Aren't us men somewhat less accountable of being unchaste with our eyes in this day and age since women now are walking around almost naked and if not, they are dressed to provoke and accentuate their body anyways? Now even with a slight, unintentional glance, you can "see" things you had no intention of seeing.

The only way to avoid this entirely is to be secured and not go out into the world, but the great majority of the faithful are forced to go into the world, so you can't help it.

Women used to be covered up before, but now it's out of control.

Perhaps I didn't mean less accountable because sin is sin, but what I mean is, now you can easily see things that you simply weren't able to see before unless you were married.

So now you can get perturbed and get a lasting impression without even trying or it being your fault. You are forced to interact, speak etc. with women who are an open invitation to sin.

Perhaps I didn't mean less accountable because sin is sin, but what I mean is, now you can easily see things that you simply weren't able to see before unless you were married.

So now you can get perturbed and get a lasting impression without even trying or it being your fault. You are forced to interact, speak etc. with women who are an open invitation to sin.

I am glad you corrected that because everyone is accountable for being unchaste at any time and for any reason.

But I do agree that the level of temptation for men is insane. You can be driving down the street minding your own business and it doesn't matter where your eyes fall, you are seeing what you don't need to be seeing.

Perhaps it's helpful to remember that whatever our temptations, there is always grace to match. So in today's day and age where temptation is unceasing, so is the flow of grace for a man who earnestly prays for it.

FWIW today's temptations for women are insane too, so don't feel too singled-out! They are just very different (not necessarily carnal) and perhaps less ... straight forward. Vanity and indocility are two that come to mind. They are as pressured on and fostered in women as lust is fostered in men. Satan must know that once those things take solid root in the souls and habits of men and women, it's nearly impossible to eradicate them.

 





 

Christopher West routinely mocks people who try to keep custody of the eyes (JP2's "Theology of the Body" ya know), implying that the men who do this are basically perverts.  Maybe he could instruct the many saints who did that about the error of their ways.

Wasn't he told by the Novus Ordo hierarchy to stop giving talks because he was too immoral even for them?

As always, we must be rational and distinguish.

There are occasions of sin, and then there are unnecessary occasions of sin.

A person has to work to live. Sure, you don't turn down that job at a Catholic book publisher to keep your job at (insert worldly company here), but how many people really get that choice?

And yes, God doesn't tempt anyone beyond what they can handle.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Christopher West routinely mocks people who try to keep custody of the eyes (JP2's "Theology of the Body" ya know), implying that the men who do this are basically perverts.  Maybe he could instruct the many saints who did that about the error of their ways.

Wasn't he told by the Novus Ordo hierarchy to stop giving talks because he was too immoral even for them?

Yes. I believe the final straw was when he actually advocated full-on (but "incomplete") sodomy as an acceptable prelude to the Marital Act.

But who knows? Now that we're in the "era of mercy," I'm sure there'll be a place for his brand of perversity. "Who am I to judge?" Look for his comeback in the near future... sometime after October of this year, I'd say.

Yes. I believe the final straw was when he actually advocated full-on (but "incomplete") sodomy as an acceptable prelude to the Marital Act.

We may have to go out into the world but we don't have to read it so explicitly here!!

 :geezer:

His language was not explicit. You apparently have never seen "explicit".

The topic is another question. But I think he brought up the topic in good faith, to help us all "place" this Christopher West individual -- what his position/morals/views are, etc. That is important for us Catholics to determine. Is he one of those liberals? Should his books be avoided? and so forth.

I think BTNYC's language was acceptable for a Catholic, mixed-company forum.