example (taken from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Sacrament of Marriage).
St. Augustine, De Bono Conjugii (chap. xxiv in P.L., XL, 394)
The “holiness of the sacrament” is preeminent for Christians, procreation is present in all (non-Christian) marriages.Among all people and all men the good that is secured by marriage consists in the offspring and in the chastity of married fidelity; but, in the case of God’s people [the Christians], it consists moreover in the holiness of the sacrament, by reason of which it is forbidden, even after a separation has taken place, to marry another as long as the first partner lives . . .
God Bless
- Status
- Not open for further replies.