Christopher West presents ‘profoundly troubling’ idea of Christian sexual freedom

[Roman_Army]

catholicnewsagency.com/images/logonew2color.gif

Home » News » US

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**… (Continued, click here!**)

Yeah, in my humble opinion, Christopher West is probably not the ideal preacher to take too seriously about this stuff. According to what I saw in the Nightline interview, he seems to like to mix secular pop culture with the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics. I know that the great Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand called him out on it. Now, I don’t know much of what he teaches and what it is meant by “unnatural sexual practices” that Christopher West supports. Can anyone explain that to me? Does he support anal sex, oral sex, lustful sightseeing or something like that which has drawn criticism? What do you people think about this?

 

[choose_to_love]

1. If you do not know his stuff, you should probably wait until you have some familiarity with it before forming an opinion.
2. If the Nightline interview is the extent of your knowledge, listen to or watch it again. I think most of the items you will find objectionable are the voice over of the reporter, not what West himself says.
3. I have seen some of A. Van Hildebrand’s comments, and it is not clear to me that she has ever heard him speak or read any of his books.
4. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5255794#post5255794 Post # 16 and following
5. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5080827#post5080827 Post #2 and following
6. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5966400#post5966400 Post #10 and following

for my earlier thoughts on this.

 

[1ke]

Now, I don’t know much of what he teaches {…} What do you people think about this?

Here we go again.

What do I think?

I think you should study what he teaches before you go casting stones. You admit you are unfamiliar with his works yet you form opinions about them. His works all have an imprimatur and nihil obstat. His “Good News About Sex and Marriage” has a forward by Archibishop Chaput. One of his works has imprimatur by Cardinal Rigali. These are highly regarded and emminently qualified bishops. I don’t get why people try to discredit his work which has been reviewed by such honorable men.

Dr. Janet Smith also endorses West’s works as “completely sound.” Dr. Smith is no light-weight in moral theology. She is highly regarded and completely orthodox.

 

[Transformer]

1. If you do not know his stuff, you should probably wait until you have some familiarity with it before forming an opinion.

1. If the Nightline interview is the extent of your knowledge, listen to or watch it again. I think most of the items you will find objectionable are the voice over of the reporter, not what West himself says.

1. I have seen some of A. Van Hildebrand’s comments, and it is not clear to me that she has ever heard him speak or read any of his books.

1. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…94#post5255794 Post # 16 and following

1. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…27#post5080827 Post #2 and following

1. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…00#post5966400 Post #10 and following

for my earlier thoughts on this.

I second this. Criticisms of West generally involve one of the following:

1. Criticisms based on misrepresentations of him from that damn video.
2. Claims that the language he uses is vulgar. I call it honest and frank; euphemisms are a waste.
3. Claims that the Church teaches that oral and anal sex as foreplay to intercourse are immoral. The Church does not teach that; that is some individuals’ prudential judgment and they should admit it.
4. Very vague criticisms about his not treating sexual temptation and concupiscence seriously enough. West admitted publicly that he perhaps didn’t give them enough emphasis in his earlier works, but really, he has always treated them pretty damn seriously.

 

[Roman_Army]

Okay, thank you all for your comments. Yes, I should learn more about his materials before forming an opinion. My opinion was merely based on what I’ve read and heard from others criticizing his treatment of the subject and also the Nightline interview in which I did not like what I saw. Specifically, I did not like how he appeared to be praising Hugh Hefner and comparing him to Pope John Paul II.

In regards to the moral question of anal sex or oral sex as foreplay before fertile intercourse, I’m not sure what my opinion is on that. I was hoping someone more knowledgeable on the topic could explain the morality or immorality of that. Would that go against Pope Paul VI’s prohibition of “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means,” (Humanae Vitae, No. 14)? Or is this clause solely intended for contraceptive devices (e.g. pill or condom)?

