|
Josef, thank you for this magnificent contribution. I agree with all you say, and I think Janet Smith, Michael Waldstein, and Christopher West would too—Smith and West in light of what they themselves have written—though I still think to be precise one has to make a distinction morally between anal or oral sex to completion (always and absolutely wrong) and oral-genital or anal-genital contact. Not that the latter is good or OK, just that it is in a different category. West, Smith, and myself have all spoken negatively about such contacts from the moral point of view as well as from personalist and aesthetic perspectives, and I think your post here helps illumine why, but it is still a different moral category. Eminent moral theologians such as Germaine Grisez, as well as Ford and Kelly earlier, would certainly put “incomplete acts” in a different moral category. Again, this is not to speak in support of such things; it’s just being technical, and you make no distinction here. |
|
Michael, I agree with you that it’s a different moral category, but I do think that Josef goes farther than Janet Smith at least, if not Ford and Kelly, whom I have never read. Josef says that such things, even in foreplay, are “inadmissable.” Janet Smith indicated, I thought, that the question hinged on whether the spouses in question found the activity appealing—or at least that she was open to that idea. She also clearly seems open to being persuaded otherwise. I suspect she, like most of us, has never given the matter very careful thought, since it’s not the sort of thing a person committed to chastity likes to think about at all. But I suppose I should let her speak for herself there. |
|
Katie, as I said in an earlier reply under the responses to my article on West, Ford and Kelly never say “if it’s mutually appealing, then it’s OK.” Concerning such incomplete acts, they offer guidelines about conjugal justice and charity, conjugal chastity, and Christian self-restraint, and they say “if we may borrow the language used by the Holy Office in appraising some other problems of conjugal intimacy, priests and confessors should never speak as though there were no objections to these practices from the viewpoint of the Chistian law.” However, they don’t think such incomplete acts are in the same moral category as acts leading to climax outside normal intercourse. |
|
Granted. “But the fact remains that Catholic couples in today’s world have questions about such issues. Many cannot understand why anal sex could possibly be appealing to anyone (include me and, indeed, West in that group), while others seem to find the act attractive. 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.” Would you not agree that this last line in particular indicates quite a different position from Josef’s? |
|
I just think Janet in her short response did not have enough time or space to go into other considerations—or perhaps did not want the discussion to get sidetracked into such details. However, I’m sure she would add further qualifiers if she did a full-scale treatment of the moral problem here. |
|
Hi! No invitation needed! Let me make what seems to be a needed clarification. I have never spoken in favor of anal penetration nor do I intend do so. I share Seifert’s views entirely. My point was simply to defend West against Schindler’s implication that West was saying something manifestly at odds with Catholic teaching in his book about the matter. It is my understanding that what West says about it in his book is what has been taught in seminaries for years. See this blog of a fascinating discussion of the evidence. Ed Peters chimed in masterfully here: http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.co.... The principle I sited is not my own; it appears regularly in the manuals. It may soon become manifest to us that such acts are not in accord with a proper understanding of sex and I welcome that, but such was not always so. I suspect West did not know what to say on his own and repeated what he had learned. I am tremendously pleased that ethicists are no longer content to repeat what has been said but are now examining the issue thoroughly. Let me note that this clarification would not happen if we refused to speak openly about difficult sexual matters. Thank you all for recognizing the gift that West is and for your balanced assessment of him and others as well. |
|
