Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Feb 16th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: I think Mr. West attempts to glorify marital sex more than he should.
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:



I think Mr. West attempts to glorify marital sex more than he should.

--hide--


Why not? It's a GLORIOUS and beautiful thing.

Feb 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:Where I think he does take it too far is when he seems to imply, whether his intention or not (...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:

Where I think he does take it too far is when he seems to imply, whether his intention or not (and I dont think it is), that marriage is all about sex, and kinda seems to makes marital sex into some kind of adult film. That is not what Pope John P II intention and it does seem to lose focus on what TOB is all about.

--hide--


I agree with Christopher West that marriage is all about sex. Sex should not be for the unmarried. Marriage is meant by God to be between a man and woman. The homosexual sex act is wrong outside of marriage as well as for marriage and is deviant behavior.
Couples wanting to get married because they are only friends and want companionship shouldn't be getting married; I don't believe that this is what God intended. The sexual act is taken as too casual in our culture and is regarded as being OK because it may be popular in NY, where you see unmarried couples in bed together on family TV every week; e.g., two and a half men...the TV show inspired by Satan.

Feb 17th 2013 new

(Quote) David-364112 said: I listened to that with great interest and will bookmark the page to listen to the e...
(Quote) David-364112 said:


I listened to that with great interest and will bookmark the page to listen to the entire talk when I have more time. He's a knowledgable speaker and I look forward to hearing his other presentations as well. It left me a little confused because he seems to be saying it's always a mortal sin but at other points he says when it's acceptable and what must be avoided. I'm pretty sure that my post was in line with his presentaztion - although I may have made certain errors or poorly explained my position on others. Everything he said is in synch with the instructions I received during my moral and spritiual formaiton by the priests of Opus Dei.


The main point of what I was trying to make is that marital love can and should be something more and deeper than mere intercourse, provided that the spirit and form of such acts conforms with the moral doctrine Fr. Ripperger summarized. Marital intimacy is a great gift. It's sacred rather than profane. Sadly, some are taught that sex is always unclean and best kept within very stirct and narrow bounds. I'd never suggest doing anything which violates the natural law, but neither do I recommend imposing superfluous limits on this wonderful gift of God. We must do what is best according to God's plan and God's law. No more, no less.


It's easy to get carried away when it comes to any physical pleasure. The best moral barometer for these situations is love - i.e. is it the love of God and each other which motivates the spouses? Or is it something less, something selfish?



--hide--

Very well said David...

Your thoughts are also in line with formation I've received from several very solid & upstanding priests I've known over the years here in Steubenville...

Another really great source on this particular subject is the book Holy Sex by Dr. Gregory Popcat, a nationally known marriage & family counselor, EWTN host, plus co host with his wife Lisa the nationally syndicated radio broadcast Heart, Mind & Strength. His book is very readable yet thought provoking. With great humor he addresses the common misconceptions on Christian sex versus the incredible joy & beauty God designed the marital embrace to be. A slight warning though... The second half is more or less the "how to" part and may be best saved till one has a beloved spouse to read it with... embarassed

I personally know Greg & Lisa as fellow parishioners & through various projects & events over the years. They are generous people of integrity with an exceptionally beautiful, loving family... rose

Feb 17th 2013 new

(Quote) David-364112 said: Why this priggishness? As long as the married couple's love-making cu...
(Quote) David-364112 said:


Why this priggishness?


As long as the married couple's love-making culimnates in intercourse that is open to the transmission of life, various forms of foreplay are fine.

Certain forms of foreplay or post-coital intimacy can be sinful if they're not shared willinglyby both partners or are degrading or done solely to satisfy the selfish aims of one partner. Certain forms are always wrong. I woulod include in that category any sort of fetish as well as anal sex. But shared and loving intimacies expressed within the context of love-making which includes intercourse are fine. What else would they be?


There are plenty of good reasons to please one another before and after the act of intercourse. Foremost is the fact that humkan beings are not barnyard animals who couple rapidly and solely to produce offspring. Human love-making differs not just by degree by also in essence from animal procreation. It's one powerful way that married couples bond and grow their love for each other. The forms of intimacy which you disapprovingly refer to as foreplay" make many Catholics squeamish. IMO, this is both silly and fearful. It's also a bad misunderstanding of the nature of human love and the sacredness of marital love. These acts, if done PROPERLY, prolong the act of intimacy and intensify its pleasure. This is how couples bond. We're not brute beasts - we're sentient beings with souls created in God's image.


