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

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

Theology of the Body has always been a topic that has fascinated me. I have been to some discussion groups and was amazed that Pope John Paul II put his heart in soul into writing about sexuality. My own personal view is, although inspired by God, TOB is unneccesarily complex. Agree or disagree, like or dislike, the catholic church's teaching on sex is very clear and can be summed up in a few sentences. All sexual contact outside matriomony is sinful. All sexual contact in a marriage that uses birth control is sinful. The only real grey area is if certain forms of foreplay among married couples as precursor to intercourse are acceptable. I don't think much more needs to be discussed for me, but if others need more, I respect that.

Given that Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body is quite complex and doesn't exactly translate to English all that well, Christopher West came along to make it more undestandable to the average American catholic. I think that is laudable, yet, I can't help but wonder how much of his efforts are based on self promtion and making money. He has sold over 1 million copies of his books. I don't fault him for that but I can't help but be a bit skeptical. I just watched on youtube his infamous nightline interview where he lauded Hugh Hefner. I understand that Mr. West doesn't approve of Mr. Hefner sexual conquests, but it did seem like quite an odd reference. I get that Chris West is trying to make sexual expression between married couple something to feel good and proud about. That I agree with. Yet, it is almost as if Christopher West's view is that sexual contact between married couples is so vital and important that it is basically a devine act involving God in the bedroom. I think that just goes a bit far. Obviously, married couples have to be intitimate to procreate children. And yes, there is something to be said that sexual contact between married couples brings them closer together. But, it could also be said that married couples could become addicted to sex that they stop concentrating on other aspects of their marriage - similar to the way that sexuality has become so cheapened in modern culture. aka - Hugh Heffner.


I think Christopher West's efforts are noble - even if I do question how much he may be in it for fame and money. Yet, I do understand how he has opened himself up to criticism. I don't personally have a strong view one way or the other so I am interested to see what others think.

Feb 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: Theology of the Body has always been a topic that has fascinated me. I have been to some discus...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:

Theology of the Body has always been a topic that has fascinated me. I have been to some discussion groups and was amazed that Pope John Paul II put his heart in soul into writing about sexuality. My own personal view is, although inspired by God, TOB is unneccesarily complex. Agree or disagree, like or dislike, the catholic church's teaching on sex is very clear and can be summed up in a few sentences. All sexual contact outside matriomony is sinful. All sexual contact in a marriage that uses birth control is sinful. The only real grey area is if certain forms of foreplay among married couples as precursor to intercourse are acceptable. I don't think much more needs to be discussed for me, but if others need more, I respect that.

Given that Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body is quite complex and doesn't exactly translate to English all that well, Christopher West came along to make it more undestandable to the average American catholic. I think that is laudable, yet, I can't help but wonder how much of his efforts are based on self promtion and making money. He has sold over 1 million copies of his books. I don't fault him for that but I can't help but be a bit skeptical. I just watched on youtube his infamous nightline interview where he lauded Hugh Hefner. I understand that Mr. West doesn't approve of Mr. Hefner sexual conquests, but it did seem like quite an odd reference. I get that Chris West is trying to make sexual expression between married couple something to feel good and proud about. That I agree with. Yet, it is almost as if Christopher West's view is that sexual contact between married couples is so vital and important that it is basically a devine act involving God in the bedroom. I think that just goes a bit far. Obviously, married couples have to be intitimate to procreate children. And yes, there is something to be said that sexual contact between married couples brings them closer together. But, it could also be said that married couples could become addicted to sex that they stop concentrating on other aspects of their marriage - similar to the way that sexuality has become so cheapened in modern culture. aka - Hugh Heffner.


I think Christopher West's efforts are noble - even if I do question how much he may be in it for fame and money. Yet, I do understand how he has opened himself up to criticism. I don't personally have a strong view one way or the other so I am interested to see what others think.

--hide--


Anyone who lauds Hugh Hefner is "of the flesh" which is contrary to the Spirit. Books on TOB specifically discourage a Hugh Hefner lifestyle. It is a lifestyle of promiscuity and an objectification of people. To all those that choose to be Catholic believe what the Church teaches not what "the world" teaches. Please do not be lukewarm in your faith.

You say revolutionary or heretic: isn't that the same thing? Is the revolutionary in this case a rebelling angle? To be so spicifically contrary to Church teaching?

Some of the teachings of TOB are complex but with patients and reflection can produce fruits in relationships; with your relationship with God and with the “other” (your boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse).

I respectfully disagree: he is not noble.


