FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Christopher West Thanks and Responds to his critics
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
(10-24-2009, 04:09 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]I think sex should be as painful as possible.

We are fortunate that God 'believes' in the freedom instead of the dictature, so the humanity will survive for while.

What you apparently do not understand that the sexuality as intrinsically sinful thing come to our word , only with the absolutism, and interestingly both in the protestant (Puritanism) and the Catholic (St Alphonse's moraltheology) side. Before that the sex was natural part of the life, restricted only with harmful consequences, as the adultery or unnatural sexual encounters.

Meditate on the genealogy of Jesus by the Gospel of Matthew. Only four women is mentioned, and all four is sexually stained by the St Alphonsian sexual morality: Tamar using the fact that traveling men need sexual relief, Rachab the worker of the same need, Ruth seducing his boss, and the adulterous women, who became the mother of Salomon.

In the medieval eves the public nudity on the beaches was natural, the prostitutes were part of the community life, those born outside of the marriage had their rights, and all this with the implicit approval of the Church.

The sins against the castity are that of the lesser ones, those against the humility, for the greed, for the power are more harmful, and the emphasizing of the sexual sins is constructed to hide this more harmful sins.

Just meditete, when did you confessed your sins for the greed, for the pride, for the anger, for the sloth, and if you centered on those what was the reaction of a traditional priest? 
(10-24-2009, 02:55 AM)iggyting Wrote: [ -> ]The TOB of JP II is certainly not bunk. It provides a deeper account of sex and morality for Christians and a counter-reason to the world's obsession of sexual freedom. To preach Christian sexuality as a virtue in holy matrimony and a sacred sacrament has always a place in the Christian vacation (as in Bishop Sheen's or other saintly writings). To recognize sex as a God-given human passion to be enjoyed and exercised responsibly as God intended is where the TOB sets new grounds. To perceive that this Christian sexuality is an exchange of a love-gift between a couple, and is meant to be joyful, in its material and spiritual contents, is to return to God's original intention of this holy matrimony. This is what the TOB speaks of.

The problem with TOB rests with the problem of its author concerning evolution.  All indicators point to JPII believing in evolution. 
TOB presents the physical acts of human sexuality as it is known today as the way God intended and not the far different experience than the relations that Adam and Eve would have had prior to the Fall. 

To try and retrieve the actual experience of "original innocence" is a completely unattainable goal.  (There is an air of pride in this as well, like people wanting psychic abilities when those capabilities were probably shut off by the Fall as well. Bishop Sheen called them "the gifts" that were given freely to Adam and Eve by God in addition to their immortality and human perfections.)

TOB falls on the point that it believes psychological attitudes and reframing will somehow change the nature of relations and not accept the reality of Fallen Nature both inside and outside the person. (Ie. the physical world is not the way God originally built it.)  In essence what I'm saying is that  if St. Adam and Eve were to stand among us for a day and read TOB, they would probably laugh at how off the mark JPII was about original innocence and the realities of  pre-Fall relations.

What I've noticed missing from TOB is reality.  It's all based on feelings originating in lust and with profound sounding "thanks" to God and offering sacrifices as "gifts".    What is missing is understanding, compassion, tenderness, a sense of humor, a willingness to take things in stride and share a life together not "sharing gifts" of one another.    It sounds laughable especially to immodestly trumpet that kind of high-falutin'  out loud without respect to the sacredness of what is going on.  In many ways it's like a "reverent" Novus Ordo.  It doesn't give off a hint that it's aware of how incomplete it is.   
LOL
Phenomanology is after all very bad psychology. All shrink. Trash is bad but the wannabe philo shrink talk bis worse
What makes the b eing of a chair a chair again
Reframe that!
Sip
(10-23-2009, 11:30 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of disordered desires find expression in an overcomplication of a straightforward teaching of the Church.   TOB uses a pseudo intellectualism to obsess about sex.   

No different than someone trying to entice themselves about any other sin.  It just sounds downright silly when you  apply Theology of the Body doublespeak to another aspect of life that can be used virtuously or as a vice.  "Look at all that money!  Oh Boy, I wish I had that money, I sure would like it, think of all the wonderful things I would do for the Lord if I had that money.  It's a blessing from the Lord, that money is.  Lord thank you for that millionaire flashing his bucks in front of me,  that sure does stop me from wanting all of that money." 

