tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post4877445913797667558..comments2024-03-20T16:30:09.690-05:00Comments on The Fifth Column: Chris and the CultUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-57353812472041231752009-12-08T20:40:18.290-06:002009-12-08T20:40:18.290-06:00Precisely, Athanasius!
Indeed, this was Mahatma G...Precisely, Athanasius!<br /><br />Indeed, this was Mahatma Gandhi's position - after he gave up relations with his wife, he took to sleeping in a bed with the young, nubile women among his followers, in order to demonstrate to himself his chaste virtues, testing them and strengthening them.<br /><br />Of course, this course of action has not been advocated by the saints.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-18500313186471912292009-12-08T17:55:21.686-06:002009-12-08T17:55:21.686-06:00"Think of it from this perspective: If the on...<em>"Think of it from this perspective: If the only thing that kept you from having sex before marriage was the fact that you didn't have the opportunity, what does that say about the desires of your heart? And then there is a real and present danger of justifying lust within the marriage.</em><br /><br />In this sense, West is actually correct, he just doesn't know why he is correct. If the only reason you don't have sex with your girlfriend or fiance is the opportunity, you are not gaining any virtue. The problem for West is he doesn't understand what virtue is with respect to the 6th and 9th commandments. The solution is not spending more time with your future spouse alone, it is developing more virtue, denying yourself venereal pleasure with respect to those things that are due matter, such as food and drink, thus training your concupiscent appetites to deny that which is good, so in marriage you will have the ability to deny yourself, and thus be enabled to deny desires with respect to other women. <br /><br />I think we can debate whether it is good for a couple to spend any meaningful time alone, but I think it is clear you should not "lots of time" alone because it is clearly an occasion of sin. If we took West's moral principles and his teleology to its correct conclusion, a man could not be considered virtuous unless he could sleep in the same bed with a woman to whom he was not married without engaging in relations.Athanasiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11857043218277004727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-29532831601809689252009-10-16T14:12:39.430-05:002009-10-16T14:12:39.430-05:00Anonymous,
I've talked with Chris personally,...Anonymous,<br /><br />I've talked with Chris personally, several times. He isn't as nice in person as you would think.<br /><br />I'm sure God has sent you His grace of healing. But West's teachings have not healed 'countless' couples - assuming they have healed any, the numbers are most assuredly finite. <br /><br />Further, the fact that God touches your heart with grace does not mean Chris West's teachings are decent or good. God writes straight with crooked lines -He can use even great evil to heal hearts. <br /><br />For example, the photos of aborted fetuses in front of an abortion clinic might cause a potential client to turn away from abortion. Does that mean the abortion of those children was good? Of course not. It means God was able to use even evil to bring about good.<br /><br />Is some of what Chris West teaches evil? Insofar as it contradicts Church teaching, of course it is.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-87078618714874791942009-10-16T13:50:28.037-05:002009-10-16T13:50:28.037-05:00+JMJ+
I have to agree with Johnnyjoe here. And by ...+JMJ+<br />I have to agree with Johnnyjoe here. And by the way, he doesn't go by Chris; He goes by Christopher. <br /><br />The Scripture passage that comes to mind is when people are casting out demons and the disciples ask Jesus what they should do about it, and he said anyone who is not against us is for us...<br /><br />A closer study of the work of Christopher West, and the countless testimonies of those whose lives have been touched, whose marriages and wounds are beginning to be healed by the Holy Spirit working through the spreading of John Paul II's message of hope is what we should be focusing on.<br /><br />Also, it's easier to attack someone when you don't know them personally. If you have issues with him and his teachings, perhaps you should see if you can arrange a chat with him. I assure you, his heart is in the right place. The joy, peace, and healing I and thousands of other Mary Magdalenes are experiencing cannot be of anything but the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />God bless you in your search for truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-38007610352022084192009-10-11T21:00:06.489-05:002009-10-11T21:00:06.489-05:00Randy,
