Saturday, March 24, 2012

Some links and things from email

Kevin Symonds has a recent expose on "Anne, a lay apostle" at Catholic Lane, the woman whose praise for Christopher West is included in West's latest book, At the Heart of the Gospel. Both seem to associate with each other, as evidenced by the video included in this post.

An excerpt from Symond's article:

For nearly seven years Sr. McKenna and Fr. Scallon promoted Kathryn around the world. Surprisingly, these two writers publicly pulled their support in August, 2011. Neither McKenna nor Scallon have fully explained why and they have not issued any further public comment. However, a look at public DFOT records and other documents might offer some insight.
***

Someone also sends along some information about what sort of book A Breakable Vow is, which was written by Kathryn Ann Clarke, who is "Anne, a lay apostle".

***

This site answers some questions about Hasidism. Among the questions is this one:

Why don't Hasidic men shake hands with women?

Here's some of the answer to the question:

"In general, Orthodox Jewish men and women do not shake hands or touch each other unless they are married, and then only in private. It is not that women are considered dirty or unclean as some people -- even some Jews -- wrongly think. Quite the opposite. It is because both men and women consider our bodies to be sacred and not for everybody else's gaze or touch. ... Also related to this rule is the tendency for a Hasidic Jewish man to not look directly into the eyes of a woman who is not his wife, and vice versa. Again, this is not limited to Hasidim. Many American Indian tribes -- even matriarchal ones -- avoid eye contact between men and women in this way ... There is a tendency for both men and women to look down or off to the side during conversations".


The full answer is at the link.

Here's an article on the subject.

A summation of that article:

"The rule is that people of the opposite gender do not even touch each other, let alone shake hands, unless they are husband and wife, siblings, or children with parents and grandparents. What is the rationale for the Jewish prohibition on men and women touching, let alone shaking hands? ... It has nothing to do with impurity, or with the social or religious status of people who encounter other people ... Traditional Judaism, unlike some other faiths, regards touching as a highly sensual act. It takes the view that it is not only an important part of marital relations, but one that is only permitted in those relations. To shake hands as a casual courtesy and nothing more is the first step leading to the desensitization of sensuality between husband and wife. Rabbi Baruch Emmanuel Erdstein of Safed, who holds a degree in anthropology from the University of Michigan, states that "the casual touching of members of the opposite gender can only dull our sensitivity to the sexual power of touch." ... It has been recognized however, that there are many instances in which men and women can and perhaps even should, touch each other. This would apply to saving a person who is facing a life-threatening danger. Members of the health professions may obviously touch members of the opposite gender in the practice of their discipline, as may hairdressers or physical therapists as a necessary component in the practice of theirs ... Quite apart from the sexual analysis of some commentators, some commentators point out that an individual's body is personal, and at times to even touch is an intrusion into one's personal dignity. According to this approach, a man should not touch a woman, nor a woman touch a man, out of respect for the space of each other as individuals—especially individuals of the opposite gender who should reserve a certain level of privacy with respect to each other. ... Traditional Judaism translates the showing of respect for the personal space of members of the opposite gender into the social practice of not shaking hands. The key is not the shaking of hands. The key is respect. If we once again offered seats to ladies and opened doors for each other, we may have a more sensitive, kinder and respectful society. Far better than shaking hands".


The person sending the links applies an interesting slant:


Now, replace "touch" with "sight" and you have the traditional Catholic understanding of positive shame contra West's doctrine of "mature purity" and its corresponding practice of the "pure gaze of love".

Also replace, "touching as a highly sensual act" with "looking as a highly sensual act" - because it is. That is why when a man, who is "visually-wired", looks at a voluptuous woman, regardless of his level of purity, there is a physiological response in the man - it's called "arousal". Without it, a man would not be able to have sex with his wife - which is another reason why West's doctrine of mature purity is untenable.

And replace the last sentence, "far better than shaking hands" with "far better than staring at her with the 'pure gaze of love'".


