Sodomy vs. The True Nature of Marriage

[KnightofChrist]

[s]The explicit purpose of this thread is to debate errors in Christopher West's teachings.[/s] Something I hope is still allowed on Phatmass. When the other thread was moved to the debate board I thought we would be free to debate. The Original Poster chose to close the thread because the debate was not her original intent. I also encourage prayers for Christopher West. But debate is the original intent of this thread, and it's purpose.

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1271286267' post='2093585']
I am quoting from the only version of that book which I have read, so I cannot comment on what the original said. If Mr. West has made past errors which he has since retracted, there is no point in repeatedly bringing them up to condemn him. That's not Christ-like, but pharisaical.[/quote]

What he stated was something way out of line with Catholic teaching and he replaced it with a weak wishy washy revision. Pointing this out is not pharisaical, but legitimate concern, even if you disagree. The problem is that the revised text still leaves open the possibility that it is sometimes ok to use sodomy as foreplay.

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1271286267' post='2093585']He brings this act up only once, in answer to a claim that there is nothing wrong with this act as foreplay so long as it ends with ejaculation in the right place. He responds by calling this a "legalistic" justification, and by saying that the act is physically very unhealthy and dangerous, and that it is aesthetically disgusting, and concludes by saying that it more likely stems from disordered lust than true love.[/quote]

Even if it was only once, and we don't know that as a fact. The thought he only said it once, even if thats true, negates the fact that he speaks to many and the first copy sold [i]at least[/i] hundreds, and that 'one' grave error was repeated many times, a ripple effect across many couples and Catholics. Catholic readers who owned the first copy and read "There's nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse" may have thought it was ok to sodomize his wife in an act of foreplay. Because that appears to be exactly what it is saying.

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1271286267' post='2093585']The very worst you can accuse him of here is of not being sufficiently strong in his condemnation. He says absolutely nothing positive about the act, and gives several reasons why it is wrong.
That's a far cry from him "supporting sodomy," as you keep charging.[/quote]

I have real problems with his revised version. He states within the revised passage that "it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace." Meaning that while 'very difficult' sodomy as an act of foreplay can be justifiable. Adding that "It is an act that seems", "that SEEMS to stem much more from the disorder of lust than a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage covenant."


[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1271286267' post='2093585']Again, if he said something different in the past, he has since retracted it. There is no good reason to keep bringing it up. Sorry, but there's nothing "honorable" about that. Maybe everyone should take a sabbatical from discussing it, and keep to quiet prayers.
[/quote]

The original point in bringing it up was because it was a big red flag that something isn't right about the way Christopher West sometimes teaches. And that even after the revision he left open the possibility that sodomy as an act of foreplay could be ok, when there is no Church Father or Holy Scripture that says such things. Any time it is mentioned it is condemned.

It seems likely that cause for so many negatives was people who support Christopher West just couldn't rap their heads around the fact that he did support sodomy as foreplay. And that was a red flag, a early warning sign. It's hard to take when someone says something like that and you look up to them. I understand but it seems rather than being upset at what was said, people got upset at me for pointing it out. People kept denying he said it, denied he supported it, so I kept showing that he did support it.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Seven77

[zunshynn]

You realize there are probably 200 pages of debate on this on the phorum already?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='14 April 2010 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1271289669' post='2093596']
You realize there are probably 200 pages of debate on this on the phorum already?
[/quote]

But that is also true for many, many topics on the phorum. Certain names and subjects have repeats when those certain names or subjects are for example in the news.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1271290607' post='2093600']
But that is also true for many, many topics on the phorum. Certain names and subjects have repeats when those certain names or subjects are for example in the news.
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1271289319' post='2093593']
The explicit purpose of this thread is to debate errors in Christopher West's teachings. Something I hope is still allowed on Phatmass. When the other thread was moved to the debate board I thought we would be free to debate. The Original Poster chose to close the thread because the debate was not her original intent. I also encourage prayers for Christopher West. But debate is the original intent of this thread, and it's purpose.[/quote]
I'm really seeing nothing new here, so I fail to see the point. This topic has already been debated to death in the past.

[quote]What he stated was something way out of line with Catholic teaching and he replaced it with a weak wishy washy revision. Pointing this out is not pharisaical, but legitimate concern, even if you disagree. The problem is that the revised text still leaves open the possibility that it is sometimes ok to use sodomy as foreplay.
[/quote]
If you find his condemnation of anal penetration "weak and wishy-washy" that's your opinion, but what I quoted comes down very solidly against that practice, and does not support it in any way.

