Christopher West On Sabbatical

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='YMNolan' date='14 April 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1271276134' post='2093449']
Again, it just shows you how serious Christopher West is about properly presenting the faith and the teachings of Pope John Paul II. He will be back and better than ever.

There are plenty of worse "theologians" out their on the speaking circuit who are not nearly as orthodox as West and yet do not catch the same amount of flack, and certainly would not consider taking such a sabbatical to make sure what they are presenting is in line with the Magisterium in both content and methodology. Why aren't we getting on them?
[/quote]

This is not someone who stayed in a classroom but has books, extensive workshops and trainings for all the laity to attend.

This is good news in the end and he could definitely use our prayers.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 April 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1271276444' post='2093452']
My hope is that after Mr. West's sabbatical the focus of his presentations will be less on sex and more on man's likeness to God through virtuous activity (i.e., the process of [i]theosis[/i]).
[/quote]

His popular presentations to new audiences includes discussions about human sexuality - I don't see any reason this should change, it is solidly grounded in Catholic truth and addresses questions people want answers to. The world is hungering for the truth that John Paul II taught about sex, and he is the best apologist in the world for mass audiences on human sexuality. His body of work is hardly grossly fixated on carnal intercourse, as anyone who has read his works knows.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1271276186' post='2093451']
He held this view "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse." Until he was soundly and loudly rebuked. He has had other views not in line with Traditional Catholic thought.
[/quote]

I did not know he was "soundly and loudly rebuked". Could you provide a source for this? I would really like a copy. I'm not trying to be coy. I am sincerely interested.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1271276186' post='2093451']
He held this view "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse." Until he was soundly and loudly rebuked. He has had other views not in line with Traditional Catholic thought.
[/quote]

This is really disgusting, not to mention unhealthy and unnatural. It could also lead to infection for the woman, because we all know that (1) contraception is a mortal sin and (2) the marital act must end within the wife. Can you imagine that transfer of bacteria??

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1271277249' post='2093467']
I did not know he was "soundly and loudly rebuked". Could you provide a source for this? I would really like a copy. I'm not trying to be coy. I am sincerely interested.
[/quote]

The public outcry from critics is why he changed the previous quote in his book to "Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense, there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking... it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage covenant."

Even here he only subjectively warns against sodomy in marriage.

Here is one of the critics, I can provide others if I must.

[quote]In my two year study on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body which ran as a 7-part series in Catholic Family News (May-November 2008) and is now available online at www.newengelpublishing.com, I tackle the issue of the morality of anal penetration by married couple as a form of foreplay as explained by Christopher West.

In Chapter Five of his book Good News About Sex & Marriage – Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teachings (First Edition), in response to a question on the morality of anal sex for married couples, West states “There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse.” This is a false teaching and a serious moral error.

Based on my 17 years of research for The Rite of Sodomy – Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, which included a study of all of the Church Fathers, including Saint Peter Damian and Saint Bernardino of Siena, on the vice of sodomy, I can categorically state that the Catholic Church has always defined sodomy to include anal penetration, with or without ejaculation.

The act of sodomy, whether carried by homosexuals or by spouses, is intrinsically evil and a perversion. A married couple who engages in anal penetration and then goes on to normal coitus has engaged in two separate acts - the first, sodomy, is a grave sin, whether or not ejaculation has occurred. Further, the physiology of anal copulation is such that it would be most difficult to prevent ejaculation.

In West’s revised edition of Good News About Sex & Marriage, this grave moral error was not corrected. After pointing out that anal penetration is unsanitary and unaesthetic, West asserts:

Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense, there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking… it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment.

Now, alas, we have Janet Smith, claiming that:

Certainly there isn’t any “Church teaching” about this action at a magisterial level, but few seem to know that there is a tradition of approval of such behavior as foreplay to intercourse (not to be confused with the biblical condemnation of sodomy which replaces intercourse) by orthodox Catholic ethicists. The principle generally invoked is that consensual actions that culminate in intercourse are morally permissible…. Perhaps it is time for ethicists to work on the question…

What madness is this?

Where, pray tell, is the Catholic tradition that approves of anal penetration as a forerunner to coitus to be found?

What question is there for ethicists to work on?

Isn’t 2000 years of Church teachings on the immorality of sodomy good enough for West or Smith?

Do West and Smith have to be reminded that not all married couples have normal sexual desires? Indeed some are drawn into sinful acts as a prelude to intercourse including sadomasochist acts, the viewing of pornography to stimulate sexual excitement, and sodomy.

Isn’t it time that TOB advocates like Christopher West and Janet Smith be held accountable for their erroneous and dangerous pronouncements on Catholic sexual morality and conjugal love?

Randy Engel, National Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life[/quote]

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1271277693' post='2093476']
This is really disgusting, not to mention unhealthy and unnatural. It could also lead to infection for the woman, because we all know that (1) contraception is a mortal sin and (2) the marital act must end within the wife. Can you imagine that transfer of bacteria??
[/quote]

Which he speaks extensively on. I think we need to clarify what he actually said. He basically says there is no good reason to ever engage in such behavior, that both would have to thoroughly clean themselves before the act reached climax which would ruin the act itself, and questions whether the act can ever be truly self-giving. however he does not theologically find the moral grounds on which to state it is absolutely an intrinsically evil act by its nature as foreplay (this is from his book "The Good News on Sex and Marriage" which is a litany of questions and answers that people ask about sex).