***

A kind person sends along this link to an article entitled, The Church of Sex.

Pastor Mark Driscoll is a disgusting misogynist and false prophet and false mystic whose phoniness is blatant. Maybe that's how he hides it. And his falsity aside, no pastor, no one, has any business talking in the graphic way he does about the subjects he does.

Kevin O'Brien has two posts on this subject, The Christopher West of the Protestants, and, The Witty Atheist and his Lessons on Idolatry.

39 comments:

love the girls said...

"That is why when a man, who is "visually-wired", looks at a voluptuous woman, regardless of his level of purity, there is a physiological response in the man - it's called "arousal". . . "

That is plain silly. It may be true for some men, but it is far from being a universal.

Now if he were to have written that men are wired to enjoy the sight of a voluptuous women, I would gladly go along with that.

But as written it's nonsense, because it argues that its solely the lower appetites that moves a husband to act.

Paul Stilwell said...

I don't see the word "solely."

"...enjoy the sight of a voluptuous women"

"the sight of"

Enjoy a voluptuous woman.

Enjoy=arousal

Arousal=enjoy

So the thing that makes the difference between a man enjoying a voluptuous woman --sorry, enjoying the sight of a voluptuous woman who is not his wife and that same man enjoying his voluptuous wife --sorry, enjoying the sight of his voluptuous wife?

Wow, so the man's wife has nothing to do with her husband's response. It's all dependent on the husband's master switch that he flicks on and off according to the humbug Platonist master switch controller inside of him.

Ain't that flattering to his wife.

love the girls said...

Mr. Stilwell,

Let it not be solely. Nevertheless the article says that an uncontrolled appetite is required for a husband to be aroused. Or perhaps it's arguing that the lower appetites cannot be controlled, but either way, the article denies the habit of virtue.

Further, enjoy is far different than arousal. I can enjoy the sight of a voluptuous women appreciating her God given curves without wanting her. Otherwise nude paintings and such would be immoral.

Objective observation is not only possible, its required of us because we are required to gain control of our lower appetites.

Wade St. Onge said...

love the girls: "I can enjoy the sight of a voluptuous women appreciating her God given curves without wanting her".

And you can do so without any degree of sexual arousal?

You'll be hard pressed to find much warrant for this in the writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors - but a lot that will contradict this. You should know this considering how in your blog you call yourself a "traditionalist".

love the girls said...

Wade St. Onge writes : "And you can do so without any degree of sexual arousal?"

"degree of sexual arousal" is an unqualified term. But we do know what virtue is, and that a man can have sufficient control over his concupiscible appetite so that a voluptuous woman is not an occasion of sin.

And in fact, such control of the appetites is required of us.

__________

Wade St. Onge writes : "You'll be hard pressed to find much warrant for this in the writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors -"


Q. 56 A.4 : "The irascible and concupiscible powers can be considered in two ways. First, in themselves, in so far as they are parts of the sensitive appetite: and in this way they are not competent to be the subject of virtue. Secondly, they can be considered as participating in the reason, from the fact that they have a natural aptitude to obey reason."

love the girls said...

Adding on

the quote is from the summa I II q.56 A.1

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2056.htm

Wade St. Onge said...

That same Thomas Aquinas drove the prostitute out of his cell with a burning torch.

Wade St. Onge said...

By the way, how do you square this:

"I can enjoy the sight of a voluptuous women appreciating her God given curves without wanting her ... Objective observation is not only possible, its required of us because we are required to gain control of our lower appetites".

with this:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=14334

?

love the girls said...

Wade St. Onge writes : "That same Thomas Aquinas drove the prostitute out of his cell with a burning torch."

So? Would you hope for the same of a girl wearing a sun dress walking through the local park?

__________

Wade St. Onge writes : "By the way, how do you square this: ..."

I don't expect St. Arsenius would have accepted an invitation to a dance. But that doesn't make the Virginia Reel or the Swing evil.

