I’ve been doing some serious thinking about self-control lately. Specifically, our society’s general lack thereof.
Let me give you some background. I’m a pretty young guy. I’m not a baby by any means—I’d better not be, given my wife of nearly six years and my three children, with one more on the way—but I’m pretty young, certainly too young to be worrying about health problems. But I’d let myself get pretty unhealthy. I weighed in at 221 pounds (that’s about fifteen and three-quarters stones for you British people that haven’t succombed to the foolishness of metrication), whereas I ought to weight about 180, maybe even less. Furthermore, I got far too little exercise, even taking into account my work in the garden. Essentially, I sat on my butt all day and I ate too much. And when I took my blood pressure one day, it was 143/94—that’s “stage 1 hypertension,” if you don’t know.
I decided that I was lazy and gluttonous, which was true. I like to eat, and by that I mean that I really love to eat. I like most foods, with a few vegetable exceptions, and I like to eat as much of them as I can get. And when I was younger, of course, that was healthy; I was growing quickly, and I needed all the nutrients I could get. But I didn’t teach myself self-control in other ways. I knew that I could indulge my taste for food as much as I wanted with no physical ill effects, so I did, without compensating by training myself for self-discipline in other fields. I didn’t subject myself to a strict exercise regimen; I didn’t force myself to any regular, sometimes less than pleasant practice. I just gave into my wishes, and therefore rather than training myself for self-control, I trained myself for self-indulgence.
And now, of course, I’m paying for it. Following my dear father, may he rest in peace, I’m working on the Goodman Eat Less and Move More diet to control my increasing size. For about a month, I ate neither breakfast nor lunch, only dinner. My dinner was small and consisted largely of vegetables and grilled chicken. I ran one mile per day during the week, during my lunch break; when I could, I also walked to work, which is a two-mile trip one way. For the last week or so, I’ve gone back to eating breakfast again, though it’s a small one. I still run at least a mile a day (most days), but I’m doing it much faster these days and so I’m generally making a mile and quarter in the same time. (I can’t run until I’m too tired to run anymore, because I’ve got limited time for lunch.) I’ve lost nearly twenty-five pounds on this diet, with only about fifteen more to go, so I suppose it’s a success. God help me to persevere, and to turn this into better habits in the future.
Because that’s what this diet—and this post—is all about: habits. Specifically, a particular type of habit, called virtue. The problem was that I didn’t have any. Traditional Catholic teaching has provided for four primary “natural” virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. I was totally lacking in three of the four; and since justice is not just a part of virtue, but virtue entire (according to Aristotle), I suppose I must have been significantly lacking in that one, as well.
I had no temperance; I ate as much as I wanted when I wanted it, not as much as I needed when I needed it. As St. Augustine pointed out so many centuries ago, oftentimes vice is its own punishment, and he’s been proven right in my life now. Had I been temperate, disciplining myself in my youth, I surely wouldn’t need to subject myself to this kind of pain and trouble now to make up for my past indiscretion.
I had no fortitude; that is, I had no ability to persevere in my efforts to gain the other virtues. Many times I realized that I was getting unhealthy because I had no temperance, and many times I resolved to end it. But I never could see such efforts through, and after a few days of exercising, or after a few days of not eating every piece of candy that came into my sight, I gave up and went back to the way I was.
And I had no prudence. A prudent man would have seen what his self-indulgence was doing to him and chosen a better path. For me, it took a serious health shock to make me realize that my lack of virtue had finally started killing my body, the way that for years it had been doing constant damage to my soul.
So now I must train myself into the virtues that I should have learned many, many years ago. St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out that the vicious soul (that is, the soul plagued by vice) is like a rope much used, caked in mud and filth. To clean the rope, one must pull it through a close-fitting pipe to scrape the impurities off. This is naturally extremely painful for the rope; it must be scraped repeatedly, and hard, to rid it of its filth. But there simply is no other way. Would it not be better, one can hear the great father saying, if the rope were kept clean in the first place, to spare it this agonizing pain?
