Monday, February 6, 2012

Pro Life and Pro Creation



Tom Richard, a friend of mine, sent this to me re. the Christopher West debate. Tom writes ...


***


Fr. Pat Koch, SJ, may he rest in peace, covered this exact subject in sophomore theology for us, and I'll never forget it:


"Gentlemen, when you leave this place, Satan will tempt you with assumptions that have not an element of truth, but instead the foundation of a twisted lie. 'The naked body is beautiful' as justification for it's portrayal in any fashion is one such lie. The whole work of pornography is, 'It's too hard for you to obey, so don't - give in to the things that made you the human animal - come fornicate, come masturbate.' It is true that you are a human, but listen to the word of God. You are above the animals - don't give into the lie that you are just another one of them. Listen to the voice of your reason. Do you really believe that pornography conveys the image of woman that God intended? Mr. Hefner would have you believe that the most sanctifying bond between a man and a woman is mere recreation, as if the business of man is recreation. No, gentlemen, the business of man is the family of God, and the business of that family is procreation, and I mean that in all senses of the word. We are Catholic in our belief that we are pro God's creation."

1 comment:

Deacon Jim Russell said...

With respect to my friend (and yours) Tom, and to you, Kevin: Christopher West doesn't seem to disagree in the least with Fr. Koch or with you on this issue.

Basically, to date, over multiple days of conversation, what is being said is that West is making "implications" that lead to a crossing of the line despite the fact that the things he says are not themselves guilty of crossing the line. What he says is fine "as far as it goes," has been said a couple times.

But, what if that *is* as far as it goes, as far as West is concerned?

There is such a big difference between "implication" and "inference" when dealing with someone else's writings.

Often times what we "infer" is absolutely NOT in keeping with what someone intends to "imply."

In West's case, he emphasizes a view of grace that is *deeply* Catholic--a grace that does not merely "cover" but actually *changes* us and "heals" us, makes us better than we were before.

Concupiscence is not "total depravity"--it has an antidote, which is grace. Nowhere does West move from this fact to some additional assertion that people who respond to this grace and are in control of concupiscence should therefore look at porn.

At heart, what you seem to be inferring is not in fact what is being implied.

And, to the extent that my *own* Archbishop is willing to add his voice of support to West at this time is very consoling to me.

Tom, Kevin et al.--God bless you.

Deacon Jim R