Christopher West

[Joe_5859]

Portrait,

Good to see you again, friend.

I don’t disagree with many of Schindler’s and Von Hildebrand’s concerns. But I think it’s overly simplistic and unfair to paint West the way his critics often paint him. West has some pretty notable defenders, too. There are some well-respected theologians – Dr. Janet Smith, Dr. Michael Waldstein, and Dr. Michael Healy – who support West. I think both sides make some valid points and reading both sides is beneficial to getting a handle on what is at issue.

I consider West to be more of a popularizer than a theologian. He doesn’t always use precise theological language (which is what can get him into trouble). But I wouldn’t call him “vulgar.”

 

[RPRPsych]

Portrait,

Good to see you again, friend.

I don’t disagree with many of Schindler’s and Von Hildebrand’s concerns. But I think it’s overly simplistic and unfair to paint West the way his critics often paint him. West has some pretty notable defenders, too. There are some well-respected theologians – Dr. Janet Smith, Dr. Michael Waldstein, and Dr. Michael Healy – who support West. I think both sides make some valid points and reading both sides is beneficial to getting a handle on what is at issue.

I consider West to be more of a popularizer than a theologian. He doesn’t always use precise theological language (which is what can get him into trouble). But I wouldn’t call him “vulgar.”

I think this sums it up well.

West isn’t the Pope, he’s just a “popularizer” of a particular set of theological concepts.

Popularization is good, but it can only get you so far, either in science or in technology.
As Our Lord Himself put it, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” While we can always quibble about fine points, and disagree with his presentation (I do, but then I’m pretty much at odds with much of modern marketing and advertising!), if he has led people towards the Church (and not away from it, as with the many “liberal” Catholic groups), then he cannot be all that bad.

 

[McDale721]

You’re right, he does seem akin to Tony Robins; he makes millions with his books apparently. The other strange thing about him, is that it seems that he likes to be graphic. IIt also seems that some of his followers gang up on you if you so much as raise a question about his approach…very strange.

This is spreading gossip. You don’t know how much he makes.

Trust me, my wife being a Catholic author, even the ones who are “successful” aren’t making a ton of money.

Also, specify what you mean by “he likes to be graphic”. I’ve been to a number of his courses and I haven’t heard anything graphic. Is it the fact that he speaks openly about sex that is so offensive? If that is the case, aren’t you making a case for what he is saying?

And finally, about followers ganging up on his critcs, how about critics who are so adamant about attacking Mr. West that they refuse to see any good in what he is trying to do? At least we admit that his style may not be for everyone. But we don’t try to character assasinate his critics as so many of Mr. West’s critics seem to want to do to him. Who is at work here?

 

[Portrait]

Portrait,

Good to see you again, friend.

I don’t disagree with many of Schindler’s and Von Hildebrand’s concerns. But I think it’s overly simplistic and unfair to paint West the way his critics often paint him. West has some pretty notable defenders, too. There are some well-respected theologians – Dr. Janet Smith, Dr. Michael Waldstein, and Dr. Michael Healy – who support West. I think both sides make some valid points and reading both sides is beneficial to getting a handle on what is at issue.

I consider West to be more of a popularizer than a theologian. He doesn’t always use precise theological language (which is what can get him into trouble). But I wouldn’t call him “vulgar.”

Dear Joe5859,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

First, let me say, dear friend, that men are free to entertain differing viewpoints as regards Mr. West’s presentations, but I certainly would not say that the learned critiques of Dawn Eden, David L. Schindler or Alice Von Hilderbrand are “unfair” or “simplistic”, rather they are bang on target in their evaluations and jolly charitable and courteous.

However, there cannot be any serious doubt as to Mr. West’s disordered approach to the topic of human sexuality. Moreover, in his misguided desire to be with it and connect with the spiritually illiterate he has sacrificed that proper holy bashfulness that ought to be the hallmark of any pious teacher of Catholic moral theology. Unfortunately, dear brother, his indelicate and irreverent language undermines and degrades the very message he seeks to communicate to 21st. century man, as well as tarnishing the Church’s image in the eyes of the world.

