Christopher West Sends People TO HELL

Christopher West is a 'Catholic' author, speaker, and theologian known for his work on Theology of the Body, supposedly commenting on Pope St. John Paul II in his teachings on human sexuality, love, and marriage.

Unfortunately, he is wrong.

Contents:
00:00 - What is the Theology of the Body Institute
05:43 - Scripture
08:18 - Magisterial Teachings

#TheologyOfTheBody #Catholic #Marriage

[MilitantThomist]

Since some are misunderstanding the purpose of what St. Alphonsus is saying, I'm going to ask UI to cut it (should be updated soon)...I'll post the quote below for those who want to read it.

These are meant to be examples of superabundant perfection given by St. Alphonsus, not necessarily commands followed by all. They are illustrations of a degree of perfection given in the lives of saints (which the documents I listed said we ought to) which we should strive to be worthy to imitate in our own stations in life (although, the final paragrph gives what is of command). It is meant to contrast the base ways in which West has spoken about the custody of the eyes.

"Almost all our rebellious passions spring from unguarded looks; for, generally speaking, it is by the sight that all inordinate affections and desires are excited. Hence, holy Job _made a covenant with his eyes, that he would not so much as think upon a virgin._ Why did he say that he would not so much as think upon a virgin? Should he not have said that he made a covenant with his eyes not to look at a virgin? No; he very properly said that he would not think upon a virgin; because thoughts are so connected with looks, that the former cannot be separated from the latter, and therefore, to escape the molestation of evil imaginations, he resolved never to fix his eyes on a woman...

...From the look proceeds the thought; from the thought the desire; for, as St. Francis de Sales says, what is not seen is not desired, and to the desire succeeds the consent...The devil first tempts us to look, then to desire, and afterwards to consent...

...A deliberate glance at a person of a different sex often enkindles an infernal spark, which consumes the soul. "Through the eyes, " says St. Bernard, "the deadly arrows of love enters." The first dart that wounds and frequently robs chaste souls of life finds admission through the eyes. By them David, the beloved of God, fell. By them was Solomon, once the inspired of the Holy Ghost, drawn into the greatest abominations. Oh! how many are lost by indulging their sight!

The eyes must be carefully guarded by all who expect not to be obliged to join in the lamentation of Jeremiah: _My eye hath wasted my soul._ By the introduction of sinful affections my eyes have destroyed my soul. Hence St. Gregory says, that " the eyes, because they draw us to sin, must be depressed." If not restrained, they will become instruments of hell, to force the soul to sin almost against its will. "He that looks at a dangerous object, " continues the saint, "begins to will what he wills not."...

...Tertullian relates that a certain pagan philosopher, to free himself from impurity, plucked out his eyes. Such an act would be unlawful in us: but he that desires to preserve chastity must avoid the sight of objects that are apt to excite unchaste thoughts...

...Hence, to avoid the sight of dangerous objects, the saints were accustomed to keep their eyes almost continually fixed on the earth, and to abstain even from looking at innocent objects...

The saints were particularly cautious not to look at persons of a different sex. St. Hugh, bishop, when compelled to speak with women, never looked at them in the face. St. Clare would never fix her eyes on the face of a man. She was greatly afflicted because, when raising her eyes at the elevation to see the consecrated host, she once involuntarily saw the countenance of the priest, St. Aloysius never looked at his own mother in the face. It is related of St. Arsenius, that a noble lady went to visit him in the desert, to beg of him to recommend her to God. When the saint perceived that his visitor was a woman, he turned away from hen She then said to him: "Arsenius, since you will neither seen or hear me, at least remember me in your prayers." "No, " replied the saint, "but I will beg of God to make me forget you, and never more to think of you."

From these examples may be seen the folly and temerity of some religious who, though they have not the sanctity of a St. Clare, still gaze around from the terrace, in the parlor, and in the church, upon every object that presents itself, even on persons of a different sex. And notwithstanding their unguarded looks, they expect to be free from temptations and from the danger of sin. For having once looked deliberately at a woman who was gathering ears of corn, the Abbot Pastor was tormented for forty years by temptations against chastity. St. Gregory states that the temptation, to conquer which St. Benedict rolled himself in thorns, arose from one incautious glance at a woman. St. Jerome, though living in a cave at Bethlehem, in continual prayer and macerations of the flesh, was terribly molested by the remembrance of ladies whom he had long before seen in Rome. Why should not similar molestations be the lot of the religious who wilfully and without reserve fixes her eyes on persons of a different sex?

