Dr. Smith is mistaken. Dawn Eden has not misrepresented Christopher West's indiscreet exagerrations of the Theology of the Body. Dr. Smith, however, has attempted to argue in support of the moral licitness of marital sodomy, misrepresenting the teachings of the old moral theological handbooks.
By the way, it's important to keep in mind that this is the same Dr. Janet Smith who has asserted, "The 1st thing we need to know is God is chasing us down like a lover. Every lover is a pathological stalker. God is a stalker."For a rebuttal of Dr. Smith's attack of Dawn Eden's master's thesis, see:http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2010/09/descent-into-maelstrom.htmlhttp://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2010/10/disturbing-indicator.html
Jordanes, we must have read different articles. Where, in the article which is cited in this post, does Dr Smith "attempt to argue in support of the moral licitness of marital sodomy"?The 1st thing we need to know is God is chasing us down like a lover. Every lover is a pathological stalker. God is a stalker."Would you please give a link to where Dr Smith said this.I am reminded of Francis Thompson's Hound of Heaven where God is likened to a hound chasing him down.Just as the bible must be read according to the various senses so too prose. Francis Thompson is not calling God a dog literally but is referring to God's desire for him in a poetic way. So too I suspect, is Dr Smith.
Christopher West was the one who showed me how far JPII had strayed from Scripture and traditional church teaching re: male headship. At first I thought West was misinterpreting JPII, who was supposed to be the conservative Catholic's hero. Turns out he wasn't. JPII was way off base. And the fact that so many allegedly conservative Catholics were so quick to adopt his clearly unbiblical positions was just one more argument against Catholicism. The truth is that James White and company are on to something in their argument about the "magisterium of the moment."
"The truth is that James White and company are on to something in their argument about the "magisterium of the moment."Of course they are. We all want certainty, and overstate the emphatic truthfulness of things. As they do with the five points. They are deductions, not biblical statements. For Christians, what is clear is Christ's sacrificial death for their sins. Not whether JPII got headship right, for pete's sake. Or even contraception or inerrancy. But the Church's claim to authority is what gives the foundational doctrines, the Çreed, their reliability. You either believe t, or you don't (to one degree or another). So all the lesser arguments are fun and have impact, but they don't really prove anything more than we have to accept some degree of tentativeness, and believe and live as best we can. Either elevating intuition and common sense, or letting those land us in the Church or under a Protestant pulpit, etc.It is sort of the better safe than sorry line, which always bothered me, but does seem true. As for West, part of the issue with him is his own dogmatic assertions and program-heavy attitude about how bona fide his newer approach is... regardless of the gender roles specific.
Post a Comment