What Does John Paul II Really Say About Sex?

Question: On ABC's Nightline, Chris West recently said, "Interestingly enough, John Paul II, long before he became pope, in the late 1950s, wrote that if a man is truly to love his wife he must learn how to contain his own climax in order to learn how to bring his wife to climax with him." Is this an accurate representation of John Paul II's work?

Answer: No. Christopher West is attempting to provide a soundbite summary of John Paul II's work "Love and Responsibility". In Section V of the Ignatius Press English edition of the book (it is treated as an appendix in some other language editions), Karol Wojtyla describes the physiology of sexual orgasm, then goes on to describe the emotional and spiritual context of physical orgasm.

The discussion of orgasm is not meant to be an end in itself, rather, Wojtyla uses orgasm as a means by which to discuss the relationship between man and woman. Specifically, he uses this event to discuss why the woman is not a tool to be used by the man to achieve orgasm, rather, she is a person in her own right, whose needs must be respected. As such, the husband has a conjugal duty to respect her needs by helping her achieve pleasure in the sexual act as well. His ultimate goal is to create in both spouses, but especially in the man, "the conviction that 'the other person is more important than I.'"

Discussion
In the Nightline interview, West summarizes Love and Responsibility, Chapter V, by saying:

Interestingly enough, John Paul II, long before he became pope, in the late 1950s, wrote that if a man is truly to love his wife he must learn how to contain his own climax in order to learn how to bring his wife to climax with him.

This is not an accurate summary. On page 275, bottom of the first paragraph, we read: "Marriage cannot be reduced to the physical relationship, it needs an emotional climate without which the virtues - whether that of love or that of chastity - become difficult to realize in practice." In other words, the man's love for his wife must pre-exist the sexual act, since the sexual act cannot achieve the goal of man loving woman on its own.

The top of page 274 also indicates this theme:

"[the wife's resentment at getting no satisfaction out of intercourse] may lead to the collapse of the marriage. It can be prevented by sexual education - and by this I mean more than merely instruction in sexual matters. ...[P]hysical disgust... is not a primary phenomenon... in women it is the response to egoism and brutality, in men to frigidity and indifference."

As an aside, Wojtyla says, "But the woman's frigidity and indifference is often the fault of the man, when he seeks his own satisfaction while leaving the woman unsatisfied, something which masculine pride should in any case forbid." Pride as a virtue? That requires a LOT of nuance. John Paul II is not a clear or particularly organized writer; taking one paragraph as evidence of something generally leads to interpretative disaster.

But the heart of Wojtyla's argument is found on page 274:

"The main objective of this education [in sexuality] is to create the conviction that 'the other person is more important than I.'...Sexual intercourse itself does not teach love, but love, if it is a genuine virtue, will show itself to be so in sexual relations between married people as elsewhere. Only then can 'sexual instruction' bestow in its full benefits: without education in our sense it may even do harm."

In the quote, West's emphasis is on the importance of doing sex "right": "If a man is truly to love his wife he must learn how to contain his own climax in order to learn how to bring his wife to climax with him."

But that's not what the Holy Father said.
Instead, he specifically said "sexual intercourse does not teach love."

The center of the Holy Father's teaching is "to create the conviction that "the other person is more important than I." THAT is the purpose of sex education, not teaching someone about the importance of mutual orgasm.

Whether one feels West falls into this category or not, it is the case that many "theology of the body" teachers seem to confuse cause and effect. They don't distinguish between the sacraments and the life lived after reception of the sacraments, that is, the life that results from reception of the sacraments.

Sacraments (such as Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Marriage or Holy Orders) are the source and cause of grace and holiness. But treating my spouse as another human being worthy of dignity and respect, living the evangelical counsels, etc., these are the consequences of having received the sacraments. These consequences can't be done well, or sometimes at all, without first having received the sacraments.

The conviction described by the Holy Father, "the other person is more important than I," instilled by the sacramental graces of marriage, is the source of a married couple seeking out mutual orgasm.

The mutual orgasm riff is just one example of how to live the important, central conviction. If JP II had written a book on cooking, he would have described how the husband has to bring the wife to appreciate a fine merlot with an excellent filet mignon, not just feasting on it himself, but going through the gastronomic delight at a pace which allows her, who has a different, probably smaller, appetite, to appreciate it with him.

So, we might just as well say that if a man is truly to love his wife, he must learn how to contain his own dinner consumption to match that of his wife's. As can be seen, such a statement would be an instance, not the principle. That is, we can come up with many examples of how to live out the "central principle." Chris West confuses the example that John Paul II uses for the principle - he thinks mutual orgasm is the key, when it is really just one of countless ways to live out the guiding principle..

Furthermore, saying "sex without pleasure is a sacrilege", as ABC does, is not in line with either John Paul II's teaching nor with the broader sweep of Church teaching. The purposes of marital sex, as JP II himself points out on pp. 66-68 of Love and Responsibility, are (in order),

• procreation,
• conjugal life, (mutuum adiutorium, i.e., man and woman live together, complement and support each other), and
• a remedy for concupiscence (i.e., a remedy for the tendency to desire sin).

In fact, as Wojtyla himself points out, Chapter V is supposed to be read in the context of pp 66-68.

The three purposes he discusses in these pages are not opposed to one another, rather, they constitute a single, complex aim. But, because there is a hierarchy of goals to be accomplished within the good of the sacrament of married life, we must realize that - as John Paul II taught - we have sex primarily to have children, thereby building up the family and the Church, not primarily to have pleasure, just as we eat primarily to sustain our bodies, not to primarily to engage in pleasure.

