Christopher West presents ‘profoundly troubling’ idea of Christian freedom, Catholic writer says

[buffalo]

Christopher West presents ‘profoundly troubling’ idea of Christian freedom, Catholic writer says

Washington D.C., Nov 20, 2009 / 07:12 am (CNA).- Adding another voice to the discussion over Christopher West’s presentation of the Theology of the Body, writer James Likoudis writes that West has ignored criticisms of his irreverent style and has advocated the “profoundly troubling” idea that Christian freedom rejects fears about the “dangers of sexuality.” Controversy over West came to the forefront after his appearance on ABC’s “Nightline.” West remarked that the segment, which showed him saying he loved Hugh Hefner, took some of his remarks out of context.
West responded to his critics in an October essay, saying he has read some “thoughtful” critiques but others simply repeated rumors. He acknowledged that he failed to emphasize man’s struggle with a tendency to sin. However, he said the pivotal question for him was what the grace of redemption offers “with regard to our disordered sexual tendencies.”
Likoudis, past president of Catholics United for the Faith, discussed West’s response via e-mail with CNA.
He said the response was “quite disappointing” because West ignored criticisms of “his irreverent style of vulgar and offensive sexually explicit ‘street language’” in his discussions of human sexuality. He has also failed to repudiate his approval of certain unnatural sexual practices, Likoudis charged.

more…

 

[whatevergirl]

*I guess I don’t understand why West is given so much ‘‘authority’’ on this subject. He is an author promoting Catholic principles on sexuality, that is good–but it sounds like his message creates some confusion. This isn’t the first Catholic commentator to point this out. I get the sense that so many people view this man as the end all be all, final word on how Catholics should approach the topic of sexuality. If people are getting mixed messages with his writing, something is wrong there…he needs to be careful of how he delivers WHAT SHOULD BE, a very clear message about what is considered moral and immoral for Catholics to follow, regarding sexuality. *

 

[rlg94086]

*I guess I don’t understand why West is given so much ‘‘authority’’ on this subject. He is an author promoting Catholic principles on sexuality, that is good–but it sounds like his message creates some confusion. This isn’t the first Catholic commentator to point this out. I get the sense that so many people view this man as the end all be all, final word on how Catholics should approach the topic of sexuality. If people are getting mixed messages with his writing, something is wrong there…he needs to be careful of how he delivers WHAT SHOULD BE, a very clear message about what is considered moral and immoral for Catholics to follow, regarding sexuality. *

West doesn’t have authority, but neither do most of his critics…for example: James Likoudis. West teaches Theology of the Body and many Bishops consider his teachings to be licit - others differ.

I follow the teachings of the Bishops the best I can. Of the Bishops I have had (DuMaine, Chaput, Vlazny, McGrath and Burnett…in that order), I don’t know of any of them who have a problem with West’s teaching. In the case of Chaput, West was the director of family ministry in the Archdiocese of Denver under Chaput when I lived there. He is directly responsible for helping me and my wife reject contraception, so I am personally grateful for his teaching. Archbishop Chaput is orthodox and not shy about correcting people regarding Church teaching, so I generally trust his judgment.

 

[whatevergirl]

*I didn’t mean to delete my OP.

I think he is a good writer, and he has helped many. But, if he is merely using his own style as a writer, to promote Catholic teachings on sexuality, not sure why he even has negative critics, from the Catholic side. I can see non Catholics taking issue with him, but not Catholics…I just find that surprising. *

 

[rlg94086]

I didn’t mean to delete my OP.

*I think he is a good writer, and he has helped many. But, if he is merely using his own style as a writer, to promote Catholic teachings on sexuality, not sure why he even has negative critics, from the Catholic side. I can see non Catholics taking issue with him, but not Catholics…I just find that surprising. *

Catholics disagree about some teachings. There are Catholics who reject Theology of the Body, and it was written by Pope John Paul II. He had a little bit of authority.