Janet, it’s good of you to weigh in—thank you! Your perspective is always more than welcome here. I said this somewhere earlier but I’ll say it again here: I agree entirely with you and Michael Healy that to cast doubt (as David Schindler did in CW’s case) on a person’s orthodoxy because he utters an opinion on a matter that has not been formally and unequivocally settled by the Church is an injustice. I am glad you took him to task on that point. Further, I, too, have heard that priests teach that acts short of intercourse are permissible so long as they are consensual. It is hard to fault CW for saying what is said in so many Catholic confessionals. And I thought both you and Mike Healy made your personal disapprobation of anal penetration (how I hate even mentioning the term!) unmistakeable. What I wanted to see brought out more fully was the underlying philosophical dimension. In other words, I thought it should be made clearer and more explicit that the criteria for determining the moral goodness or badness of a given use of sex are to be found by way of moral insight—by an analysis or an intuitive grasp of the dignity of persons and the nature of human sexuality, not by examining theology manuals. The theology manuals can tell a lot about whether such practices can be or have been defended within orthodoxy. They can assist moral reflection. But they do nothing by themselves to establish the essential morality or immorality of particular acts. Or am I wrong? Is it not so that if I had read those manuals, and then, feeling justified, had done those things, I would still bear the guilt of having committed an offense against personal dignity—my spouse’s and my own—and of having injured the marital union? Would I not need to repent that wrong? |
|
Dear Janet, thank you for your good response and for putting what you wrote more in perspective. I am glad to know of our deep agreements. Although it is still surprising to me that many traditional Catholic manuals of moral theology would have defended anal penetration, I believe you and will read the internet site you refer to. However, these manuals cannot replace our search for the truth. Catholic moral theologians have over the centuries and mostly in the last fifty years said so many erroneous things that we certainly need, as you say, reexamine the issues and cannot content ourselves with simply citing some manuals. I completely concur with you and see this as a special task for such a forum of personalist philosophy on which I congratulate its founders the van Schaijiks and for the Theology of the Body Institute. |
|
Josef, thank you for the kind words. I see you had already made the basic point I just tried to make in reply to Janet. But the error is so widespread in “the popular Catholic mind” that I think it bears repeating. Theology manuals do not establish moral goodness and badness. The fact that something is declared “not condemned” by a moral theologian does nothing to establish its moral legitimacy. |
|
Janet—Thanks for chiming in and giving us the reference to Ed Peters and his ability to cite various authorities. I agree with you and Josef that personalist philosophy has a distinct task here to get beyond just the problem of “spilling seed” and see this whole matter from a higher perspective. I am also glad to know of our deep agreements. It is very disconcerting—as Ed Peters knows more than any of us—to point out a technical open question in the tradition [leading to a “perhaps permissible under certain circumstances” or “not universally and absolutely prohibited” conclusion by some Catholic moralists] and then be interpreted as if one is speaking in support and approval of such acts. However, as far as on-going discussion goes, it seems to me that the debate and clarification about these questions that might have happened in the professional literature over the last four or five decades was simply derailed by the volcanic eruption of dissent over Humanae Vitae. It’s about time we went back to pick up the thread…. |
|
Michael, I agree with you entirely here. I just hope you don’t imagination that I ever thought you approved of such acts! My concern was rather that if ethicists (I do not speak of canon lawyers, whose task is very different) even APPEAR to argue like this: These acts carry certain dangers but they have not been formally condemned by the Church and couples have very different ideas of what’s appealing sexually… Many will read it like this: “As long as the spouses agree, and as long as they don’t cross this line, it’s okay.” I am very glad that Josef has put such a decisive and compelling stop to that line of reasoning (which I grant was not yours), that he has turned our attention to the philosophical data, and that we all agree with his important analysis. May the manuals and seminaries catch up soon! |
|
I also want to acknowledge that in her original critique of Schindler, Janet did call on ethicists (and not just theologians and canon lawyers) to take up the discussion, which implicitly grants that they have a different task and that it’s a question of natural law and not just positive teaching. |
|