I should correct a mistake I made in the r...Randy,<br /><br />I should correct a mistake I made in the response you quote. When I said, "I don't have to have ordered passions, I just have to impose reason on my passions" that was technically erroneous.<br /><br />By the very fact that I impose reason on my passions, I order them. My apologies for having mis-represented the facts. <br /><br />Choice is always an imposition of reason, but the choice to indulge my passions is the choice to NOT order those passions. In that case, I use reason to be unreasonable.<br /><br />BTW, it should be noted that one of Chris West's favorite stories, of St. Pelagia, the prostitute, and St. Nonnus, the bishop who converted her, shows something Chris always leaves out.<br /><br />According to John the Stylite, St. Nonnus <a href="http://culturewarnotes.com/forum/content/beautiful-woman-and-bishops" rel="nofollow"><b>refused to meet the prostitute alone</b></a>.<br /><br /><b><i>He replied that he could not receive a visit from her alone, as he was only a weak man, liable to temptation, but that he was willing to see her in the presence of his brother bishops. When Pelagia had received this letter she hastened to the church of St Julian, where St Xonnus received her with his colleagues.</i></b><br /><br />So, even the man Chris holds up for us to emulate refused to stay in the same room with a beautiful woman alone. Yet, according to Chris, this saint was not exhibiting virtue. <br /><br />West is inconsistent. He mis-represents history and theology to push his own highly idiosyncratic point of view.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-88724568771488540072009-10-11T19:37:03.265-05:002009-10-11T19:37:03.265-05:00Heck, if the virtues of religion and prudence don&...<i>Heck, if the virtues of religion and prudence don't rise to the level of moral virtue, why should continence? All three are certainly virtues, as Aquinas testifies, they just aren't moral virtues.</i><br /><br />OK, so West says something is not a virtue when he should have said it is not a MORAL virtue. <br /><br /><i>So, in order to be virtuous, I don't have to have ordered passions, I just have to impose reason on the passions with the right purpose.</i><br /><br />I can see West's thinking here. If you avoid the situation then you have avoided the passions. You have not imposed reason on your passions. You have just prevented those passions from being inflamed and so needing to have reason imposed on them. <br /><br />I can see you point too. The choice to avoid arousing the passion actually involves another lesser passion. Like the passion to spend time with your girlfriend. You are imposing reason on that lesser passion. So you have been somewhat virtuous but have not reached the height of virtue. <br /><br />This is good to know. It just does not make me less interesting in listening to West.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16751516602395247675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-8563811199965608562009-10-02T23:23:35.346-05:002009-10-02T23:23:35.346-05:00JWilson,
No, as my comment above indicates (a res...JWilson,<br /><br />No, as my comment above indicates (a response to one you deleted), Aquinas DOES call continence a virtue. West is wrong to say continence is not a virtue, Aquinas does not agree with him.<br /><br />Aquinas simply doesn't call continence a MORAL VIRTUE. But, given that out of all the virtues discussed in the CCC, only four virtues are specifically called "moral virtues," it's not a real surprise to see that the virtue of continence is not a moral virtue.<br /><br />Heck, if the virtues of religion and prudence don't rise to the level of moral virtue, why should continence? All three are certainly virtues, as Aquinas testifies, they just aren't moral virtues.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-32147076370671896642009-10-02T23:01:06.980-05:002009-10-02T23:01:06.980-05:00Steve,
Thanks for the lesson on the Summa. I beli...Steve,<br /><br />Thanks for the lesson on the Summa. I believe you are much more educated on it than I. Honestly.<br /><br />However, you said, "The problem here is that neither you nor West know how to read Aquinas.<br /><br />You have to read ALL of the work, not just the parts you want to cherry-pick out and impose a meaning on."<br /><br />2nd part of the 2nd part Q155, Whether Continence is a Virtue?:<br />In this way continence has something of the nature of a virtue, in so far, to wit, as the reason stands firm in opposition to the passions, lest it be led astray by them: yet it does not attain to the perfect nature of a moral virtue, by which even the sensitive appetite is subject to reason so that vehement passions contrary to reason do not arise in the sensitive appetite. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 9) that "continence is not a virtue but a mixture," inasmuch as it has something of virtue, and somewhat falls short of virtue.<br /><br />The text here seems to show Aquinas thought that continence was in some ways just short of a virtue.<br /><br />Before we move on to a handful of other errors of us heretics, can we agree that TA serves as a saint who allows for a definition of continence where it is not necessarily a virtue?JWilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09039395967348923629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-38297591383531172622009-10-02T21:27:22.106-05:002009-10-02T21:27:22.106-05:00JWilson,