 

[Argh]

1. Mr. West explains the whole Hugh Hefnar thing better during his presentations than in writing. You pretty much have to hear it from him to make sense, and it does, actually.
2. Irreverent? Let’s back up a bit. Mr. West isn’t trying to educate people, by and large, who understand the reverence of the human body and human sexuality. If they did…well you get the idea. You first have to understand why sexuality is sacred, that’s the beginning of Mr. West’s ideas.
3. Mr. West is trying to educate people who, again by and large, have grown up with the wrong understanding of the Church’s teachings on sexuality if they’ve grown up in the Church at all. The reason that he comes across as a populist is because he is one. He has to preach to an audience who may or may not have any idea what *Humane Vitae *is (did I spell that right?) let alone people who have read it.
4. I have yet to see any other theologian try to bring Blessed JP2’s (he is “Blessed” now, right?) and the rest of the Church’s teachings to a mainstream audience. Who is A. Van Hildebrand and why isn’t he or she touring college campuses like Mr. West is?
5. Have these people actually read what Mr. West has to say about things like oral sex? If they have, then why do they keep saying that Mr. West says they’re totally acceptable?

 

[m134e5]

1. Mr. West explains the whole Hugh Hefner thing better during his presentations than in writing. You pretty much have to hear it from him to make sense, and it does, actually.

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand is a respected theologian (and was one long before Christopher West’s time), lecturer, and author. Her late husband and former teacher (before they were married), Dietrich von Hildebrand was referred to by Pope John Paul II as “one of the great ethicists of the 20th century”. No international figure as prominent as John Paul II talks that way about Christopher West. This incident was not just some out-of-touch old lady complaining. I am sure West studied her and her husband’s writings at some point in his theological studies (or research- especially books such as “By Love Refined”, by Alice von Hildebrand, and “Man, Woman, and the Meaning of Love”, by Dietrich von Hildebrand. Dr. Alice von Hildebrand knows her theology- when she expresses public concern about someone’s theology, she deserves to be listened to. She isn’t alone here either- there are other theologians who share her concerns (though they are lesser-known- most of them are simply people who loved their faith enough to go to college to learn as much as they can about the faith- who ended up with a theology degree).

1. Mr. West is trying to educate people who, again by and large, have grown up with the wrong understanding of the Church’s teachings on sexuality if they’ve grown up in the Church at all. The reason that he comes across as a populist is because he is one. He has to preach to an audience who may or may not have any idea what *Humane Vitae *is (did I spell that right?) let alone people who have read it.

Christopher West does good things. He has helped people, and people look up to him- that is why it is particularly important that he be very clear on what he is saying. He was not clear enough for Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, so I suspect he, at least at times, has not always been clear enough for the people he is trying to reach- only they do not know any better, so they don’t ask for clarification.

1. I have yet to see any other theologian try to bring Blessed JP2’s…and the rest of the Church’s teachings to a mainstream audience.

John Paul II, as much as I have learned to love him over the past year or so, has not been beatified by the Church yet- it is not proper to call him “Blessed”. Just because nobody else has brought John Paul II’s writings to a mainstream audience doesn’t mean Christopher West has done a great job.

(he is “Blessed” now, right?)

No!!! I think he will be in the spring, but it isn’t formal yet. I want him to be beatified (and eventually canonized) too, but let’s not get carried away…

Who is A. Van Hildebrand and why isn’t he or she touring college campuses like Mr. West is?

To explain why she is not touring college campuses like Christopher West is, all I can say is that this is not something 86-year-old women typically do. She’s done some things on EWTN, she writes, and I’m sure she has other speaking engagements from time to time- but it is not fair to expect her to go speak at college campuses all over the place at her age. She taught for many years, she gave lectures, she has talked on EWTN- and has had a series or two as well. She has already done so much for the Church. I am not about to ask her for more.

 

[manualman]

Bishop Chaput doesn’t hand out Imprimaturs to just anybody who volunteers. Those who wish to criticize West had better realize that their criticism effectively applies to Bishop Chaput as well. Gulp.

 

[rlg94086]

Bishop Chaput doesn’t hand out Imprimaturs to just anybody who volunteers. Those who wish to criticize West had better realize that their criticism effectively applies to Bishop Chaput as well. Gulp.

Yep. More than an imprimatur though…West was director of the Marriage and Family Office for the Denver Archdiocese, so he used to work directly for Archbishop Chaput.

