If continence and avoiding the near occasion of sin (such as an engaged couple limiting the amount of time they spend alone together, or the "Bishop" who turned away his eyes) are not positively real virtues (as Christopher West teaches. Go to this Steve Kellmeyer post for instance), then no virtue can be attained, for prudence is the first cardinal virtue, without which no moral virtue is possible.
Also, if continence and avoiding the near occasion of sin is not a positively real virtue, then fornication and the like are not really sins. For the evil of sin is not a "thing", but is a privation; a privation of the good; and virtue is related to good as sin is related to evil. Thus, if continence is not a virtue, then its privation (as in the form of fornication) could not possibly be a sin.
So let's say someone wants to make millions of dollars by using a Pope's work of theology, pop sex-magic and a lot of ellipsis. Then the above logic can work to that person's favour, because then both continence and fornication are of equal "value", in that they are simply forms of "not going deep enough" in "the ethos of redemption".
Oh wait. That's exactly what Christopher West does. Well shucks, except that it seems he prefers, in his keeping statements open-ended kind of way, you use fornication as an ethos of redemption instead of continence. After all, of the two, fornication puts one right into that necessary sexual mediation that holds the key to one's redemption, doesn't it? Whereas continence...well that's just repressive denial - a "negative". It doesn't take hold of lust and transform it by going deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper into it, does it? No Sir-ee-Bob.
As the old saying goes, when you've dug yourself into a hole...keep digging - because eventually you will work your way to China. Those porn makers and those who fornicate - in the teaching of West their sins are only sins because they "stop at the surface".
As Christopher West says at the end of the interview below with Brandon Vogt (an interview dripping at the seams with the sliest corruption of Church teaching), when asked to say something to our sexually distorted modern world: "You're onto something; but don't stop at the surface of sexuality". (It's towards the end of the interview for those who can't endure the whole thing.)
You're onto something, eh? The sex drive and passions as old as the stars and historically well-known to overwhelm a person and cause people to act in all sorts of ways, from King David and before him and after him to teenage boys and girls to adults to everything else and so on and so on and so on...you're "onto something"?
Oh no, there's no pantheistic sex worship going on here ladies and gentlemen, none at all...
If people wish, could you supply some more links to articles and posts concerning how West teaches that continence and avoiding the occasion of sin is not really a virtue in the comment box?