Theology of the Marital Act: Conte vs. West

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orthodox_T
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was thinking of the schismatic Feeneyite community, but I imagine there are a whole bunch of questionable Catholic this and that out there.

As people have posted before, there is a “Catholic Answers” page on Facebook that is not affiliated with this website and instead is an anti-Catholic group.
 
Thank you for those scripture references. I believe they speak to the “heart“ of the matter. I will read and pray over them during adoration this week and seek answers there.
 
A “car wreck you couldn’t look away from” exactly describes stumbling upon the Conte blog. Lord, have mercy.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
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?
Click to expand...
I cannot speak of the accuracy of his interpretations of JPII, since, as I said, “I have not read Mr. Christopher West’s book(s); after seeing and hearing him speak and present his ideas at a Conference…” What I found objectionable in his presentations was an absence, and a presence - things not unique to him at all, I must say clearly - but faults seemingly common among many circuit-Conference-speakers of those days. After seeing and hearing so much of the world intermixed in matters that deserve reverence and recognition of the holy, before long I lost all attraction to so-called Catholic “Conferences.”

To try to describe these things: An absence of the reverence that is due to the subject, an absence of unction, absence of awe before matters that are holy, that in truth communicate God Himself. What I found present among so many speakers was the opposite - a pandering for approval, a flippancy, a mixture of entertaining, a fishing for laughs, dragging in the banal and the mundane - the natural, in other words, even while handling the holy and the supernatural.

John Paul II was given holy grace and insight in these matters. They deserve to be received in holy grace, prayerfully, quietly. This culture has trivialized, desecrated conjugal love and tried to replace it with pornographic abomination and shallow indifference. The sacrament of Matrimony deserves so much MORE! Mr. West has attempted something that he has gained much acclaim for - but I am very sorry that he has. Perhaps it was just too soon - premature, so to speak.
 
Hmmm… An interesting perspective.

Did you first hear him speak many years ago? At one point in his career, he started to receive a great deal of criticism from some theologians (not all, mind you), and he took that criticism to heart. He took a sabbatical that led to a rebirth, if you will, of his presentation.

That being said, perhaps he’s just not for you. If you’ve read the Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility, and understood it well, then there’s a strong chance West’s presentation of the TOB just wouldn’t speak to you. He’s really more of an introduction than a definitive interpretation (with the exception, perhaps, of his hefty tome Theology of the Body Explained).

Another encouraging factor in his presentations - he’s begun to incorporate the mysticism of Teresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux into his writings and presentations. It’s really quite fascinating to see how he’s developed as a thinker and speaker over the years.
 
Christopher West’s writings and interpretations on the Theology of the Body ought to be taken with great caution. Alice von Hildebrand and Dawn Eden Goldstein both provide extensive theological arguments for why that is and offer guidance on what the Catholic Church really teaches:

Dietrich von Hildebrand, Catholic Philosopher, and Christopher West, Modern Enthusiast: Two Very Different Approaches to Love, Marriage and Sex, by Alice von Hildebrand

Towards a “Climate of Chastity”: Bringing Catechesis on the Theology of the Body
Into the Hermeneutic of Continuity, by Dawn Eden Goldstein

Alternatively, you can read what St. John Paul II himself wrote:

 
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...
Not as such. He’s a Catholic. He presents himself as a ‘theologian’. End of story.

Now… if he presented himself as “a theologian at such-and-such diocese” or “a theologian working at the Vatican”, then there would be a way to verify and a path to ensuring he’s not misrepresenting himself.
 
Alice von Hildebrand - a speaker/presenter I have heard several times in Conferences is a wonderful exception to my criticism of many conference speakers I have heard. She is serious, profound, insightful, wise, and beautifully faithful. She and her husband are brilliant. She wrote of Christopher West in the article referenced in post #30 above:
Christopher West’s presentations consistently use language that lacks sensitivity, thereby obscuring the good inherent in marriage and the marital embrace.

A particular example of this vulgarization, and its relationship to the work of Christopher West, is West’s glowing review of Gregory Popcak’s book Holy Sex (a tempting title).

I have read hundreds of book reviews in my life, and cannot ever recall having come across a recommendation quite like this one, with such overabundant, unrestrained praise. “Every engaged and married couple on the planet should have a copy,” writes West about Holy Sex. He continues:

“Popcak goes right between the sheets, shall we say, providing a very frank, honest, and practical discussion of the sexual joys and challenges of the marital bed. I must admit, even I, on occasion, found myself taken aback by Popcak’s forthrightness. … Even if his boldness is occasionally jarring, that’s precisely what’s so refreshing about this book. It tells it like it is and, by doing so, gives couples permission to face and discuss delicate issues. More importantly, Holy Sex gives couples tools to overcome the many difficulties they inevitably face on the road to a truly holy sex life.” (From, West’s column, “Dr. Ruth Meets Thomas Aquinas,” posted on his website, ChristopherWest.com).
Click to expand...
This brief passage characterizes very well, the lack of due and appropriate sensitivity that seemed so glaring and troubling to me, in his handling of the subject in conference presentation.
 
