Christopher West's Theology of the Body

  • Thread starter Thread starter canadianguy1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

canadianguy1143

Guest
headlinebistro.com/hb/en/news/west_schindler2.html

I had no idea that he made the following statements:
West’s work has involved suggesting that a man and woman bless their genitals before making love; blessing the ovaries of women in his classes; advising young men in college and the seminary to look at their naked bodies in the mirror daily in order to overcome shame; using phallic symbolism to describe the Easter candle; criticizing “flat-chested” images of Mary in art while encouraging Catholics to “rediscover Mary’s … abundant breasts” (Crisis, March 2002); referring to the “bloodied membrane” of the placenta as a “tabernacle” (Colorado Catholic Herald, 12/22/06); stating that, while “there are some important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked,” “there’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse," (Good News About Sex and Marriage, 1st ed., emphasis in original), though qualifying this in the revised edition and stressing the subjective dangers of lust in such activity; and, on Nightline, praising Hugh Hefner for helping rescue sex from prudish Victorian attitudes, saying that there are “very profound historical connections between Hefner and John Paul II,” while emphasizing that John Paul II took the sexual revolution further and in the right direction.
Click to expand...
As a person who likes reading Theology of the Body, I think I am going to back off reading Christopher West and stick to Steve Kellmeyer.
 
bookgirl32 said:
I would check the context of the quotes the article is pointing out. This article, at the very least, sounds like an opinion piece.
Click to expand...
No offense but his criticisms are very clear cut and shouldn’t be dismissed just because it his opinion, after all Christopher West only offers his opinion on Theology of the Body. I would also point out that West is not a scholar or theologian so I would trust others to provide a proper interpretation of TB more than him.
 
I always thought that Christopher West was orthodox in his views. Maybe I was wrong. I don’t really know. Regardless, I hope that Christopher West is orthodox in his views. Do his books carry an imprimatur or nihil obstat? 🤷:confused:
 
Why not stick with JPII? With all respect to West, it is NOT Christopher West’s Theology of the Body. JPII may be difficult, but his teachings are the real McCoy. And he was a professional theologian and philosopher - as well as writer of plays and poetry. I urge us all to get back to the text.
 
sidonius said:
Why not stick with JPII? With all respect to West, it is NOT Christopher West’s Theology of the Body. JPII may be difficult, but his teachings are the real McCoy. And he was a professional theologian and philosopher - as well as writer of plays and poetry. I urge us all to get back to the text.
Click to expand...
I totally agree many TB proponents have twisted JPII’s original work. People should just stick to the original.
 
rosetta_stone said:
No offense but his criticisms are very clear cut and shouldn’t be dismissed just because it his opinion, after all Christopher West only offers his opinion on Theology of the Body. I would also point out that West is not a scholar or theologian so I would trust others to provide a proper interpretation of TB more than him.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t dismissing it at all. I don’t know much about the writer of the article. I just don’t know if I would base a decision on one article is all.
 
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052510.html
Christopher West Controversy Fuels Debate about the Problem of Modesty
By Alex Bush and John Jalsevac - Monday May 25, 2009

…

Nevertheless, in the opinion of David Schindler, a professor at the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Catholic University of America, even with the clarifications Christopher West’s take on the “Theology of the Body” is open to criticism on a number of significant points.

…

A number of West’s ideas and choices of language, says Schindler, are “vulgar and in bad taste, not to mention sometimes bordering on the just plain silly” and “indicate a disordered approach to human sexuality.”

Despite his criticisms of West, however, Schindler adds the caveat that “I agree with those who vigorously defend West’s intention of fidelity to the Church. Certainly he has had positive results in drawing many Catholics into a deeper understanding of their faith.”

He continues, however, to say that “It is important to understand … that good will is not synonymous with sound thought; and I must say, not without reluctance, that West’s work seems to me to misrepresent in significant ways the thought of John Paul II.”