But for those who argue that it's evil to look a girl in the eye or hold her hand, what can I say?

I'm a Catholic, we do hold married women's hands, and more while dancing. And we do look them in the eye.

Scrupulosity is not moderation, which is what those quotes lend themselves to, and it is certainly how they, and similar are typically used.

Of course, neither is moderation carelessly putting oneself in the occasion of sin. What we do is know ourselves and habituate ourselves so that we can live in this world.

God gave us women to enjoy. And part of that enjoyment is looking upon their form. That is why the Venus Colonna is not covered in drapes of fabric, as the prudish John Ashcroft would do.

That is why women's clothing through the ages have traditionally shown off their form, and not hidden it.

Gothic architecture and stained glass window scenes came into being because it was understood that men did look up from the ground and that it was not evil to do so.

Light and shadow in architecture are useless and wasted on those who stare solely at the paving stones. And if some choose to do so, fine, but that doesn't make it superior, or natural to us.

St .John Vianney only ate boiled potatoes, should we likewise follow that example?

Wade St. Onge said...

So, in other words, you can't square what you've said with the writings of St. Alphonsus. I rest my case.

We should imitate St. Jean Vianney's fasts if we are able. Takes a high degree of holiness to do that. Also takes a high degree of holiness to look at curvy women and not lust. Ergo, St. Alphonsus would have been more spiritually fit and qualified to look at beautiful women. So why didn't he?

Wade St. Onge said...

"God gave us women to enjoy. And part of that enjoyment is looking upon their form."

No, God gives us women so when we are married we can enjoy our wives and only our wives. And part of that enjoyment is looking upon her form alone - and no one else's.

I'm not trying to be a jerk by saying this or take potshots, but I've never heard a traditionalist state what you've stated. It is quite Westian, and I do not know a single traditionalist Westian.

love the girls said...

Wade St. Onge,

Welcome the world of real Catholic culture. I know a fair number scattered about. We typically aren't as noticeable as the Jansenists who think they're traditionalist.

I've never read the Theology of the Body or Christopher West. But a T.A.C. alumnus of mine, M. Waldstein has defended him.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/jpii_translator_defends_christopher_west_against_criticism_and_harmful_spin/

And so perhaps that is where the similarity comes from.

“This Jansenist negativity, which is still deeply rooted in some conservative Catholic quarters of the United States (much less in Europe), is profoundly opposed to the pedagogy of the body proposed by John Paul II,” Waldstein continued.

Wade St. Onge said...

Dr. Waldstein has the same problem Christopher West has - he interprets Theology of the Body according to a hermeneutic of discontinuity due to the fact that he has, like West, and like most Catholics raised in the last couple generations, either read very little of the great Church Doctors and Fathers or has discounted their teachings on this subject because they are considered "tainted by Manichaeism".

So I take it you are not going to respond to my last points by engaging the substance but rather by simply calling me a "Jansenist"? The "ad hominem" - another common response from West's defenders in the Theology of the Body debate.

Wade St. Onge said...

"Light and shadow in architecture are useless and wasted on those who stare solely at the paving stones. And if some choose to do so, fine, but that doesn't make it superior".

Let's probe a little deeper to find out if in fact you are a traditionalist - or if you are even an orthodox Catholic:

My question to you - "Is it better and more blessed to remain in celibacy than to be married, and is religious life a superior vocation to that of marriage?"

jvc said...

I'm willing to give a slight benefit of the doubt to LTG; moreso than I would a cleric. But, unfortunately, his philosophy is that of voyeurism and, like West, eventually leads to polygamy.

One man is meant for one women and vice versa. If it were otherwise, it would be true that a person could indulge in the physicality of more than one person. But one cannot.

We have to ask ourselves -- why is a spouse granted the permission to *indulge* in the physical presence of the other spouse in the first place? Because it is only in the context of marriage that a person can gain full appreciation for their body as one component of the full person.