...I do not see how looks at young persons of a different sex can be excused from the guilt of a venial fault, or even from mortal sin, when there is proximate danger of criminal consent. "It is not lawful, " says St. Gregory, "to behold what it is not lawful to covet." The evil thought that proceeds from looks, though it should be rejected, never fails to leave a stain upon the soul. Brother Roger, a Franciscan of singular purity, being once asked why he was so reserved in his intercourse with women, replied, that when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions. (*The True Spouse of Jesus Christ*, Chapter 8)

[maxwellr]

NEVER GOON!!! NEVER FOLD!!! ST MICHAEL PRAY FOR US!!!

[ServusDei]

“Mr. West is truly a respecter of plus-sized women” — Christian B. Wagner

[moviemechanic]

“More souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.” - Our Lady of Fatima

[Neb-iemj]

Please pray for us that struggle with scrupulosity.

[johnchurch]

Lorenzo Scupoli, in his Spiritual Combat, advises people to test themselves in their virtues, EXCEPT IN REGARDS TO CHASTITY, in regard of which one is to flee.

[guysgroceries]

The West has fallen... Millions must never goon...

[TheologyoftheBodyInstitute]

Hello Christian! Thanks for your dedication to this video and honest concern. We'll consider making a response to it. You bring issues that Christopher has heard many times in the past and is not afraid to address directly and clarify each of them. We'd say that most of the concerns come from misunderstanding and lack of context. But we' let Christopher explain if we do make a response video. God bless!

An important note for anybody watching this video is that Christopher's wife is brought up and b-roll of Elizabeth Busby (one of our speakers) is played. Elizabeth is not Christopher's wife.

[deusvult]

Literally every spiritual author says that Lust, is the only sin to flee and avoid occasions from

[killianmiller]

I remember as a teen guy who had an unguarded eye for other ladies, thinking if I expose myself to sexual desires, images, and film in privacy, I would be more in control if a real sexual situation arose (partly because I didn’t want to be “controlled” by a woman through sex). Needless to say, I still struggle to this day over 10 years later, but I like to think I’m getting better with the help of confession.

[nw]

Bishop Fulton Sheen tells a story about a beautiful flight attendant he saw on a flight and he recognized the beauty of this young woman and commented to her about her beauty and that beauty is rarely a gift given by God that is returned to him. The next time this flight attendant saw him she said she was ready to give her beauty to God. So he got her set up to serve in a leper colony saying "go somewhere that people have never seen anything beautiful ". This recognition of beauty is the same kind of recognition of beauty Christopher West talks about. As far as introducing yourself to occasion of sin, his point is that virtue breeds virtue and you shouldn't do what he's suggesting if you know it will make you stumble. Fair to disagree with, but seeing someone beautiful in public is a part of life and the initial reaction should not be lust if we can get to that point. Listening to Chrisopher West has personally helped me in my struggle with lust in huge ways. Theology of the Body is a huge need in the world today and I think he does good work bringing JPII to people.

[moseywhales]

As a good priest once said, you can struggle with six of the seven deadly sins but from lust you RUN.

Thanking God for delivering me from lust in a way I never realized until hearing people like West and reading comments on videos regarding this topic.

[ResurrexitSicutDixit]

The way West speaks in such erotic and sensual terms about spiritual things has always struck me as very unsettling.

[MilitantThomist]

Real St. John Paul II: "1. Today I wish to conclude the analysis of the words spoken by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount about adultery and lust, and especially the last element of this enunciation, in which "lust of the eyes" is defined specifically as "adultery committed in the heart." We have already seen that the above-mentioned words are usually understood as desire for another's wife (that is, according to the spirit of the ninth commandment of the Decalogue). However, it seems that this interpretation—a more restrictive one—can and must be widened in the light of the total context. The moral evaluation of lust (of looking lustfully), which Christ called adultery committed in the heart, seems to depend above all on the personal dignity itself of man and of woman. This holds true both for those who are not united in marriage, and—perhaps even more—for those who are husband and wife.

2. The analysis which we have made so far of Matthew 5:27-28 indicates the necessity of amplifying and above all deepening the interpretation presented previously, with regard to the ethical meaning that this enunciation contains. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Let us dwell on the situation described by the Master, a situation in which the one who commits adultery in his heart by means of an interior act of lust (expressed by the look) is the man. It is significant that in speaking of the object of this act, Christ did not stress that it is "another man's wife, " or a woman who is not his own wife, but says generically, a woman. Adultery committed in the heart is not circumscribed in the limits of the interpersonal relationship which make it possible to determine adultery committed in the body. It is not these limits that decide exclusively and essentially about adultery committed in the heart, but the very nature of lust. It is expressed in this case by a look, that is, by the fact that that man—of whom Christ speaks, for the sake of example—looks lustfully. Adultery in the heart is committed not only because man looks in this way at a woman who is not his wife, but precisely because he looks at a woman in this way. Even if he looked in this way at the woman who is his wife, he could likewise commit adultery in his heart.