Surely, it would. My soul had been cleansed in baptism and strengthened by the graces of confirmation. Yet I did not learn virtue, surrendering myself to self-indulgence. My soul had become filthy, so filthy that its vicious habits had begun to affect my body, as well. So now I have to drag that rope—my body, in whose passions my vice was primarily associated—through the pipe to scrape it clean. Would it not have been better if I had learned virtue while still in the grace of my infancy, or while strengthened by the proximate graces of that great sacrament of Confirmation? No doubt. But here I am; and here and now, there simply is no other way.
This purification, this rearguard action by a tardy soul, is certainly made no easier by the constant barrage of advertising for products which promise to make what I undertake with such difficulty easy and without tension. Everyone, it seems, has a promise to make it easy to lose weight while eating the same foods and exercising little or not at all; in other words, to change your life without actually changing anything about it at all. Don’t worry about gluttony; don’t stress about self-indulgence; those things are your rights! Don’t you deserve the box of chocolates every night, the ice cream for breakfast, the Whopper that you’ve had for dinner three nights this week? Don’t you deserve to give yourself a little treat now and then? Of course you do; go ahead and eat that doughnut! Then, when you’re done, take this magic pill and drop ten pounds in only two weeks!
Our society is plagued by an “obesity epidemic,” so called as though gluttony were not a vice but a disease. Like drug addiction, it’s only a disease in the loosest possible sense of the term; and if it is a disease, it’s the most preventable disease in creation. Being obese causes health problems, to be sure; but once again, as St. Augustine pointed out, sometimes vice is its own punishment, and gluttony, whether of food or drink, is probably the most obvious example of that. Obesity itself, however, is not a disease, but rather a symptom; and it is a symptom not of a medical disease, but of a spiritual one: a lack of self-control.
My place of work has a candy dish. That candy dish is, most of the time, full of candy. Sometimes it’s good candy, sometimes it’s not so good; but it’s always sugary and sweet. Every time I walked by the candy dish, I ate a piece of candy. Every time I went to a buffet, I had three plates plus dessert. Is that a disease? Or is that Donald Goodman failing to control what he puts into his mouth and what he doesn’t?
I refused to control myself. That’s how I got overweight, and that’s how I began to suffer from the health problems that accompany being overweight. It’s not a disease; it’s a simple refusal on my part to practice the virtue of temperance, no more and no less.
But Americans want it all. Americans want to eat all they want without paying the penalties for eating; they want to be in good shape without buckling down and doing the hard work that is real physical exercise. In other words, they want vice without the consequences of vice. Then, when the consequences of vice come along anyway, they don’t want virtue, but a doctor who will cure those consequences for them.
The thing is, God didn’t create man that way. God didn’t create man so that man could constantly give in to his appetites; He created man with the ability, and the obligation, to subordinate those appetites to his reason. My reason told me I didn’t need to eat all that candy; my appetites told me that I wanted it; and I let my appetites rule the day. What was necessary, and what is still necessary, is for me to use my will in accordance with my reason, not my appetites, so that I don’t go ahead and eat what I don’t need. Plato famously made the analogy of a chariot and horses; the driver is the reason, the horses are the appetites. The soul which allows the appetites to guide it will never arrive at its end; instead it will be pulled about willy-nilly, with no way to get where it must go. But the soul which allows its driver to guide it, to subdue the horses and direct them toward their proper end, will arrive safely at his destination.
What is the end of my appetite for food? Nourishment, of course; the fulfillment of the nutritional needs of my body. Nothing more. My appetite for food is not ordered toward my delight in eating; it’s not ordered toward consuming maximum resources; and it’s not even ordered toward obligatory cultural consumption of hot dogs at baseball games. (Obligatory though that is; just make sure you’re actually hungry when you go.) It’s ordered toward nutrition. It’s certainly natural and good that when our appetites achieve their purpose, we experience some enjoyment; it’s good, in other words, that I like to eat. But when I allow the joy of eating to take precedence over the nutritional needs of my body—that is, when my appetite is no longer directed at its proper end—I’ve fundamentally disordered my soul. The horses are pulling the driver, rather than the driver directing the horses; I will inevitably be pulled off course.