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand is another highly influential figure who has also expressed concerns about some aspects of West’s teaching since the airing of the Nightline segment. A professor emerita at Hunter College of the City University of New York and Catholic philosopher and theologian, von Hildebrand told the Catholic News Agency that “before the Fall, there was no inner temptation to impurity between Adam and Eve even though they were naked. After they sinned, the two started to look at one another with concupiscence.”

…

Despite the controversy, however, West’s following, especially in the Catholic world, remains strong. His supporters have pointed out that West’s work has made accessible to millions the profound teachings of John Paul II, and has significantly affected countless people’s lives. Currently there is a note on Christopher West’s website saying that he is aware of the controversy over his remarks, and that he will issue a further clarification in the near future.
 
I have been to a lecture by Christopher West and I can address one of the charges against him, and that is his “praise” of Hugh Hefner. This article does make his praise of Hef seem bad (especially comparing Hefner and JPII) but the way West explains the link between the two makes much more sense when you have heard his entire explanation, rather than just one small quote.
 
Do not read Christopher West, much of what he has to say is frankly obscene. He is not orthodox – Much is made of his good intentions.

Good intentions about practicing immoral and carnal acts doesn’t cut it to place one on the road to Heaven.

Too many people have overlooked the problems in his writings for too long and promoted him. The support for him is from people who are, when they approve of his writings approving that which is outside of tradition, trying to create a new form of sexual morality not seen in Church tradition or history – based on human wisdom.

That’s not how you save your soul.
 
The criticism cited is the kind of short sighted, shoot-your-own nonsense that has fragmented the faithful catholic community into impotence for most of my lifetime.

C’mon, people! Do not fall for hatchet jobs. Christopher West is a public speaker and popular author whose goal is to get the generally apathetic public to challenging the assumptions they have made about God, religion and sex.

Part of effective public speaking is grabbing the audience’s attention. You MUST do this or nothing you say matters. Attend any 5 catholic parishes for a Sunday homily if you doubt this contention of mine. Betcha you can’t remember the central point of at least 4 of them by the time you leave.

West uses extreme examples and is not shy about using shock as an attention grabber. When cited out of context, they CAN sound bad. But when you hear him out, he invariably gives the full story.

Academics have always hated this sort of author and speaker. And they often find legitimate, if minor problems to quibble over. But West is doing exactly what the laity are called to do: share the gospel with everyone we meet. If you think you’re doing better, go ahead and criticize. If not, shut up and get started.
 
manualman said:
Part of effective public speaking is grabbing the audience’s attention. You MUST do this or nothing you say matters.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Read West for yourself; hear his lectures as a whole, not bits and pieces.

I’m sure someone could take bits and pieces of the New Testament and make Jesus sound like Rush Limbaugh.:eek:
 
Ahimsa said:
I agree.

Read West for yourself; hear his lectures as a whole, not bits and pieces.

I’m sure someone could take bits and pieces of the New Testament and make Jesus sound like Rush Limbaugh.:eek:
Click to expand...
I have read his book, and I have read the excerpts cited in articles – to my misfortune. I cannot recommend to anyone to read obscenity about sacred subjects, associating them with the carnal. To do so is a sin. One has to wash one’s mind after encountering this man.

He also advocated sodomy.

I have no intention of reading any further of his work, just like I do not go down to the city dump to try to sort out what food hasn’t rotten yet from what has.

Impure and immodest talk is not to be found among Christians. Using sex to sell is not to be found among Christians. To even think that it should be, that some end justifies this means, is abominable. Immodesty is a sin.

I write strongly because this is a serious matter. We are not to have the morals of the world as Catholics. We are to have the morals of Christianity that do not allow the kind of talk this man engages in. Not in general, not about sacred personages, not at all.