LTG -

What are the circumstances in which a non-spouse can actively enjoy the physical presence of another non-spouse? Does this extent to any physical act? Why or why not? Apologies for the straight question.

love the girls said...

Wade St. Onge writes : "so I take it you are not going to respond to my last points"

Venus Colonna.

You ignored my example which shows us by example what is accepted. And because it is accepted gives us firm ground to examine the issue. You instead countered by providing an example which tells us nothing.

I suppose I could have said your example is an ass backward argument because it argues from that which is less known, Or I could ignore your counter argument, as I did.

And did I call you a Jansenist? Well, I suppose I did, but I was directing the comment toward the authority of those who espouse Jansenist arguments.

Further, not all ad hominem arguments are invalid or a change of subject. It can be a legitimate counter argument to an argument by authority.
_______________


"Dr. Waldstein has . . . either read very little of the great Church Doctors and Fathers or has discounted their teachings on this subject because they are considered "tainted by Manichaeism"."

Michael is capable of defending himself.
__________

Wade St. Onge writes : ". . . Is it better and more blessed to remain in celibacy than to be married, and is religious life a superior vocation to that of marriage?"

For grads from Steubenville it's typically better they remain celibate buried deep in a monastery where they will do the least harm to themselves.

love the girls said...

jvc writes : "his philosophy is that of voyeurism and, like West, eventually leads to polygamy."

'Voyeurism'? To the contrary, I'm arguing the exact opposite. That observing a voluptuous women does not by nature lead to sexual gratification. And that doing so is perfectly acceptable.

Further, voyeurism is typically secretive, which for from my position.

And 'Polygamy'?
___________

jvc writes : "What are the circumstances in which a non-spouse can actively enjoy the physical presence of another non-spouse? Does this extent to any physical act? Why or why not? Apologies for the straight question."

Let me answer your question with a few questions.

Do you think the waltz is immoral?

Do you think the ballet is immoral?

Do you think sundresses at the park are immoral? Or just look at dresses through the ages. Women's figures have almost always been outlined. What that immoral?

Because if it was immoral for a man to look and thereby obviously appreciate, then it follows that it was certainly immodest and even indecent to dress in such manner.

Wade St. Onge said...

"You ignored my example which shows us by example what is accepted. And because it is accepted gives us firm ground to examine the issue. You instead countered by providing an example which tells us nothing".

Fair enough. Let's have at 'er, then ...

....

love the girls: "So? Would you hope for the same of a girl wearing a sun dress walking through the local park?"

I'd probably just look away. But if certain friends of mine who thought I was a prude locked me in a room with a voluptuous woman in order to "fix" me, and if she wouldn't leave when I asked her to and instead insisted on staying until she was able to successfully seduce me, I'd probably out of righteous anger and God willing a strong sense of chastity chase her out of my room with, well, maybe not a burning torch, but a hockey stick or a curling broom - you know, whatever would be available in the immediate surroundings of a Canadian sportsman like me.

....

St. Thomas: "The irascible and concupiscible powers can be considered in two ways. First, in themselves, in so far as they are parts of the sensitive appetite: and in this way they are not competent to be the subject of virtue. Secondly, they can be considered as participating in the reason, from the fact that they have a natural aptitude to obey reason." (I.II q.56 A.1).

Actually, I think if you take what he says in II-II, q.186, a.4:

"The religious state requires the removal of whatever hinders man from devoting himself entirely to God's service. Now the use of sexual union hinders the mind from giving itself wholly to the service of God ... on account of its vehement delectation, which by frequent repetition increases concupiscence, as also the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iii, 12): and hence it is that the use of venery withdraws the mind from that perfect intentness on tending to God. Augustine expresses this when he says (Solil. i, 10): 'I consider that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of women, and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state.'"

... you would have to conclude that as long as man continues to engage in sexual relations, he cannot "have have sufficient control over his concupiscible appetite so that a voluptuous woman is not an occasion of sin".