As regards Janet Smith, her support of Mr. West has been responded to by those who disapprove of his approach and language. Now it is perfectly true, dear friend, that Mr. West made considerable changes to his presentation of Theology of the Body**Explained, but Dr. Smith still continues to ignore some very serious flaws as regards the *content *of the work and not merely the style or tone. To take just one example, Mr. West cannot be unaware that our lot is cast in a radically materialistic society where the cult of the body is dominant. Therefore, one must ask whether further encouragements to idolize the body in our sexualised Western culture is acceptable or appropriate from a Catholic standpoint. Alas, Mr. West places an inordinate emphasis upon the body in a debased age in which everything is already very body-centered. Again, it arrant nonsense to claim that our Church has until recent times been blinded to the deep meaning and beauty of carnal relations as the good Lord intended them. You only have to turn to Francis De Sales to see just how profoundly he understood the meaning that God gave in this sphere. He writes: “It is honourable to all, and in everything, that is, in all parts” (Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III, chap. 38).

It is manifestly untrue that the pre-Conciliar Church understood and taught sexual matters in a repressive manner and that this accounts for why modern man has rejected the Church teaching on sexuality, which has always been holy, wholesome and sublime. Modern man rejected the Church’s teaching on sexuality because of the permissive revolution of the Sixties and his sinful refusal to be subject to what was deemed to be antiquated and exploded teachings of the Christian religion, especially Original Sin and the Fall. That “whole generation with a new explanation” had come to believe in their arrogance (and immorality) that they had come of age and outgrown the idea of God. Thus it is hardly surprising, dear brother, that they hated chastity and virtue and had no wish to strive to live up to the arduous requirements of Christ’s most holy religion. Therefore this whole notion that modern man was only rejecting repressive attitudes/catechesis (rather than authentic teaching) as regards sexual matters is, quite frankly, risible and nothing more than propaganda to support Mr. West’s pet theories.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[quantum_star22]

@McDale

It’s not gossip; just go on youtube. He did one interview where he specifically called Song of Songs “glorious erotic love poetry”…that is SICK. If you don’t believe me, here’s the link: youtube.com/watch?v=OYmkDM2jFoc.

 

[jilly4ski]

@McDale

It’s not gossip; just go on youtube. He did one interview where he specifically called Song of Songs “glorious erotic love poetry”…that is SICK. If you don’t believe me, here’s the link: youtube.com/watch?v=OYmkDM2jFoc.

And how would you describe Song of Songs?
It is poetry, a love poem to be exact, and it is slightly erotic-both implicitly (euphemism) and explicitly. The only adjective that West added was “Glorious.”

1 Solomon’s Song of Songs.
She[a]

2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—
for your love is more delightful than wine.
3 Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes;
your name is like perfume poured out.
No wonder the young women love you!**
4 Take me away with you—let us hurry!**
Let the king bring me into his chambers.

…

He

9 I liken you, my darling, to a mare
among Pharaoh’s chariot horses.
10 Your cheeks are beautiful with earrings,
your neck with strings of jewels.
11 We will make you earrings of gold,
studded with silver.
She

12 While the king was at his table,
my perfume spread its fragrance.
13 My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh
resting between my breasts.
14 My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms
from the vineyards of En Gedi.
He

15 How beautiful you are, my darling!
Oh, how beautiful!
Your eyes are doves.
She

16 How handsome you are, my beloved!
Oh, how charming!
** And our bed is verdant.**

 

[Portrait]

And how would you describe Song of Songs?
It is poetry, a love poem to be exact, and it is slightly erotic-both implicitly (euphemism) and explicitly. The only adjective that West added was “Glorious.”

Dear jilly4ski,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Unfortunately, dear friend, even a beautiful book of Sacred Scripture such as the Song of Solomon, which draws parallels between God’s love and romantic love, will almost inevitably be misrepresented by modern sex obsessed minds.