Mick

Feb 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Mick-929473 said: Anyone who lauds Hugh Hefner is "of the flesh" which is contrary to t...
(Quote) Mick-929473 said:


Anyone who lauds Hugh Hefner is "of the flesh" which is contrary to the Spirit. Books on TOB specifically discourage a Hugh Hefner lifestyle. It is a lifestyle of promiscuity and an objectification of people. To all those that choose to be Catholic believe what the Church teaches not what "the world" teaches. Please do not be lukewarm in your faith.

You say revolutionary or heretic: isn't that the same thing? Is the revolutionary in this case a rebelling angle? To be so spicifically contrary to Church teaching?

Some of the teachings of TOB are complex but with patients and reflection can produce fruits in relationships; with your relationship with God and with the “other” (your boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse).

I respectfully disagree: he is not noble.


Mick

--hide--

The promises of the TOB: more intimate passion during erotic love is a gift from the Spirit. It is a gift that West cannot offer. It only comes to those sufficiently advanced in their faith; those that practice temperance and are not lukewarm in their faith.


Mick

Feb 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Mick-929473 said: Anyone who lauds Hugh Hefner is "of the flesh" which is contrary to the Spirit. Books on TO...
(Quote) Mick-929473 said:

Anyone who lauds Hugh Hefner is "of the flesh" which is contrary to the Spirit. Books on TOB specifically discourage a Hugh Hefner lifestyle. It is a lifestyle of promiscuity and an objectification of people. To all those that choose to be Catholic believe what the Church teaches not what "the world" teaches. Please do not be lukewarm in your faith.

You say revolutionary or heretic: isn't that the same thing? Is the revolutionary in this case a rebelling angle? To be so spicifically contrary to Church teaching?

Some of the teachings of TOB are complex but with patients and reflection can produce fruits in relationships; with your relationship with God and with the “other” (your boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse).

I respectfully disagree: he is not noble.


Mick

--hide--

I understand what you are saying. That is why I wrote I can't help but wonder how much he is in it for the fame and money. Yet, that is pure speculation on my part so I can't condemn him for that.


The Hugh Hefner reference was odd, to say the least. I don't know if that is something he says regularly or a one time provacative statement he chose to use for a national audience. I wrote that I think he is noble because he does seem very passionate and since millions of catholic have found inspiration from him, I am willing to give Mr. West the benefit of the doubt.


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.

Feb 13th 2013 new

In response to his lauding Hefner it made me think of something that B16 said awhile back. He was talking about that is was positive for a prostitute to use a condum. Of course the press misunderstood, purposely or otherwise, and said he was going to change and sayign using a condum was acceptable. What he was saying is that the woman using the condum was trying to protect herself and was tending toward the good, in that she wanted to remain safe. I think Christopher West is doing the same thing with the comments about Hefner. He is not saying that he agrees with the lifestyle he practices and promotes rather that not condemng sex is positive step in the right direction, just as B16 did with his comments about the prostitute and condums.

Also TOB is about so much more than sexual ethics. It is about the physical love within a marriage, that John Paul compares to the HOly Spirit who is the Love that is within the Holy Trinity. It is about the procreative and unitive act that is found within marriage. Marriage is an icon of creation itself so when the procreative act is done it is a literal participation with God in act of creation. The univtive aspect is also important because that is an icon of the communion that we are all called to, in the Eucharist.

It is certainly true that Christopher West focuses to much on sexual ethics as opposed to the marriage covenant being an icon of creation(which he has admitted he needs to fine tune the message) but he does some wonderful things to help people appreciate creation, marriage as an icon of creation and the role physical love plays in all of that.

God's Blessings be upon you.

P.S. I am not sure it is fair to mention, even with the qualifications given, that Christopher West is in this for money and fame. There does not seem to be any reason for that belief so should be best left unsaid.

Feb 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Chris-944200 said: In response to his lauding Hefner it made me think of something that B16 said awhile back. He was...
(Quote) Chris-944200 said:

In response to his lauding Hefner it made me think of something that B16 said awhile back. He was talking about that is was positive for a prostitute to use a condum. Of course the press misunderstood, purposely or otherwise, and said he was going to change and sayign using a condum was acceptable. What he was saying is that the woman using the condum was trying to protect herself and was tending toward the good, in that she wanted to remain safe. I think Christopher West is doing the same thing with the comments about Hefner. He is not saying that he agrees with the lifestyle he practices and promotes rather that not condemng sex is positive step in the right direction, just as B16 did with his comments about the prostitute and condums.