Your question on continence is important...JWilson,<br /><br />Your question on continence is important. Note the codicil that Thomas places in his assessment of continence: <i>"[it is a ]virtue, in so far, to wit, as the reason stands firm in opposition to the passions..."</i><br /><br />Now, the whole reason a betrothed man and a woman would avoid being alone is precisely because they are exercising their reason so as to stand firm in opposition to the passions they feel. According to Thomas, then, they ARE displaying a virtue.<br /><br />Before we go ANY further, we must recall that West denied continence was a virtue "in the Thomistic sense." But here we have Thomas saying continence <b>IS</b> a virtue. So West is simply wrong on this point. He denies what Thomas affirms: continence is a virtue. <br /><br />Now, is continence a MORAL VIRTUE? Well, the Catechism of the Catholic Church only identifies four virtues as "moral virtues": the cardinal virtues of fortitude, justice, temperance and chastity (CCC 1807,1808,1809,2345). <br /><br />Not even the virtues of prudence or religion are called "moral virtues." Thus, it isn't real surprising to see Aquinas refrain from calling continence a "moral virtue." <br /><br />Justice is morality towards others, temperance is morality towards yourself, fortitude is the refusal to allow your morality to be swayed, chastity integrates all the previously named virtues as a united whole within the person. <br /><br /><i>That's</i> why continence is not, technically speaking, a full-fledged moral virtue. There's no unique place for it to fill in the moral sphere.After all, what other aspect of morality needs to be covered? The above four already cover every relationship in the moral sphere. <br /><br />But just because it isn't a full moral virtue doesn't mean it isn't a virtue <b>at all</b>. That's the basic mistake West make. <br /><br />He's not really well-read in theology, he doesn't have a sense for the boundaries of good theology, so he keeps making basic mistakes, even after ten years of doing this stuff. <br /><br />That's what makes the man dangerous. He's really good at marketing, but he really doesn't have a clue when it comes to theology.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-1522636879006096832009-10-02T20:28:15.491-05:002009-10-02T20:28:15.491-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.JWilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09039395967348923629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-71406161130452858982009-10-02T09:13:32.364-05:002009-10-02T09:13:32.364-05:00JWilson,
The problem here is that neither you no...JWilson, <br /><br />The problem here is that neither you nor West know how to read Aquinas.<br /><br />You have to read <b>ALL</b> of the work, not just the parts you want to cherry-pick out and impose a meaning on.<br /><br />If you step back a couple of questions, you'll notice how Aquinas defines chastity: <br /><br /><i>"I answer that, Chastity takes its name from the fact that reason "chastises" concupiscence, which, like a child, needs curbing, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 12). Now the essence of human virtue consists in being something moderated by reason, as shown above (I-II, 64, 1). Therefore it is evident that chastity is a virtue.<br /><br />Reply to Objection 1. Chastity does indeed reside in the soul as its subject, though its matter is in the body. For it belongs to chastity that a man make moderate use of bodily members in accordance with the judgment of his reason and the choice of his will.<br /><br />Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says (Contra Julian. iv, 3), "it is impossible to have any true virtue unless one be truly just; nor is it possible to be just unless one live by faith." Whence he argues that in unbelievers there is neither true chastity, nor any other virtue, because, to wit, they are not referred to the due end, and as he adds (Contra Julian. iv, 3) "virtues are distinguished from vices not by their functions," i.e. their acts, "but by their ends."<br /><br />Reply to Objection 4. Chastity is a virtue in so far as it works in accordance with reason, but in so far as it delights in its act, it is reckoned among the fruits. </i><br /><br />Now, we have been assuming that the couple in question are CHRISTIANS, and thus capable of true virtue.<br /><br />If you want to argue that Christopher West was only talking about the unbaptized, sure, you can talk about continence, or even chastity, not being a true virtue. <br /><br />But, West was talking about two baptized Christian Catholics who attempt to "chastise their concupiscence" by the use of reason.<br /><br />Did you <b>catch</b> that JWilson: "Now the essence of human virtue consists in being something moderated by reason." <br /><br />Note virtue isn't moderated by desire - it doesn't matter what the will wants or what concupiscence tends us towards. What matters is what rule reason imposes. <br /><br />So, in order to be virtuous, I don't have to have ordered passions, I just have to impose reason on the passions with the right purpose.<br /><br />What is the right purpose? The due end of reason is the exercise of faith, which is trust in the Persons of the Godhead. Such trust necessarily entails an abhorrence of sin, for sin is the distrust that God really knows the good or really intends me to be joined to the Good and orders all things so that I will be so joined. <br /><br />So, when two baptized persons flee a near occasion of sin, that is, when they impose their reason on their concupiscence and chastise it, they are displaying true virtue: the virtue of chastity. They recognize their concupiscence for what it is, they impose a reasonable chastisement upon said concupiscence, and they display a chaste continence thereby.<br /><br />Westians are under the impression that virtue is a power or faculty. Virtue is neither a power nor a faculty. Virtue is a habit. That's why Aquinas discusses virtues under habits in the first part of the second part.<br /><br />To set Aquinas in opposition to Scripture by claiming that flight from sin is not virtuous is not only a distortion of Aquinas, but of the scripture he explicates, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." (1 Cor 6:18). <br /><br />Furthermore, you should take a look at the second part of the second part, q. 154, p 4, whether kisses, touches, etc. are mortal sin. Aquinas points out that they are, if done for the pleasure of the thing.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-11145263801914037992009-10-02T02:30:47.306-05:002009-10-02T02:30:47.306-05:00Steve,