Mr. West refers to the Song of Solomon as the “centre-fold of the bible”, but whilst a small number of mystics selected this book as their favourite, they were all celibates who actually allegorized it to the point where the focus was strictly on the ‘spiritual sense’ of the soul’s relationship with his God. Indeed, this was to the veritable exclusion of its ‘literal sense’ relating to aspects of human sexuality. However, the purely allegorical interpretation of the book does not really satisfy fully the exegetical requirements of the sacred text and a combination of the parabolic-allegorical interpretation is probably the best way to understand its contents. Thus the Song of Songs is essentially a parable placing side by side, like the Gospel Parables, two facts, an imaginary and a real one and illustrating the one by the other. Now, dear friend, it follows, according to the hermeneutical rules of parables, that many *details * must necessarily be considered mere literary embellishments having no historical reality corresponding to them. This is not to deny, of course, that this beautiful book teaches, at least implicity, a moral lesson on the sanctity of marriage, but it certainly does not lend itself to Mr. West’s literalistic and very irreverent interpretations that he uses to uphold his carnal theories.

The Second Vatican Council made it a priority to reach out to the secular modern world, and quite rightly so. However, dear friend, there will always be a clear and present danger that some men in their misguided zeal will go just go too far by pandering to the godless world in the process. This is what has sadly occured in the case of Mr. West, who in his sincere attempt to connect and make Church teaching accessible to modern man, living in a licentious and promiscuous culture, has placed an inordinate emphasis upon sexuality and the body. No one is questioning his zeal or his sincerity, but the sad fact is that sincere men can be sincerely wrong. What you have with Mr. West is the sexualization of our most holy faith, or rather some truths of the faith, much more than is appropriate or correct and therein lies his disordered approach. As has been well said, the chief problem with his elucidation of H.H.JPII’s Theology of the Body Addresses is that he sexualised the Christian religion rather than Christianized sexuality.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

And how would you describe Song of Songs?
It is poetry, a love poem to be exact, and it is slightly erotic-both implicitly (euphemism) and explicitly. The only adjective that West added was “Glorious.”

Dear jilly4ski,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Unfortunately, dear friend, even a beautiful book of Sacred Scripture such as the Song of Solomon, which draws parallels between God’s love and romantic love, will almost inevitably be misrepresented by modern sex obsessed minds.

Mr. West refers to the Song of Solomon as the “centre-fold of the bible”, but whilst a small number of mystics selected this book as their favourite, they were all celibates who actually allegorized it to the point where the focus was strictly on the ‘spiritual sense’ of the soul’s relationship with his God. Indeed, this was to the veritable exclusion of its ‘literal sense’ relating to aspects of human sexuality. However, the purely allegorical interpretation of the book does not really satisfy fully the exegetical requirements of the sacred text and a combination of the parabolic-allegorical interpretation is probably the best way to understand its contents. Thus the Song of Songs is essentially a parable placing side by side, like the Gospel Parables, two facts, an imaginary and a real one and illustrating the one by the other. Now, dear friend, it follows, according to the hermeneutical rules of parables, that many *details * must necessarily be considered mere literary embellishments having no historical reality corresponding to them. This is not to deny, of course, that this beautiful book teaches, at least implicity, a moral lesson on the sanctity of marriage, but it certainly does not lend itself to Mr. West’s literalistic and very irreverent interpretations that he uses to uphold his carnal theories.

The Second Vatican Council made it a priority to reach out to the secular modern world, and quite rightly so. However, dear friend, there will always be a clear and present danger that some men in their misguided zeal will go just go too far by pandering to the godless world in the process. This is what has sadly occured in the case of Mr. West, who in his sincere attempt to connect and make Church teaching accessible to modern man, living in a licentious and promiscuous culture, has placed an inordinate emphasis upon sexuality and the body. No one is questioning his zeal or his sincerity, but the sad fact is that sincere men can be sincerely wrong. What you have with Mr. West is the sexualization of our most holy faith, or rather some truths of the faith, much more than is appropriate or correct and therein lies his disordered approach. As has been well said, the chief problem with his elucidation of H.H.JPII’s Theology of the Body Addresses is that he sexualised the Christian religion rather than Christianized sexuality.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[jilly4ski]

Dear jilly4ski,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Unfortunately, dear friend, even a beautiful book of Sacred Scripture such as the Song of Solomon, which draws parallels between God’s love and romantic love, will almost inevitably be misrepresented by modern sex obsessed minds.

