You know how the last post touches on how the saints that are "utterly pure" experience freedom from the dominion of concupiscence and how they experience union with God - that is, in experiencing themselves more and more as impure, like a mote in God's ray? Yes?
Which means that there is no one point in time in which a person, saint or no saint, can say, "I am pure" and that the person who is "utterly pure" is one who is rather completely imbued with God - that is, who has been emptied of self, in which case he experiences self as more and more impure, like a mote in God's benevolent ray? Yes?
Which means that freedom from concupiscence, or mature purity, is one which flees from the near occasion of sin, knowing the vulnerability to falling to sin, and it knows this because of the maturity of its love of God, yes?
And you know how Christopher West defines this mature purity, yes? by fixing it as the subjective experience of no longer experiencing lust--
What, you thought that was the end of the sentence? Ha! No (in which case it would still be wrong).
It's like this: Christopher West fixes the definition of mature purity not as the subjective experience of the self as impure in God's sight (while trusting in, and experiencing, His benevolent mercy and redemption happening right now), but as the subjective experience of no longer experiencing lust when seeing a Catholic apologist's naked wife.
Yeah, West must be using it in the same sense that JPII used it.
One mature purity sees beyond the self, and in so doing in Christ's graces, becomes free from concupiscence, which is no final end in itself. One "mature purity" focuses on the self as pure.