Theology of the Marital Act: Conte vs. West

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orthodox_T
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Orthodox_T

Guest
I converted to the Catholic Faith from Protestantism years ago, and the most influential area of Catholic teaching that impacted me was moral theology — specifically, the beauty of God’s plan for the conjugal act, and the dignity of the human person.

I credit Christopher West’s two books, Theology of the Body for Beginners and Good News about Sex and Marriage, with shaping my worldview about marital love. These two books really changed my heart during my conversion on how I viewed God, myself, and a future spouse — the ideas of “self-gift” and loving a spouse “as Christ loves the Church” were a breath of fresh air compared to the dehumanizing “hookup culture” and “contraceptive mentality” of the world I knew.

However, that all changed recently when I stumbled upon Ron Conte’s blog, and what he claims the church really teaches on the marital act. He interprets Church teaching on the marital act to mean that the only form of marital intimacy permitted is intercourse alone — meaning that all other preparatory acts (foreplay) are forbidden, even when the act culminates with the man completing in the proper place. He teaches that the wife’s satisfaction is morally unnecessary for the act to be considered complete, and other preparatory acts to bring about the wife’s satisfaction are immoral and are injustices deserving God’s punishment. Conte even seems to back up what he claims with church teaching (Pope Pius XII, St. Alphonsus, Three Fonts of Morality, etc.).

What bothers me is that his teaching seems in line with what the Church has historically taught about the marital embrace, and this shatters what I previously thought about “self-gift” and marital love, since following this interpretation would undoubtedly mean satisfaction always for the man in the marital embrace, and almost no satisfaction for the woman ever, since women almost never reach completion through intercourse alone. It goes against everything I believed and was taught (through Christopher West) about a mutually satisfying, Catholic understanding of marital love and marriage.

Surely this cannot be God’s plan, to have one side (the man) experience joy in the marital embrace and the other be left unfulfilled (the woman)?

It doesn’t seem fair, and it seems so unjust. I just don’t know what to believe about it… and if Mr. Conte is true, I wouldn’t want to be in a marriage like that. It’s so overwhelmingly disappointing.

What do I do?
 
Last edited:
Ron Conte’s blog doesn’t represent Church teaching. We have had many threads about his writings here before. Unfortunately, people keep stumbling upon them and thinking they’re somehow legit. They aren’t.

My advice to you is that if you want to actually learn Church teaching, read the Catechism, read actual approved Catholic books like Theology of the Body by St. Pope JPII, and if necessary to clarify something, talk to your priest.

I have no idea why you’d somehow accept as truth the ramblings of some guy on the Internet, which is pretty much all that Ron Conte’s blog is. He doesn’t have some kind of special theological knowledge or approval. Neither do the authors of countless other blogs who post stuff not in agreement with the Church.

Edited to add, here is an interesting Reddit post on Ron Conte’s writings

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/3xcx7i/warning_do_not_trust_ronald_l_contes_catechism_of
 
Last edited:
There is an almost gnostic strand of “sex is dirty” throughout Catholic history. This idea probably does creep into the writings of some of the Fathers and saints. A lot of Catholics, up into the early / mid 20th century, were also, I understand, influenced by Jansenist views on the matter, with an over-emphasis on the depravity of man’s fallen nature and the dangers of carnal pleasure even within marriage.
That’s why we are blessed, as a Church, that St John Paul II, who is both a saint and pope, set the record straight with his theology of the body ;).
 
Conte has a lot of knowledge, but he doesn’t apply it the right way.

He seems to be a self-designated theologian with conservative views, who is disgruntled because his views have not been recognized by the larger theological community.

So in an odd twist of manner, he constantly berates “conservative” Catholics, makes unfulfilled predictions about private revelations coming to fruition, writes his own books about how Jesus was actually crucified in something like 14AD, thinks Adam and Even were basically teleported here from another planet, and the like.

It’s bizarre.
 
Orthodox_T said:
when I stumbled upon Ron Conte’s blog, and what he claims the church really teaches on the marital act.
Click to expand...
The key word here is claims. Anybody can claim anything. You have Christopher West’s books, so you should know his qualifications. Why would you trust some random internet blog over a qualified teacher?
 
Orthodox_T said:
However, that all changed recently when I stumbled upon Ron Conte’s blog,
Click to expand...
Please stay away from this person. His writings have NO permission from a bishop, no imprimatur, no nihil obstat. He claims he Is a moral theologian, but what he actually is is a guy with a blog.

The things he writes are just plain wrong.

And he was banned from this site years ago.

Again, stay away from him and put his writings OUT of your mind.

Edited to add: West has a CV you can actually validate, a doctorate in theology, and his books have the appropriate permissions for publication. Conte has a blog. Which literarily anyone can stand up on the internet in 10 minutes.
 
Last edited:
Ron seems to be a smart guy, but that doesn’t mean that his personal opinion on this matter is correct. And he’s disingenuous in insisting that his opinion is clearly the same as Church teaching when he has to go to so much effort to put his argument together.

I’m pretty sure (although at the moment I can’t find the document) that Pope St. John Paul II held the personal opinion that a husband has the duty to ensure his wife’s satisfaction, and could use his mouth to do so if he had already climaxed. I think that JPII’s opinion would be more reliable than some no-name internet schmo.
 