In other words, I’ve lost the virtue of temperance; I’ve lost the virtue of self-control. But that temperance is the only solution to our country’s many obesity problems. There is no pill that will grant virtue. Indeed, there is only one thing that will grant virtue: repeatedly acting in a virtuous manner, such that acting rightly rather than wrongly becomes a habit. That is virtue. It’s not easy, any more than it’s easy for the rope when it’s cleaned; but it is the only way. The sooner we Americans learn that the road to strength and to health is deliberate and controlled virtue, rather than unconstrained vice with appropriate medical treatment to mitigate its effects, the better off we’ll be.
Thank God I became aware of this problem of mine, and thank God that He gave me the strength to begin dealing with it, before it got too bad to remedy. (If indeed I did catch it in time.)
Praise be to Christ the King!
Welcome to my blog, which consists largely of my own rantings and musings on Life, the Universe, and Everything (hint: Douglas Adams already told us that the answer's 42!), with little tidbits on the news and such. Browse around and read; let me know what you think, if you have the will.
Congrats on the weight loss, Don. I lost about 100 pounds myself over the past year. Like you, I realize that my weight problem isn’t due to bad genes, big bones, etc. I eat too much of the wrong food and don’t exercise enough.
Losing weight is easy, in my opinion, compared to keeping it off. When you’re eating as little as you say and exercising like that, the pounds fly off; but the faster they come off, the faster they tend to come back. This is a physiological reality, not a theological one. To make it work, you’re going to have to add calories back into your diet very, very gradually.
“What is the end of my appetite for food? Nourishment, of course; the fulfillment of the nutritional needs of my body. Nothing more.”
Can’t agree with this any more than I can agree with the idea that the end of sex is JUST procreation. Seems perfectly natural that God would want us to enjoy our food as well as derive nourishment from it. I can enjoy sex in the wrong way or with the wrong person, but I can’y enjoy it too much! Likewise, you can eat too much food or the wrong food, but I don’t think you can enjoy your food too much.
+AMDG
Good job, Ben. You’re correct, of course, about keeping the weight off. I consider myself like an alcoholic, which a much-easier-to-deal-with addiction. I’m going to need to be very careful when the time comes to increase my intake again.
“Can’t agree with this any more than I can agree with the idea that the end of sex is JUST procreation. Seems perfectly natural that God would want us to enjoy our food as well as derive nourishment from it. I can enjoy sex in the wrong way or with the wrong person, but I can’y enjoy it too much! Likewise, you can eat too much food or the wrong food, but I don’t think you can enjoy your food too much.”
Fulfilling an appetite for nourishment naturally brings physical pleasure, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with enjoying that pleasure. (Though I know several Fathers who argued that one should seek out and eat foods that one *doesn’t* like as a penance.) But that doesn’t mean that pleasure is one of the ends of fulfilling those appetites.
As for sex, sex has three ends, *none* of which is physical pleasure. Procreation is the primary end; marital union is the secondary; and a remedy for sexual concupiscence is the tertiary. Now, the need for sex is a physical appetite, and a singularly important one, so it naturally brings with it a singular pleasure. Nor is there anything wrong with enjoying that pleasure. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s *end* is pleasure, only that fulfilling a natural end is itself pleasurable.
I’d be quite surprised if man had any physical appetites which did *not* bring physical pleasure with their fulfillment; this pleasure is something God built into our natures to encourage us to fulfill those appetites. But that pleasure is a *means*, not an *end*, perfectly legitimate and good but not the purpose of the activity itself. When we begin treating that pleasure as an end, we indulge the appetite in the wrong way, which is vicious.
Praise be to Christ the King!
All good points, Don, though I lean toward the Wojtyla/Von Hildebrand view of meaning and purpose, rather than the more Thomistic (I assume) hierarchy of ends.
Back in high school I told a friend that the three most interesting topics of discussion were God, Sex, and Food–and now we’ve hit on all three. (If I could only muster up as much enthusiasm for the first one as I generally have for the other two, I’d be a saint!)
Alcoholism is a good analogy, though the alcoholic always has the option of pursuing total abstinence, while this is obviously out of the question in the case of food.