Mr. West refers to the Song of Solomon as the “centre-fold of the bible”, but whilst a small number of mystics selected this book as their favourite, they were all celibates who actually allegorized it to the point where the focus was strictly on the ‘spiritual sense’ of the soul’s relationship with his God. Indeed, this was to the veritable exclusion of its ‘literal sense’ relating to aspects of human sexuality. However, the purely allegorical interpretation of the book does not really satisfy fully the exegetical requirements of the sacred text and a combination of the parabolic-allegorical interpretation is probably the best way to understand its contents. Thus the Song of Songs is essentially a parable placing side by side, like the Gospel Parables, two facts, an imaginary and a real one and illustrating the one by the other. Now, dear friend, it follows, according to the hermeneutical rules of parables, that many *details * must necessarily be considered mere literary embellishments having no historical reality corresponding to them. This is not to deny, of course, that this beautiful book teaches, at least implicity, a moral lesson on the sanctity of marriage, but it certainly does not lend itself to Mr. West’s literalistic and very irreverent interpretations that he uses to uphold his carnal theories.

The Second Vatican Council made it a priority to reach out to the secular modern world, and quite rightly so. However, dear friend, there will always be a clear and present danger that some men in their misguided zeal will go just go too far by pandering to the godless world in the process. This is what has sadly occured in the case of Mr. West, who in his sincere attempt to connect and make Church teaching accessible to modern man, living in a licentious and promiscuous culture, has placed an inordinate emphasis upon sexuality and the body. No one is questioning his zeal or his sincerity, but the sad fact is that sincere men can be sincerely wrong. What you have with Mr. West is the sexualization of our most holy faith, or rather some truths of the faith, much more than is appropriate or correct and therein lies his disordered approach. As has been well said, the chief problem with his elucidation of H.H.JPII’s Theology of the Body Addresses is that he sexualised the Christian religion rather than Christianized sexuality.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

You didn’t answer the question.

And please stop moving the goal posts. I addressed the information that was in the quoted post. If you want to talk about something else West has said, please provide the cite source with context (I know I am, picky like that, but since you have been known to take things out of context in the past…). All I did was point out that quantum’s statement was illogical to say the least. (as well as inflammatory bordering on calumny).

 

[Portrait]

You didn’t answer the question.

And please stop moving the goal posts. I addressed the information that was in the quoted post. If you want to talk about something else West has said, please provide the cite source with context (I know I am, picky like that, but since you have been known to take things out of context in the past…). All I did was point out that quantum’s statement was illogical to say the least. (as well as inflammatory bordering on calumny).

Dear jilly4ski,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

My apologies, dear friend, but I thought that my post did answer the question when I explained that the Song of Solomon is not to be interpreted in the bald literalistic fashion that we associate with Mr. West and his ardent supporters. The Judeo-Christian understanding of the Song of Solomon is that it is an allegory of the love that exists between God and His people. It was clearly never intended as some sort of divinely-inspired manual for conjugal relations. Therefore, that being the case, we are not at liberty, according to the rules of sound hermeneutics, to press the details literally but must regard them as mere literary embellishments and that would apply to the passage which you cited. The whole book is a sublime metaphor of Christ and the Church discoursing with abundance of mutual esteem and endearment.