3. This interpretation seems to take into consideratiion more amply what has been said about lust in these analyses as a whole, and primarily about the lust of the flesh as a permanent element of man's sinfulness (status naturae lapsae). The lust which, as an interior act, springs from this basis (as we tried to indicate in the preceding analyses) changes the very intentionality of the woman's existence "for" man. It reduces the riches of the perennial call to the communion of persons, the riches of the deep attractiveness of masculinity and femininity, to mere satisfaction of the sexual need of the body (the concept of "instinct" seems to be linked more closely with this). As a result of this reduction, the person (in this case, the woman) becomes for the other person (the man) mainly the object of the potential satisfaction of his own sexual need. In this way, that mutual "for" is distorted, losing its character of communion of persons in favor of the utilitarian function. A man who looks in this way, as Matthew 5:27-28 indicates, uses the woman, her femininity, to satisfy his own instinct. Although he does not do so with an exterior act, he has already assumed this attitude deep down, inwardly deciding in this way with regard to a given woman. This is what adultery committed in the heart consists of. Man can commit this adultery in the heart also with regard to his own wife, if he treats her only as an object to satisfy instinct.

4. It is not possible to arrive at the second interpretation of Matthew 5:27-28, if we confine ourselves to the purely psychological interpretation of lust without taking into account what constitutes its specific theological character, that is, the organic relationship between lust (as an act) and the lust of the flesh as a permanent disposition derived from man's sinfulness. The purely psychological (or "sexological") interpretation of lust does not seem to constitute a sufficient basis to understand the text of the Sermon on the Mount in question. On the other hand, if we refer to the theological interpretation— without underestimating what remains unchangeable in the first interpretation (the psychological one)—the second interpretation (the theological one) appears to us as more complete. Thanks to it, the ethical meaning of the key enunciation of the Sermon on the Mount, to which we owe the adequate dimension of the ethos of the Gospel, becomes clearer.

5. Sketching this dimension, Christ remains faithful to the law: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Mt 5:17). Consequently he shows how deep down it is necessary to go, how the recesses of the human heart must be thoroughly revealed, in order that this heart may become a place of "fulfillment" of the law. The enunciation of Matthew 5:27-28, which makes manifest the interior perspective of adultery committed in the heart—and in this perspective points out the right ways to fulfill the commandment: "Do not commit adultery"—is an extraordinary argument of it. This enunciation (Mt 5:27-28) refers, in fact, to the sphere which especially concerns purity of heart (cf. Mt 5:8) (an expression which—.as is known—has a wide meaning in the Bible). Elsewhere, too, we will consider in what way the commandment "Do not commit adultery"—which, as regards the way in which it is expressed and the content, is a univocal and severe prohibition (like the commandment, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife", Ex 20:17)—is carried out precisely by means of purity of heart. The severity and strength of the prohibition are testified to directly by the following words of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Christ spoke figuratively of "plucking out one's eye" and "cutting off one's hand, " if these members were the cause of sin (cf. Mt 5:29-30). We have already seen that the legislation of the Old Testament, though abounding in severe punishments, did not contribute to "fulfill the law, " because its casuistry was marked by many compromises with the lust of the flesh. On the contrary, Christ taught that the commandment is carried out through purity of heart. This is not given to man except at the cost of firmness with regard to everything that springs from the lust of the flesh. Whoever is able to demand consistently from his heart and from his body, acquires purity of heart.

6. The commandment "Do not commit adultery" finds its rightful motivation in the indissolubility of marriage. In it, man and woman, by virtue of the original plan of the Creator, unite in such a way that "the two become one flesh" (cf. Gn 2:24). By its essence, adultery conflicts with this unity, in the sense in which this unity corresponds to the dignity of persons. Christ not only confirms this essential ethical meaning of the commandment, but aims at strengthening it in the depth of the human person. The new dimension of ethos is always connected with the revelation of that depth, which is called "heart, " and with its liberation from lust. This is in order that man, male and female, in all the interior truth of the mutual "for, " may shine forth more fully in that heart. Freed from the constraint and from the impairment of the spirit that the lust of the flesh brings with it, the human being, male and female, finds himself mutually in the freedom of the gift. This gift is the condition of all life together in truth, and, in particular, in the freedom of mutual giving. Both husband and wife must form the sacramental unity willed, as Genesis 2:24 says, by the Creator himself .