Fair enough.

I’m well aware of Dr. von Hildebrand’s criticism of West, and couldn’t disagree with her more. (Incidentally, the criticism penned by her is one of the criticisms that led to his taking a sabbatical to reexamine his approach to presenting/popularizing JPII’s Theology of the Body) Frankly, I don’t think she’s given him a fair shake, and I wonder if she’s actually even read anything written by him. Her criticism above is directed primarily at Greg Popcak’s book Holy Sex, which is actually quite a wonderful book for married couples (my wife and I read it together in the early days of our marriage, and it’s really helped us develop a happy marriage even in the face of severe difficulties). The only criticism she levels at West in that quote is his endorsement of the book.

But if you’re not a fan, you’re not a fan. No biggie. You’ve read Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility I assume. So you’re well-grounded. 😁
 
Is “sensitivity” that which leads Catholics into such language as “paying the marital debt” or “marital embrace” instead of “making love?” I am of an age when lessons in Pre-Cana were phrased so “sensitively” (read: obliquely/ obscurely) that it wasn’t clear what was being described or even allowed.
 
Pitcairn17 said:
leads Catholics into such language as “paying the marital debt” or “marital embrace” instead of “making love?”
Click to expand...
I have very rarely heard the former terms used by married couples. I have heard them used primarily by young, single men.
 
Pitcairn17 said:
I am of an age when lessons in Pre-Cana were phrased so “sensitively” (read: obliquely/ obscurely) that it wasn’t clear what was being described or even allowed.
Click to expand...
I had the same problem growing up. Pre-Cana didn’t even cover any sexual topics; I think they assumed we knew all that already.

Unfortunately, if one tries to answer questions even here and today in straight-up medical terms, the posts generally get flagged by someone gasping and saying “Think of the children!”
 
Last edited:
As I was sharing with my wife that I was writing this post for CA, she reminded me that we heard Dr. von Hildebrand speak once at the same conference at which we heard Mr. West. Maybe she heard him then, as well.

BTW, I’m glad you appreciate St. Charbel. He has a particular importance to me…
 
Pitcairn17 said:
Is “sensitivity” that which leads Catholics into such language as “paying the marital debt” or “marital embrace” instead of “making love?” I am of an age when lessons in Pre-Cana were phrased so “sensitively” (read: obliquely/ obscurely) that it wasn’t clear what was being described or even allowed.
Click to expand...
There are solid, faithful books available that are specific while still “sensitive” to the holy and the supernatural that are implicit and important to a truly Catholic perspective. The moral theologians whom I have read, stress the all-import union with holy charity, in the conjugal union. God is present in the bedroom of the faithful, and He is to be honored there as well as everywhere else in the life of a Catholic.
 
I think my main problem is that Ron Conte quotes Doctors and Saints of the Church to back up his claims, which would give the conclusion that Natural Law (and by extension, God Himself) is firmly against the wife’s satisfaction in the marital embrace, since if intercourse alone is licit and all other acts are mortal sins, the wife will never achieve satisfaction, as it biologically takes more than this in the marital embrace to reach this. She will, as JP II says in Love and Responsibility, “never fully participate in the act,” and as someone who is seeking to marry in the church, it unnerves me.

I know this all may sound completely ridiculous to some, and its a truly sensitive topic, but I’m having a crisis of faith (of sorts).

I will go speak to a priest.
 
That conclusion sounds absurd to me; I’ve never heard it before. I think maybe cultural hang-ups made their way into some theologian’s thinking - as has happened before. There are many more theologians than there are good, faithful theologians.
 
If you wouldn’t mind sharing, I’d love to learn Mar Charbel’s importance to you. Can you PM me?
 
Definitely 1. stop reading Conte, 2. speak to your priest (or a priest you trust), and 3. read Love and Responsibility and the the Theology of the Body. This alone should clear up any hangups that have crept in via Conte.
 
fide said:
As I was sharing with my wife that I was writing this post for CA, she reminded me that we heard Dr. von Hildebrand speak once at the same conference at which we heard Mr. West. Maybe she heard him then, as well.
Click to expand...
My biggest issue with the Alice von Hildebrand article is that she doesn’t engage the thought of Christopher West on his own terms (i.e. as someone claiming to offer a faithful and popular interpretation of the thought of Pope St. John Paul II), but rather attempts to interpret him through the lens of her own husband, Deitrich von Hildebrand, while assuming that her husband’s perspective is the correct one.

Other philosophers and theologians do a much better job at looking at West’s thought through the lens of TOB and offering the appropriate approval and/or criticism from there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top