Unfortunately, Mr. West has elucidated this beatiful allegory in a literalistically crude and irreverent manner, owing to his idee fixe with sex and the body and is using it as a peg on which to hang his carnal opinions. The chap is convinced that until quite recently the Church had taught moral theology in a repressive way and that this accounts for modern man’s rejection of authentic Church teaching. However, this is utter balderdash, dear friend, for the reason why modern man has rejected authentic Church teaching upon sexual matters is because of the impact of the permissive revolution of the Sixties. That “whole generation with a new explanation” no longer had any desire to live up to the arduous demands of Christ’s most holy religion, as they arrogantly thought thay they had come of age and outgrown the idea of God and, with it, a strict antiquated (in their opinion) morality. Moreover, this whole notion that catechesis upon sexual matters prior to the Sixties was repressive and influenced by a Puritan and Manichaeist mindset is simply preposterous propaganda to give a raison d’ etre for Mr. West’s unwholesome teaching and presentations. Alice Von Hillderbrand explodes this arrant nonsense in her critical analysis of Mr. West.

This will be my final post, dear friend, but I would strongly recommend that you, and anyone browsing this current thread, have a perusal of the learned and charitable critiques of Christopher West’s teaching by Alice Von Hilderbrand, David L. Schindler and Dawn Eden, the latter is a jolly first-rate thesis and will give all the ‘sources’ that any reasonable man could possibly wish for.

God bless and may you and all other contributors to this thread have a jolly splendid weekend, whatever are your plans.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[McDale721]

@McDale

It’s not gossip; just go on youtube. He did one interview where he specifically called Song of Songs “glorious erotic love poetry”…that is SICK. If you don’t believe me, here’s the link: youtube.com/watch?v=OYmkDM2jFoc.

The gossip reference is to how much Mr. West makes (you claimed he made millions, unless you have access to his financial information this is spreading gossip…do you? Didn’t think so). Did you read the sentence that immediately followed the statement?

I’ve been to a number of TOB courses so I don’t need to goto Youtube. Yes, he refers to Song of Songs as erotic love poetry. That’s not sick, that’s what it is. Do you know what “erotic” means? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Have you read the Song of Songs are do you understand why He refers to it as glorious erotic love poetry? Before you claim it’s sick educate yourself. Have you read God is Love by B16?

 

[McDale721]

Dear jilly4ski,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

My apologies, dear friend, but I thought that my post did answer the question when I explained that the Song of Solomon is not to be interpreted in the bald literalistic fashion that we associate with Mr. West and his ardent supporters. The Judeo-Christian understanding of the Song of Solomon is that it is an allegory of the love that exists between God and His people. It was clearly never intended as some sort of divinely-inspired manual for conjugal relations. Therefore, that being the case, we are not at liberty, according to the rules of sound hermeneutics, to press the details literally but must regard them as mere literary embellishments and that would apply to the passage which you cited. The whole book is a sublime metaphor of Christ and the Church discoursing with abundance of mutual esteem and endearment.

Unfortunately, Mr. West has elucidated this beatiful allegory in a literalistically crude and irreverent manner, owing to his idee fixe with sex and the body and is using it as a peg on which to hang his carnal opinions. The chap is convinced that until quite recently the Church had taught moral theology in a repressive way and that this accounts for modern man’s rejection of authentic Church teaching. However, this is utter balderdash, dear friend, for the reason why modern man has rejected authentic Church teaching upon sexual matters is because of the impact of the permissive revolution of the Sixties. That “whole generation with a new explanation” no longer had any desire to live up to the arduous demands of Christ’s most holy religion, as they arrogantly thought thay they had come of age and outgrown the idea of God and, with it, a strict antiquated (in their opinion) morality. Moreover, this whole notion that catechesis upon sexual matters prior to the Sixties was repressive and influenced by a Puritan and Manichaeist mindset is simply preposterous propaganda to give a raison d’ etre for Mr. West’s unwholesome teaching and presentations. Alice Von Hillderbrand explodes this arrant nonsense in her critical analysis of Mr. West.

This will be my final post, dear friend, but I would strongly recommend that you, and anyone browsing this current thread, have a perusal of the learned and charitable critiques of Christopher West’s teaching by Alice Von Hilderbrand, David L. Schindler and Dawn Eden, the latter is a jolly first-rate thesis and will give all the ‘sources’ that any reasonable man could possibly wish for.

