Is Christopher West heretical?

Adult material; I'm asking for everyone to be tasteful on this thread, as all members most often are. Also, this is not meant to really be a debate, especially on mechanics or specifics. I most importantly was trying to create awareness and clarity, basically sounding the bells.

Yesterday, I saw a youtube post which presents St. Catherine of Sienna's vision of purgatory. Mother Mary tells her that the punishment for married wrongful sexual acts are harsh. Mary tells her only face-to-face activity is properly ordered. In marriage prep, I was taught Christopher West's interpretation that anything goes as long as the husband ends in the proper receptacle. So I was confused by this vision. Then in the comments of this youtube post, I was referred to a link of a priest's article which quotes St Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori who explain sodomic acts are wrong no matter how they are finished. https://www.padreperegrino.org/2026/03/samb/

It's a concern for me that West's teachings were being taught in my marriage prep class and have deceived so many couples into grave sin!

 

It is a grave concern. And has affected so many Catholic couple's. Pope JPII's Theology of the Body played into that.

 

I'm unaware of all of West's presentations, and though familiar with Theology of the Body, don't recall JPII delving into this detailed realm, but I would agree all sodomic acts are immoral.

 

Yes, West worked JP2'S teachings into his own conclusions, but I wouldn't say it was the cause if West's heresies.

 

Yes, I also think West's opinion is incorrect. Anything goes as long as the final moment is good? Of course not! The marriage bed should not be defiled.

Modernist and even heretical opinions have tainted the Holy Catholic Church's teachings, including RCIA and marriage preparation courses. It's diabolical disorientation. To remedy this, I recommend going to RCIA or marriage preparation or Cathecism classes in a traditional Catholic parish, such as SSPX or FSSP.

Extensive clarification on the subject of making love in marriage is provided in the book "The Catholic marriage bed" by Ronald Conte. This book is lengthy and repetitive, but it does have a summary chapter and contains the truth.

Basically, spouses should love each other in a way that keeps the act sacred, instead of using the other's body like that of a whore. This does not limit the couple to face-to-face acts, but acts of sodomy are always sinful.

More details are in the book. I hope this helps.

God bless!

 

Conte is not a recognised theologian, as far as I know. This is a critique of some of his self-devised theology: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/magisteriumism-and-other-myths/

For these delicate matters, I find this site very good:
http://twotlj.org/index.html

It features the theology of Germaine Grisez, who based his theology, including on these delicate topics, on St Thomas Aquinas. Along with Fr John C. Ford, he advised Pope Paul VI on Humanae vitae. Those credentials are enough for me.

 

I am glad to hear this.
Sometimes I think Jansenism lingers like a bad seed in some Catholics.

 

God created the reproductive act. It contains pleasure. This is good, because God created it. The problems begin when these acts are done in the wrong context. Jesus Christ compacted the Ten Commandments to two, in opposition to the Pharisees who had inflated them to hundreds.

For all we might criticise Pope Paul, that encyclical was one of the greatest achievements of the Catholic Church, in its entire history. It went completely opposite to a seemingly irresistible zeitgeist.

If husbands and wives followed Conte, my interpretation of his theology is that the human race would be facing an even greater depopulation crisis than already is the case, not to mention even more broken marriages.

 

What i found so impressive was the fact he didn't want to withhold approval. He was all for it. And then it seems obvious the Holy Spirit stepped in. He did a 180 and produced that marvelous truly prophetic document. And he paid dearly for it. He was no longer the darling of the progressives. They persecuted him mercilessly from Then on. Many bishops and priests outright rebelled. The poor man was a bit of a white martyr.

 

Just added another paragraph post facto.

 

He got what he deserved.

 

It (Jansenism) always reminds me of the ‘Reverend’ Ian Paisley, the Free Presbyterian bible-thumper from Northern Ireland, who utterly condemned the consumption of alcoholic drink, describing it as ‘the devil’s buttermilk’. By his own lights, this absolutely sola scriptura Protestant was placing himself more holy than his God, who, by his interpretation, facilitated great ‘evil’ at the wedding in Cana, not to mention what happened at the Last Supper. I think some Christians posit a Heaven where few would want to go, a grim place devoid of joy. It sounds much more like the other place.