Dear Josef, I remember fondly the week I spent teaching in Lichtenstein. I am sorry that I must challenge you here. You say you agree entirely with criticisms of West given by Alice Von Hildebrand and David Schindler but I am sorry to say that I cannot see that the positions that you attribute to Christopher West are in fact held by him. They would be bad positions for anyone to hold but I do not believe they are Christopher’s. Let me offer a quick response to each of the points that you make. The point Christopher made—but which wasn’t included in the Nightline piece—was that, as Catholics, we agree with Hugh Hefner’s diagnosis of the disease (i.e., a puritanical rejection of the body and sexuality is utterly contrary to Catholic faith), but we radically disagree with his cure. Christopher told the Nightline correspondent that the Theology of the Body is the true cure for the disease that Hefner diagnosed. These distinctions were lost in the seven-minute piece that ABC aired. Indeed, Nightline made it sound as if West considered Hefner a “hero” of his, which he certainly never said. West has dedicated his life to fighting the terrible distortions of pornography. West’s “love” for Hugh Hefner is a Christian love—a hope that Hefner would come to discover the riches of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the profound insights of the Theology of the Body. To see the full context of what Christopher said visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqRKvN.... God bless, |
|
Dear Janet, thank you for the kind reply. I also enjoy the recollection of our meeting in Liechtenstein and am an old admirer of your good work. To conclude: I am happy! about any of the points I made and West agrees on, as I consider him a great ally with an important mission and I will be glad to see the moment when none of my or any other criticisms apply to anything he says. Josef |
|
Dear Josef, Oh dear, I am guilty of some imprecisions. 1. When I said you “agreed entirely with criticisms” I didn’t mean you agreed with all criticisms but that you agreed with some criticisms entirely (which I think was your meaning). Had I inserted the word “some” my statement would have been clearer. 2. When I said I agreed completely with you it was on the point of the morality of anal penetration. Yours is my position as well, very beautifully stated by you. But I do not agree that the question is closed. As I said some very faithful erudite priests have defended anal penetration as acceptable foreplay in some circumstances. We need to let those who hold this position defend it before we call the question closed. 3. I hope I don’t come across as thinking West is 100% right; no one is, for sure. West surely is pondering the criticisms and so I have but as of yet I can’t find one that stands scrutiny. Perhaps I am being sloppy and hasty in my assessment of them and if that is so I hope eventually I will be more open minded about the criticisms. 4. I have nothing more to say about the Hefner example. I wouldn’t use it myself but I don’t think it deserves a full scale assault or defense. 5. When you do get a chance to study the manuals, you may want to adjust your 90% certitude about what they say. I am not suggesting that the manuals settle a point. I do think they deserve a hearing. 6. Good about kissability. When you find the more that he said that is offensive, let’s discuss that, too. 7. Yes, people have “impressions” that West’s work is deficient in this way or that. Good, sensible, mature people. And their impressions count. But so do the judgments of those who have also studied him carefully and listened to him closely and watched his maturation. We needn’t necessarily get too unsettled by the impressions of others.
|
|
Perhaps some superfluous remarks “after the feast:” With regard to what I call the “sneak attack by rear entry,” if we are to take body language seriously, it is essentially an act of aggression, unlike the oral or manual caress. In this regard, it is the contrary antithesis of the unitive meaning that gives shape to the conjugal act. This is the case whether or not the unnatural act frustrates the natural procreative function of the “genital” organs. The moral theologians cited may be entirely correct if they have in mind the procreative finality and it “primary” function in mind. In this regard, the “sneak attack” may not be illicit if in fact it does not involve seminal emission. But it may be materially wrong from the moral point of view for reasons entirely distinct from (if not unconnected to) that of the procreative meaning of he “life bearing” organs. They may be wrong because they act against the spousal union of the spouses. Instead of uniting, they are divisive, in the sense of diabollon. This antagonistic dimension of the act may be a bit more difficult to see, bit less evident than the reproductive function of the organs. The “visibility” of the unitive dimension depends on the vision of the value of the beloved that is a precondition for spousal love and union. This is a “seeing” that involves “seeing from within” one’s own motives for engaging in any human action, in this case, “sexual activity.” In this context, Wojtyla’s contribution with regard to subjectivity” or “experience” - a “having of oneself from