Both alcoholism and obesity also get caught up in the disease quagmire. The off-putting reality is that the concept of “disease” is a fairly vague construct even at the “hard biology” end of the spectrum. The further you get from things like viruses, cancer, etc. the shakier it becomes.
In reality, nosology isn’t primarily intended to classify things in the Aristotelian sense; rather, it’s usually an aid to treatment. The upshot here is that it usually makes sense to look at utility rather than validity. In other words, does looking at this weight/drug problem as a disease help this particular person solve the problem?
The statistics tell us that the disease model “works” for very few people in the long run. The original model for AA was an “allergy.” It acknowledges that some people’s bodies can’t handle alcohol that way that others’ can. This biological problem is not the fault of the alcoholic, of course, but after the alcoholic becomes aware of the problem, it is his or her responsibility to restrict alcohol intake.
This model has always made a lot of sense to me, and I think it applies well to food. We all have different metabolisms and genetic predispositions–we don’t get a “fair shake” in that regard at all, and it’s not our fault. At the same time, those of us who know that we tend to overeat have a responsibility to control eating, increase exercise, or both. When we don’t, it’s because we’re failing to practice self-control.
P.S. Just got home from taking my niece and nephew to Gettysburg. (This is, I think, my 5th trip or so.) We did the horseback tour this time, which was excellent. The newly restored cyclorama painting is also pretty stunning, especially if you remember how crappy it looked a few years ago.
The town is clogged with “ghost tours” these days, which range from simple storytelling to full blown seance nonsense. If you’re ever stuck for blogging topics, I’d love to get your take on ghosts.
+AMDG
“All good points, Don, though I lean toward the Wojtyla/Von Hildebrand view of meaning and purpose, rather than the more Thomistic (I assume) hierarchy of ends.”
Thanks. But I find this odd. Von Hildebrand was an unreconstructed Thomist (though he tended to use phenomenological terminology), and had *very* strong disagreements with the Wojtyla brand of phenomenology, particularly as far as the liturgy and man’s participation in it is concerned.
I’m further puzzled by “view of meaning and purpose” being opposed to “hierarchy of ends.” The end of a thing *is* it’s meaning and purpose. So how does this leaning change your conclusion?
I realize there are philosophical differences between VH and KW, but if you read Marriage: The Mystery of Faithful Love and Love and Responsibility back-to-back, I think you’ll find a nice continuity of thought there.
It’s funny that you should mention VH being a Thomist who uses phenomenological terminology, as KW strikes me as a phenomenologist who occasionally dips into Thomism. I’m no philosopher and am probably not qualified to judge, but KW strikes me as someone who dipped into just about anything. (Fides et Ratio, for example, “feels” Thomistic to me…I’m no philosopher, though, so I can’t really nail down why. I’m also not quite sure where to draw the line between KW as philosopher and JPII’s teaching office.)
Okay, now I’ve circled around the point long enough. It seems to me that physical pleasure is so enmeshed with the marital union that it ought to be considered part of that end. Now that I’m discussing it over breakfast with E, however, I’m realizing that my thinking on this is fairly mushy.
+AMDG
In my opinion, KW was a Thomist because he was intensely loyal to the Catholic tradition, and consequently his conclusions were necessarily Thomistic in many places. (The Council of Trent, remember, put a copy of the Summa, along with the Bible and the decrees of the Roman pontiffs, open on the altar during its deliberations, so that they might always derive wisdom and understanding from it, and St. Pius X declared that *not* being a Thomist was sufficient to make one suspect of modernism.) As such, his arguments are often Thomistic-y. On the other hand, they are often couched in very mushy and imprecise language thanks to his phenomenological background, which is what leads to them being constantly (sometimes, admittedly, deliberately) misinterpreted, a problem you just don’t find with traditional Thomistic language. An example is his statement regarding the headship of the husband in marriage, in Mulieris Dignitatem. One can interpret this statement in the traditional manner, that the husband is the real and true head of the family, while his “submission” to his wife is like that of Christ to His Church, one of service rather than of obedience. Or one can take it in a liberal and modernist manner, that the husband is really supposed to be obedient to his wife. Both are equally justified by the text itself, though I really don’t think that JPII intended to contradict St. Paul and the entirety of the Catholic traditon. St. Thomas’s texts, or the texts of any Thomistic thinker I’ve ever read, just don’t suffer from this problem.