Last edited:
Orthodox_T said:
He interprets Church teaching on the marital act to mean that the only form of marital intimacy permitted is intercourse alone — meaning that all other preparatory acts (foreplay) are forbidden, even when the act culminates with the man completing in the proper place. He teaches that the wife’s satisfaction is morally unnecessary for the act to be considered complete, and other preparatory acts to bring about the wife’s satisfaction are immoral and are injustices deserving God’s punishment.
Click to expand...
Assuming that he’s married, he just sounds like he’s too lazy to satisfy his wife and created a whole teaching to justify it. Poor her, if she exists.
 
Lea101 said:
Assuming that he’s married, he just sounds like he’s too lazy to satisfy his wife and created a whole teaching to justify it. Poor her, if she exists.
Click to expand...
The last I knew, he wasn’t. That either does or doesn’t matter, depending on your view.

He’s branched out to covid-19 issues, has a website and everything. I won’t link to it, though.
 
I did read them. They are weighty opinions but theological opinions nonetheless.
 
@Orthodox_T

First of all, welcome to the Catholic Church!

Christopher West actually tackles some of the disagreement on this issue in the appendices of his book At the Heart of the Gospel. What he points out is that there has historically not been a consensus among theologians on this matter. He even provides quotes from older (pre-Vatican II) manuals of moral theology showing how they disagree with one another on issues such as foreplay (among other issues that I won’t talk about in a public forum).

The real pioneer in this field was Karol Wojtyla/Pope St. John Paul II himself. I recommend you check out his book Love and Responsibility. In it he argues that the man actually has an obligation to make sure his wife climaxes during the marital act.

When it comes to Church teaching on this matter, I’d suggest turning to the sources (like what recent popes have said), and avoid the personal opinions of fringe bloggers.

Quoting Doctors of the Church and past popes is great and all, but they too aren’t immune from error, and many Doctors of the Church and popes have disagreed with one another on the minor matters of morality such as this.

Stick with Pope St. John Paul II and those who are trying to unpack his teachings. You’ll have much greater peace of mind.
 
Last edited:
Well Ron Conte has been thrown under the bus by many here - may I suggest also you put down Mr. West’s writings and go to Pope St. John Paul II, and his Theology of the Body. I have not read Mr. Christopher West’s book(s); after seeing and hearing him speak and present his ideas at a Conference, his writings were put into the “don’t bother” category. I would not trust his ideas, after seeing and hearing him. If he is reading this, I would urge him to speak and write much less, and seek more silence and prayer.
 
Hi @fide!

As a Maronite, let me just say I love your profile picture. 😉

May I ask, what specifically is your objection to Christopher West’s talks and writings? Even the translator of the Theology of the Body (Dr. Michael Waldstein) has upheld West’s interpretations of the TOB as some of the best and most authentic out there, and turned to West for help clarifying difficult passages when he was translating the text.
 
Last edited:
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.
Ephesians 5:25-30
Click to expand...
This is a critical scripture for understanding these things. Read it and consider it. Ask God to help you decide which theology better describes the attitude here. Different people may come to different answers, but I lean toward “nourishing and cherishing” my wife in order to “present her in splendor.”
 
Tolle_Lege said:
Conte has a lot of knowledge, but he doesn’t apply it the right way.

He seems to be a self-designated theologian with conservative views, who is disgruntled because his views have not been recognized by the larger theological community.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t he have to have some kind of mandate from the Church, to present himself as a Catholic theologian?

I have looked at his writings in passing, but have taken to heart the many warnings about him, and have pretty much come to the conclusion that reading anything he writes, would be basically minutes of my life wasted that I could never get back.

I hope I will not violate CAF guidelines by being critical of a priest, but I found much the same to be true of Father David Trosch (requiescat in pace), the Alabama priest who was suspended because of his advocacy of abortion clinic violence. (Let me be very clear that I do not endorse his views in any way.) Quite aside from his views on abortion, he wrote some kind of manuscript of moral theology, and it is virtually indescribable, really verged towards Jansenism. He even attempted to enumerate how many tissues you could take from someone else’s desk at work if you had a cold! And he wrote a critique of the vernacular Mass where he took apart each and every prayer, would point out parts he thought were phrased incorrectly, basically rewrote the Mass according to his own theological lights. It was all pretty much “out there”, like a car wreck you really shouldn’t look at, but you can’t help it.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Wouldn’t he have to have some kind of mandate from the Church, to present himself as a Catholic theologian?
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t go after everybody who throws up a webpage calling themselves Catholic this or that. Usually they only step in if you’re a priest or religious and your superior decides to take action against you, or if you’re using the word “Catholic” in your domain or as part of your brand name. In the latter case, I’m not sure how much legal power they would have to stop that, and a complaint by say, your bishop, would only work if you were a member of the faithful who did not want to have an open, public conflict with your bishop. I know there is at least one schismatic group who owns a domain name with “catholic” in the title.

I could put up a webpage tomorrow calling myself a Catholic theologian and making any kinds of arguments I wanted and I’d probably be allowed to continue with it. If the Church got wind of it and my webpage was really offensive then I suppose the bishop could decide to withhold Communion from me, or if I posted slander/ defamation/ IP rights infringing stuff then they could sue me. But apart from that I’d be able to put up any whackadoodle doo I wanted, such as Mary appeared to me last night and said Jesus is coming next week and here’s my interpretation of Scripture to support it, etc.

On top of that, there are probably dozens of actual “Catholic theologians”, such as priests and sisters with strong theology credentials who write books, who are often making arguments against Church teachings, such as certain sexual practices not being sinful, or women should be allowed to be priests, etc.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top