Read the Song of Solomon. God designed sexual pleasure for married people. He wants them to ENJOY it. Sex is not a necessary evil - it's a great gift from God which is never filthy. It is SACRED. Ask the saints. ALL forms of human love are but dim reflections of the various ways God loves us. This includes sexual love. In fact, the greatest Catholic mystics saw sexual intimacy as the form of human love which most closely mirrors Christ's love for each soul. Those who don't believe me and are ready to report this post, should first read Theresa oif Avila, John of the Cross, and even Aquinas on this topic. In convents and monstaeries from the earliest centuries of the Chruch until now, they read the Song of Solomon aloud when a monk or nun is dying - because the soul is the bride and her bridegroom (Christ) is rapidly approaching.


There are also sound biological reasons fo renjoying sex more fully. When women are stimulated to orgasm after the act of intercourse, it greatly increases the likelihood of conception. This is how GOD designed her. So if various forms of mutual intimacy are done in a lovng and mutually self-giving fashion as a prelude and/or follow up to intercourse then what is the problem?


My guess is that the excerpt from your post which I quoted above is a code word for oral sex. Again, if done prior to intercourse as a means of enhancing the pleasure and intimacy of the love act (and never as an end in itself) then what can possibly be wrong with it? I've never understood the horrible taboos which prevent so many Catholics from enjoying procreative sex with their spouses. Actually I do understand and it pains me to no end. This priggishness is a vestige of that twisted Jansenism and silly clericalism which contaminated the Church for the past few centuries. Both of these beliefs are errors. Both perceive all sex as filthy and hold that marriage barely (but just barley) sanitizes it. People who hold to these errors feel that married couples should have sex only when necessary, keep it very basic, get it over quickly, and use it only for procreation. I had a friend who married aconvent educated woman from Mexico. After 3 years of marriage she had let him have sex with her only a handful of times. After each instance she wept for days and ran to confession. He finally brought her to the priest for marriage counselling. She kept repeating over and over the terrible clericalist error the sisters drummed into her head: that sex is always filthy. She said she wanted a "holy marriage" which, to her meant no sex or as little as possible. The priest tried to get her to see that this was clearly wrong-headed and a terrible misunderstanding/abuse of the sacramaent but she called him a "modernist" and refused to budge. My friend finally divorced her and got an annulment. Who was wrong here - the "pious" wife or her longsuffering and patient husband?


Why fear sex? It's a gift and closely mirrors divine love. When used properly it is a path to deeper love, stronger marriages, deeper faith, and above all to personal holiness. Is this heretical?



--hide--

Sorry David... This is the post I meant to reply to... rose

Feb 17th 2013 new

(Quote) MaryBeth-278310 said: I don’t often post in the Fora, but this thread came to my attention, and I thought it w...
(Quote) MaryBeth-278310 said:

I don’t often post in the Fora, but this thread came to my attention, and I thought it was important to jump in and clarify some things.

First of all, Patrick from Chicago, you are of course correct that Christopher West’s ideas are not above criticism. However, to publicly question his motivation the way you did -- to “speculate” on a public forum that he may be motivated by fame and money -- is a different matter entirely, and remains a sin against the 8th commandment. It would be like me posting “Sometimes I wonder if Patrick from Chicago is only on CM to meet wealthy women and defraud of them of their money. I’m only speculating, so no need to be defensive about it.” Doesn’t really help, does it? I don’t know you. I can comment (charitably) on what you SAY, but to speculate negatively about your motivation would be wrong. And my “speculating” could damage your reputation and raise questions about you in people’s minds.

As it happens, Christopher is a friend of mine, and you could not be more wrong about his motivation. JPII’s ideas were life-changing for him, and he is driven by the desire to share them. He has suffered -- a lot -- for the sake of this ministry that he feels called to. Sure, his ideas and methods are up for debate. I have debated them myself. I personally thought the “Nightline” interview was a train wreck. But none of that speaks to the motivation behind his life’s work.

As for the Church’s teaching on sexuality -- that’s much too big a topic to take up here. But I will say that, while you know enough of the basics to keep you on the straight and narrow, what you’ve written in this thread alone indicates that you really don’t understand the deeper elements of the Church’s teaching. I don’t blame you for that -- very few people are taught about this today, which is a shame. But if you’re going to publicly criticize or question others’ ideas in this arena, you should probably educate yourself a little more deeply first. It’s really very beautiful stuff.

--hide--




The fame and money part was just a thought that went through my head. I didn't realize that I was violating any commandements. I didn't think given that I since I qualified my thought, some people would find it offensive. I even mentioned that is fame and money were any part of someone's motivation, that isn't necessarily wrong given the capitalist society we live in. But since it has seemed to cause a distraction and was NOT the focus of my original post at all, I won't mention it again.


I seems from many of these posts that you are supposed to be totally pro Chistopher West or anti Christopher West. If you look at my first post, I actually said I was mostly neutral and just wanted to hear other thoughts. But since I offered mild criticism, particularly the Hugh Heffner reference, it seems like some people think I am totally against him, which is not the case.