VH was unquestionably a Thomist, and I think Alice von Hildebrand would agree with that whole-heartedly. He started out as a phenomenologist, and continued to use the language of that school throughout his life. (Unfortunately; I think his work, while unquestionably brilliant, sufferent from this.) He diverged quite strongly from JPII and Paul VI concerning the liturgy; Dietrich, like Alice, held strongly to the appropriateness and superiority of the traditional rite, and held that the new rite was based on false understandings of the nature of human action. I think Pope Benedict XVI probably agrees with this, also, at least in part.
“It seems to me that physical pleasure is so enmeshed with the marital union that it ought to be considered part of that end. Now that I’m discussing it over breakfast with E, however, I’m realizing that my thinking on this is fairly mushy.”
Hmm. I don’t think “enmeshing” is sufficient to consider it part of the end. (Though once again, it’s concomitant with that end, usually, and is perfectly licit, and even good.) When we consider the end, we consider that for which a thing exists. We know, from divine revelation, that marital intercourse is for three distinct purposes, in this order:
1.) The procreation of children.
2.) The union of the spouses.
3.) A remedy for concupiscence.
None of these require physical pleasure to be achieved.
As another example, consider food. If enjoyment were part of the end of eating, wouldn’t eating something you don’t like be a sin? You’d be committing an act while deliberately avoiding one of its proper ends (enjoyment). Yet wouldn’t you agree that when I eat mushrooms I’m still fulfilling the end of eating, even though they are disgusting?
Praise be to Christ the King!
Okay, time to set subtlety aside: If the end of writing is to express an idea clearly, then KW, vH, and AvH are not very good writers. (Hell, there’s a whole raft of people out there who make their living “popularizing” JPII’s theology of the body. If reading Love and Responsibility weren’t such an ordeal, guys like Christopher West would be looking for a new line of work.) That said, the ideas are worth slogging through the mush for.
Concerning the purposes of intercourse, does divine revelation really give us this 1, 2, 3 order? Can you provide citation? (HumVit speaks of the unitive and procreative significance, but does not seem to grant one precedence over the other.)
Also concerning the purposes of intercourse, you write, “None of these require physical pleasure to be achieved.”
Sed contra, the procreation of children requires ejaculation, which is the result of the male orgasm, which cannot be elicited except through physical pleasure.
+AMDG
I’d say that ejaculation involves pleasure only accidentally. But I’ll admit I was thinking mostly of the woman in this case. Even so, even if pleasure were universally concomitant with the sexual act, that wouldn’t mean that it was part of its purpose. Breathing is universally part of human existence, but breathing is not our purpose.
Yes, revelation clearly gives us this order. The new Catechism, unfortunately, does not reflect it. Humanae Vitae is also ambiguous on the question. It is one of the worst problems with the modern Church that we state *part* of the truth without stating *all* of it. This hierarchical order is unquestionably dogma of the Faith. Casti Connubii, for example, very clearly lists, in hierarchical order, the blessing of matrimony, referring to the first, procreation and education of children (paragraphs 11-18), and then speaks of the second, the union of the spouses (paragraphs 19 et seq.). Canon 1013.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law was also quite explicit about this (“[t]he primary end of marriage is the procreation and nurture of children; its secondary end is mutual help and the remedying of concupiscence”), though the 1983 Code is ambiguous, like the new Catechism. Not to mention the clear teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. However, Pius XI summed it up as clearly as anyone can:
“The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.” Casti Connubii, para. 17.
You might be interested to know that AvH (for whom I have enormous respect, as for her former husband) finds Christopher West to be extremely problematic. http://www.4marks.com/articles/details.html?article_id=3416
“I’d say that ejaculation involves pleasure only accidentally.”
