The Diabolical Machinations of Pope Francis

Evil Counsel

Good Counsel

*Below are three observations on the Synod on Youth.

1) COMMENT by Pope Francis at the Synod:
"I would like to say to the young people: forgive us if often we have not listened to you. If instead of opening our hearts, we have filled your ears."

TRANSLATION: 
We will not guide you, nor educate you in authentic Catholic doctrine, but only accompany you in doing whatever it is you personally want to do, no matter what sexual practices you wish to adopt

The Ugh Factor: Sodomy in the Marriage Bed?

Several years ago I did a blog post on the morality of sodomy as foreplay that got more attention than anything I've ever done. It was critical of those in the Theology of the Body camp who say sodomy is okay in marriage as "foreplay" as long as the marital act is concluded in the normal way.

Recently, the post got picked up by Ron Conte in A Debate About Marital Foreplay. Ron brings up great points and quotes from Church documents and the saints that were not addressed in the original article. He skewers the idea of some talking heads that ANYTHING is allowed as long as the marital act is concluded in the normal way and the couple agrees on the "foreplay." (Are whips and handcuffs included?)

I recommend the article. Some things are degrading and dehumanizing in whatever context they occur even if the parties agree.

Sodomy and Theology of the Body: The Death of Common Sense

Today is the feast of St. Charles Lwanga and Companions, the martyrs of Uganda. These 22 young men lived and died near the end of the 19th century during the reign of King Mwanga. He was a pederast who demanded that the young men of the court engage in lustful relations with him. They refused and were put to death either by being burned at the stake or beheaded. What saints for our immoral age when in-your-face homosexual lust has taken to the streets and hotel ballrooms of our country! And what was the primary sin St. Charles and his companions condemned? Sodomy.

Please, somebody explain how sodomy can be considered acceptable foreplay in a loving, Catholic marriage or any marriage for that matter. It defies common sense! If anything goes in foreplay, what's the problem with using pornography or sex toys or with tying your spouse to the bedpost?

Randy Engel has common sense on her side. I'm sorry to be critical because I respect both Smith and West, but this issue absolutely defies reason!

FROM RANDY ENGEL

Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:55 PM

In my two year study on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body which ran as a 7-part series in Catholic Family News (May-November 2008) and is now available online at www.newengelpublishing.com, I tackle the issue of the morality of anal penetration by married couple as a form of foreplay as explained by Christopher West.

In Chapter Five of his book Good News About Sex & Marriage – Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teachings (First Edition), in response to a question on the morality of anal sex for married couples, West states “There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse.” This is a false teaching and a serious moral error.

Based on my 17 years of research for The Rite of Sodomy – Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, which included a study of all of the Church Fathers, including Saint Peter Damian and Saint Bernardino of Siena, on the vice of sodomy, I can categorically state that the Catholic Church has always defined sodomy to include anal penetration, with or without ejaculation.

The act of sodomy, whether carried by homosexuals or by spouses, is intrinsically evil and a perversion. A married couple who engages in anal penetration and then goes on to normal coitus has engaged in two separate acts - the first, sodomy, is a grave sin, whether or not ejaculation has occurred. Further, the physiology of anal copulation is such that it would be most difficult to prevent ejaculation.

In West’s revised edition of Good News About Sex & Marriage, this grave moral error was not corrected. After pointing out that anal penetration is unsanitary and unaesthetic, West asserts:

Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense, there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking… it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment.

Now, alas, we have Janet Smith, claiming that:

Certainly there isn’t any “Church teaching” about this action at a magisterial level, but few seem to know that there is a tradition of approval of such behavior as foreplay to intercourse (not to be confused with the biblical condemnation of sodomy which replaces intercourse) by orthodox Catholic ethicists. The principle generally invoked is that consensual actions that culminate in intercourse are morally permissible…. Perhaps it is time for ethicists to work on the question…

What madness is this?

Where, pray tell, is the Catholic tradition that approves of anal penetration as a forerunner to coitus to be found?

What question is there for ethicists to work on?

Isn’t 2000 years of Church teachings on the immorality of sodomy good enough for West or Smith?

Do West and Smith have to be reminded that not all married couples have normal sexual desires? Indeed some are drawn into sinful acts as a prelude to intercourse including sadomasochist acts, the viewing of pornography to stimulate sexual excitement, and sodomy.