However, I think Catholics can still criticize his work.

 

[masha]

I don’t like Christopher West’s writing. His style is generally bad, and his ideas are weak - but I’m not sure if that’s because he has a very low opinion of the average person’s intelligence and it trying to write for that audience, or because he himself is uncertain about his topic.

I think his ideas are troubing, because they’re not fully formed, or perhaps just not properly expressed. I would definately trust Dr. Hildebrand over Mr. West.

All that said, his ideas of oral and anal sex aren’t directly against the Church’s teaching, though he fails to elaborate on the issues inherent in engaging in anal sex prior to normal sex - mainly, how to proceed naturally from anal to vaginal intercourse without contamination.

I don’t think he’s being intentionally vague or crass, I think he is (at least he seems) very “young” in his opinions, I’m sure this helps his appeal - he’s very enthusiastic. I am disturbed though that he doesn’t seem willing to accept critique - but that may be a misunderstanding between West and Likoudis.

I think we should remember that just because someone is Catholic - and trying his best to be a faithful Catholic, does not mean we should ever listen uncritically to his opinions - imprimatur or none.

Blessings,
Masha

 

[MercyMia]

I think what Christopher West has done is great…he made the teachings of the Church and JPII available to an audience that otherwise probably would have never stumbled upon them. He had made very traditional and foreign ideas to our worldly culture accessible. I agree, he does not present the ideas with the total reverence they deserve, but that is because our culture would not recognize reverence if it bit them on the nose. He brings it to a level they can understand and so many people have had their world turned upside down and facing up towards God again as a result. I do not think Christopher West should be the end point for anyone…but an invitation to delve deeper into the writings of the Church on the subject.

 

[manualman]

I think we should remember that just because someone is Catholic - and trying his best to be a faithful Catholic, does not mean we should ever listen uncritically to his opinions - imprimatur or none.

Now we are getting closer to constructive criticism and further away from the negativism you opened with. There are certainly two errors we can make in response to teachers:

1. Insufficient scrutiny which can allow the wolf to enter wearing the sheep’s wool.
2. Excessive negativism in which the perfect becomes the enemy of the excellent.

I suggest that most of West’s critics are of the latter persuasion. By similar logic, I could cite evidence of mysoginy and anti-semitism as reasons people shouldn’t read St. Thomas Aquinas. No, West is not Aquinas, nor even close. But absurd examples often make a point clearer. The perfect should never be the enemy of the excellent (or even the very good).

 

[masha]

Manualman,

I’m sorry, rereading my post I did sound pretty negative. I didn’t mean to. I was trying to quickly say my reasons for disliking C. West’s writing.

I don’t think though, that you can compare Aquinas and West in any way, though, because Aquinas understood what he was trying to say, West doesn’t - he hasn’t fully formed his own opinion. Its definately not a flaw unique to West though - most writers now - even in Catholic circles, seem to react first - they read Theology of the Body, and are so excited they write about it - to explain it to everyone else, before internalizing the actual ideas involved. When they do this, they make mistakes, because they don’t really understand what they’re trying to teach. Which makes our tendency of accepting everything written by C. West or other authors more problematic than it would be otherwise.

I studied the Theology of the Body - the original, before reading C. West, and while I don’t think I’m anywhere near a full appreciation of it, I was extremely disappointed by West’s version of the Theology of the Body.

I wouldn’t say that I’m trying to make “the perfect the enemy of the excellent” because the authentic Theology of the Body is not perfect - and C. West’s understanding of it is far from excellent (or even very good). Even if it were, we would be called upon to critique him in such a way as to encourage him to continue on to perfection. Heaping undiluted praise on his current efforts only encourages stagnation.

I don’t want - in an effort to avoid my earlier negativity - to ignore the good aspects of his work. He has made the idea of a Theology of the Body more common among American Catholics, and he has tried very hard to defend chastity, as well as authentic sexual love. I’m glad that he is so very passionate about sharing his obivous enthusiasm for the faith, and I do think that I would like him as a person - I think he would be able to offer a lot in terms of discussion. I do think that I can understand why he’s reacting defensively to criticism from his fellow Catholics - I would prefer they criticism him in private - perhaps open a dialogue with him instead of making a statement to the media.