"Fifth, it is virtuous to fly from sin...Steve,<br />"Fifth, it is virtuous to fly from sin. Period. If you disagree, please identify the saint who agrees with you and the writing in which they agree with you. Saying it is not virtue is most certainly a perversion of Catholic teaching."<br /><br />I will take your Pepsi challenge. Here is th Summa (my emphasis added) 2nd part of the 2nd part Q155, Whether Continence is a Virtue?:<br /><i>In this way continence has <b>something</b> of the nature of a virtue, in so far, to wit, as the reason stands firm in opposition to the passions, lest it be led astray by them: <b>yet it does not attain to the perfect nature of a moral virtue</b>, by which even the sensitive appetite is subject to reason so that vehement passions contrary to reason do not arise in the sensitive appetite. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 9) that "continence is not a virtue but a mixture," inasmuch as it has something of virtue, and <b>somewhat falls short of virtue. </b></i><br /><br />Did you catch that Steve? In some ways, depending on the perspective of the speaker, continence (fleeing an occasion of sin) somewhat falls short of being a virtue. St. Thomas Aquinas answers, in accordance with a number of other saints, that when a man resists temptation that is vehement, that man is not completely virtuous. Did you catch that Steve?<br /><br />Yes, TA does conclude that continence (fleeing sin) can be considered a virtue using the broadest sense of the term <b>depending on the deffinition.</b><br /><br />You said, "Saying it is not virtue is most certainly a perversion of Catholic teaching." You have tossed out words like heretic, Manichean, Lutheran, Adamite etc. for teaching something like... Aquinas. Then, you quoted the Summa for me. Is the Summa a perversion of Catholic teaching? You seem to say yes. The Latin Church, in our praise of the Summa, seems to agree that those who are only continent are not fully virtuous yet. The Summa, which you quote from, seems to declare continence falls short of a full moral virtue, but may be called a virtue in a very broadest sense of the word.<br /><br />Even CW in his talk at the Personalist Project explained that this division between virtue and continence needs to be discussed and that he hoped it could get hammered out in the Q&A, so that there would not be any misunderstandings. He specifically says:<br /><i>In the language of St. Thomas Aquinas, such a person is continent but he is not yet virtuous, "Continence falls short of being virtue since virtue presuposes a right desire." This is lacking in any of us when we want to over indugle in a disordered passion. Infused virtue demands that my passion itself be rightly ordered. The Catechism makes this very clear. Human virtues order our passions. Only one that knows how to fast knows how to feast. </i> <br /><br />Are you catching all this Steve? CW does not claim we should not run from sin. He commends it along with Aquinas. <br /><br />Here is a final summary from CW at the Personalist Project talk from which you pulled snippits:<br />"In the first stage of spiritual development, we learn how to restrain ourselves from sin, with the help of the grace of God strengthening our will. And so we are strenthened to act against our disordered passions... Example... Maybe it is that email you just received enticing you to look at internet pornography. We must make a firm decision of the will to act against the disorder of our passion. <br />...<br />Sometimes, our Christian formation only takes us to the purgative and makes us think we are not virtuous because we flee from sin. This is good and we should flee, however the one who must flee is not fully formed yet, but is only continent and not yet fully virtuous. If a continent person thinks this is all they can hope for in life, then they are not fully informed of the faith, for they are destined to develop so much more. If we end up calling mere continence a full 'virtue', then we are selling ourselves short and are resting, hand on hips, on shaky ground. We will have watered down what is actually virtue. Grace affords so much more."JWilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09039395967348923629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-21416782249409493192009-10-01T22:10:51.570-05:002009-10-01T22:10:51.570-05:00Tour86rocker,