Purity has its source in the heart, but it is in the body that its material results take shape, and therefore it may be forfeited both by the exterior senses and by the thoughts and desires of the heart. All lack of modesty in seeing, hearing, speaking, smelling, or touching, is impurity, especially when the heart takes pleasure therein. St. Paul says without any hesitation that impurity and uncleanness, or foolish and unseemly talking, are not to be “so much as named” among Christians. Remember that there are things which blemish perfect purity, without being in themselves downright acts of impurity. Anything which tends to lessen its intense sensitiveness, or to cast the slightest shadow over it, is of this nature; and all evil thoughts or foolish acts of levity or heedlessness are as steps towards the most direct breaches of the law of chastity. Avoid the society of persons who are wanting in purity, especially if they are bold, as indeed impure people always are.’

‘Those impure words which are spoken in disguise, and with an affectation of reserve, are the most harmful of all; for just as the sharper the point of a dart, so much deeper it will pierce the flesh, so the sharper an unholy word, the more it penetrates the heart. And as for those who think to show themselves knowing when they say such things, they do not even understand the first object of mutual intercourse among men, who ought rather to be like a hive of bees gathering to make honey by good and useful conversation, than like a wasps’ nest, feeding on corruption. If any impertinent person addresses you in unseemly language, show that you are displeased by turning away, or by whatever other method your discretion may indicate.’

St. Francis de Sales
 
What has West said that is so obscene? Here are Christpher West’s words that people say “advocates sodomy”.

“Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutley and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking, for all the above reasons it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment.”

This is from West’s book, “The Good News About Sex and Marriage”. Perhaps he was wrong in suggesting that it is possibly permissible as an act of foreplay, but I do not see this as advocating sodomy.
 
Shin’s approach is a great example of what I noted above:

“The criticism cited is the kind of short sighted, shoot-your-own nonsense that has fragmented the faithful catholic community into impotence for most of my lifetime.”

Once again, you can find nits to pick in EVERY (non-scriptural) author in history. But doing so doesn’t much advance the gospel. West is a flawed human doing his best to invest the talents God gave him. He mostly does a good job and occasionally steps on his tongue.

Enough of the so-called examples have already been rebutted.
 
Shin, respectfully, you are way off base here.

I teach pre-Cana. 99% of the couples in the classes, and we are generally talking about 20 to 25 couples per class, are already sexually active with each other, contracepting, and living together. They attend Mass infrequently. If you think we are going to reach these couples by quoting St. Francis de Sales, at least initially, I respectfully disagree.

You sound like you have an ordered, integrated view of sexuality. Wonderful! The folks West is trying to reach do not! West points out, and my experience correpsonds with this, that the message most people get from the Church about sexuality is a bunch of ‘thou shalt nots’ with no understanding of the ‘why’. West provides the ‘why’ from Scripture and JP II.

My diocesan pre-Cana is based on West’s material. Every single time, there are a few couples who decide to stop contracepting or to withhold sex until they get married, even if it is only for a few months. We only have them for part of the day. It’s not supposed to be the end of the journey, but the beginning. People are moved once they better understand God’s plan, and West is absolutely instrumental in bringing JP II’s thoughts to the majority. JP II is not that easy to read, at times. West always does encourage further study and to read the material for oneself. That being said, the actual lectures/homilies comprise over a thousand pages, IIRC. Do you honestly think that the group we are trying to reach is going to sit down with a thousand page theological tome! Really, come on now, you are not being honest or realistic if you think that.

I do feel strongly about this, and most of the criticism of West seems unfounded. Do you not see the Mass attendance statistics, especially of young people? How about the use of contraceptives among married Catholics of child-bearing age? The Church does have a great message of Truth, but it has not been preached or taught for more than a generation at least. The old approaches were not working, and West’s absolutely and unqualifiedly does. Of course he’s not perfect, and I am sure he works on increasing his understanding all the time.

Whew. More later.
 
I have problems with the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, respectfully but strongly disagreeing with the proposal that he be canonized, but I have no problem with that Pontiff’s “theology of the body.”