within” but not as an object – should be clear. It is the same “subjectivity” that objectively allows the historically important distinction, on the part of von Hildebrand, between satisfaction and value as two essentially different kinds of motivation. This distinction can be grasped only from within one’s experience, not looking at human action “cosmologically,” as one regards the rest of the universe, “from outside.” I add here that this is the “interiority” to which Schindler referred to in the response occasioned by Nighline publicity. Good wine. Good food. Good sex. A foretaste of the celestial banquet. Perhaps this is an effective way of gathering guests for the wedding feast from the highways and byways. Theology must now speak on the garment to be worn, unless the nakedness of the pure be sufficient. |
|
Dear Damian, this is a wonderfully deep and fine phenomenological and personalist analysis. Thank you! I am proud and grateful to be your friend. Josef |
|
Damian, so glad to see you here! I hope you’ll drop in often to share your insights. |
|
I am happy to see that Janet and Josef agree on the kissability of all body parts. Janet also suggests that the manuals deserve a hearing. With that in mind…. All this raises the question of whether anal-genital contacts (only as foreplay) should be in the same category as oral-genital contacts (only as foreplay); the manual theologians seem to see these acts as roughly or somewhat equivalent morally speaking (though I don’t have a clear reference on this), but are they? This leaves me with three questions on sex positions and anal penetration (as foreplay only) to which—lacking either knowledge or experience or both—I do not know the answers, but which would need to be addressed: 1) Is the only way to do anal penetration from the rear? Or can it be done facing, which theoretically would not seem impossible? If the latter, then the entire bodily position would not seem to convey only animal or male aggression and impersonal use of the other. 2) Concerning positions allowed for normal coitus between husband and wife, is it absolutely forbidden (and does it convey nothing but animal aggression and abuse) for a couple to come together only through the vagina but from the rear—perhaps to form an S-curve with their bodies in order to rest in their union? Is this inherently aggressive and abusive? It does not seem to be. 3) Concerning anal penetration (and going beyond one’s own personal reaction to it), suppose a couple—some couple, somewhere—mutually says “I love you so much and I am so longing to be one with you that I wish to be one with you—and within you or you within me—in every possible way: spiritually, emotionally, psychologically, and physically (and there are three physical possibilities here). Suppose they mean this with full respect for the fact that neither orgasm nor even a serious risk of orgasm outside the normal way is intended, but only as foreplay, and they claim this further cements their unity and prepares them for normal intercourse (assuming all sanitary measures are observed). This doesn’t seem to fit with all that Damian describes so well and so powerfully above, nor with what Scheler says about animal sex compared to human sex in what Josef posted earlier. Is this either completely inconceivable or completely morally wrong always and everywhere? Does one feel even some slight hesitancy in pronouncing absolutely and for everyone here? Perhaps this is why Ford and Kelly conclude, although only specifically talking about oral-genital contacts: “But given the wide range of differences in human beings, in their sexual preferences, and in their actual sexual needs, we prefer to abstain from making any universal a priori judgment as to sinful or inordinate hedonism.” They even raise the question of what if the “partners have a justifying reason, for instance that these acts are either necessary or useful to the achievement of satisfactory (normal) sexual relations.” Nevertheless, recognizing the dangers involved here of inordinate pleasure-seeking, of offenses to conjugal justice and charity, of offenses to conjugal chastity, and of lack of Christian self-restraint, they borrow the language which the Holy Office used officially about amplexus reservatus and also state: “priests and confessors should never speak as though there were no objections to these practices from the viewpoint of the Christian law.” Is their position completely wrong? |
|