He's basically saying, "Even if you can find some legalistic loophole that you think justifies that act, it's a very bad idea and shouldn't be done."
I read nothing there encouraging such behavior.

Again, if you can provide a dogmatic "clincher" which closes any possible loopholes, we'd all be happy to see it. In any case, it would be far more productive than ceaselessly attacking this man.


[quote]Even if it was only once, and we don't know that as a fact. The thought he only said it once, even if thats true, negates the fact that he speaks to many and the first copy sold [i]at least[/i] hundreds, and that 'one' grave error was repeated many times, a ripple effect across many couples and Catholics. Catholic readers who owned the first copy and read "There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse" may have thought it was ok to sodomize his wife in an act of foreplay. Because that appears to be exactly what it is saying.[/quote]
It's the only time discussion of it comes up in the copy of the book I have.
The gist of the book is against contraception and sexual immorality.
I haven't seen his original book and the context, but if he's retracted his statements, let's leave it at that.
This is going beyond legitimate theological debate into personal judgments of another which are not our place.

[quote]I have real problems with his revised version. He states within the revised passage that "it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace." Meaning that while 'very difficult' sodomy as an act of foreplay can be justifiable. Adding that "It is an act that seems", "that SEEMS to stem much more from the disorder of lust than a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage covenant."




The original point in bringing it up was because it was a big red flag that something isn't right about the way Christopher West sometimes teaches. And that even after the revision he left open the possibility that sodomy as an act of foreplay could be ok, when there is no Church Father or Holy Scripture that says such things. Any time it is mentioned it is condemned.[/quote]
And West only mentions it to condemn it in his current book as well.

[quote]It seems likely that cause for so many negatives was people who support Christopher West just couldn't rap their heads around the fact that he did support sodomy as foreplay. And that was a red flag, a early warning sign. It's hard to take when someone says something like that and you look up to them. I understand but it seems rather than being upset at what was said, people got upset at me for pointing it out. People kept denying he said it, denied he supported it, so I kept showing that he did support it.
[/quote]
Even if he did in the past, he does not to my knowledge support it now. Until he says something to the contrary, it's best to leave it at that, rather than go on a witch hunt.
West has gone on sabbatical, so it's best that we keep quiet and pray, rather than look for ways to condemn him. There's something bizarrely obsessive about this whole debate.

I have no more time for, nor interest in, this discussion. Good night, and prayers for us all.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1271289319' post='2093593']
The explicit purpose of this thread is to debate errors in Christopher West's teachings. Something I hope is still allowed on Phatmass. When the other thread was moved to the debate board I thought we would be free to debate. The Original Poster chose to close the thread because the debate was not her original intent. I also encourage prayers for Christopher West. But debate is the original intent of this thread, and it's purpose.
[/quote]

Interesting.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1271290923' post='2093603']
West has gone on sabbatical, so it's best that we keep quiet and pray, rather than look for ways to condemn him.
[/quote]
I have not seen KofC condemn Mr. West in his posts; instead, KofC has only expressed his rejection of Mr. West's sometimes distorted interpretations of Pope John Paul II's "theology of the body."

Edited April 15, 2010 by Apotheoun

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1271290923' post='2093603']
I'm really seeing nothing new here, so I fail to see the point. This topic has already been debated to death in the past.[/quote]

Then by all means do not partake in the debate.


[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1271290923' post='2093603']If you find his condemnation of anal penetration "weak and wishy-washy" that's your opinion, but what I quoted comes down very solidly against that practice, and does not support it in any way.[/quote]

It was not a condemnation. A warning perhaps but not a condemnation. That revised quote like it or not leaves open that however difficult to justify sodomy can be used in the act of foreplay. Saying that it is very hard to justify sodomy used as foreplay rather than saying that one can never use sodomy in the act of foreplay, leaves open the possibility that it can be used as foreplay.

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1271290923' post='2093603']He's basically saying, "Even if you can find some legalistic loophole that you think justifies that act, it's a very bad idea and shouldn't be done."
I read nothing there encouraging such behavior.[/quote]

This is what I mean by wishy washy, without knowledge of the unrevised passage the revised passage can be seen as both in line with Catholic Teaching and outside Catholic Teaching. His revised statement is not an condemnation of sodomy as an act of foreplay, but a waring that it is hard to justify, and "seems" to come more from lust than love. A good warning but again wish washy because sodomy as an act of foreplay is always an act of lust, it does not seem to be it is an act of lust.