The part that confuses me is when has sex among married couples ever been considered a bad thing? That seems to be part of Chris West's thought process that is a bit hard for me to understand. I suppose that Chris West has helped make married couples feel unashamed is a good thing - but why should they have felt ashamed in the first place? One issue is that by turning shame into pride - marital sex should be neither - it is a private thing that concerns the couple and perhaps a priest and other professionals. I wonder if the message is that marriage is all about sex and other parts of the marriage get lost in the shuffle.



Feb 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Ronald-937125 said: I agree with Christopher West that marriage is all about sex. Sex should not be for the ...
(Quote) Ronald-937125 said:



I agree with Christopher West that marriage is all about sex. Sex should not be for the unmarried. Marriage is meant by God to be between a man and woman. The homosexual sex act is wrong outside of marriage as well as for marriage and is deviant behavior.
Couples wanting to get married because they are only friends and want companionship shouldn't be getting married; I don't believe that this is what God intended. The sexual act is taken as too casual in our culture and is regarded as being OK because it may be popular in NY, where you see unmarried couples in bed together on family TV every week; e.g., two and a half men...the TV show inspired by Satan.

--hide--


Marriage is all about sex???? Nothing else matters???? It goes without saying that all forms of sexuality that dont involve a married couple are considered wrong in the church so that really isnt' the point.

Feb 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Matt-61677 said: In that ABC show there was massive editing. I've heard West's riff on Hefner, and it in no ...
(Quote) Matt-61677 said:

In that ABC show there was massive editing. I've heard West's riff on Hefner, and it in no way glorifies Hefner or his work. West just points out that Hefner recognized that Puritanism was bad but then proceeded to create a "cure" that was worse than the disease. ABC cut and pasted to put words in his mouth. It was bad. Really bad...

--hide--


I'm sure there was editing but why even mention Heffner in the first place? If this was one isolated case, I dont' think West should be defined by it. However, being a national TV and now eveything living eternally online, West should have known better.

Feb 17th 2013 new

(Quote) MaryBeth-278310 said: I don’t often post in the Fora, but this thread came to my attention, and I thought it w...
(Quote) MaryBeth-278310 said:

I don’t often post in the Fora, but this thread came to my attention, and I thought it was important to jump in and clarify some things.

First of all, Patrick from Chicago, you are of course correct that Christopher West’s ideas are not above criticism. However, to publicly question his motivation the way you did -- to “speculate” on a public forum that he may be motivated by fame and money -- is a different matter entirely, and remains a sin against the 8th commandment. It would be like me posting “Sometimes I wonder if Patrick from Chicago is only on CM to meet wealthy women and defraud of them of their money. I’m only speculating, so no need to be defensive about it.” Doesn’t really help, does it? I don’t know you. I can comment (charitably) on what you SAY, but to speculate negatively about your motivation would be wrong. And my “speculating” could damage your reputation and raise questions about you in people’s minds.

As it happens, Christopher is a friend of mine, and you could not be more wrong about his motivation. JPII’s ideas were life-changing for him, and he is driven by the desire to share them. He has suffered -- a lot -- for the sake of this ministry that he feels called to. Sure, his ideas and methods are up for debate. I have debated them myself. I personally thought the “Nightline” interview was a train wreck. But none of that speaks to the motivation behind his life’s work.

As for the Church’s teaching on sexuality -- that’s much too big a topic to take up here. But I will say that, while you know enough of the basics to keep you on the straight and narrow, what you’ve written in this thread alone indicates that you really don’t understand the deeper elements of the Church’s teaching. I don’t blame you for that -- very few people are taught about this today, which is a shame. But if you’re going to publicly criticize or question others’ ideas in this arena, you should probably educate yourself a little more deeply first. It’s really very beautiful stuff.

--hide--



People keep accusing me of not understanding Theology of the Body. What don't I understand? I never said it was all about prohibitions. I understand the whole unitive and procreative element of marital sexuality. Marital sexuality can be a good thing when practiced properly. But, does that mean marriage is all about sex? I dont think West ever said that so I am not accusing him of that. But, perception is reality, and that is a perception that some people can get from his talks. Is that the worst thing in the world or necessarily a bad interpretation of TOB? No, but it is worthy of discussion.

Feb 17th 2013 new

(Quote) Lisa-910908 said:   I have some issues with Christopher's presentation of Theology of the Body. There ...
(Quote) Lisa-910908 said:

 

I have some issues with Christopher's presentation of Theology of the Body. There are other resources that are less troublesome. I was at one of his presentations about 15 years ago and was very disturbed by his suggesting that if we truly believe we are redeemed we should have no problem with nudity in the home and in the midst of Christians. I grew up in a home with rampant nudity and it was quite damaging. I spoke with the man travelling with him to find out if this was really what he meant. He said very definitely and they have open nudity in their home. For awhile after the talk, I was less modest around my own daughter, but learned through experience that it was harmful to her. To suggest that if we really believe that Jesus redeemed our bodies on the cross because he was crucified nude, we would practice nudity in our own lives, is harmful. It might work in his home, but it has had devastating effects in my family.