Further reflections on West and the Old Manuals: 1. Concerning the old manuals for graduate theology in the seminary, I really only know Ford and Kelly’s two-volume Contemporary Moral Theology. It’s actually pretty good (considering there was no Theology of the Body available in those days), even from the point of view of trying to work in a personalist perspective, with mention of Von Hildebrand, of Pius XII’s famous discourse to mid-wives, wherein certain personalist perspectives came out—Pius XII knew Von Hildebrand well in Germany in the 20’s-30’s, and applauded his In Defense of Purity. The authors deal in a very nuanced and sensitive way with difficult problems of conjugal intimacy and with the following topics: the ends of marriage, Catholic personalists and the ends of marriage, fundamental rights and relations (the marital debitum), the essential character of the secondary ends, conjugal love as an essential end, the essential subordination of the secondary ends, Christian marriage as a vocation, hedonism vs. holiness in conjugal intimacy (with subsections on anti-Christian hedonism and un-Christian hedonism), special problems of conjugal intimacy including pages of discussion of the definition, context, historical opinions about and moral status of the following: amplexus reservatus (compared to coitus interruptus), karezza, multiple orgasms for the woman, orgasm without external ejaculation, copula dimidiata (as compared to copula appositiva—the sin of Onan), oral-genital contacts between couples, plus discussion of contraception, sterilization, and periodic continence. (If some of the references above are “Greek” to the reader, then you have some research to do!). 2. My main problem with Ford and Kelley, and others of their day, is that when they put out their well-known one-volume Catholic Marriage Manual for actual married couples, none of this detailed discussion, necessary for forming one’s mind and conscience, is in there—it’s only in graduate theology for seminarians. And yet Ford and Kelley at one point have the chutzpah to say, after declining to make universal a priori judgments themselves (as quoted in an earlier comment): “We believe that such a judgment should be based principally on the reasons the partners have for what they are doing. And in practice we believe the partners themselves are the most competent judges of these reasons, pertaining as they do to such an intimate area of their conjugal relationship.” But how, pray tell, are the partners to be competent judges if they are never informed about the matter at hand? Ed Peters reports (see Janet’s first post above) that even where such intimate problems are discussed for seminarians, often it is only in Latin and never translated. He mentions Henry Davis writing 1700 pages in English on moral theology, but leaving the 17 pages on intimate sexual moral questions only in Latin. So the requisite knowedge is not given in the Catholic Marriage Manual for couples, even though it is given to seminarians because the authors know that married couples have questions about these things and that it will come up in the confessional. This is myopic to say the least. Certainly we cannot afford to continue such myopia a half century later, nor expect this of Christopher West. These things have to be discussed and it takes some courage to discuss them in public, but at times it must be done if we are to reach people in an intelligent and adequate manner. 3. Naturally, as Damian expresses it so well, much turns on precisely the nuances of emphasis and approach and use of language and attitude (musical “aura”), especially in this most intimate sphere. Now I am not an expert on West, so I cannot speak authoritatively; however, just because someone uses phrases like “the love which satisfies” or draws a parallel with “good wine” does not prove that he means these words in any reductionistic or utilitarian sense, or with mere subjective satisfaction in mind rather than genuine value response. Damian’s clarity of expression here is truly admirable and West’s may not be quite as clear, such that someone might interpret his expressions in a lower way while he means them in the higher way. West could learn from this, but it could still all turn out to be semantics (not to say that this is unimportant) rather than substance here. But if the claim is that West’s “aura” is significantly different from that of John Paul II, then that is a claim that still needs to be proven. While not absolving West of error and pointing out that he is no doubt pondering all this for improvement (as well he should), Janet thinks the serious criticisms cannot finally stand careful scrutiny of West’s works. Michael Waldstein would strongly agree. 4. In light of all this, I’m reminded that I read in the comments on another blog concerning West, under either Michael Waldstein’s or Janet Smith’s defense, where a seminarian complained that after West’s presentation he had to contend with disturbing images in his mind and he didn’t appreciate it. “Too explicit” as far as he was concerned. Well! All I can say is, if that fellow can’t take one or two hours of Christopher West, he’s certainly never going to make it through Advanced Moral Theology (see Point #1 above)—much less be able to hear confessions! 