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1271290923' post='2093603']Again, if you can provide a dogmatic "clincher" which closes any possible loopholes, we'd all be happy to see it. In any case, it would be far more productive than ceaselessly attacking this man.[/quote]

I have not attacked his person, but his teaching. All Church teaching on sodomy that I have ever known outright condemns it, I have never seen any solid traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that allowed sodomy in the Marriage Act at any time. If someone disagrees the burden of proof is on them. Outside a very few theologians like West.


[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1271290923' post='2093603']It's the only time discussion of it comes up in the copy of the book I have.
The gist of the book is against contraception and sexual immorality.
I haven't seen his original book and the context, but if he's retracted his statements, let's leave it at that.
This is going beyond legitimate theological debate into personal judgments of another which are not our place.[/quote]

Again I have not judged his person. Repeating that false statement does not make it anymore true. I have already mentioned the dangers of just mentioning it once. Again the purpose in first stating it was to show that his current time off was predicable, because of the red flag it brought up. Others denied that he said it, what was I to do agree with that falsehood? I guess I could have just let the falsehood slide, but I didn't. I should not now be belittled because I chose to defend my stance when others engaged me in debate.


[quote name='Socrates' date='14 April 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1271290923' post='2093603']And West only mentions it to condemn it in his current book as well.
Even if he did in the past, he does not to my knowledge support it now. Until he says something to the contrary, it's best to leave it at that, rather than go on a witch hunt.
West has gone on sabbatical, so it's best that we keep quiet and pray, rather than look for ways to condemn him. There's something bizarrely obsessive about this whole debate.

I have no more time for, nor interest in, this discussion. Good night, and prayers for us all.
[/quote]

Again with the revised statement it does appear in someway he leaves open a loophole for sodomy to be used as foreplay. And again I condemn the first statement in question and the utter weakness of the revised statement. But I do not condemn his person. I've attacked nothing but his teaching of sodomy.

Edited April 15, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Seven77]

KofC,

What the purpose of this debate? It seems to me to be inappropriate at this time when West is on sabbatical. Do you not believe that his errors are currently in the process of being corrected?

[tinytherese]

My experience on here is that this debate never goes anywhere. People just say the same things over and over again and nothing unanimous is decided.

Perhaps this is God's way of showing us that Christopher West shouldn't be the only one so popularly teaching about the theology of the body. It's too bad, because there are other people that talk about it too, but they aren't as well known as him. We could certainly use more people spreading the message and be listened to.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Seven77' date='14 April 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1271294219' post='2093634']
KofC,

What the purpose of this debate? It seems to me to be inappropriate at this time when West is on sabbatical. Do you not believe that his errors are currently in the process of being corrected?
[/quote]

The first paragraph of my first post gave a purpose of this debate. To debate the errors of his teachings if that wasn't clear. I believe his errors are the reason for his sabbatical. Meaning there are justifiable reasons not to trust his teachings, not to go to his events, not to buy his videos, not to buy his books.

Teachers must and are held at an higher account than others. I do not think it inappropriate to debate the errors which lead to this time off, because as a teacher he is held to a higher standard.

[Seven77]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1271294748' post='2093640']
The first paragraph of my first post gave a purpose of this debate. To debate the errors of his teachings if that wasn't clear. I believe his errors are the reason for his sabbatical. Meaning there are justifiable reasons not to trust his teachings, not to go to his events, not to buy his videos, not to buy his books.

Teachers must and are held at an higher account than others. I do not think it inappropriate to debate the errors which lead to this time off, because as a teacher he is held to a higher standard.
[/quote]

there is nothing to debate... wait till he comes off sabbatical. If somebody is in the process of repenting why do you need to [i]debate[/i] the errors of which he is repenting? introspection is in order indeed...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Seven77' date='14 April 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1271295168' post='2093647']
there is nothing to debate... wait till he comes off sabbatical. If somebody is in the process of repenting why do you need to [i]debate[/i] the errors of which he is repenting? introspection is in order indeed...
[/quote]

I disagree there is plenty to debate, his teaching on sodomy is not his only error that would lead people astray. Or give people false understandings.

The repentance of his errors are between him and God. I have no way of knowing that he will truly repent. I can know however certain errors that he has taught, and we should hide those away or not talk of them just because he is in time out. Errors and sin continue to spread and spread long after the rock has been thrown into the pond. I welcome the chance that West will join those who condemn the errors in his teachings when he returns, if he returns.

Edited April 15, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Seven77]

Seriously though... I don't think those videos are appropriate for interrupting a debate that is inappropriate.

[jeffpugh]

I suppose. Only if we could have kept the whole "be civil" plea. Oh well. People can be... people.