Christopher West’s ideas on sexuality ignore ‘tremendous dangers,’ Alice von Hildebrand says

[Brooklyn]

It would be so much better if people would read up on this:

From Christopher’s web site:

christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=118

Regarding the connection between John Paul II and Hugh Hefner, Christopher often points out the interesting historical “coincidence” of the work of these two profoundly influential men. In the early 1950s, as Hefner was founding Playboy magazine, Karol Wojtyla began to lecture and write about the need for Christians to experience a redemption of their bodies and sexuality. In their respective work, both Hefner and John Paul II responded to a puritanical/Manichean approach to sexuality, but they offered completely different solutions to the problem. This is the historical “connection” of which Christopher spoke in the Nightline interview. ABC latched onto this point, but they failed to provide the larger context Christopher offered in his extended interview with Nightline’s correspondent. This lack of proper context has led some to misinterpret Christopher’s remarks as somehow endorsing Hefner’s views.

The point Christopher made—but which wasn’t included in the Nightline piece—was that, as Catholics, we agree with Hugh Hefner’s diagnosis of the disease (i.e., a puritanical rejection of the body and sexuality is utterly contrary to Catholic faith), but we radically disagree with his cure. Christopher told the Nightline correspondent that the Theology of the Body is the true cure for the disease that Hefner diagnosed. These distinctions were lost in the seven-minute piece that ABC aired. Indeed, Nightline made it sound as if West considered Hefner a “hero” of his, which he certainly never said. West has dedicated his life to fighting the terrible distortions of pornography. West’s “love” for Hugh Hefner is a Christian love—a hope that Hefner would come to discover the riches of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the profound insights of the Theology of the Body. To see the full context of what Christopher said visit: youtube.com/watch?v=gqRKvNX4IKU.

Why in the world would anyone ever mention Pope John Paul II and Hugh Hefner in the same breath? Hugh Hefner has been utterly complicit in destroying the gift of sex. Hefner’s view of sex is as a toy, something to make us feel good, completely objectifying it, to be used in any way you want. I for one, have always been put off by Christopher West’s style. He always sounds very sarcastic to me, and very “know-it-all”. From the times I have listened to him, I didn’t hear anything objectionable, but I can’t stand to listen to him because of the attitude he takes. I completely agree with Dr. von Hildebrand that he is very irreverent.

You know, in some ways, Satan and Jesus Christ start from the same point - they both want to rule mankind, but one wants to do so with hate and destruction, and the other with love and salvation. I don’t think I’d compare them to each other or say that they just offer “different solutions.”

God help us all.

Thank you to the OP for pointing out this article.

Mary

 

[agapewolf]

I’m saying it’s done more damage. Look around you. Look what our young people are doing to themselves. Listen to Satan’s laughter.

I don’t think you can know that. It seems in our times that it is more prevelant, but again, the puritanical viewpoint does as much damage, it is just manifest in other ways.

 

[agapewolf]

Why in the world would anyone ever mention Pope John Paul II and Hugh Hefner in the same breath? Hugh Hefner has been utterly complicit in destroying the gift of sex. Hefner’s view of sex is as a toy, something to make us feel good, completely objectifying it, to be used in any way you want. I for one, have always been put off by Christopher West’s style. He always sounds very sarcastic to me, and very “know-it-all”. From the times I have listened to him, I didn’t hear anything objectionable, but I can’t stand to listen to him because of the attitude he takes. I completely agree with Dr. von Hildebrand that he is very irreverent.

You know, in some ways, Satan and Jesus Christ start from the same point - they both want to rule mankind, but one wants to do so with hate and destruction, and the other with love and salvation. I don’t think I’d compare them to each other or say that they just offer “different solutions.”

God help us all.

Thank you to the OP for pointing out this article.

Mary

WHY? READ the article and watch the video attached. You will see it very clearly.

Read it. He says that Hugh hef has damaged things. If you think he is praising him, you are dead wrong.

I can attest to Christopher not being a “know it all”. As I said before, I’ve attended the instititue 3 seperate classes and I know him personally. He is steeped in prayer, and multiple times every day he talks about “test everything I say and hold only to what is good”.