God bless and may you and all other contributors to this thread have a jolly splendid weekend, whatever are your plans.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

And I recommend that any who would read those critiques also read the responses by Mr. West and his supporters with an open mind and open heart rather than take things out of context and work to undermine the good work that he has done.

 

[quantum_star22]

Questioning someone’s motives and recognizing that there are certain things isn’t working to undermine anything. Rather it is you who are working to undermine people with honor.

 

[quantum_star22]

also @mcdale,it IS sick to mention eroticism and elevate it to the same level as the word of God. I think it would be good for you, and your ilk, to read the writings of Alice von Hildebrand. Lust is a deadly sin, so top attempting to discredit people who raise questions in objection to Christopher West. You’re basically attempting to attack people who think the “let’s tell all” attitude is inappropriate and it’s not going to work.

 

[McDale721]

also @mcdale,it IS sick to mention eroticism and elevate it to the same level as the word of God. I think it would be good for you, and your ilk, to read the writings of Alice von Hildebrand. Lust is a deadly sin, so top attempting to discredit people who raise questions in objection to Christopher West. You’re basically attempting to attack people who think the “let’s tell all” attitude is inappropriate and it’s not going to work.

Once again, you don’t understand what the word erotic means. “Erotic” is merely the adjective form of the word “eros”. Have you read God is Love? B16 tells us that God loves with Eros. It is romantic love, or more specifically attraction to the beautiful. It is in this sense that Christopher is using this word which is the correct academic use of the word and would correctly describe Song of Songs.

It is you who are assigning a value to the word that it doesn’t have. Erotic does not mean pornographic, or pornographic light. It has nothing to do with lust. It can become lust when we treat person towards which we have Eros as an object for our own gratification.

I’m not trying to discredit people who disagree with Christopher, but say, stop freaking out because he used a word that you have ascribed a value to which it doesn’t have. Educate yourself first about what it means and how it is being used. Just like we tell sola Scriptura adherents on this forum, you must understand the the context when reading scripture, it is important to understand context when reading anything.

How about you read George Weigels, Michael Waldstein, Janet Smith, William May, Msgr Lorenzo Albacote, George Cardinal Pell…I could keep going…support for Christopher West. We could play who has more theologians in their corner all day.

You seem to have this impression is that all Christopher does is talk about sex acts. I still have yet to hear a valid example of him using vulgar language.

 

[NoliteTimere]

It seems to me that West is actively engaged in the New Evangelization. For too long society has slandered the Church as an institution that hates sex. West is presenting the incredible, joyous, Truth-filled Theology of the Body. He’s bringing the Truth of the faith to those who have fallen prey to our sad society using language and methods that they are comfortable with.

I am a catechist and I teach all ages. You have to adjust your pedagogy depending on the audience you’re trying to reach. Not everyone is a college educated adult who spends his evening reading theological treatises… West recognizes that and presents accordingly. I think St. Paul would approve (1 Cor 9:20-21).

 

[iloveangels]

If it’s about cradle Catholics and sex, I shudder to think.

I was going to type more, but I think I’ll just leave it at that. ROFLOL

 

[hsmomforlife]

iloveangels:

If it’s about cradle Catholics and sex, I shudder to think.

I was going to type more, but I think I’ll just leave it at that. ROFLOL

Christopher West reminds me of the old Oxy clean guy, an evangelical minister & a new age/self help guru. I couldn’t get past all that to tell if his message was solid or not. jmho…

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I have recently discovered the oh-so-popular Christopher West via word of mouth. I have been watching some videos on youtube and I find it unnerving.

Why is he so popular?

Does anyone else agree that something doesn’t seem right about this new trend?

Because he’s promoting a relatively reasonable and positive view of sex and claiming that its the authentic Catholic teaching on the matter.

Now I don’t really buy that either, but I can understand the appeal (at least if you’re already Catholic).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Joe5859,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well and jolly good to see you on the boards again.