First, tell me, what is your real n...Tour86rocker,<br /><br />First, tell me, what is your real name and your association with Chris West?<br /><br />Circumcille refuses to answer the question as does Johnnyjoe. Perhaps you will?<br /><br />Second, you apparently didn't read the article or listen to Chris West: <i>"Such a couple is continent, but they are not virtuous, in the true sense of the word, in the true Thomistic sense of the word."</i><br /><br />That's not saying "it's inadvisable," that is refusing to acknowledge it as virtue.<br /><br />Third, whether he called it inadvisable, as you insist, or denied it was virtue, as the plain meaning of his words insist, in either case, his teaching directly contradicts 2000 years of moral teaching by the Catholic Church, which tells us we are SUPPOSED to fly from near occasions of sin.<br /><br />Fourth, which "Naked Without Shame" series would that be? The first one, which he had to redo because of the numerous theological errors, but continued to sell because he didn't want to lose a dollar on inventory? <br /><br />Fifth, it is virtuous to fly from sin. Period. If you disagree, please identify the saint who agrees with you and the writing in which they agree with you. Saying it is not virtue is most certainly a perversion of Catholic teaching. <br /><br />Sixth, I want to thank you for publicly demonstrating, as the other Westians have, exactly how West is perverting your understanding of the Christian Faith, particularly in regards to what constitutes virtue.<br /><br />I could not demonstrate how skewed West's teachings are without your input. I really value it. Please continue to contribute. Thanks.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-14319512561287652592009-10-01T21:59:47.154-05:002009-10-01T21:59:47.154-05:00Tourrocker,
Well, if that was West's ONLY poi...Tourrocker,<br /><br />Well, if that was West's ONLY point, I wouldn't have a problem with him.<br /><br />The problem is, it ISN'T his whole point.<br /><br />JP II pointed out that it is possible to lust after even your spouse. He is also the one who pointed out that the opposite of love is not hate, but use.<br /><br />So the points you like are the points everyone agrees with. Great.<br /><br />The points that are problematic are the points that Chris makes on his own - that avoiding near occasion of sin is "not virtue." <br /><br />His words, not mine, not JP II's. <br /><br />I'm glad you're confident of West's fidelity and renunciation of earlier errors. Oddly enough, I've never heard him renounce or even acknowledge his earlier errors. Or his current ones, for that matter.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-60309038234247432772009-10-01T21:57:25.341-05:002009-10-01T21:57:25.341-05:00"First: Christopher West seems to think that ..."First: Christopher West seems to think that avoiding near occasions of sin is not virtuous activity."<br /><br />False. He said that ONE method of avoiding sin is INADVISABLE as a way of growing virtue. The Church does not teach that EVERY method of avoiding sin is virtuous. It follows that some methods are merely neutral. West does not appear to demonize this method of avoidance, but I do believe he reveals it as ultimately null instead of efficacious.<br /><br />Merely avoiding being alone would be as ineffective as chopping off the head of a weed whose roots will merely regenerate the whole plant. <br /><br />His whole point is to get at the ROOT, to dispel lust. That's something we must ALL root out if we want a thriving marriage one day! This is not an imagined interpretation, I am not imagining what he secretly thinks. I listen to the Naked Without Shame series at least twice a year. His beliefs are clearly not what you allege.stceolfrithtxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04369240659677103435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-57780494888896136042009-10-01T21:40:37.757-05:002009-10-01T21:40:37.757-05:00"Now, is it possible to have sex with my own ..."Now, is it possible to have sex with my own wife in a lustful way? Sure."<br /><br />This is West's whole point, and you just agreed with him, Steve. I like West's quote, that the opposite of love isn't hate, but USE. Exploitation. Given the divorce rate in this country, I'm confident that he's right about the prevalence of sexual exploitation in marriage.<br /><br />I'm with Johnnyjoe. I'm also perfectly fine with critiquing West. It's hard to dismiss it when someone's words or actions raise a red flag, but you're not even reading the words you quote. I'm confident that West has renounced previous errant positions. I'm satisfied with the second edition of his book.stceolfrithtxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04369240659677103435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-47812747931493244552009-09-30T14:59:28.619-05:002009-09-30T14:59:28.619-05:00I'm still trying to figure out when the theolo...I'm still trying to figure out when the theological accuracy of an argument boiled down to the "American Idol" effect in that the person with the most followers automatically wins.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08381087750301180720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-18092989457822095582009-09-30T14:11:20.702-05:002009-09-30T14:11:20.702-05:00These are the most comments I've ever seen und...These are the most comments I've ever seen under one of Steve's blogposts. No offense, Steve, but it's usually dullsville. Maybe West is the hot ticket, cause after all, Jerry Springer would drool over all of this hot action! Maybe your next book should be over the (not so) subtle heresies of West. What say we take THAT in front of the Blessed Sacrament? ;-)<br /><br />Also glad to see the Blessed Sacrament is so popular. You couldn't get this many altar calls at a Billy Graham sermon even when he WAS in hie heyday, even though the rallying cry seems to be, "Leave Brittany ALLOONNNE!!"