Today in Porn, Theology of the Body Edition, Continued

Michael Waldstein and Janet Smith weigh in on West v. Schindler. Sounds like it’s time for a symposium.

Comments

  1. Anonymous says

    I read recently somewhere mainstream-not playboy magazine needless to say-may have been the LA times even, an interview with hugh hefner. May have been people? Anyway, the jist of the interview was that hugh was making this very point-the point that he has taken sex out of the victorian age, made it in to something good and beautiful. Now, as wrong as he may be about how he supposedly has done this, it’s possible that West read that interview and it was that interview he was referring too-hef himself is saying that he feels he brought sex into the 20th century…in the catholic viewpoint obviously he has gone about that the exact wrong way, but I THINK West’s point was that JPII and hef do have a similar end in mind. It’s possible that West’s audience-except obviously for ME, have not read that interview, so they don’t get his point. I think he really had a valid point-and Janet points this out as well-that it’s a way to get people to relate to what he is saying…he is absolutely not saying porn is okay. He is just using a mainstream figure to illustrate a point. However, of course, if you haven’t seen that interview (with hef) your going to assume all kinds of things. mcm

  2. Anonymous says

    The deepest problem is that West represents JPII as saying things and having aims that he never did or had. For one thing, TOB isn’t about how good and beautiful sex is, i.e., it’s not about taking the curse off making whoopee. It’s about what marriage is in God’s plan (up to and including the eschaton). In other words, JPII was a theologian. West is more like a Catholic Dr. Ruth. (Theology of the Bawdy? Actually, no. That would imply he’s doing theology.) Sex therapy is OK, but again, it’s not JPII. (On the other hand, if he’s doing sex therapy and calling it theology, that’s a disaster.)

  3. Anonymous says

    Yes…I am not inclined to defend West in all things-I only wanted to point out that his reference to hugh hef
    MAY have related to something hugh himself said. That being said, it could be argued that it is still a bad reference, even with regards to Janet’s defense. But is there room for seeing sex itself (within marriage of course) as good and as beautiful….and women’s bodies for that matter? Been awhile since I read TOB, to really discuss well, I would have to go back and read it….mcm

  4. Another Anon says

    I think people are putting WAY too much emphasis on that TV segment and not enough on what West has actually said. I think I recall him saying, contra Nightline, that the TOB is not just for heterosexual married couples, but also for single poeple, same-sex attracted people, and consecrated people: in other words, for all people. That suggests to me that he does not regard it as being about “making whoopee.” Now, I haven’t really read West so I’m not the best one to defend him, but it seems to me that we as Catholics should take the portrayal he gets in Nightline with HUGE bucket-loads of salt. We should know better. This sort of distortion is what pratically ALWAYS happens when the Pope says anything, for example.

Speak Your Mind

*