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