<br /><br />Kumbaya, everyone.TomEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17292127269856841058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-35863230285532850872009-09-30T14:10:59.062-05:002009-09-30T14:10:59.062-05:00This is the first time I've come across Kellme...This is the first time I've come across Kellmeyer's critique of West's work . I am not a theologian but I am married to one and I am accustomed to this type of writing: One theologian discussing, dissecting, weighing the words of another. I did not see any ad hominem but only a serious discussion of the public theology of West. For those of you who have not had the opportunity to spend time in academic circles I assure you that this is entirely normal! And expected. Particularly for very public theologians who have a great responsibility to ensure that EVERY word is precise and true. <br /><br />A man who publicly advances a theological position should expect and welcome an academic challenge. He should also have (or develop) a very thick skin because heated debate is a part of his chosen profession.<br /><br />I was sorry that I afterward stepped into the muck and grime of this comment board. Much of the discussion here does not follow in the tradition of true academic debate (although it pretends to). There was no personal attack in the original post; it addresses the theology of West, who is a PUBLIC teacher and aught to expect be held accountable in this way. <br /><br />But the attacks against the author are clearly personal. <br /><br />Also, after reading most of the comments here I am a little stunned by a running idea that goes something like this: The MATURE Christian will not struggle with virtue as others do.<br /><br />I have to say that the longer I live the more I realize that virtue never ceases to be an intense struggle. It changes but it does not stop. It is the reason that great Christian men and women have fallen after a lifetime of faithfulness. It never ceases to be a battle and I object to any efforts that contrive to take our eyes off that ball.<br /><br />I avoid being alone with men other than my husband (not including family members). I don't accept rides home with them. I do not have them to my home without other adults in company. I do not spend unnecessary long periods of time on the phone with them. I do not develop internet relationships with them. I do not listen to Chris West talks in mixed company.<br /><br />Is this because I have no self-control? Or because I am attracted to everything that moves? NO. It is because I have an excellent knowledge of human nature (being human after all) and do not wish to even cultivate the opportunity for an eye and heart that does not see only my husband; or present any man with a similar trial to his virtue. <br /><br />This is not my particular weakness, but sanctity of my marriage covenant is that important to me.<br /><br />It is the same with my Lord. As a Christian, the only thing I am supposed to fear is separation from Him. How many of the saints have told us to flee from sin?! I hope to never be led to a place of false security where I let down my guard enough to believe that "I am now strong enough".<br /><br />Most of you writing and commenting are men. West is a man. God bless all of your intentions but your perspectives are skewed by that. You haven't spent your lives being pursued and cajoled and ogled over like a woman has. You haven't sat next to a man of remarkable reputation and virtue and watched him succumb to his baser desires to look or touch or speak in ways to make a woman blush. You might be surprised by how many solid Catholic men (single and married) struggle with control of their eyes, words and hands. <br /><br />Or maybe you wouldn't really be very surprised.<br /><br />God-fearing, Catholic men are not immune to this difficulty. They are just more ashamed afterwards than their pagan counterparts. <br /><br />To say that a young man would have the mature control that older men struggle to have is a difficulty. It fails to take into account an intense biological fact that has no release in the security of marriage. <br /><br />Protecting the virtue and purity of his beloved should be his primary goal. If this requires spending most of his precious time with her in public and semi-public places, he should not hesitate to do so. Love requires it. It is a sacrificial love that will blossom so sweetly in the grace of Marriage!melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08677295427283294982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-88882302750546310092009-09-30T12:45:08.064-05:002009-09-30T12:45:08.064-05:00I'm a very late comer to this conversation, an...I'm a very late comer to this conversation, and the invective is pretty surprising. I'll state at the beginning that I am no expert on TOB, nor am I very familiar with the work of Christoper West. I do know that some very learned people that are far more educated on this subject than I will ever be have some very serious concerns about West's work. There are also a number who seem to think his work is wonderful. However, being a guy with a job and wife and six kids and trying to grow in the Grace of God, I tend to be pretty conservative and stick to the classics of theology, from Acquinas to a Kempis. This discussion encourages me to stay away from West - whether Steve K. is right or wrong on these specific issues, enough good people have come out against West that I don't see a need to pursue his particular form of theology when so many lasting, proven sources are available. I don't know that West offers anything of such great value as to run the risk of exposing myself or my family to faulty Catholic theology.