Also TOB is about so much more than sexual ethics. It is about the physical love within a marriage, that John Paul compares to the HOly Spirit who is the Love that is within the Holy Trinity. It is about the procreative and unitive act that is found within marriage. Marriage is an icon of creation itself so when the procreative act is done it is a literal participation with God in act of creation. The univtive aspect is also important because that is an icon of the communion that we are all called to, in the Eucharist.

It is certainly true that Christopher West focuses to much on sexual ethics as opposed to the marriage covenant being an icon of creation(which he has admitted he needs to fine tune the message) but he does some wonderful things to help people appreciate creation, marriage as an icon of creation and the role physical love plays in all of that.

God's Blessings be upon you.

P.S. I am not sure it is fair to mention, even with the qualifications given, that Christopher West is in this for money and fame. There does not seem to be any reason for that belief so should be best left unsaid.

--hide--





The reality is that Christopher West is layperson who has made a lot of money and garnered quite a bit of fame through his version of TOB. We live in a capitalist society where people have a right to make money and pursue fame, so there is nothing wrong with it per say, but sometimes perception is a reality. If Christopher West were a priest, this thought wouldn't even come to my mind, but as a layperson I can't help but wonder. I said it is speculation so no need to be defensive about it.


Catholicism and Hugh Hefner should NEVER be mentioned in the same sentence. Hugh Hefner is everything the church is not. Using Hugh Hefner as a way of glorifying marital love was an absoulutely rediculous reference. It was one reference that I think Mr. West was doing for dramatic effect on national TV and I understand that. But Mr. West definitely deserves criticism in this instance. Why even bother trying to defend him in this case?


I understand the unitive and procreative elements of marriage. As I wrote before, there is something to be said for sexual intercourse bringing married couples closer together. And obviously no marriage is valid that hasn't been consumated. But, that is ONE element of a marriage. If hyoptheticallyspeaking, couple can date and get engaged for significant period of time and fall in love with no sexual expression of any kind, there is no reason why marriage necessarily has to be any different. Glorifying marital sexual expression as this almost devine act, I think makes it more important than the church or Pope John Paul intended it to be.


So, do older couples that are no longer sexually active have worse marriages than couples doing it all the time? Do couple that are not physically capable of sexual expression have worse marriages? I respect Mr. West's sincerity and passion and am not suggesting he should stop? Nevertheless, after researching more about him and watching the Nightline interview, there are questions and criticisms that are valid.


Feb 13th 2013 new

There seem to be alot of holes in your line of thinking. It makes no sense to say that just because he makes money he is somehow doing it for money. That could apply to every layperson who has ever sold a book on theology. Just no basis for it. It seems you ahve alot of holes in your line of reasoning. I explained to you what West was donig in the comparison with Hefner but you chose to ignore it. Should B16 have not mentiond prostitutes, condums and tending toward the good. The procreative act is one of intent and not always the end. Every conjugal act needs to be open, not neccesarily succeed, in the procreation of children.

I think you have a problem with Christopher WEst for some reason. I wont speculate why. Also there are some basic holes in your lien of reasoning. I am not sure that you do understand the procreative and unitive act of marriage, at least not at the level of a more established, educated and well read theologian, lay or otherwise. And no I am not attackign you or getting a dig in just stating what seems to be clear. When you boil the sexual act down to prohibitions, than you dont get it, at least not completely.

I would respectfully say that take some time to read over the meaning of marriage and Theology of the Body. Perhaps you would have a better understanding of the conjugal act and its context within God's Divine Economy.

Once again I am not attacking, or getting a dig in but a lack of understanding, coupled with a conservatives zeal seems to be prevalent in the forums, at least some of the time. I am simply, out of charity, suggesting you do a little more reading and praying, as we all do.

Feb 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: Theology of the Body has always been a topic that has fascinated me. I have been to some discus...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:

Theology of the Body has always been a topic that has fascinated me. I have been to some discussion groups and was amazed that Pope John Paul II put his heart in soul into writing about sexuality. My own personal view is, although inspired by God, TOB is unneccesarily complex. Agree or disagree, like or dislike, the catholic church's teaching on sex is very clear and can be summed up in a few sentences. All sexual contact outside matriomony is sinful. All sexual contact in a marriage that uses birth control is sinful. The only real grey area is if certain forms of foreplay among married couples as precursor to intercourse are acceptable. I don't think much more needs to be discussed for me, but if others need more, I respect that.