I have heard that he no longer teaches this in his talks, but I don't know for sure.

--hide--

I never heard that before... that is weird. I am glad that he stopped teaching that.

Feb 17th 2013 new

(Quote) David-364112 said: Why this priggishness? As long as the married couple's love-making cu...
(Quote) David-364112 said:


Why this priggishness?


As long as the married couple's love-making culimnates in intercourse that is open to the transmission of life, various forms of foreplay are fine.

Certain forms of foreplay or post-coital intimacy can be sinful if they're not shared willinglyby both partners or are degrading or done solely to satisfy the selfish aims of one partner. Certain forms are always wrong. I woulod include in that category any sort of fetish as well as anal sex. But shared and loving intimacies expressed within the context of love-making which includes intercourse are fine. What else would they be?


There are plenty of good reasons to please one another before and after the act of intercourse. Foremost is the fact that humkan beings are not barnyard animals who couple rapidly and solely to produce offspring. Human love-making differs not just by degree by also in essence from animal procreation. It's one powerful way that married couples bond and grow their love for each other. The forms of intimacy which you disapprovingly refer to as foreplay" make many Catholics squeamish. IMO, this is both silly and fearful. It's also a bad misunderstanding of the nature of human love and the sacredness of marital love. These acts, if done PROPERLY, prolong the act of intimacy and intensify its pleasure. This is how couples bond. We're not brute beasts - we're sentient beings with souls created in God's image.


Read the Song of Solomon. God designed sexual pleasure for married people. He wants them to ENJOY it. Sex is not a necessary evil - it's a great gift from God which is never filthy. It is SACRED. Ask the saints. ALL forms of human love are but dim reflections of the various ways God loves us. This includes sexual love. In fact, the greatest Catholic mystics saw sexual intimacy as the form of human love which most closely mirrors Christ's love for each soul. Those who don't believe me and are ready to report this post, should first read Theresa oif Avila, John of the Cross, and even Aquinas on this topic. In convents and monstaeries from the earliest centuries of the Chruch until now, they read the Song of Solomon aloud when a monk or nun is dying - because the soul is the bride and her bridegroom (Christ) is rapidly approaching.


There are also sound biological reasons fo renjoying sex more fully. When women are stimulated to orgasm after the act of intercourse, it greatly increases the likelihood of conception. This is how GOD designed her. So if various forms of mutual intimacy are done in a lovng and mutually self-giving fashion as a prelude and/or follow up to intercourse then what is the problem?


My guess is that the excerpt from your post which I quoted above is a code word for oral sex. Again, if done prior to intercourse as a means of enhancing the pleasure and intimacy of the love act (and never as an end in itself) then what can possibly be wrong with it? I've never understood the horrible taboos which prevent so many Catholics from enjoying procreative sex with their spouses. Actually I do understand and it pains me to no end. This priggishness is a vestige of that twisted Jansenism and silly clericalism which contaminated the Church for the past few centuries. Both of these beliefs are errors. Both perceive all sex as filthy and hold that marriage barely (but just barley) sanitizes it. People who hold to these errors feel that married couples should have sex only when necessary, keep it very basic, get it over quickly, and use it only for procreation. I had a friend who married aconvent educated woman from Mexico. After 3 years of marriage she had let him have sex with her only a handful of times. After each instance she wept for days and ran to confession. He finally brought her to the priest for marriage counselling. She kept repeating over and over the terrible clericalist error the sisters drummed into her head: that sex is always filthy. She said she wanted a "holy marriage" which, to her meant no sex or as little as possible. The priest tried to get her to see that this was clearly wrong-headed and a terrible misunderstanding/abuse of the sacramaent but she called him a "modernist" and refused to budge. My friend finally divorced her and got an annulment. Who was wrong here - the "pious" wife or her longsuffering and patient husband?


Why fear sex? It's a gift and closely mirrors divine love. When used properly it is a path to deeper love, stronger marriages, deeper faith, and above all to personal holiness. Is this heretical?



--hide--




Priggishness??? LOL - I actually had to google the term because I hadn't heard it before. Ok - that is your opinion so I'll leave at that?


Where did I say that I fear sex? I am not opposed to marital sex - I just don't think that what a marriage should be completely based on. Obviously babies need to be made so marital couple should get to work - but dont' forget about everyone and everything else.


Personally I don't really care if marital couple use foreplay or not - others do and question the validity of things like oral sex - but that really isn't my concern so I leave that for others to debate.

Posts 31 - 40 of 85