Wade St. Onge said...

love the girls: "Venus Colonna"

I responded to the issue of art and nudity in the combox of my blog post in response to Pamela.

http://wademichaelstonge.blogspot.ca/2012/02/tob-smoking-guns-of-wests-theology.html

....

"Michael is capable of defending himself".

Considering he is not even capable of defending West, I doubt he is capable of defending himself - since they are like two sides of the same coin: West being the "popular" side and Waldstein being the "academic" side.

....

"For grads from Steubenville it's typically better they remain celibate buried deep in a monastery where they will do the least harm to themselves".

Now that you got your digs in on me (and probably derived some degree of pleasure in the process), I will re-ask the question:

"Is it better and more blessed to remain in celibacy than to be married, and is religious life a superior vocation to that of marriage?"

....

And now that I've answered all of yours, we'll see if you're willing to answer all mine:

"We should imitate St. Jean Vianney's fasts if we are able. Takes a high degree of holiness to do that. Also takes a high degree of holiness to look at curvy women and not lust. Ergo, St. Alphonsus would have been more spiritually fit and qualified to look at beautiful women. So why didn't he?"

....

"And did I call you a Jansenist? Well, I suppose I did, but I was directing the comment toward the authority of those who espouse Jansenist arguments".

Like who? St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas?

Wade St. Onge said...

By the way, time to ask the question that is on everyone's mind:

Why do you call yourself "love the girls"?

love the girls said...

Wade St Onge : "When I was in the art museum at St. Louis, I had to avert my eyes from one of the paintings depicting two beautiful nudes because this was beginning to happen to me." From a comment to Pamela
http://wademichaelstonge.blogspot.com/2012/02/tob-smoking-guns-of-wests-theology.html?showComment=1329073611218#c3705377629892855536

Regardless of what you wrote defending nude art, nevertheless it does have the capacity to cause you to lust.

So the question remains, why is an object capable of causing you to lust not immoral?

Or let me put it this way, I have no doubt I can find a man who would lust after the Venus Colonna. But yet there it stands in the Vatican museum.
__________

Wade St. Onge writes : "Is it better and more blessed to remain in celibacy than to be married, and is religious life a superior vocation to that of marriage?"

I typically only answer questions that are relevant to a discussion. And even then only those questions I find helpful. Or perhaps answer them if they're sufficiently entertaining to me. Your question is none of those, but it is rude and presumptuous.

Wade St. Onge said...

We have exchanged one pointillist for another.

No sooner does Deacon Jim disappear than "love the girls" shows up on the scene to play the same games.

So, I'll respond the same way as I responded to Deacon Jim: ask the questions until I get a response, and if he refuses, hope the reader concludes, as he should, that the one refusing to answer is tacitly admitting he is wrong.

....

1. "I think if you take what St. Thomas says in II-II, q.186, a.4:

"The religious state requires the removal of whatever hinders man from devoting himself entirely to God's service. Now the use of sexual union hinders the mind from giving itself wholly to the service of God ... on account of its vehement delectation, which by frequent repetition increases concupiscence, as also the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iii, 12): and hence it is that the use of venery withdraws the mind from that perfect intentness on tending to God. Augustine expresses this when he says (Solil. i, 10): 'I consider that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of women, and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state.'"

... you would have to conclude that as long as man continues to engage in sexual relations, he cannot "have have sufficient control over his concupiscible appetite so that a voluptuous woman is not an occasion of sin".

....

2. "I typically only answer questions that are relevant to a discussion. And even then only those questions I find helpful".

If you are having trouble following the logic, let me help you: You said saints who practiced the kind of custody of the eyes spoken of by St. Alphonsus were not "superior" by doing so. I asked the question because if you were to admit that religious life is "superior" to marriage, then you were contradicting your previous statement. If you were to say there was no superiority to religious life, then you would reveal yourself as a heretic - which I was going to correct you on, which would help me to prove that your previous statement was incorrect. Which would then help me to go back and point out why your previous statements critiquing the teaching of St. Alphonsus were wrong and why they were wrong. Yes - all these errors stemming from one wee little dogma.