How come a half an hour of Bishop Sheen or a 20 minute sermon of an SSPX priest (Fr. Robinson comes to mind) can teach you more about a healthy and proper attitude about the marital act than a booklet and weekly lectures for a month of TOB? 

Have you read Theology of the Body?  I think it is a pretty amazing work.  I can't stand what Christopher West does with it, but his crap does not reflect the actual documents.  TOB itself is a deep and thorough understanding of the theology of the body which is entirely different than a 30 minute Bishop Sheen treating of the matter or a except from the Baltimore Catechism.  They aren't aiming for the same thing and both have their places.
(10-24-2009, 06:29 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]  Have you read Theology of the Body?  I think it is a pretty amazing work.  I can't stand what Christopher West does with it, but his crap does not reflect the actual documents.  TOB itself is a deep and thorough understanding of the theology of the body which is entirely different than a 30 minute Bishop Sheen treating of the matter or a except from the Baltimore Catechism.  They aren't aiming for the same thing and both have their places.

I'll need you to elaborate on specifically what you mean when you say TOB is a deep and thorough understanding of TOB.  That's too circular for me.  What is TOB aiming at and what is its place? 

Bishop Sheen for 30 minutes can give you a guide to life and how to live it according to the Catholic Church's teachings. 

TOB is a personal view of JPII that has no basis in tradition, and you can reply to much of it.  "Sez you."  It is virtually incomprehensible since when anyone criticizes it, the response is "you just don't understand it."  Christopher West will tell you, you just don't understand what he's saying.  I doubt JPII understood it.

I've read some of it.  Enough of it to not want to bother to read the whole thing.  I personally don't even like the term "Theology of the Body" (the study of God of the Body).  What Christopher West presents is enough of what JPII presents from my reading and attending the TOB course.  And what course is, is what is being promoted by Bishops, Cardinals, parishes, EWTN as Theology of the Body.  If JPII is so much different, he's simply incapable of expressing what he really meant clearly.  I hope to never read "..in a certain way"  as a conclusion again. 

JPII's whole treatment of Genesis is like it's some kind of metaphor for 'the meaning" of "Man's search for Man"  it's a bunch of narcissistic navel-gazing from someone who DOES NOT BELIEVE it is an actual account of history.  This is because JPII has a mindset that is based on Evolution and not Revelation.

The meaning of Genesis is very clear.  It's how we got here, what happened to us that shows why we're broken and why Christ had to come redeem us and to give us a chance to be restored to our proper state and then be brought to what we were created for.  To Love God. 

JPII like Karl Rahner attempted to impose a whole new set of meanings on Scripture and build a new religion around an "experiential" philosophy that they might believe in but is not in any way proven to be a Universal truth.  Card. Ratzinger's "In the Beginning" is yet another disappointing read. 






(10-24-2009, 07:45 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-24-2009, 06:29 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]  Have you read Theology of the Body?  I think it is a pretty amazing work.  I can't stand what Christopher West does with it, but his crap does not reflect the actual documents.  TOB itself is a deep and thorough understanding of the theology of the body which is entirely different than a 30 minute Bishop Sheen treating of the matter or a except from the Baltimore Catechism.  They aren't aiming for the same thing and both have their places.

I'll need you to elaborate on specifically what you mean when you say TOB is a deep and thorough understanding of TOB.   That's too circular for me.  What is TOB aiming at and what is its place? 

Bishop Sheen for 30 minutes can give you a guide to life and how to live it according to the Catholic Church's teachings. 

TOB is a personal view of JPII that has no basis in tradition, and you can reply to much of it.  "Sez you."  It is virtually incomprehensible since when anyone criticizes it, the response is "you just don't understand it."   Christopher West will tell you, you just don't understand what he's saying.  I doubt JPII understood it.

I've read some of it.  Enough of it to not want to bother to read the whole thing.  I personally don't even like the term "Theology of the Body" (the study of God of the Body).  What Christopher West presents is enough of what JPII presents from my reading and attending the TOB course.  And what course is, is what is being promoted by Bishops, Cardinals, parishes, EWTN as Theology of the Body.   If JPII is so much different, he's simply incapable of expressing what he really meant clearly.  I hope to never read "..in a certain way"  as a conclusion again. 

