I like West; I’m not persuaded. I love and respect Alice (and Dietrich) von Hildebrand, and especially realist phenomenology, but as the medievals say, the appeal to human authority is the weakest of all arguments, and I have to decide what to believe based on Dr. von Hildebrand’s arguments, not her name and her (well deserved) reputation.
I think Christopher West would agree with everything Dr. von Hildebrand actually says in this article: that the “intimate sphere” is “very mysterious, very profound, something that has a direct relationship with God,” and that fighting concupiscence “is something that calls for holiness, which very few of us achieve. It is a sheer illusion to believe that by some sort of new technique we can find the solution to the problem.” Dr. von Hildebrand says a number of things about original sin, concupiscence, and seeking holiness that I’m sure West would wholeheartedly agree with (and some of which he discusses specifically), and then says that “there are many things Christopher West does not mention.” What exactly does she mean?
My sense is this: Dr. von Hildebrand’s criticisms of West aren’t about what he says specifically, but about (1) his emphases and (2) his “vulgar” language when discussing the mystery of sex.
As for criticism one, West does say that sex is profoundly mysterious, that concupiscence is extremely dangerous, and that sexual sins are extremely difficult to overcome and can only be fought by seeking holiness. But it seems that Dr. von Hildebrand would have him talk about those things much more, or make them the whole focus of his catechesis.
I don’t hold with that objection because one speaker–one interpreter–cannot be all things to all people. If West were Catholics’ one and only source for a human and a Christian understanding of the profound mystery of sexuality, then I might be concerned that West doesn’t talk more about mystery, concupiscence, and extreme danger. Likewise, if he didn’t even mention those things, I would be concerned. But he isn’t and shouldn’t be our sole source of information about human sexuality, and so his difference in emphasis is perfectly fine. The topics he does emphasize are quite important too, especially for people new to JPII’s ToB.
On the topic of the language West uses to discuss human sexuality, I simply cannot believe that speaking frankly and openly about sexuality and sexual acts, without any euphemism, is being inappropriate or vulgar or disrespectful oft the profound mystery of human sexuality. I don’t think West’s terminology is perverse. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with simply calling a vagina a vagina, or using the most basic, straightforward term possible to refer to recreational sex from a (perverse) man’s perspective (“getting laid”). I intend to speak frankly about sensitive topics until the day I die, including topics that involve the beautiful holiness of God or profound mystery, or even serious temptation to sin. Clarity, humility-in-language. Virtues West possesses as a writer and as a catechist.
Finally, on the topic of the Hugh Hefner comparison. It is my understanding that West compared Hugh Hefner to JPII only in the sense that they both sought an antidote to the destructive force of Puritanism and a way of filling the empty hole in their hearts, with JPII illuminating the correct solution and Hefner embracing an even deeper depravity that that which he sought to address. Now, this is a pet peeve of mine. People often react violently to comparisons involving a really evil person (or thing) on one side: “How can you even say that! How can you even compare those two!?” It’s easy. Lots of comparisons of that sort are perfectly valid, and more importantly, they are not disrespectful. For instance: Satan is like God in being pure spirit (the Incarnation notwithstanding). There, I compared Satan to God, and it was a perfectly apt comparison, and it wasn’t at all disrespectful, because I was only comparing them in one very limited sense, and absolutely in no other sense. The very same logic applies to the JPII/Hefner comparison: it is neither inaccurate nor disrespectful; it is perfectly apt (if I have understood West correctly). I know it’s a very serious (downright ridiculous, probably) charge to accuse Alice von Hildebrand of sloppy philosophy, but in this particular interview she seems to have forgotten this important truth about how comparisons work.
Finally, a quick note on “the pansexualism that surrounds our society” mentioned in the article. I agree wholeheartedly with this point: there are much more important things than sex, people in the contemporary West have a ridiculous obsession with sex, and even among serious, orthodox Catholics this obsession lingers (note young Catholics who talk about ToB more than any other point of doctrine). Does West contribute to this problem? Of course he does; he’s a ToB speaker! His calling is to speak about human sexuality, of course he’s going to draw people’s minds to that topic more often than otherwise! In fact, the better a job he does as a chastity speaker, the more he will lead unguarded minds into this particular trap. That’s just the name of the game. And West specifically talks about this obsessive oversexualization and how dangerous it is, so he’s doing his part to fight it even as his job unfortunately but necessarily encourages it sometimes.
In conclusion, nothing in this article shakes my trust in Christopher West. I don’t mean to claim that he is the best interpreter of ToB; he very well may be outclassed by a number of other writers. But I find nothing seriously objectionable in his work.
Most of the times, we aren’t even well informed and jump into conclusions.