Given that Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body is quite complex and doesn't exactly translate to English all that well, Christopher West came along to make it more undestandable to the average American catholic. I think that is laudable, yet, I can't help but wonder how much of his efforts are based on self promtion and making money. He has sold over 1 million copies of his books. I don't fault him for that but I can't help but be a bit skeptical. I just watched on youtube his infamous nightline interview where he lauded Hugh Hefner. I understand that Mr. West doesn't approve of Mr. Hefner sexual conquests, but it did seem like quite an odd reference. I get that Chris West is trying to make sexual expression between married couple something to feel good and proud about. That I agree with. Yet, it is almost as if Christopher West's view is that sexual contact between married couples is so vital and important that it is basically a devine act involving God in the bedroom. I think that just goes a bit far. Obviously, married couples have to be intitimate to procreate children. And yes, there is something to be said that sexual contact between married couples brings them closer together. But, it could also be said that married couples could become addicted to sex that they stop concentrating on other aspects of their marriage - similar to the way that sexuality has become so cheapened in modern culture. aka - Hugh Heffner.


I think Christopher West's efforts are noble - even if I do question how much he may be in it for fame and money. Yet, I do understand how he has opened himself up to criticism. I don't personally have a strong view one way or the other so I am interested to see what others think.

--hide--


Patrick,


I created a post entitled "Anyone Practice The Devotion to the Divine Mercy or Theology of the Body?" just prior to u creating this post it may be helpful for people to read how I described TOB there.

Mick

Feb 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Chris-944200 said: There seem to be alot of holes in your line of thinking. It makes no sense to say that just becau...
(Quote) Chris-944200 said:

There seem to be alot of holes in your line of thinking. It makes no sense to say that just because he makes money he is somehow doing it for money. That could apply to every layperson who has ever sold a book on theology. Just no basis for it. It seems you ahve alot of holes in your line of reasoning. I explained to you what West was donig in the comparison with Hefner but you chose to ignore it. Should B16 have not mentiond prostitutes, condums and tending toward the good. The procreative act is one of intent and not always the end. Every conjugal act needs to be open, not neccesarily succeed, in the procreation of children.

I think you have a problem with Christopher WEst for some reason. I wont speculate why. Also there are some basic holes in your lien of reasoning. I am not sure that you do understand the procreative and unitive act of marriage, at least not at the level of a more established, educated and well read theologian, lay or otherwise. And no I am not attackign you or getting a dig in just stating what seems to be clear. When you boil the sexual act down to prohibitions, than you dont get it, at least not completely.

I would respectfully say that take some time to read over the meaning of marriage and Theology of the Body. Perhaps you would have a better understanding of the conjugal act and its context within God's Divine Economy.

Once again I am not attacking, or getting a dig in but a lack of understanding, coupled with a conservatives zeal seems to be prevalent in the forums, at least some of the time. I am simply, out of charity, suggesting you do a little more reading and praying, as we all do.

--hide--


Chris,


Please read the post "Anyone Practice The Devotion to the Divine Mercy or Theology of the Body?" started yesterday. It gives a basic idea of TOB. The book i suggest is not by West but:


Healy, Mary (2011-06-30). Men And Women Are From Eden: A Study Guide to John Paul II's Theology of the Body.



Mick

Feb 13th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: (Quote) Mick-929473 said: Anyone who lauds Hugh Hefne...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:

[quote]Mick-929473 said:


Anyone who lauds Hugh Hefner is "of the flesh" which is contrary to the Spirit. Books on TOB specifically discourage a Hugh Hefner lifestyle. It is a lifestyle of promiscuity and an objectification of people. To all those that choose to be Catholic believe what the Church teaches not what "the world" teaches. Please do not be lukewarm in your faith.

You say revolutionary or heretic: isn't that the same thing? Is the revolutionary in this case a rebelling angle? To be so spicifically contrary to Church teaching?

Some of the teachings of TOB are complex but with patients and reflection can produce fruits in relationships; with your relationship with God and with the “other” (your boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse).

I respectfully disagree: he is not noble.


Mick




I understand what you are saying. That is why I wrote I can't help but wonder how much he is in it for the fame and money. Yet, that is pure speculation on my part so I can't condemn him for that.


The Hugh Hefner reference was odd, to say the least. I don't know if that is something he says regularly or a one time provacative statement he chose to use for a national audience. I wrote that I think he is noble because he does seem very passionate and since millions of catholic have found inspiration from him, I am willing to give Mr. West the benefit of the doubt.


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 suggest that his intentions were good but by going on "the circuit" giving motovational speaches on the subject he left the domain of the Church and entered the domain of "the world" and was corrupted.


Mick

Posts 1 - 10 of 85