Now, a happy consequence of pursuing both a primary good like procreation or a primary good like sustenance of the body is these are quite frequently pleasurable. God often entices us towards the good by providing wonderful pleasures to accompany the good.

So, we often get the side effect - the joy of sex, the joy of cooking/eating etc. And there's nothing wrong with having the side effect. Insofar as that side effect can accompany the act, that's great, you should bring it in and enjoy it because God has given it.

But the side effect is not the reason for the act, nor is the absence of the side effect a sacrilege. As an example, I have a duty to eat and drink if this brings my body necessary sustenance and this duty exists even if it gives me no pleasure, as it may not when I am ill. Indeed, I may have to consume certain foods or medicines which taste quite nasty. Thus, it is not sacrilege to tell a child to eat his broccoli or his spinach.

As Wojtyla points out, when pleasure is present, the side effect of pleasure is a stage upon which one demonstrates the end (the other person is more important than I), but it isn't itself the end. I can't consume the pleasure for myself and leave none for the person "who is more important than I." If I do, I show that I don't actually consider the other person to be "more important than I."

As an additional sidenote, nowhere in any of the Holy Father's writings, whether as Karol Wojtyla nor as Pope John Paul II, does the man discuss or imply the propriety of oral sex, anal sex, sex with various devices, etc.

All of Christopher West's writings on these aspects of the sexual act are purely his own opinion, with absolutely no support from the Magisterium whatsoever.

Indeed, in at least a couple of instances (for example, West's treatment of anal sex in his first edition of "Good News About Sex and Marriage"), West is distinctly at odds with historical Catholic teaching. This is why the second edition of his book was required: it had to change the language in that section to bring it into conformance with Catholic teaching.

Similarly, there is nothing in the Magisterial documents or the writings of the Fathers of the Church that indicates the Song of Songs can be used as support for oral sex. This allegation is wholly without foundation.

While Chris West does make these kinds of statements, and these statements do, understandably, help book sales, they cannot be supported by appeals to Pope John Paul II in particular or the teachings of the Catholic Church in general.

On a related point, what does it mean to say "Hugh Hefner is my muse" or "I see historical connections between Hugh Hefner and John Paul II"?

The idea is, to say the least absurd.

First, why would he restrict his musings to Hugh Hefner?
Why not include Larry Flynt?
Or Jeffrey Dahmer?

Hefner is the softest of today's porn, and so the most acceptable, but the difference between Hefner, Flynt and Dahmer is surely one of degree only, and not of kind. For each, other people, whether women or men, are objects to be used for personal pleasure, they are not persons to respect as images and likenesses of God.

Second, if he sees a connection between John Paul II and the objectification of the person as practiced by Hugh Hefner, what on earth would that connection be? John Paul II fought against pornography, he didn't embrace it, extol it or promote it. Did both experience an "ache"? We may grant that they did. What of it? That's the fallen human condition. If we wish to emphasize THAT connection, there is no quarrel, but what would the point be?

Third, the theology of the body, indeed, the whole of the Catholic Faith, is dedicated to the exact opposite of Hugh Hefner's view, and the view of the entire sexual revolution.

Margaret Sanger provided the funds to create an hormonal contraceptive in 1951, the Catholic Dr. John Rock started working on the problem in 1952, Playboy was founded in 1953, and by 1955 the hormonal contraceptive had completed its trials. The sexual revolution is founded on pornography and contraception - the total objectification of women.

How on earth are we supposed to "not run from the sexual revolution, but complete the sexual revolution"? Are we supposed to even more completely objectify women than we already do? How can this possibly square with anything taught by Pope John Paul II or the Catholic Church?

The phrase about musing on Hugh sounds nice, the phrase on completing the sexual revolution sounds nice, but when any consideration is given to exactly what is being said, the conclusions are insane.

John Paul II and Hugh Hefner are not working together in any sense. As every book on the subject describes, as every historian knows, the sexual revolution is built on pornography and the Pill. It is not a Catholic movement, it cannot be baptized.

Communication is supposed to clarify.
But the more one studies certain kinds of rhetoric, the less clear the ideas become.
This is not what the Church intends should happen when we study the Faith.

One could argue that, given editing constraints, Chris West did the best that could be done. But is that fair to all involved?

If the interview was not an accurate portrayal of John Paul II's teachings, then we can say, at best, that it was not wise for West to allow ABC to follow him around for hours so they could edit him down to seven minutes. Either through ignorance or intent, that level of extreme editing lends itself to a biased portrayal. Anyone involved in media production, as Christopher West has been for years, knows this.

At worst, ABC accurately portrayed West's intended message during the editing process.

Either way, the interview does not put West in the best light.

In the same way, we cannot say, "Well, at least he's getting the message in front of people!"
He isn't.

Did Luther, by denying papal authority to issue indulgences, get the message of the Catholic Faith in front of people?
Did Dan Brown, by denying the divinity of Christ, get the message of the Catholic Faith in front of people?
Did Arius or Nestorius, each of whom denied aspects of Christ's incarnation and divinity, at least get the message of the Catholic Faith in front of people?

Obviously not.
By definition, mis-representing or distorting Catholic teaching does not "get the Catholic message out."
Arius, Nestorius, Luther, Dan Brown and Chris West are all very popular figures.
Popularity does not indicate adherence to or promulgation of the truth.

Chris West has a history of subtly misrepresenting various aspects of Catholic teaching.
His most recent advertisement on Nightline has done little to alleviate this history.

Further Reading:
Alice von Hildebrand Takes On Chris West


"Naked Without Shame"? Who Is Kidding Who?


Christopher West is "facile and...grossly misleading"