So I will ask again: "Is it better and more blessed to remain in celibacy than to be married, and is religious life a superior vocation to that of marriage?"

....

3. "We should imitate St. Jean Vianney's fasts if we are able. Takes a high degree of holiness to do that. Also takes a high degree of holiness to look at curvy women and not lust. Ergo, St. Alphonsus would have been more spiritually fit and qualified to look at beautiful women. So why didn't he?"

....

4. love the girls: "And did I call you a Jansenist? Well, I suppose I did, but I was directing the comment toward the authority of those who espouse Jansenist arguments".

Like who? St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas?

....

5. Why do you call yourself "love the girls"?

Wade St. Onge said...

love the girls: "Why is an object capable of causing you to lust not immoral? Or let me put it this way, I have no doubt I can find a man who would lust after the Venus Colonna. But yet there it stands in the Vatican museum".

Why is a big turkey with all the trimmings, which is capable of causing me to commit gluttony, not immoral? Or, let me put it this way, I have no doubt I can find a man who would pig out during mom's turkey dinner. But yet there it is on our oak table every major holiday.

... My response is fitting: the link between sex/lust and food/gluttony is as old as, well, Eden. See St. Francis de Sales, "Intro to the Devout Life", Section III, Chapter: "Sanctity of the Marriage Bed".

love the girls said...

Wade St. Onge writes : "So, I'll respond the same way as I responded to Deacon Jim: ask the questions until I get a response, and if he refuses, hope the reader concludes, as he should, that the one refusing to answer is tacitly admitting he is wrong."

No. I only answer questions, or take up those parts of the argument which are helpful in moving the discussion forward.

For instance, you wrote ".. you would have to conclude that as long as man continues to engage in sexual relations, he cannot "have have sufficient control over . . "

Obviously I don't don't conclude that. Nor does is that what St. Thomas is saying.

But I chose not to respond because to do so would have been fruitless because I was speaking of sufficiency in the active life. Where as St. Thomas is speaking of perfection in the Religious. Very different conditions of life. And a distinction I make and you do not with all your saint examples.

And so I could have responded. But I chose not to because it would not move the discussion forward and would only lead to some other tedious comment needing a reply.

And if you want to repost your questions and pretend you win. Feel free and have at it.

________________

Wade St. Onge writes : "Why is a big turkey with all the trimmings, which is capable of causing me to commit gluttony, not immoral? . . ."

In other words, both are objective goods. What is required for both is that a man have sufficient virtue to resist either inordinate temptation.

love the girls said...

Wade St. Onge writes : "You said saints who practiced the kind of custody of the eyes spoken of by St. Alphonsus were not "superior" by doing so. I asked the question because if you were to admit that religious life is "superior" to marriage,"

A man who never looks up not even to notice a lake next to him would make a very poor huntsman or farmer.

A man who desires to forget the women he meets as soon as he can would make a very poor bakery store clerk. What you consider a perfection is a defect in the active life.

Wade St. Onge said...

love the girls: "In other words, both are objective goods. What is required for both is that a man have sufficient virtue to resist either inordinate temptation".

True, but considering there exists what is called "positive shame", women should dress modestly apart from whether or not the men around them have achieved "mature purity". Would you agree, or do you, like West, conflate "positive shame" with "prudishness"?

....

love the girls: "Obviously I don't don't conclude that. Nor does is that what St. Thomas is saying".

Okay, so what do you conclude, and what is St. Thomas saying?

....

love the girls: "I was speaking of sufficiency in the active life. Where as St. Thomas is speaking of perfection in the Religious. Very different conditions of life. And a distinction I make and you do not with all your saint examples".