Isn’t it time that TOB advocates like Christopher West and Janet Smith be held accountable for their erroneous and dangerous pronouncements on Catholic sexual morality and conjugal love?

More on the Christopher West Theology of the Body Controversy

Christopher West Controversy Fuels Debate about the Problem of Modesty

Christopher West and Theology of the Body

If you saw the Nightline interview with Christopher West speaking on Theology of the Body, you may have been surprised to see him compare Pope John Paul II with Hugh Hefner. Not only was I surprised (shocked might be more accurate), but I was thoroughly disgusted. Watching another video elaborating on what he meant didn't help. West read from Hefner's biography that blamed his parents, particularly his mom, because she didn't hug him enough when he was a child. (She probably did a bad job toilet training as well.)

Don't get me wrong. I admire the zeal of Christopher West. I believe he sincerely loves the Church and wants to promote John Paul II's Theology of the Body accurately. But somehow, he's gotten off track and that's a problem. If you're going to Philadelphia and the train is on the track heading to Harrisburg, no matter how sincere the engineer is, you won't end up at your destination.

A number of people have criticized West's approach and I'm going to summarize the opinion of one. David L. Schindler is Provost/Dean and Gagnon Professor of Fundamental Theology at the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at Catholic University. He knows both John Paul's theology and Christopher West's presentation of it. In his article, Christopher West's Theology of the Body, he points out some serious problems:

West’s work has involved suggesting that a man and woman bless their genitals before making love; blessing the ovaries of women in his classes; advising young men in college and the seminary to look at their naked bodies in the mirror daily in order to overcome shame; using phallic symbolism to describe the Easter candle; criticizing “flat-chested” images of Mary in art while encouraging Catholics to “rediscover Mary’s ... abundant breasts” (Crisis, March 2002); referring to the “bloodied membrane” of the placenta as a "tabernacle" (Colorado Catholic Herald, 12/22/06); stating that, while “there are some important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked,” “there's nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse," (Good News About Sex and Marriage, 1st ed., emphasis in original), though qualifying this in the revised edition and stressing the subjective dangers of lust in such activity; and, on Nightline, praising Hugh Hefner for helping rescue sex from prudish Victorian attitudes, saying that there are “very profound historical connections between Hefner and John Paul II,” while emphasizing that John Paul II took the sexual revolution further and in the right direction.

I offer these examples not merely because they are vulgar and in bad taste, not to mention sometimes bordering on the just plain silly, but because they indicate a disordered approach to human sexuality. An objective distortion in approaching sexuality does not cease to be such simply because it is theologized. West to be sure will point toward the “orthodox” intentions and context of the examples, but my criticism bears on the substance of his preoccupation as reflected in the examples. (As a Thomist friend of mine used to say: pay attention to a man's subjects, not his predicates.)

Specific criticisms include:

1. West ignores the reality and validity of concupiscence as though it can be overcome by intentions toward holiness

2. His analogy between God's love and sex is too simplistic and puts a "disproportianate emphasis" on sex.

3. His treatment of shame and reverence is "too male," i.e., "not only too much maleness but distorted maleness." In other words he doesn't recognize a modesty that is not mere prudishness. Schindler attributes this to his work not being well-formed in "Mary’s archetypal feminine-human sensibility." Mary, of course, is the model of modesty and prudence, the woman who "ponders all things in her heart."

4. West's teaching style which becomes part of his theology treats disagreement as resistance to the Holy Spirit. Schindler says, "Well-balanced persons have spoken of how West makes them feel a sense of guilt, of resistance to the Holy Spirit, if they experience uneasiness about what he is saying."

Schindler summarizes by saying:

West presents a problem for the Church, not because he lacks orthodox intentions, but because his unquestionably orthodox intentions render his theology, a priori, all the more credible. His work often deflects people from the beauty and depth of what is the authentic meaning of John Paul II's anthropology of love, and thus of what was wrought in and through the Second Vatican Council. It is scarcely the first time in the history of the Church that abundant good will did not suffice to make one's theology and vision of reality altogether true.

Pray for Christopher West. He has the capacity to do great good for the Church. He also has the capacity to create much confusion.