 

[Brooklyn]

WHY? READ the article and watch the video attached. You will see it very clearly.

Read it. He says that Hugh hef has damaged things. If you think he is praising him, you are dead wrong.

I can attest to Christopher not being a “know it all”. As I said before, I’ve attended the instititue 3 seperate classes and I know him personally. He is steeped in prayer, and multiple times every day he talks about “test everything I say and hold only to what is good”.

Well, I’ve watched the video, and I have to say I cringed when Christopher West basically says that Pope John Paul II and Hugh Hefner started at the same point and just went in opposite directions. I’m wondering if you read the article that was in the original post. It wasn’t just Dr. von Hildebrand, but others:

Mary Shivanandan, a theologian who authored the book “Crossing the Threshold of Love: A New Vision of Marriage in the Light of John Paul II’s Anthropology,” was also critical of West’s remarks.

“The sublime teaching of John Paul II’s theology of sexuality is not well served by West’s comparison to Hugh Hefner and his playboy bunnies,” she told CNA in a Monday e-mail. “The late pope had a profound reverence for God’s plan for human love, which such a comparison, no matter how well intentioned, can only diminish and degrade.”

Also providing comment for CNA was Fr. José Granados, a theologian who co-authored with Supreme Knight of Columbus Carl Andersen a book on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body titled “Called to Love.”

Fr. Granados said West’s suggestion that John Paul II took the sexual revolution a step further was “highly inadequate and open to serious misunderstanding.” He explained that Puritanism shares with pornography a negative vision of the body, viewing it without reference to the dignity of the person and to God’s plan for man.

“It is deprived of its symbolism and its language,” he said. While Puritanism attempts to silence the body and its urges, the sexual revolution exalts them “as an absolute.”

“Pornography is in no sense an attempt to recover the beauty of the body and sexuality, but a sign of despair regarding this beauty and the possibility of finding meaning in human love,” he said.

John Paul II’s Theology of the Body recovers “the meaning of the body” with reference to love and to man and God, Fr. Granados told CNA.

“The Pope’s proposal is not just about sexuality, but about the truth of love as the foundation of the person’s dignity and the meaning of reality; and about the family as the place where the person finds himself and his way towards happiness.

“Moreover, one of the results of the sexual revolution is precisely the pansexualism that surrounds our society. We cannot respond with a different kind of pansexualism, with a sort of ‘Catholic sexual revolution,’ which in the end promotes a similar obsession with sex, even if ‘holy’.”

Dr. von Hildebrand says: "Christopher West’s approach makes him forget that sex is “an extreme danger.” Though sex can be sanctified, that sanctification implies “a humility, a spirit of reverence, and totally avoiding the vulgarity that he uses in his language.” "

Your post seems to indicate that you are a friend of Mr. West, so I can understand why you are defensive concerning him. When I first saw him I very much wanted to be supportive of him, but I couldn’t get over that there just isn’t a right spirit there. I’m talking about his approach, and yes, his “know-it-all” attitude. I belonged to a church for many years headed by someone who always said “Don’t believe me, believe the Bible,” but he didn’t really mean it. Maybe Christopher West means it, but that is not how he comes off.

The misuse and misunderstanding of sex is what is destroying our country and our world. And we must be very careful how we approach it. As Dr. von Hildebrand said: “To my mind the conflict between man and woman can only be healed by striving for holiness,” she said. “There are many things Christopher West does not mention.”

Please read the article that is the subject of this thread. I hope Christopher West will also read and pray about it.

Mary

 

[wanner47]

We have all started from the same point – JPII and HH included. Unless you think JPII sprang fully formed from his father’s head or something??

But really, it’s true. JPII and HH both begin by saying that it is wrong to consider the human body to be evil. But from there they drastically diverge.

 

[Brooklyn]

We have all started from the same point – JPII and HH included. Unless you think JPII sprang fully formed from his father’s head or something??

But really, it’s true. JPII and HH both begin by saying that it is wrong to consider the human body to be evil. But from there they drastically diverge.

I believe John Paul II started with wanting to know the truth of God and asking for guidance from the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe that is how Hugh Hefner started. John Paul II certainly did not believe the human body to be evil or that sex was a “bad” thing, but he did believe that it can be used for evil. I don’t think that is how Hugh Hefner started.

