All comments by: Tim

Oops!  Last reply was for Lauretta.

You said you presented his material and then added and clarified things.  My point is simply to have people listen and then ask them what they heard- not teach to them or clarify things.

There’s also a huge number of people that testify that Medjugorje and Father Jozo Zovko revitalized their faith.  Can one conclude from that alone that it’s beyond reproach?

I think gathering a diverse group of people, listening to some talks and asking some follow-up questions will give me a better idea how others are receiving CW’s message.  As for your friend, that’s great.  I’m glad for him.  But most don’t take a week long course.

That is very gracious of you and I think you too should try it and see what the results are.  But I am more of the “normal person, average joe” type and I am more concerned what these types of people hear, not necessarily the ones with theology and philosophy degrees.  No offense.  Considering many of CW’s presentations are to the “average joe” it would seem to be a more telling test.  What does the average Catholic hear who doesn’t have the extensive education that many of you have?

While CW may never unequivocally say “You can be free of all temptation to sin sexually”, I agree with Scott that his message can be confusing and on the surface seem contradictory.  My church library has some of CW’s talks and the latest I listened to had one statement in it where he said we couldn’t get to the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall.  And yet there were several statements peppered throughout the talk that seemed to imply we could.

I’d like to listen to that talk with several people and discuss what THEY heard him say in the talk.  Would they agree with Katie that CW takes pains to be clear on this issue or would there be confusion?  I have to plan to do that.

No confusion, Katie.  I just replied in the wrong place.  Sorry.  But at least I learned a new word today- risible.  Thanks.

I know you’re working on a thought (and I need to run too)and maybe the answer to this is forthcoming but what makes it a “grotesque distortion of TOB, and an unjustifiable practice for Christians” if people can be thoroughly redeemed.

So is your primary objection to a naked Mass that of scandal due to those who would not understand? Would a private Mass be within the realm of possibility for those “thoroughly redeemed?”  When one takes into account other things you say it becomes unclear.  Such as “As far as the great dignity and sacredness of our bodies requiring that they be covered, I’m not so sure about that” and the example of the Sistine Chapel with “Much of our greatest art is of the naked human body.  What other sacred thing do we cover in this way?”  (Also, there’s the comment about “exposing” the Eucharist but I don’t know what you meant by that exactly) Are these not arguments FOR the possibility of such a Mass?

The part about standing in front of the mirror…why are things usually worded that one either sees things properly or “recoils in shame.”  One accepts CW’s interpretation OR one’s a prude or full of shame, accepts a naked crucifix OR one’s a prude, etc. 

But beyond that, what do you mean by “understanding the language of the body”  and is it necessary to look at oneself in the mirror naked to come to that understanding? And how does one look at one’s body in a Puritanical way other than the most extreme examples?  I’m thinking along the lines of your “average” Christian. I’m sorry for all the questions but you throw these terms out there and I’d like to be clear on their meaning.

I know you don’t have much time so when it’s convenient.  I pray you beat the weather.

Interesting because I’ve never heard him speak about modesty.  And I remember in a tape I recently listened to he said he never spoke on it.( I don’t know what year it was recorded.) His reason seemed to be that it wasn’t necessary- that it would take care of itself with a proper understanding of TOB.

I agree modesty is subjective and varies among cultures and times. That does not mean therefore all things go. Or does it?

“Would not the standard for modesty be that which was given us in the beginning by God?  I would think that anything else would be a human construct and the result of sin, not holiness. ”  Could you elaborate because the “standard” was nakedness, no?

I have heard there are some, or have been, in the name of TOB, that practice various degrees of Christian nudity even to the level of a “naked” Mass. Is it possible, in your opinion, that this is within the realm of modesty? In our country?

Maybe this is an extreme example but at least we’ll have some kind of line to start off with.

Given DvH’s quote and that we have no absolute mastery over concupiscence, in addition for the need to be vigilant, where then does the topic of modesty and discretion come in?  Wouldn’t it be important to talk on these as well?  It would seem prudent lest we go too far the other direction. The issues of prudery and puritanism permeates CW’s teachings but where’s the line between prudery and modesty?  Some people I’ve met have a hard time knowing since he never speaks on modesty.  And oh how common it is to see one throw out the term “prude” to those who have discomfort with some things CW says.

Fr. Angelo had a wonderful article articulating his point on this.

http://maryvictrix.wordpress.com/2009...