<br /><br />I will say this - I sure hate to see comments telling Steve to go look in the mirror and see what he's doing to his family by arguing for what he thinks is right, and with what to me is a very reasonable critique. That's a pretty low shot, and not terribly "charitable." I don't see any evidence of professional jealosy at all, and to assign such a prurient motive to Steve is to denounce him on nothing more than a baseless ad hominem. It does seem somewhat strange that some of West's defenders certainly seem to take any critique of him, even one stingingly presented, as a personal affront. I've seen this other places, and leads to some questions as to their motives.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06922875518815391146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-35883285865020515922009-09-30T09:55:03.620-05:002009-09-30T09:55:03.620-05:00I've explained exactly how Chris West is disto...<i>I've explained exactly how Chris West is distorting Catholic teaching on virtue, the sacrament of marriage, concupiscence and pornography</i><br /><br />I read that. I said you points are mostly valid. They are minor and nitpicky but it is good to get the details right. <br /><br /><i>The only way you can force them into the Church's mold is to read Chris West's "intentions" into the words.</i><br /><br />Chris is not a man of few words. His intentions are clear if you listen to him talk long enough. Does he get everything right? Who does? But to accuse him of distorting the teaching of the church is just not accurate.<br /><br /><i>Chris West is not the only one making the Church's case. Nor, for that matter, is he the only one distorting the Church's case. <br /><br />He is, however, the only one distorting the Church's case while pretending to present the Church's case. </i><br /><br />You don't get out much. Almost every Catholic University has many professors who pretend to be teaching the Catholic faith when they are not. This is the rule not the exception. Most Catholic educators teach that contraception, homosexuality, abortion, masturbation, etc. are all OK. <br /><br />Chris accepts the churches teachings. He explains them well. Would I defend all his analogies and sweeping statements? No. He does over-state things sometimes. This is why critiques are good. But you need to remember that he is one of us. <br /><br /><i>His teaching is popular because most people embrace a distorted understanding to begin with, and Chris West's distortions feed their own misunderstandings of what sex SHOULD mean as opposed to what John Paul II and the Church actually TAUGHT about its meaning.</i><br /><br />This makes me wonder if you ever listen to him. To say Chris West gets it wrong is to say John Paul II gets it wrong. The talks I have heard from Chris West are nothing but a string of quotes from John Paul.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16751516602395247675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-6754003878475593262009-09-30T09:50:58.674-05:002009-09-30T09:50:58.674-05:00"Chris West's Success Evangelizing Govern..."Chris West's Success Evangelizing Government Employees?"<br /><br />This is the headline that Steve wrote on CultureWarNotes as a link to a story about a government employee who wasted over 300 days consuming pornography at work. <br /><br />The story has nothing to do with Christoper West. Nothing at all.<br /><br />Rather it is yet another example of Steve Kellmeyer prosecuting his personal vendetta against Christopher West. Fraternal joy, charity, forgiveness, constructive action, all of these have been set aflame before the idol of Steve's vindictive personality and blind rage. <br /><br />Well done Steve. <br /><br />How does that joyless acidic vindictive spirit play in the market place, eh?<br /><br />I bet speaking invitations are pouring in. Just can't keep the phone on the hook, eh?<br /><br />The people just can't get enough of your distinctive style of bitterness, private inquisition, with the cherry of Catholic doctrine on top. What a winning combination. <br /><br />I've told you before that you are hurting your reputation as a Catholic presenter, and gaining one as a Catholic hypocrite. <br /><br />Previously I've shared with you that Truth is impotent without Charity. Now it seems that you have even rejected the standards of truth in waging your war against the person of Christopher West with this latest headline attack. <br /><br />Like I said, I organize Catholic speakers to come to a major urban diocese. Most of the speakers I talk to have filled calendars with speaking engagements. <br /><br />Steve, I would not invite you to come and speak and I would recommend the same to others. <br /><br />Why? <br /><br />Because you lack charity. <br /><br />I see from your calendar of speaking engagements that you have a total of 3 events scheduled for the entire year. <br /><br />Steve, I would get up from your computer, go into the other room and take a look contemplative look at your wife and children and then ask yourself if they are worth sacrificing at the altar of your personal vendetta against Christopher West. <br /><br />Your war is hurting them because it is hurting your ability to draw speaking engagements. <br /><br />By the way, your war is also hurting the Church. <br /><br />Spend a day away from your computer and go to an adoration chapel.Columcillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-28738192232780573612009-09-29T18:10:41.519-05:002009-09-29T18:10:41.519-05:00Randy,