 

[lizziebits]

So if JPII says: there is something extraordinarily wrong with sex in society today and Hugh Hefner says: there is something extraordinarily wrong with sex in society today, how are they not starting at the same point?

That’s like saying it’s an insult to Sally when Sally says: My child needs to eat and Jane says: My child needs to eat, and Sally feeds the child chicken, rice and salad while Jane feeds her child cotton candy. They both started at the same point. One just had a good solution, while the other had a bad solution.

 

[lizziebits]

I believe John Paul II started with wanting to know the truth of God and asking for guidance from the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe that is how Hugh Hefner started. John Paul II certainly did not believe the human body to be evil or that sex was a “bad” thing, but he did believe that it can be used for evil. I don’t think that is how Hugh Hefner started.

OK, so you are saying their intentions were different.

I think that should be obvious.

What West is saying is that they both recognized the same problem in society – sex gone wrong. I just don’t see how that is insulting.

 

[Brooklyn]

OK, so you are saying their intentions were different.

I think that should be obvious.

What West is saying is that they both recognized the same problem in society – sex gone wrong. I just don’t see how that is insulting.

I will quote from the article that is the subject of this thread:

Mary Shivanandan, a theologian who authored the book “Crossing the Threshold of Love: A New Vision of Marriage in the Light of John Paul II’s Anthropology,” was also critical of West’s remarks.

“The sublime teaching of John Paul II’s theology of sexuality is not well served by West’s comparison to Hugh Hefner and his playboy bunnies,” she told CNA in a Monday e-mail. “The late pope had a profound reverence for God’s plan for human love, which such a comparison, no matter how well intentioned, can only diminish and degrade.”

 

[lizziebits]

I did read the the article.

Her opinion is that it is not well served, and that it diminishes and degrades. She doesn’t really mention why she thinks that.

I’m not convinced by her lack of argument.

 

[wanner47]

I will quote from the article that is the subject of this thread:

On the contrary, I think the example serves to illustrate how holy JPII was – and, in HH’s case, how “sin can make you stupid” (to quote Mark Shea).

Was the comparison imprudent? Most definitely, given the context and circumstances. But I think it’s a good comparison between what happens to a common concept when one follows God (JPII) and when one follows man (HH).

 

[Brooklyn]

I did read the the article.

Her opinion is that it is not well served, and that it diminishes and degrades. She doesn’t really mention why she thinks that.

I’m not convinced by her lack of argument.

John Paul II, as well as Dr. von Hildebrand and the others mentioned in the article, teach that sex is a spiritual act as well as a physical act, and that it involves much that we can’t see. Sex, along with everything else in life, has been compromised and degraded because of the sin of our original parents. To try to compare someone like Hugh Hefner, who is so completely unspiritual and of the fallen world to what John Paul II did and taught takes away from and diminishes the great meaning and depth of the Theology of the Body. It’s like comparing the teachings of Freud or Darwin (worldly and unspiritual) to St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. To do so diminishes their teachings. Does that make sense to you?

Mary

 

[lizziebits]

That would make perfect sense is someone had said that Hugh Hefner’s and JPII had started out with the same proposition (sex is gone wrong) and arrived at two very different conclusions, and that both conclusions had some merit.

Christopher West is not saying that. He is saying that that both started off with the same proposition and one got it very very right and one got it very very wrong.

 

[Shin]

For people who haven’t read it yet:

scripturecatholic.xanga.com/701670434/11-theology-of-the-body/

This is a good companion read to the Alice von Hildebrand criticism. The John Salza criticism actually reflects real Catholic tradition upon matters of sexuality.

 

[Jennifer_J]

John Paul II, as well as Dr. von Hildebrand and the others mentioned in the article, teach that sex is a spiritual act as well as a physical act, and that it involves much that we can’t see. Sex, along with everything else in life, has been compromised and degraded because of the sin of our original parents. To try to compare someone like Hugh Hefner, who is so completely unspiritual and of the fallen world to what John Paul II did and taught takes away from and diminishes the great meaning and depth of the Theology of the Body. It’s like comparing the teachings of Freud or Darwin (worldly and unspiritual) to St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. To do so diminishes their teachings. Does that make sense to you?