St. Thomas, by speaking about how continuing to engage in sexual relations, was speaking about the active life.

So let me ask you then: why do they call religious life the "state of perfection"? Do they perhaps call it that because if we want to achieve the highest degree of holiness possible in this life, we must join religious life?

Wade St. Onge said...

"I only answer questions, or take up those parts of the argument which are helpful in moving the discussion forward ... I chose not to respond because to do so would have been fruitless".

Baloney.

.................................

So far, "love the girls: has:

(a) refused to respond to my synthesis of two passages of St. Thomas which refute his application of the one which led him to commit the error of embracing West's doctrine of "mature purity";

(b) refused to answer the simple question of whether or not he believes the dogma of the superiority of celibacy to marriage, which is important because if he is dissenting from this dogma it would explain why he has made the errors he has in his arguments, and which is reasonable considering about 90 percent of the otherwise orthodox Catholics I have encountered dissent from this dogma;

(c) has refused to tell us why St. Alphonsus did not look at beautiful women and admire their curves after arguing that is what mature Christians do;

(d) has refused to clarify for me and others by explicitly naming St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas as those authorities that were "making Jansenist arguments" after implying it.

(e) has hidden behind a pseudonym but then refuses to tell us why he chose that pseudonym when reasonably asked, which, considering its provocative nature, may give us some insight into whether or not he has a sexual obsession of his own (much like West) that leads him to practice the "pure gaze of love".

.................................

So "love the girls" says: "And if you want to repost your questions and pretend you win. Feel free and have at it".

Oh, I won't be pretending to win. I will be winning. And I'll ask commenters jvc, Enbrethiliel, Paul, Terry, and even Deacon Jim, and non-commenters, i.e., anyone else who may be reading this blog but who have not been commenting, to state their opinion on whether they think it is a tacit admission of defeat, or whether your copout of "not moving forward the discussion" actually has merit, and if not, point out why they believe answers to those questions will actually help move the discussion forward (which I believe they will and which I gave my rationale for).

And by the way, if by "help moving the discussion forward" you mean "help advance my case and win my argument", then I can probably expect more evasion, deflection, and silence.

Wade St. Onge said...

"What you consider a perfection is a defect in the active life"

Of course. But you're missing the point. The whole reason people leave the active life and embrace the religious life is because it is more conducive to holiness.

It's good for a man to remain in the active life and use his eyes to be a good baker. But it is even *better* to leave the active life completely, embrace religious life, and consecrate his eyes totally to God, thus removing them from "the temptations of the world", which, in part, consists in practicing the custody of the eyes spoken of by St. Alphonsus.

I don't think you seem to really get that, which is why I don't think you believe in the dogma of the superiority of religious life, which is why I was asking you to begin with.

Things would have been so much easier if you had just answered the question the first time I asked it.

love the girls said...

Wade St. Onge writes : "True, but considering there exists what is called "positive shame", women should dress modestly apart from whether or not the men around them have achieved "mature purity". Would you agree, or do you, like West, conflate "positive shame" with "prudishness"?"

I shall leave Christopher West aside since I have not read him, and so cannot answer any questions regarding him, but regarding a woman's dress, it can be prudish. It likewise can be shameless. Or it can strike the mean which is modest.

Do you agree that there is a mean between prudish and shameless? And that the mean is where modesty rests?

love the girls said...

Wade St. Onge writes : "Of course. But you're missing the point. The whole reason people leave the active life and embrace the religious life is because it is more conducive to holiness."

This discussion concerns those in the active life.

I don't know much about Christopher West, but I'm rather sure he directs his writing to those in the active life. And obviously every comment I've made concerns those in the active life.

Wade St. Onge said...

"Do you agree that there is a mean between prudish and shameless? And that the mean is where modesty rests?"

Yes.

Now address my other points.

Wade St. Onge said...

"This discussion concerns those in the active life ... Obviously every comment I've made concerns those in the active life".