As far as I know, pleasure is absolutely necessary to bring about ejaculation. If this can be said to be “accidental,” then we could also say that firing a gun involves pulling a trigger only accidentally.
I think we agree, though, that its necessity does not indicate that its one of sex’s purposes.
Thank you for the reference from Casti Connubii. Very informative.
I haven’t read much West and I have a great deal of respect for AvH. Nevertheless, based on this article, I think she is being overly harsh.
The fact that AvH is “shocked and horrified” by the words Mr. West uses is not something I’m going to get too worked up about. I’m sure that AvH uses phrases like “marriage act” and “conjugal act” and good for her. Because phrases like “having sex” strikes AvH as irreverent doesn’t make it so. Her comments about Mr. West being “too self-assured” can’t really be addressed because she doesn’t explain what she means by that. If she can provide examples of Mr. West relying too much on his own reasoning and not deferring to the Magesterium then great. As it is, it’s just kind of vague.
On the other hand, the whole article has been edited by a reporter, so we don’t really know what she might have said in context. And that’s the problem with ABC’s presentation of Mr. West’s material. If she’s reacting to Mr. West’s presentation as edited and presented by ABC news, then she really ought to know better.
I also think the comment about AvH’s “fame” is amusing. If I took a poll in the average Catholic church in this country, I would bet that less than 5% had even heard of him. The same poll of people on the street would result in less than 1%.
“I also think the comment about AvH’s “fame” is amusing. If I took a poll in the average Catholic church in this country, I would bet that less than 5% had even heard of him. The same poll of people on the street would result in less than 1%.”
Well, that’s probably true. But she is quite well-known among informed Catholic circles, and for a good reason. She’s quite brilliant, as was her husband. I had the enormous privilege to meet her once, at Christendom. Dietrich was so brilliant that, as I’m sure you know, the saintly Pius XII called him a “twentieth century doctor of the Church.”
I agree pretty thoroughly with AvH. Christopher West’s presentations are certainly irreverent, sometimes even involving open sexual discussions right in churches, where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved. They are conducted in mixed company, not all of whom are married. They bring into public view what ought to be strictly confined to the private.
Plus, I don’t care what the context; putting Hugh Hefner and JPII in the same sentence as your heroes is disgusting. And I don’t even think JPII was a very good pope; the fact that he was undeniably a saintly man makes it revolting to the sensibilities.
A story giving more of her words:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15950
Essentially, she seems to clearly disagree profoundly with 1.) the public and unrestrained nature in which West discusses sexual matters; he’s too explicit, and he does it too publicly; and 2.) he totally ignores the reality of concupiscence. As the above-linked story quotes her, “Christopher West’s approach makes him forget that sex is ‘an extreme danger.’ Though sex can be sanctified, that sanctification implies ‘a humility, a spirit of reverence, and totally avoiding the vulgarity that he uses in his language.’”
Fr. Granados in the story is also apropos:
“‘Moreover, one of the results of the sexual revolution is precisely the pansexualism that surrounds our society. We cannot respond with a different kind of pansexualism, with a sort of “Catholic sexual revolution,” which in the end promotes a similar obsession with sex, even if “holy”.’”
That’s my main problem with West, and with TotB in general. It’s not so much that anything they say is *wrong* (well, the Hefner thing was definitely wrong), it’s that what it doesn’t say is *right*. I think the traditional approach to these issues, as exemplified in Casti Connubii and, to a degree, in Humanae Vitae, is what the world needs now: a quiet, dignified reverence for these things, not a constant promotion of them. It’s bad to be obsessed with sex as physical; but it’s also bad to be obsessed with sex as spiritual.
West is undoubtedly helping some people, and I’m fully aware that even a leaky lifeboat is better than floating in the open sea. But the way people elevate TotB and West’s strange interpretation of it is detrimental to the Church as a whole.
Consider the primary end of marriage. You’re a dedicated Catholic, and yet you’d never heard of this. That’s not your fault in the slightest; it’s because we’ve adopted this strange policy of never citing anything written prior to 1960 in our catechesis. TotB is not *part* of a 2000 year Catholic tradition on marriage; it’s become the entirety of it, and all traditional restraints and topics of discussion have been abandoned. Yet the best papal document on marriage in general ever written came from Pius XI; it is explicit and clear, yet beautiful and inspiring in its description of this great sacrament.