Mary

Comparing something doesn’t diminish what’s being compared. Comparing and contrasting are a way of grasping information. That is blue, but that is more blue, doesn’t diminish. That is blue and that is red, doesn’t diminish. Both help DEFINE.

(And btw, Darwin didn’t have “teachings”, he did have a theory, though and there is evidence that Darwin WAS spiritual, but I digress from the topic at hand…)

 

[agapewolf]

Well, I’ve watched the video, and I have to say I cringed when Christopher West basically says that Pope John Paul II and Hugh Hefner started at the same point and just went in opposite directions. I’m wondering if you read the article that was in the original post.
Mary

It made you cringe? Really? How sad. We all came from our mothers created by God. Apparently you haven’t done the research into the beginnings of Hugh Hef that Christopher has done. If you read Christopher’s book “the love that satisfies” you will see more in depth.

 

[Brooklyn]

That would make perfect sense is someone had said that Hugh Hefner’s and JPII had started out with the same proposition (sex is gone wrong) and arrived at two very different conclusions, and that both conclusions had some merit.

Christopher West is not saying that. He is saying that that both started off with the same proposition and one got it very very right and one got it very very wrong.

It still sounds like you are saying that they started at the same place, and that is most definitely not true, and that is what Dr. von Hildebrand and others in the article are in disagreement with. Hugh Hefner was lonely and feeling unloved, and also was a hormonal young man who wanted to fulfill his own desires and lusts. John Paul II was a spiritual giant looking for the truth and the light of the Holy Spirit. Hugh Hefner thought sex had gone wrong because it wasn’t available enough to him. John Paul II said sex had gone wrong because its misuse and misunderstanding was destroying the world. That is not the same proposition.

 

[agapewolf]

It still sounds like you are saying that they started at the same place, and that is most definitely not true, and that is what Dr. von Hildebrand and others in the article are in disagreement with. Hugh Hefner was lonely and feeling unloved, and also was a hormonal young man who wanted to fulfill his own desires and lusts. John Paul II was a spiritual giant looking for the truth and the light of the Holy Spirit. Hugh Hefner thought sex had gone wrong because it wasn’t available enough to him. John Paul II said sex had gone wrong because its misuse and misunderstanding was destroying the world. That is not the same proposition.

No…by saying the started from the “same place” …means that they were both reacting to the heresy of puritianism. period. That simple

2 vastly different results.

 

[Jennifer_J]

For people who haven’t read it yet:

scripturecatholic.xanga.com/701670434/11-theology-of-the-body/

This is a good companion read to the Alice von Hildebrand criticism. The John Salza criticism actually reflects real Catholic tradition upon matters of sexuality.

Actually, I don’t know who John Salza is, but he admits he hasn’t even read Pope JPII’s TOB NOR has he read anyone’s interpretations of TOB. It’s all hearsay.

<<Again, I reiterate that these criticisms are based upon what I have read and heard from TB apologists. These are not criticisms of John Paul II, for I have not studied his speeches on this subject in any depth, and highly doubt his writings convey the foregoing. Instead, my criticisms are based on the “crib notes” version of the most popular TB apologists, who claim to speak authoritatively for TB, but surely have mutilated the message. I presume the good intentions of the TB apologists, and also note that some of the TB message is very good, such as abstaining from pre-marital intercourse and denouncing pornography. But when I see teaching that opposes our Catholic tradition, I am duty-bound to respond. Thank you, Mary, for raising this very important issue. I hope my reflections are helpful. >>

So, no credibility. (he’s also against the use of NFP)

 

[agapewolf]

I believe John Paul II started with wanting to know the truth of God and asking for guidance from the Holy Spirit. I don’t believe that is how Hugh Hefner started. John Paul II certainly did not believe the human body to be evil or that sex was a “bad” thing, but he did believe that it can be used for evil. I don’t think that is how Hugh Hefner started.

You are taking the statement way too far, far beyond what was meant.

Please read my past statements. They started in the same place meaning they are reacting to puritanical thinking. Simple