Anyways, I tend towards the intrinsically evil side as my own theological opinion, which is why am interested in any formal rebuke.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1271276186' post='2093451']
He held this view "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse." Until he was soundly and loudly rebuked. He has had other views not in line with Traditional Catholic thought.
[/quote]
Yes, that is truly disgusting, and there is no way that that kind of sexual practice can be conformed to traditional Catholic moral doctrine.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1271275266' post='2093435']
You and whom ever gave my last post a negative should know West did support sodomy within marriage until he was rebuked.
[/quote]


[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1271276186' post='2093451']
He held this view "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse." Until he was soundly and loudly rebuked. He has had other views not in line with Traditional Catholic thought.
[/quote]
You are blatantly misreporting what Mr. West said.
He does not support sodomy, in marriage or elsewhere, but speaks out against it. This is clear if you actually read the passages in question ([i]Good News About Sex and Marriage[/i], pp. 93-94).
[quote]Some might conclude from a legalistic application of the "so long as it leads to intercourse" principle that anything goes when it comes to foreplay. But spouses who truly love each other aren't looking to get away with as much as possible before "breaking the rules." They're looking to symbolize and renew their marriage commitment as sincerely as possible.
For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can't be overlooked. To begin with, the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive systems. Furthermore, since the anus and rectum are not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm.
Aesthetically speaking, such behavior involves contact with human waste, which is tolerated when necessary, but not something joyful, beautiful, and pleasing to both spouses. Is it truly loving to subject one's wife to health risks, not to mention the discomfort or even pain associated with such behavior?
Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. B[b]ut subjectively speaking, for all the above reasons it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment.[/b][/quote]

That hardly sounds like supporting sodomy within marriage.
There may be problems with Christopher West's presentation, but blatantly misrepresenting what he says is flat-out wrong, and a sin of slander. Hence the minuses.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1271278011' post='2093482']
The public outcry from critics is why he changed the previous quote in his book to "Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense, there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking... it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage covenant."

Even here he only subjectively warns against sodomy in marriage.

Here is one of the critics, I can provide others if I must.
[/quote]

I realize he has critics with theological opinions, but this is not a formal declaration of error from the Church.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1271277693' post='2093476']
This is really disgusting, not to mention unhealthy and unnatural. It could also lead to infection for the woman, because we all know that (1) contraception is a mortal sin and (2) the marital act must end within the wife. Can you imagine that transfer of bacteria??
[/quote]

Indeed, I would also point out that sodomy has always traditionally been an unspeakable vise, but not according to Mr. West. Also I take the negatives I am receiving by pointing out the errors of Mr. West as a badge of honor.

[elizabeth09]

Prayers

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1271278037' post='2093486']
You are blatantly misreporting what Mr. West said.[/quote]

I am not. The first quote "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse." is his direct quote. He only later changed it because it is not in line with Church teaching.

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1271278037' post='2093486']He does not support sodomy, in marriage or elsewhere, but speaks out against it. This is clear if you actually read the passages in question ([i]Good News About Sex and Marriage[/i], pp. 93-94).[/quote]

You are speaking of the revised passage, not the original. Even the revised passage only "subjectively" 'condemns' sodomy.


[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1271278037' post='2093486']That hardly sounds like supporting sodomy within marriage.
There may be problems with Christopher West's presentation, but blatantly misrepresenting what he says is flat-out wrong, and a sin of slander. Hence the minuses.
[/quote]

It is hardly condemning it within marriage, only subjectively, which leaves open the possibility that it can in some cases be ok. Again it is not slander. His original quote from his book Good News About Sex and Marriage was "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse." Which is support for sodomy within marriage.

[CatherineM]

Other than not being able to understand how anal penetration could be enjoyable, my main difficulty with the discussion is that type of activity could play into someone's SSA.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1271278016' post='2093483']
Which he speaks extensively on. I think we need to clarify what he actually said. He basically says there is no good reason to ever engage in such behavior, that both would have to thoroughly clean themselves before the act reached climax which would ruin the act itself, and questions whether the act can ever be truly self-giving. however he does not theologically find the moral grounds on which to state it is absolutely an intrinsically evil act by its nature as foreplay (this is from his book "The Good News on Sex and Marriage" which is a litany of questions and answers that people ask about sex).

Anyways, I tend towards the intrinsically evil side as my own theological opinion, which is why am interested in any formal rebuke.
[/quote]

I agree with you that the act is immoral. Foreplay should not involve penetration, because that is what foreplay is leading up to - the marital act. Anal penetration is a mockery of the marital act, in my opinion, and a misuse of our sexual organs.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1271278277' post='2093492']
Indeed, I would also point out that sodomy has always traditionally been an unspeakable vise, but not according to Mr. West. Also I take the negatives I am receiving by pointing out the errors of Mr. West as a badge of honor.
[/quote]

I wouldn't be as so pompous to wear them as a badge of honor, but the points are born out of differing interpretations of sodomy. Those giving you negative points interpret sodomy as the completion of the marital act through such an action, and therefore anything less as West defines it, would not be sodomy, and is a moral gray area. I would define it traditionally as any penetration. When crimes are perpetrated against people and they use objects against a victim it is still classified as sodomy.