My solution would be to read and consider TotB as *part* of the whole; then we’d get little minor details, like what the primary purpose of all this is, as well as whatever good can be derived from it. West, and many TotB proponents, seem to take TotB as a replacement for traditional thought, not as a supplement to it, and this I find objectionable.
Praise be to Jesus Christ!
Please excuse the typo on my part. I meant to lampoon the idea–put forward by AvH–that Mr. West is famous. I agree that the vH’s are brilliant and certainly better known among educated Catholics than Mr. West–though obviously none of the three can be called “famous” in a general sense. (I actually hadn’t heard the quote by Pius XII about DvH, but it doesn’t surprise me and it certainly fits.)
I’m not sure exactly what is meant by “open sexual discussions.” I’d need to know exactly what Mr. West talks about to say whether or not I’d object. I have no problem with straightforward discussion of sexual matters using the ordinary language of the people.
As for public speaking in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, I can only say that I’m against any lay person speaking in a Catholic church. Even clergy should give their “talks” elsewhere. Ditto for musical performances outside the Mass. Catholic churches should not be “multipurpose spaces.”
I’ve taken a brief look at Mr. West’s website and I see nothing to justify an accusation that he is trying to create a “different kind of pansexualism” or that he “totally ignores the reality of concupiscence.” I see several articles condemning the use of sexual imagery in advertising, pornography, artificial birth control, same-sex marriage, and so on. Sex seems to be presented as something reserved strictly for married people. A quick skim through the article on Hefner doesn’t turn up anything heretical and Playboy magazine and Hefner’s actions are specifically condemned.
I have in fact heard of procreation as the primary end of marriage, I just never heard about the specific order in which the ends are placed before. I don’t blame West or the ToTB people for this, as I’m not a member of their audience. You and I both had access to Casti Connubii–you had just bothered to read it and I haven’t.
I agree with your diagnosis of not citing pre-VatII docs. This is slowly changing, I think. (Or maybe just hope.)
“Please excuse the typo on my part. I meant to lampoon the idea–put forward by AvH–that Mr. West is famous. I agree that the vH’s are brilliant and certainly better known among educated Catholics than Mr. West–though obviously none of the three can be called “famous” in a general sense. (I actually hadn’t heard the quote by Pius XII about DvH, but it doesn’t surprise me and it certainly fits.)”
Ah; understood. I do consider the vHs “famous,” at least among philosophers and the like. West is, at best, a minor celebrity in comparison.
“I’m not sure exactly what is meant by “open sexual discussions.” I’d need to know exactly what Mr. West talks about to say whether or not I’d object. I have no problem with straightforward discussion of sexual matters using the ordinary language of the people.”
I don’t have any problem with that, either—at the proper time, the proper place, and to the proper audience. It’s absolutely inappropriate in a church, for example, or to a mixed audience. West does both.
“As for public speaking in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, I can only say that I’m against any lay person speaking in a Catholic church. Even clergy should give their “talks” elsewhere. Ditto for musical performances outside the Mass. Catholic churches should not be “multipurpose spaces.””
Bravo! I couldn’t have made a better reply myself! The sensus catholicus truly lives in you.
“You and I both had access to Casti Connubii–you had just bothered to read it and I haven’t.”
I really don’t think the average Catholic has read, or ought to read, Casti Connubii, or Humanae Vitae for that matter, though both are excellent documents. The average Catholic ought to have that at the tip of his tongue just from his Sunday school classes. Unfortunately, the average Catholic doesn’t.
“I agree with your diagnosis of not citing pre-VatII docs. This is slowly changing, I think. (Or maybe just hope.)”
I think it is changing. Though the new Catechism cites Vatican II more than the entire rest of the history of the Church, by a considerable margin (to its credit, it does cite the Bible even more), Pope Benedict is starting to change things. He was truly a blessing sent from God to the Church, exactly what the Church needed at exactly the right time. God save Pope Benedict XVI!