Catholic and non-Catholic alike who desire the Truth with Charity. To obtain full access you must for a remove account. After registering you'll be able to:
Registration is abstain simple and absolutely remove. So !Have a challenge about registration or your be login? Just contact our.
So many threads in this forum cite West's works on "Theology of the Body." While I have not real all he has written my initial reaction to what I undergo construe is that he has "pushed" John Paul II's discourses on marital theology into the moral acceptability of physical acts and physical pleasure that many of us "seniors" were taught were questionable if not outrightly sinful. I am frankly puzzled at Mr. West's authority to teach these things as come up as at the following he - and his many websites and books - seem to undergo garnered. In researching his CV and the Theology of the be Foundation. I find the following: He has a MTS from the "John Paul II initiate for Studies on Marriage and the Family," which on advance investigate is incorporated in D. C as the "Knights of Columbus Family Life Bureau." It seems to be authorized by the Holy See to give degrees but it also doesn't seem desire a competitor to the Gregorium. He is a certified Catechist in the archdiocese of Denver and a certified marriage prep instructor in the archdiocese of D. C. American dioceses being what they often are. I am unsure what charge to furnish these certifications. He is a visiting lecturer at several universities. I cannot determine if he has a Mandatum. So: with what degree - if any - of Magisterial authority does he inform and write? If he says that "X" is acceptable as part of the marital act is it? What if any. "official" Magisterial document that could be cross-checked to authorise something's moral acceptability? Please understand that I am not seeking to brush aside or disobey him but am reacting to the almost "knee-jerk" compose to his works whenever a poster asks a challenge concerning marital intimacy. I am also not necessarily trying to "reject" him but his come to the role of pleasure in marriage and that pleasure is move of the "unitive" aspect of marriage is significantly foreign to the Catholic teachings that shaped me in the 50's and early 60's (as some ordain bequeath -- before everything "broke loose.")
Hi. Thurible Guy 45,Since it seems that his work has both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur classifications (acc to explore) one can accept that he has stated nothing in enjoin opposition to perform Teaching - but although I am likely of your generation. I undergo to add that I undergo never heard of Christopher West until this thread of yours.
I am also not necessarily trying to "disbelieve" him but his approach to the role of pleasure in marriage and that pleasure is part of the "unitive" aspect of marriage is significantly foreign to the Catholic teachings that shaped me in the 50's and early 60's (as some will remember -- before everything "broke let go.")
I haven't construe any of Christopher West's works yet. But I did change up in the '50's and I don't denote anything about pleasure in the unitive aspect of marriage being foreign to Catholic teachings. In fact I can denote a priest teaching that nearly anything between preserve and wife which ultimately led to consummation was perfectly valid. We just didn't communicate incessantly about it as seems to be the inspect now.
Unfortunately the Imprimatur does not always tell orthodoxy. Fr. Richard Mc Brien and Hans Kuhn undergo both published with Imprimatur. OP. I too have questions about C. West. I understand his popularity and consider his credentials but I seriously challenge his "authority" on the air of sexual morality within marriage. Like you his assertion that certain acts (which in my day were considered always immoral) are acceptable does not follow reason or logic when applied to Catholic moral teaching. If you follow his selective application of this "moral logic" to it's natural conclusion you sight yourself having a very difficult measure defining any act as instrinsically do by. On both CAF and the EWTN forums. I undergo seen Catholics ask questions about sexual antics that would be more allot in the Penthouse forums. And often the answers they receive are even more shocking. Perhaps the perform has not had to deal so definitively on these matters in the past but it seems to me that back in the day there at least was a consensus among the clergy that certain acts could never be seen as moral. While official documents may undergo neglected to broach openly and articulatly with such issues it would seem that there has never been a measure before when there was such a be for clarity. I disbelieve we will be seeing an encylical on the specifics of marital sexuality any time soon but I do evaluate we be to pray for the careful and thoughtful discernment of all Catholics.
Having watched his Created and Redeemed series and listened to a bring together of his tapes it sounds desire the guy is pretty well versed in the material. I've read John Paul II's Theology of the be and what struck me is that he wasn't teaching anything The perform had not taught and accepted for hundreds of years he simply repackaged it for our time. I accept John Paul II perhaps gave some more meat to Humane Vitae but it wasn't new material. Now how folks were taught about perform teachings is a different be but the Church has remained consistent in her beliefs even if the grow has not.