Nor do I see any serious difficulties in the written and oral presentations of the chief popularizer of this theology, viz., Christopher West. For that reason, I cannot understand why some Catholics are ganging up on West, who is doing much good by presenting the Church’s authentic doctrine on the sacrament of Matrimony and the virtue of chastity in an exceptionally dynamic and engaging manner. He deserves special credit for uncompromisingly and courageously asserting the mortal sinfulness of contraception in accordance with the encyclicals Casti connubii and Humanae vitae.

West’s critics–and all Catholics–should reflect on a point that Blessed John XXIII made when he opened Vatican II:

“The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another” (in Walter M. Abbott, ed., The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715).

If any critic thinks that West has contradicted any teaching of the Catholic Church, then, out of respect for justice, such a critic should quote verbatim the words of the Magisterium or of approved moral theologians (“auctores probati”) and set them against West’s exact words so that we may see the alleged conflict for ourselves. If no such conflict can be documented, then any claim of unorthodox teaching on West’s part should be withdrawn with an apology.

I am looking forward to the response that Christopher West promises on his Web site to the most recent criticisms directed against his approach to teaching the Faith.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
catholicexchange.com/2009/05/28/118937/

Christopher West’s Work is “Completely Sound,” says Dr. Janet Smith
May 28th, 2009 by Dr. Janet E. Smith

Christopher West’s interview on ABC’s Nightline has sparked some terrific discussion on the Internet. An impressive amount of the interaction is intelligent and illuminating, even some of that which is seriously wrong. One of the better responses is that by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers and the follow-up comments to his blog.

[CE Editor’s note: This article contains several frank references to sexual matters and is for mature readers.]

Here, I want to offer a brief, partial, response to Prof. David Schindler’s assessment of West’s work. The fact that Nightline got a lot wrong about West’s work is not surprising. In fact, it is surprising how much it got right. Those of us who work with the media know that potential martyrdom awaits us at the hands of an editor. West has likely been suffering a kind of crucifixion over the past week. What is puzzling is that an influential scholar chose this moment to issue a sweeping, negative critique of West in such a public forum. I have great respect for the work and thought of Schindler and realize that it must be difficult to be on the receiving end of criticisms of the work of one of their most high profile graduates. I wish, however, he had found another occasion to express his reservations about West’s work.

I think we should be very careful in our evaluation of the work of someone who is on the front lines and who is doing pioneer work. Virtually every pioneering author and presenter has had severe detractors in his own time. Some of them have been disciplined by the Church and eventually exonerated. I would like to give examples and mention names, but I don’t want to ignite a firestorm of “how can you compare Christopher West to X, Y or Z?”!

I want to add my voice to those who are enthusiastic about the West/Theology of the Body phenomenon. I think it is important to keep in mind, as Akin does, who West’s audience is. It is largely the sexually wounded and confused who have been shaped by our promiscuous and licentious culture. People need to think long and hard about the appropriate pedagogy for that group. Yet, as West himself knows, his approach is not for everyone. An analogy that pushes the envelope may be “offensive” to one person and may be just the hook that draws another person in. West has adopted a style that appeals to a large segment of that population — and even to some who are “pure and innocent.” It is not hard to find hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals who will testify that they have come to love Christ and His Church, and better understand and live the Church’s teaching about sex because of the work of Christopher West. Cohabiters separate, contracepters stop contracepting, and men cease looking at pornography — and that is the short list. Countless young people are now taking up the study of the Theology of the Body because of West’s work. “By their fruits ye shall know them”…
 
Janet Smith’s discussion of the controversy at Catholic Exange.

catholicexchange.com/2009/05/28/118937/

I’ve found his talks and books to be helpful in opening the door to understanding TB. I’ve not heard him say anything that would be out of bounds for his audience.
 
Wow. She’s good. That Janet Smith link is superb. Concise, clear and blunt.

I like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top