7. As is plain, the necessity which, in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ placed on all his actual and potential listeners, belongs to the interior space in which man—precisely the one who is listening to him—must perceive anew the lost fullness of his humanity, and want to regain it. That fullness in the mutual relationship of persons, of the man and of the woman, was claimed by the Master in Matthew 5:27-28. He had in mind above all the indissolubility of marriage, but also every other form of the common life of men and women, that common life which constitutes the pure and simple fabric of existence. By its nature, human life is "coeducative." Its dignity and balance depend, at every moment of history and at every point of geographical longitude and latitude, on who she will be for him, and he for her.

The words spoken by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount have certainly this universal and at the same time profound significance. Only in this way can they be understood in the mouth of him who knew thoroughly "what was in man, " and who, at the same time, bore within him the mystery of the "redemption of the body, " as St. Paul puts it. Are we to fear the severity of these words, or rather have confidence in their salvific content, in their power? In any case, the analysis carried out of the words spoken by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount opens the way to further indispensable reflections in order to reach full awareness of historical man, and above all of modern man: of his conscience and he for her." (Oct. 8, 1980)

[JMJ.]

Haven't cared for him since he attacked Alice von Hildebrand when she wrote an article on the pornification of marriage. She was right and he is still wrong.

[catholic_tradition]

None of the quotes from West in the video say that people should purposely look at others of the opposite sex, that people should purposely look at immodesty, or that people should do something like that to train themselves.

All he says in the included quotes is that when you happen to see someone of the opposite sex, you should see them as a child of God and not as an object.

Sure, you could say that he should tell people not to go to the beach or other public places where there might be immodesty. But 1) that’s a separate argument. 2) Very few contemporary Catholic theologians or clerics say that Catholics should absolutely not go to the beach or similar places. So I don’t think it’s fair to just pin that on West.

[TheRecapitulaitionist]

The problem with Christopher West's language of Nuptial Mysticism, which is precedented in Church history (see the many commentaries of the Song of Songs, or Mystical works tackling Christ as the 'Bridegroom'), but his vulgar and often explicit explanations of this mystical approach that revel in the carnal realities of the Martial Act and Conjugal relations rather than their mystical typification. The notion of the Baptismal Candle being described as explicitly phallic is disgusting, but we can use the language of it as a Sign of the seeding of the Grace of Baptism into the waters (a common Baptismal Image in Patristic Literature), yet not become so infatuated with the sexual implications. One reduces the signs down to symbolism of sex, the others call the mind, through the Nuptial type, to the Grace of God. One revels in the means as ends, the other effectively uses the means as means. Using nuptial language that is not revelling in the matter of the act of Martial Union is key.

[marvelator]

Christian, i am sorry, but how do either of the clips you displayed show that Christopher West compared Hugh Hefner to JP2 except to contrast one view as false and evil, and the other as true and good? Where in the clips shown does Dr. West reference the easter candle as a phallus? If he did either of these things, you havent shown that, which is concerning. Any occasion to Lust must be avoided, but Christopher West was not speaking about lustfully gawking at women, or encouraging covetousness towards their beauty. You can state the opinion of different moralists throughout church history who say that looking at women must be avoided, but i think West is offering another way to interact with women that still recognizes and upholds their beauty and dignity without even the slightest indulgence of lust. I feel that you are, at best, disagreeing with his approach and have given some (but maybe not sufficient) reasons for why it is not an advisable path to virtue. You have failed to show how he departs from JP2, you did not give any legitimate examples of him indulging in, endorsing, or recommending sinful and profane acts; and frankly you slandered his name very gravely by asserting that he is sending people to Hell. This video was a very gross misrepresentation of his work and beliefs, and it was a very ambitious reach indeed. Also, never goon.

[Deuterocomical]

I’ve definitely noticed that West essentially makes up his own theology of the body which is problematic.

But are we really supposed to avoid eye contact with women like some of these saints are proposing? That seems like some overly pious practice for monastics or something.

[TheRecapitulaitionist]

Literally had a chat with someone over his scandal. The person in question was shocked, and thought he upheld the positions of the Church. I, not well enough informed, acquiesced to his position, but appealed the notion that even his vagueness is highly imprudent and easily leads to scandal itself. Even if what he said was 100% Orthodox, so often he speaks vaguely and in the most pornographic manner possible that's its scandalising when he does say something true.