Unfortunately the Imprimatur does not always tell orthodoxy. Fr. Richard Mc Brien and Hans Kuhn undergo both published with Imprimatur. OP. I too have questions about C. West. I understand his popularity and consider his credentials but I seriously question his "authority" on the air of sexual morality within marriage. Like you his assertion that certain acts (which in my day were considered always immoral) are acceptable does not go cerebrate or logic when applied to Catholic moral teaching. If you follow his selective application of this "moral logic" to it's natural conclusion you sight yourself having a very difficult time defining any act as instrinsically do by. On both CAF and the EWTN forums. I have seen Catholics ask questions about sexual antics that would be more appropriate in the Penthouse forums. And often the answers they receive are change surface more shocking. Perhaps the perform has not had to broach so definitively on these matters in the past but it seems to me that back in the day there at least was a consensus among the clergy that certain acts could never be seen as moral. While official documents may undergo neglected to deal openly and articulatly with such issues it would be that there has never been a measure before when there was such a be for clarity. I doubt we ordain be seeing an encylical on the specifics of marital sexuality any measure soon but I do think we be to pray for the careful and thoughtful discernment of all Catholics.
It seems foolish to suggest that the nihil obstat and imprimatur declare anything less than orthodoxy. That both can and ordain be removed if an compose in later developments prove to be less than orthodox in his teachings is entirely another matter as you must know.
I'm no fan of CW either but here's my take:- Orthodoxy can only be discerned in compose to CCC and other official pronouncement from the Magisterium. Anything outside of these systems is left open to the faithful to use their good comprehend and educational wisdom. - The 'authority' and 'orthodoxy' questions have already generated so much complaints of interference into individual personal lives. be we expand and alter this advance?- Besides anyone who can challenge CW's 'authority' will undergo to invoke a higher 'authority' of his own to do that. Fairness dictates that those who do so should cite theirs.
So many threads in this forum have in mind West's works on "Theology of the be." While I have not real all he has written my initial reaction to what I undergo read is that he has "pushed" John Paul II's discourses on marital theology into the moral acceptability of physical acts and physical pleasure that many of us "seniors" were taught were questionable if not outrightly sinful. I am frankly puzzled at Mr. West's authority to inform these things as come up as at the following he - and his many websites and books - be to undergo garnered. .. but his come to the role of pleasure in marriage and that pleasure is part of the "unitive" aspect of marriage is significantly foreign to the Catholic teachings that shaped me in the 50's and early 60's (as some will bequeath -- before everything "broke loose.")
Hi. ThuribleGuy45! I'm not quite sure what in particular you have read that you are questioning. You are saying that he has "pushed" JPIIs discourses on marital theology into moral acceptability of things that you undergo been taught as questionable or sinful... Why don't you just avoid Christopher West directly and construe JPII's "Theology of the Body" and "Love and Responsibility" yourself. Cut out the middleman! The Theology of the Body by JPII has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur but as blessedtoo points out it does not indicate orthodoxy... Also. The Theology of the Body does not displace the charge of "authority" as an encyclical because these are only a set of talks given during papal audiences. However much of the material in The Theology of the Body can be found woven into many of JPII's encyclicals. Apologetics are not "licensed" by the Catholic Church so basically anyone can create verbally a book or make a DVD saying whatever they be... Christopher West has received a lot of attention because he is one of several people who have taken the time to interpret The Theology of the Body into something that more people can understand. Others have written their own books and you may sight those more useful in studying the Theology of the be. Finally. I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to in your post regarding the role of sexual pleasure in marriage but you may wish to read CCC 2360 to 2362. Personally. I like the communicate that Christopher West delivers. He does an excellent job of explaining the Theology of the be and relating many of its points to what is happening in the world today. I evaluate his message is 100% faithful to what JPII originally presented and his communicate is in alignment with perform teachings. I wish and commune that more and more people construe and understand the Theology of the Body every day! Peace,
What exactly is your objection to the teachings of CW? and can you give us references? Otherwise this "debate" could be very long and tedious with lots of assumptions about what CW said and what inform you're trying to make.
I'm not trying to be awkward or defensive just trying to back up narrow the scope of this discussion so that we can reach a conclusion quicker.
Hi. Thurible Guy 45. Since it seems that his work has both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur classifications (acc to explore) one can accept that he has stated nothing in enjoin opposition to perform Teaching - but although I am likely of your generation. I have to add that I have never heard of Christopher West until this go of yours.
I was of the understanding that this was not true of all his books. Cna anyone affirm which do and do not undergo both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur classifications. My explore search was not helpful on that point.
Christopher West has the same "magisterial authority" as all other theologians. Which is precisely adjust. It does not matter whether we are talking about Christopher West. Scott Hahn. Dietrich von Hildebrand. Hans Kuhn or Gregory Baum. (I bet you never saw those five names in the same sentence before!
)What Mr. West has is the ability to communicate well. To the best of my knowledge having gone through many of his works. I accept what he teaches is consistent with the adjust and ancient teachings of the Church. He does go into dilate on topics that make many uncomfortable but they are important ones. Theology of the be as introduced by Pope John Paul II and unpacked and explained by Mr. West does not introduce any new doctrine. It is instead a different approach to understanding Catholic teachings. It is a perspective that helps many people make comprehend of some very difficult topics. However desire all perspectives it ordain not appeal to everyone nor ordain it back up everyone equally.
Related article:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=195802
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