I've explained exactly how Chris West ...Randy,<br /><br />I've explained exactly how Chris West is distorting Catholic teaching on virtue, the sacrament of marriage, concupiscence and pornography. <br /><br />In none of those cases did I refer to my opinion. I referred to the constant teaching on virtue, the sacrament of marriage, concupiscence and pornography.<br /><br />Chris West's words do not follow the teachings of the Church. <br /><br />The only way you can force them into the Church's mold is to read Chris West's "intentions" into the words.<br /><br />I am unable to read minds, so I have not the skill to read his unspoken intentions. I can only read his words. <br /><br />Thus, the only one bringing "opinions" to the table is the Westians. <br /><br />Chris West is not the only one making the Church's case. Nor, for that matter, is he the only one distorting the Church's case. <br /><br />He is, however, the only one distorting the Church's case while <i>pretending</i> to present the Church's case. <br /><br />His teaching is popular because most people embrace a distorted understanding to begin with, and Chris West's distortions feed their own misunderstandings of what sex <b>SHOULD</b> mean as opposed to what John Paul II and the Church <b>actually TAUGHT </b>about its meaning.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-84990570565348685102009-09-29T16:13:11.770-05:002009-09-29T16:13:11.770-05:00I think you are right about many of the points you...I think you are right about many of the points you make about CW. I do think the heart of what he says is right and you have cherry-picked a few errors here and there. It is a good thing to do whan done charitably. Your tone does not feel very charitable to me. I hope your heart is not as hateful as it seems from your post. <br /><br /><i>We must simply recall that bishops have frequently backed extremely erroneous teachers and teachings. Indeed, nearly every major heresy of the Church was started or actively supported by an ordained man or men. </i><br /><br />I do object to making your opinion more important than the bishops. Every pro-abortion Catholic can find theologians who agree with him. The Catholic faith is defined by the bishops and popes. It is not defined by you. <br /><br />I do not doubt that West gets a few things wrong. I also do not doubt that he wants to communicate the ideas of John Paul II as accurately as possible. As Catholics we need to explain to this world why we feel God's sexual morality is logical and beautiful. He is one on the few to make that case rather than just making rules.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16751516602395247675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-53554050054657540282009-09-29T08:13:10.967-05:002009-09-29T08:13:10.967-05:00"He is preaching to a Puritanical/Manichean c..."He is preaching to a Puritanical/Manichean crowd I grew up with."<br /><br />JWilson, as I indicated above, you are simply ignoring West's plain words and reading into them whatever you want. He's a Rohrschach for you. You impute to him whatever good motives you wish you had. <br /><br />Unfortunately, his very words convict him.<br /><br />Everyone keeps talking about West's address of Puritanism or Manicheanism. <br /><br />(A) Prove it. Quote someone besides a Westian who holds to that view. It's absolutely a violation of the history to make the statement. <br /><br />(B) The charge could equally be made that West is:<br /><br />(i) an Adamite who insists that people can walk around publicly in the nude without a problem, <br /><br />(ii) a Gnostic who possesses a "secret knowledge" whose possession will allow you to avoid sin and become one of the Cathari (the pure ones) such as he is, <br /><br />(iii) a Lutheran, who insists that if you just have saving TOB thoughts, you can look at pornography a hundred times a day and still be saved, and who denies that marriage, while holy, actually brings sacramental grace.<br /><br />As for problems with anal sex, not only can we point to Summa Theologica, 2a2ae, q154, a1, 207.<br />(with a summary provided at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16458), we can point out that Catholic morality is never at odds with nature. Since anal sex, even anal foreplay, involves extremely unhygenic and therefore dangerous sexual practice, especially in reference to the female, it is forbidden simply on those grounds alone. <br /><br />That West or Smith or anyone else even attempts to justify it is ludicrous on its face, as even Slate pointed out (http://www.slate.com/id/2220217/).<br /><br />We <b>DO</b> agree on one thing: "CW is not a proper theologian."<br /><br />AMEN, AMEN, I SAY AGAIN, AMEN!<br /><br />If West is not a proper theologian, and we both agree he is not, then he is not an Athanasian or a Thomist either. He's just a stinking heretic, in the tradition of Arius, Pelagius, Luther and all the rest - getting some of the Faith right so as to better achieve his goals with the other heretical 20%.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.com