This is a false dichotomy. The active and contemplative lives are very much related and one cannot be understood except in relation to the other.

Quit deflecting and address the issues and questions.

Wade St. Onge said...

Further to my last point: West himself talks about the complementarity of marriage and celibacy - that one helps us understand the other and vice versa.

You are being a "states-of-life dualist".

Wade St. Onge said...

"This discussion concerns those in the active life".

No it doesn't. It concerns a man's reaction to a woman. Priests are men. Religious are men. Ergo, it concerns "men in any state", not "men in the active life". In other words, it concerns "men" - period.

love the girls said...

Wade St. Onge,

concerning your post March 31 5:32pm

Let me put it this way. My comments and inquiry are exclusive to the active life. More than this simply muddies the water.
__________

concerning your post March 31 4:28pm

Which fashions in women's swimwear comport with your understanding of modesty.

Wade St. Onge said...

Continuing to ask questions of others while refusing to answer questions asked of him.

Where have I seen this before?

Let's just cut to the chase because I'm done playing these games.

Here's the reason why "love the girls" will not answer my five questions, in order:

(a) He cannot square the citation I gave from the Summa with his interpretation of the other citation he gave from St. Thomas, other than to say that the statement from St. Thomas I provided was influenced by the same Manichaeism that tainted St. Thomas and all theologians until JP2. Afraid to come out and say St. Thomas was influenced by Manichaeism, he simply says "that is not what St. Thomas means" and leaves it at that without providing an explanation for what St. Thomas *does* mean.

(b) He he holds the heretical position that there is no superiority to religious life and thus does not want to expose himself as a heretic.

(c) He believes St. Alphonsus was tainted by Jansenism and thus his teachings on this subject are not really in accord with true Catholic teaching. But, once again, he's afraid of coming out and admitting it because he knows the logical end to this is that all of the Church's 33 doctors of the Church were tainted by Manichaeism and Jansenism and thus the only one who sees things clearly are people like him and West.

(d) He does not want to come right out and say that, yes, two of the Church's great doctors, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, were making Jansenist and Manichaean arguments with regards to their teachings on this subject.

(e) His pseudonym reveals his own obsession with sexuality and the sexual value of women and it will make him look bad to admit it.

I can see why Inquisitors turned heretics over to the secular authorities to be tortured - if this is what they had to put up with it would have been incredibly infuriating.

What further need have we to listen to more? (Matthew 26:65) Once again, my point is confirmed: those defending West and his doctrine of maturity are practicing Lincoln's dictum: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt".

http://wademichaelstonge.blogspot.ca/2012/02/tob-silence-that-speaks-volumes.html

Paul, he's all yours now.

love the girls said...

Wade St. Onge,

Let me be clear. I have zero interest in your attempts to root me out as a heretic, and as sexually obsessed, and who knows what all else you've ferreted out from our brief discussion.

And although all your accusations are rather amusing, they're also rather distracting. So as a result, they are best ignored, which is what I have done.

If I inturn had wanted to go heretic hunting this delightful quote gave me all I needed. To wit : "takes a high degree of holiness to look at curvy women and not lust." March 28, 2012 10:35 AM

In other words, for all practical purposes a man in the active life cannot venture from his home without falling into mortal sin of lust.

The above quote easily reads as Catholic Calvinism, i.e. Jansenism. A heresy worse than Calvinism Because at least Calvinists in their merciless system set aside an elect. Where as the Catholic Calvinists set the bar so high with their understanding of depravity that no one can make it unless he's the equal of St. Bernard.

Or I could have done what I did do. I ignored your comment, while keeping it in mind.

As opposed to seeing you and your comment in the worst possible light, I considered you a Catholic, and took you instead in the best possible light.

What I have done from the very beginning is seek a common and Catholic understanding. And depending on how you answer my last question on swimsuit fashion there is hope for that understanding.

love the girls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jvc said...

I'm going to change my name to "Mrs. Christopher West."