 

[whatevergirl]

Catholics disagree about teachings. There are Catholics who reject Theology of the Body, and it was written by Pope John Paul II. He had a little bit of authority.

*Yes, that’s true…but West is ‘re’ teaching those teachings…so not sure why there is controversy, except to say it’s in the method he is delivering the message, which it seems to be the case. Oh well…interesting. *

 

[Joe_5859]

*I didn’t mean to delete my OP.

I think he is a good writer, and he has helped many. But, if he is merely using his own style as a writer, to promote Catholic teachings on sexuality, not sure why he even has negative critics, from the Catholic side. I can see non Catholics taking issue with him, but not Catholics…I just find that surprising. *

Whenever the subject is sex, there will always be controversy.

 

[gardienbleu]

But, if he is merely using his own style as a writer, to promote Catholic teachings on sexuality, not sure why he even has negative critics, from the Catholic side…

One thing that that bothers me about West is what endears him to so many others–his presentation is base. Having read Good News About Sex & Marriage, my opinion is that the commentary about the spiritual dimension of love and marriage appears orthodox, but his descriptions about specific acts are crude and immodest.

Another troubling aspect of West’s theology is that he may not be promoting Catholic teaching. Those who own the aforementioned book can reference page 93, section 5 for one specific example. He states, “There’s nothing inherently wrong…” with a specific act of sodomy as foreplay, an act which, to my understanding, violates natural law.

 

[twf]

Gardienbleu: it certainly violates natural law as and end to itself, but West emphasizes that such acts must culminate in the marital act. If the end intention is still unity and openess to procreation, I don’t personally see how any physical contact between would be intrinsically wrong - and to my knowledge many bishops agree. Where would you draw the line?

 

[whatevergirl]

One thing that that bothers me about West is what endears him to so many others–his presentation is base. Having read Good News About Sex & Marriage, my opinion is that the commentary about the spiritual dimension of love and marriage appears orthodox, but his descriptions about specific acts are crude and immodest.

Another troubling aspect of West’s theology is that he may not be promoting Catholic teaching. Those who own the aforementioned book can reference page 93, section 5 for one specific example. He states, “There’s nothing inherently wrong…” with a specific act of sodomy as foreplay, an act which, to my understanding, violates natural law.

*Yes–you bring up a great point. That is what I was driving at, also. If West is merely ‘‘translating’’ to us lay people, what Pope JP2’s Theology of the Body means to us as Catholics, why would we take issue with anything he writes? I don’t like crude descriptions for sex either. Pope JP2 also goes into discussion about sexuality in his book, Love & Responsibility, and never does he resort to being crude. If he isn’t promoting Catholic teaching, what might he be promoting do you think? Your post really intrigues me.

For the record, I find West to be very insightful, but I don’t turn to him as my authoritative source on marital sexuality. *

 

[choose_to_love]

Wg, my experience has been that those who criticize West as “crude” would be offended by quite a lot, and would only ever refer to sex through vague euphemism.

The point, I think, is that West reaches people who otherwise would never even consider the Church’s teaching on the truth of sexuality. For example, our diocese adopted a Pre-Cana curriculum developed by West; mind you, my diocese was until recently headed by Bishop J. Martino, no shrinking violet and a champion of orthodoxy. Each Pre-Cana typically has 20 to 25 couples, the majority of which are both at least nominally Catholic. I would say 98% are already living together, having sex (that crude term, again), and using contraception. These folks are not going to listen to Alice Von Hildebrand or pick up and read Love & Responsibility; we have them for a few hours to get their attention and get them to reconsider what they think, or think they know, about the truth of their sexuality. West is not dropping f-bombs or other slang terms, and if he addresses the nature of the cruder terms for sex, it is always to contrast it to the vision of marital sexuality as total self-giving taught by the Church.

I mean, give me a break - - “west doesn’t adequately address concupiscence and the need to struggle”. Come on! We are trying to reach people who are actually contracepting, actually fornicating, actually objectifying their spouses, etc., and whatever their personal culpability may be, it is actual grave matter.