JPII's whole treatment of Genesis is like it's some kind of metaphor for 'the meaning" of "Man's search for Man"  it's a bunch of narcissistic navel-gazing from someone who DOES NOT BELIEVE it is an actual account of history.  This is because JPII has a mindset that is based on Evolution and not Revelation.

The meaning of Genesis is very clear.  It's how we got here, what happened to us that shows why we're broken and why Christ had to come redeem us and to give us a chance to be restored to our proper state and then be brought to what we were created for.  To Love God. 

JPII like Karl Rahner attempted to impose a whole new set of meanings on Scripture and build a new religion around an "experiential" philosophy that they might believe in but is not in any way proven to be a Universal truth.  Card. Ratzinger's "In the Beginning" is yet another disappointing read. 

I'm not saying that this is your issue with it, but I honestly think that many trads don't like it because they assume it doesn't follow with the traditions of the Church.  It does, in fact, do just that.  It simply expands upon what the Church has always taught about man's relationship with God and among one another.  When I say that it is deep and thorough I mean to say that it is truly a work of theology and philosophy.  It is a scholarly work that digs deep into the Church's teaching on not only sex, but the nature of relationships and how that applies to God and Man. 

I would invite those who think that it is espousing anything new, novel, or biased to JPII to name exactly what teachings of TOB they find are so.  When you say that you doubt JPII understood if, do you really, seriously mean that?  You think that JPII just wrote this long document to sound smart even though he had no idea what he even meant?  I mean, those are the kinds of claims that are frustrating when dealing with traditionalism and TOB.

I don't want to say that people just don't understand it, but I fear that that is a lot of the issue here.  A lot of the objections are that it is too wordy or ambiguous.  I disagree.  I have read much of it and found it quite clear and understandable.  This would lead me to think that some, unfortunately, don't understand and make assumptions.  I also do not find anything novel or antithetical to previous Church teaching in this document.  The lack of anyone whom I have ever spoken with on here to provide any concrete ideas or themes to the contrary, again, makes me think that people genuinely don't understand the document in part or whole.

JPII's account of Genesis in TOB never states that Genesis is purely metaphorical.  It does talk about man and the position that Adam found himself in.  It is not navel-gazing.  It is an explanation of how man comes to know and understand who he is and how he forms relationships with others.  It shows how those relationships directly parallel and influence man's relationship with God.  It shows the true nature of love and how we act out the love which Christ gave on the cross.  To be honest, if anything, I think TOB made me a more thorough Christian with a better understanding of relationships and giving as a reciprocal gift of self.  These themes, as a part of my genuine mindset and worldview, have not held me back or changed my thoughts on tradition.  In fact, since I've read the TOB I've only grown closer and more fully to traditional Catholicism.

I see nothing in the TOB that is building a new religion.  It is honestly just the same thoughts and beliefs that stem from aristotle, thomas etc. and have been accepted by the Church for centuries.  It is not about a new religion in the slightest.

I also wonder what you find troubling in "In the Begining"  It seems to me that too often people read philosophical treatises by our Church leaders and expect them to come out and say, "Truth is objective.  Gary marriage is bad.  The Bible should be read literally most of the time.  Outside of the Church there is no salvation."  All of that is good and well and nothing in these documents contradicts what the Church teaches.  They do however go much deeper and into theoretical territory in an attempt to uproot the problem of modernism where it starts, which is in bad philosophy.
I still believe very strongly the description of Chris West as an "oversexed man-child" is the most accurate.

[Image: n53678118653_3589.jpg]

Just look at 'im!
LOL

says the Brevis with the screaming caveman avatar
(10-24-2009, 10:22 PM)spera Wrote: [ -> ]LOL

says the Brevis with the screaming caveman avatar

...that looks like Will Ferrel.  Is it?
(10-24-2009, 10:23 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-24-2009, 10:22 PM)spera Wrote: [ -> ]LOL

says the Brevis with the screaming caveman avatar

...that looks like Will Ferrel.  Is it?

Brian Blessed, actually.  :)

(10-24-2009, 10:22 PM)spera Wrote: [ -> ]LOL

says the Brevis with the screaming caveman avatar

:laughing:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5