Thomas Aquinas (saintly as he is) has his flaws as well - and that is why we should never simply accept something simply because it is said, or written by a Saint, or Pope - or because it has an imprimatur. Unless it is something specifically required for our faith - we can and should choose and reject what strikes a false chord within us. Passive acceptance has never been, and should never be a part of Catholic tradition.

I hope this helps you understand a bit more where I’m coming from - and, again, sorry for the earlier negativity - thanks for calling me on it and giving me a chance to clarify.

Blessings,
Masha

 

[manualman]

Well said. Thanks.

 

[miguel]

Manualman,

I’m sorry, rereading my post I did sound pretty negative. I didn’t mean to. I was trying to quickly say my reasons for disliking C. West’s writing.

I don’t think though, that you can compare Aquinas and West in any way, though, because Aquinas understood what he was trying to say, West doesn’t - he hasn’t fully formed his own opinion. Its definately not a flaw unique to West though - most writers now - even in Catholic circles, seem to react first - they read Theology of the Body, and are so excited they write about it - to explain it to everyone else, before internalizing the actual ideas involved. When they do this, they make mistakes, because they don’t really understand what they’re trying to teach. Which makes our tendency of accepting everything written by C. West or other authors more problematic than it would be otherwise.

I studied the Theology of the Body - the original, before reading C. West, and while I don’t think I’m anywhere near a full appreciation of it, I was extremely disappointed by West’s version of the Theology of the Body.

I wouldn’t say that I’m trying to make “the perfect the enemy of the excellent” because the authentic Theology of the Body is not perfect - and C. West’s understanding of it is far from excellent (or even very good). Even if it were, we would be called upon to critique him in such a way as to encourage him to continue on to perfection. Heaping undiluted praise on his current efforts only encourages stagnation.

I don’t want - in an effort to avoid my earlier negativity - to ignore the good aspects of his work. He has made the idea of a Theology of the Body more common among American Catholics, and he has tried very hard to defend chastity, as well as authentic sexual love. I’m glad that he is so very passionate about sharing his obivous enthusiasm for the faith, and I do think that I would like him as a person - I think he would be able to offer a lot in terms of discussion. I do think that I can understand why he’s reacting defensively to criticism from his fellow Catholics - I would prefer they criticism him in private - perhaps open a dialogue with him instead of making a statement to the media.

Thomas Aquinas (saintly as he is) has his flaws as well - and that is why we should never simply accept something simply because it is said, or written by a Saint, or Pope - or because it has an imprimatur. Unless it is something specifically required for our faith - we can and should choose and reject what strikes a false chord within us. Passive acceptance has never been, and should never be a part of Catholic tradition.

I hope this helps you understand a bit more where I’m coming from - and, again, sorry for the earlier negativity - thanks for calling me on it and giving me a chance to clarify.

Blessings,
Masha

It is very well said. It reminds me of another flap a couple years back when the New Oxford Review criticized some of Scott Hahn’s writings. Some good people went ballistic. How dare anyone criticize anything written by Scott Hahn…as if the NOR had called everything he had written into question. No one in this life is perfect and no one’s work is entirely above criticism. What did Aquinas say of his own work at the end of his life?

 

[manualman]

There is a profound difference in intent and effect between construcive criticism and denunciation. Sadly, it is not always easy to tell the difference in written communication.

Thus the flaps in matters of both West and Hahn. Both would be the first to admit they have a lot to learn. Neither deserves to be denounced or trivialized.

Enough on this from me.

 

[rlg94086]

There is a profound difference in intent and effect between construcive criticism and denunciation. Sadly, it is not always easy to tell the difference in written communication.

Thus the flaps in matters of both West and Hahn. Both would be the first to admit they have a lot to learn. Neither deserves to be denounced or trivialized.

Enough on this from me.

Well said. I know when one of the flaps regarding Hahn and “traditionalists” came up, I contacted Hahn…well, one of his assistants …and got the issue clarified. Going to the source seems to work well. I’m not sure why most people don’t try that.