Many men, dear brother, myself among them, have very grave concerns with Mr. West as a popular teacher of Catholic moral theology. Sadly, he appears intent on chasing secular culture (already in a dire state of moral deterioration) so as to be seen to be ‘relevant’ and with it, even stooping to the shameful level of using indelicate and irreverent language to supposedly serve that end. The chap has fallen for the fallacy that to reach modern man, shaped by a licentious and promiscuous culture, one has to communicate and express oneself in coarse speech to have any chance of being heard. However, this makes very little sense, since he mostly appears on stage before a well-adjusted Catholic audience, including mothers with children who have had to exit in horror and disgust. If he has enjoyed wide success then it because many contemporary Catholics are driven by their own worldly desires to accumulate for themselves teachers who will gratify the tastes of their carnal and self-willed hearts. This is surely why the truth seldom gets hearing now; men refuse to listen it, having a preference instead for irreverent discourses that pander to their worldly ‘itching ears’ (cf II Tim. 4: 3).

Notwithstanding our sex saturated culture, Mr. West apears to be thoroughly convinced that your American Catholicism is Puritanical, dear friend, and this has resulted in some jolly un-Catholic thinking. According to him, previous generations of Catholics have been unduly prissy owing to a repressive approach to sexual matters. This is arrant nonsense and an attempt to bolster his own pet theories and misrepresentations of H.H.JPII’s Theology of the Body, Wednesday Audience Adrresses. Moreover, it reveals a very defective understanding of our most holy religion, for sanctity and separation from the world is a divine mandate (cf. Rom. 12: 2; CCC, paras. 2013-20-15). We are bidden to strive for a deeper intimate union with our Blessed Saviour and to relinquish all that would hinder our efforts towards this goal. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Puritanism, Manachaeism or Jansenism, but it has everything to do with the godly pursuit of holiness. A hand in hand with the world type of religious practice has never been an option for any pious Catholic, for we are to keep ourselves “unstained by the world” (Jam. 1: 27), in other words, separate from distracting and demoralizing influences.

Mr. West, moreover, has not always been a spokesman for the Pope or Catholic doctrine. At the age of 21 he nearly left the Church because he considered its good teaching on birth control to be repressive and antiquated. Prior to his departure he decided to allow the Church to explain herself. Thus he read H.H.JPII’s 129 Wednesday Audiences on the Theology of the Body and this changed the way he viewed the whole universe. He said, “I knew that I would spend the rest of my life studying the Pope’s theology of the body and making it accessible to others”. Now, dear brother, this comes from a chap who finds deep meaning in that debased sensory material, rock music, and the Spiderman III film (which he admits has occupied his thoughts for many years now). Again, this comes from a man who boasts of his own rock drumming and pounds his chest to the beat of a rock group song whilst belting out “DEE-SIII-RE” to illustrate one of his undergraduate style theology lectures!

Much more could be said, but his presentations have been well critiqued and refuted by David L. Schindler and Alice Von Hilderbrand and I would strongly recommend that Catholics peruse these very carefully. However, dear brother, the answer to Mr. West’s strange teachings is quite simple. We must needs ask ourselves, just how much in recent decades has our sensus Catholicus been dulled and how much has our standard of decency been abased by the abounding depravity of Western secular culture? Have we become so densensitized that we cannot see that someone who utters the vulgarity of Christopher West cannot be regarded as a popular teacher of Catholic moral theology? Mr. West may well have good intentions, but his ‘mission’ is, in my and others opinion, yet another sign of the apocalyptic spiritual declension of our times, amidst the worst crisis in Church history. He deserves our ardent prayers for his repentance and a change of heart, no less than the public condemnation his scandals require.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

The thing is Portrait, if the repressive views you have endorsed in the past (such as these: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm) truly reflect Catholic teaching, then the Catholic Church is puritanical at best.

Moreover, unless have you have parted ways with Ron Conte (who believes in a strict literal interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11-12) Portrait, citing a female theologian to prove anything is disingenuous.