The prior Pre-Cana program, you could barely tell it was Catholic (I have been on team for both programs). I can tell you, the West program is so much better. Every time, at least a few couples decide to stop having sex until the wedding, stop planning to use contraception in the marriage, and there are usually a few tears when they hear about the abortifacient possibilities of OC (granted, I am on a great team of presenters). There is a survey at the end of the program, if you wondering how I know. But I do think the Holy Spirit is working through West.

Anyway, it is my opinion that people like the fellow in the article could criticize West in such a way that it doesn’t make him seem like a free love advocate from the sixties - - although, if that linked article distorts Likoudis’ views as much as the media typically distorts West’s views, maybe he is trying to do that. Further, it seems to me that most critics either a) haven’t read his stuff or are b) really trying to find something to complain about or taking things out of context.

Jimmy Akin had a pretty good column on West and his critics, and how difficult a job West has - - anything that is real enough to reach those who need to hear it offends as immodest those who already do get it.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but this really gets to me.

 

[gardienbleu]

it certainly violates natural law as and end to itself, but West emphasizes that such acts must culminate in the marital act. If the end intention is still unity and openess to procreation, I don’t personally see how any physical contact between would be intrinsically wrong - and to my knowledge many bishops agree. Where would you draw the line?

Is the act of sodomy about which West states, “There is nothing inherently wrong…” only a violation of natural law if it does not lead to the consummation of the marital act, or is the act in and of itself a violation of natural law? West claims the former. Saint Thomas Aquinas argues the latter when he writes that the sexual act is morally wrong if, "wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called ‘the unnatural vice’…by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation." (Summa theologica, question 154, article 11)

If he isn’t promoting Catholic teaching, what might he be promoting do you think?

I’ll give West the benefit of the doubt: he is presenting what he believes to be orthodox Catholicism. Personally, I find some of West’s statements bit too genital-centric, similar to Hindu lingam worship. He encouraged couples to place their hands over each others genitals in prayer. I would prefer to pray over my spouse as a complete person and not focus on her reproductive organs as a prelude to the marital act. He once criticized “flat-chested” images of Mary and encouraging Catholics to “rediscover Mary’s … abundant breasts." I prefer more modest meditations when reflecting upon my spiritual mother.

 

[chevalier]

Is the act of sodomy about which West states, “There is nothing inherently wrong…” only a violation of natural law if it does not lead to the consummation of the marital act, or is the act in and of itself a violation of natural law? West claims the former. Saint Thomas Aquinas argues the latter when he writes that the sexual act is morally wrong if, "wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called ‘the unnatural vice’…by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation." (Summa theologica, question 154, article 11)

Yes, I have a problem there too.

Personally, I find some of West’s statements bit too genital-centric, similar to Hindu lingam worship. He encouraged couples to place their hands over each others genitals in prayer. I would prefer to pray over my spouse as a complete person and not focus on her reproductive organs as a prelude to the marital act. He once criticized “flat-chested” images of Mary and encouraging Catholics to “rediscover Mary’s … abundant breasts." I prefer more modest meditations when reflecting upon my spiritual mother.

That sounds troubling.

Both my remarks with the reservation I haven’t ready anything by West (I’m not American and I don’t feel the need to read that anyway, I’d pick a different manner of book if I wanted to read up on sexual ethics).

I’ve got to point out tentatively that people need to be addressed in the way they will understand and keeping them listening is also important. Certain lines can’t be crossed, but not everyone is a an amateur theologist with a sublime aesthetic taste. There may be some legitimate need to be more direct, but those same people should be shaped towards a less vulgar, less base, more elevated expression. It’s a bit like with therapy: you want to understand and be understood, but you treat those people, you don’t attempt to act like you have a disorder. Again, with the reservation I can’t refer this to West because of total lack of first-hand knowledge of his views.