5. I find it a bit odd that so many people want to give Christoper West so much advice about how to reach people through the Theology of the Body. He’s the one doing it! Even as a professor teaching for several decades on the topic, I don’t feel quite adequate to give him advice when he’s reached (with positively life-transforming results precisely in terms of the deepest values of love and sex—see Janet’s or Michael’s defenses) tens of thousands (like David) and I’ve only reached thousands (like Saul), if I’m lucky. Did minor league ball-players presume to tell Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio how to hit? Let’s learn from Christopher. Naturally, if we are able to make good points (as Josef and Damian have demonstrated so well in their deep and beautiful contributions) and West takes any good points from us, great! He will become even more effective. But we also have much to learn from him about how to touch souls today with the theology of the body. |
|
Kudos to this site and its contributors! We need to discuss difficult matters to discover the truth about them. Anal penetration (AP) is not a topic I ever intended to discuss but here I find myself. |
|
I would suppose that that “necessary or useful” phrase must refer to cases in which (perhaps because of deeply wounding experiences in his past) the husband finds himself otherwise unable to achieve coitus. Is it prudish, do you think, or legitimate, to find the title of Greg Popcak’s book: “Holy Sex!: a Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving” in extremely poor taste?—poor taste of a kind that creates an obstacle to a due appreciation of the character of conjugal love? |
|
However, it might be apropos to repeat here what I said in the comment string under my original article on West—that a genuine intellectual understanding of and even healthy emotional sensitivity to the sexual sphere based in purity, proper modesty, and true bashfulness can also be combined (in the same person, on another level) with prudishness or false disgust with the sexual sphere. We can be complicated, inconsistent, and contradictory creatures. Thus an emphasis on freeing people from latent or residual prudishness can still be valuable even among those who understand and respond in a healthy manner to false approaches to sexuality. The one thing (presence of healthy responses on one level) does not exclude the other (prudish responses to certain aspects of the sexual sphere on another level). To quote myself (modestly, I hope): Finally, let me just say that perhaps some of West’s critics skip too lightly over the continued problem, handicap, and hindrance to happiness that lies in on-going guilt and fear about the body and sex, coming from prudishness and puritanism. Sometimes when people “see through” a certain problem in their own lives, it creates a tendency to downplay how difficult that problem may still be in the lives of others—or in the lives of the many. Despite my deep imbibing of Von Hildebrand, Wojtyla, Pieper, etc. on sex and love, some of my initial reactions in the sexual sphere are still “touched” by the Manichean split of spirit good-body bad, love good-sex bad, which was the “form” under which I spent most of my teenage years, the “form” under which I first came into the sexual sphere. Most of us could use more than a little “liberation” on the emotional level from such hang-ups, even those who can give inspiring talks overcoming the “split.” The goal of unchaining Christian husbands and wives from prudishness or false fear or disgust with the sexual sphere might lead to much greater happiness among couples, i.e. if their actual love-making could become much more free and uninhibited, precisely in their affirmation of one another as persons through the body. |
|
I agree. I feel well-challenged by CW on this point. I think he may really have uncovered a deep hidden strain of residual puritanism and prudishness among perhaps especially American Catholics that we would do well to recognize and eradicate for just the reasons you say. |
|
Excellent points to consider carefully, Michael. Thank you! I am learning much from this discussion, and so are many others, I’m sure. |
Jun 8 at 10:50 am
Katie van Schaijik comments:
Dear Josef,
thank you for this clarifying, chastening post!
I especially appreciate that while you criticize elements of CW’s teaching as “deeply wrong,” you nevertheless recognize him as a valuable ally in the war against all forms of sexual degradation and de-personalization.
I sympathized with certain substantive points of David Schindler’s article. I liked especially his point that a deeper appreciation of feminine sexuality would serve to balance a lopsidedly masculine perspective. But I, too, was disturbed by his unjustified suggestion that CW is not orthodox and that his work is dangerous.
He might have proposed that a fuller appropriation of Marian spirituality could supply certain defects and improve West’s effectiveness without implying that he is beyond the pale and to be shunned. There he did a disservice, in my opinion.