 

Like the old saying about the Puritans--always fearful that someone somewhere was happy.

 

Thank you very much for your input, DeGaulle. I am not sure if Conte is recognised or not. I recall Padraig indicating that he might be rather difficult to deal with, hence Padraig left Conte's forum and founded MotheofGod, if I recall correctly. I understand this.

As far as I can see, Conte's book "The Catholic Marriage Bed" is based on tradtional Catholic teachings, and he provides sources and references. When reading, I did not have the impression that Conte came up with theological theories of his own, but rather, he is merely outlining tradtional Catholic understanding.

In contrast to Conte, West's ideas seem to be based on new, theological inventions, as I understand it. That was the question of the opening post by IhearMary. The idea that moral theology can evolve, such that what was wrong yesterday can be considered right today, is modernist. This is how I understand the Oath against Modernism by St Pius X.

In the link you provided, I haven't seen answers to the specific questions raised in the opening post. Perhaps I missed them. Also, it could be that I am wrong or misunderstanding something. I am happy to be corrected.

God bless you and all here!

 

I am not sure West Counselled or encouraged etc married couples to engage in sodomidic acts. JPII's teaching in both its philosophy and theology emphasize the unity of the procreative and unitive dimensions. To not treat the other as an object of use is the important principle. Responsible spouses are not prevented from making recourse to the natural fertile cycle of a woman's body to space children etc etc. some have called this Catholic contraception but they are very much coming from a jansenistic perspective.

 

I think West and Conte, from what little I know about them represent two different ends of the theological spectrum and I wouldn’t be comfortable with either of them.

If it was either/or, I’d feel compelled to follow Conte, but it isn’t. The Thomist tradition has been the one largely followed by the Church for centuries, I gather, but these things weren’t discussed much until recent times and people were better off. It’s only encouraging scruples. The Church has not chosen to make very many definitive Magisterial pronouncements on these things except to state that they are licit only in the case of valid married couples who are open to life and look upon one another with dignity and respect. Beyond that, we are left to decide upon which theologians best pronounce upon details which the Church Herself hasn’t seen fit to clarify. The Church does teach on how to approach theology: firstly, one is to be very wary of laxity, accepting the most liberal theological view; on the other hand, the Church advises against rigorism, which is the adoption of the strictest theological view on any subject, simply because it is the most strict. I think, but am open to correction, that the Church teaches as a heresy the tendency to insist that one should always adopt the strictest theological interpretation on any subject.

I think Ron Conte is close to rigorism, the great error of Jansenism, which affected as great a mind as Pascal.

On the other hand, St Thomas Aquinas managed to avoid extremes over a huge range of subjects and his disciple Grisez is a joy to read on how he deals with the most difficult of situations. I’d recommend reading his volume on difficult moral questions. He won’t always provide the simple certainty of Conte, but I find him a great guide.

Regarding my discomfort with Conte, I find it hard to find any information about him, except from himself, at least on a ‘google’ search.

And God bless you too, Michael.

Another thought:

While I share everyone’s repulsion (ugh) with sodomitic (or partially so) acts, I was unaware that West approved of them, but I am no expert on his work. But, I do remember reading a report of a debate on the subject between theologians from centuries ago, so it’s nothing new. I don’t think heresy can come into it, as the Church has not definitively pronounced on it, but I think this kind of theology sits very much on the lax end of the spectrum.

 

Thank you and Malachi for your clarifying notes. This is very enlightening.
I might have misunderstood what West is saying, by having read only Conte. I stand corrected. It was not my intention to spread libel against West. I probably simply misunderstood what I read.
What you have written makes sense and is convincing. We are on the same page!
God bless

 

Avoid Christopher West like the plague.

 

I don’t think West is the best!

 

Alice von Hildebrand writes: “My general criticism of Christopher West is that he does not seem to grasp the delicacy, reverence, privacy, and sacredness of the sexual sphere. He also underestimates the effects of Original Sin on the human condition.