Christopher West's Theology of the Body

[QuietTimes]

In the second portion of his article, Schindler provides a list of his objections to West’s theology without citing one text to substantiate his charges. I would be very interested in seeing a more sustained presentation of Schindler’s critique. As it stands, I do not find that his concerns correspond with what I have read in West’s work or heard in his lectures. I believe a thorough discussion of the issues Schindler raises would enrich our understanding of the Theology of the Body. But for those whose lives are not spent in the academic world, a world in which minutiae can take on epic proportions, let me note that disagreements of the sort that Schindler has with West are an everyday occurrence in the world of academia. That is, we scholars disagree not only with our archenemies but also with our closest and dearest allies. And not just about small matters; Thomists disagree with other Thomists about serious issues of interpretation of Thomistic texts; Thomists and phenomenologists who both are entirely faithful to the Magisterium can have fierce disputes on all sorts of issues. Prof. William May and I once debated on the best way to defend Humanae Vitae.
My point is this: The fact that the dean of the John Paul II Institute in Washington D.C. has issues with West’s approach should not discourage anyone from reading West’s work or attending his lectures. Schindler has serious disagreements with other reputable, orthodox theologians, including professors on staff at the John Paul II Institute. West’s extensive commentary on the Theology of the Body, Theology of the Body Explained, was reviewed for the nihil obstat for the Archdiocese of Boston by Prof. May, a longtime colleague of Schindler at the John Paul II Institute, who also gave it a glowing endorsement for the book jacket. (I also reviewed and strongly endorsed West’s book, Good New About Sex and Marriage.) Several times in his piece Schindler refers to West’s “intention” to be orthodox which could imply that he has not necessarily achieved orthodoxy. We should be clear that West’s works have been given an Imprimatur, an ecclesiastical judgment that a work is doctrinally sound. I share the view of others that they are completely theologically sound.

There you have it folks, I take issue with the fact that eaither he did not read CW work or he is just going off of what the report said. Many of you know how the media can distort or even change what was said. That I think is the case here.
I am with Dr. Janet Smith on this one.

 

[Shin]

‘If he lose shame and modesty, he will remain in sin.’

St. Jerome

‘Stop defiling your flesh with shameful deeds and polluting your soul with wicked thoughts; then the peace of God will descend upon you and bring you love. Afflict your flesh with hunger and vigils and apply yourself tirelessly to psalmody and prayer; then the sanctifying gift of self-restraint will descend upon you and bring you love.’

St. Maximos the Confessor

One does not quote obscenities to condemn obscenity.

There are no new approaches. There is nothing new, under the sun. I encourage you to consider that.

Good is not achieved by evil methods. Nothing sinfully done to achieve a ‘good’ end, ever achieves real spiritual good, nor is it ever justified. There is a divine economy that causes the scales to balance out for evil when evil is used for something ‘good’, because no true spiritual good is ever achieved by sinful means. It does not please God.

Merely because his presentation, with his sleazy and sacrilegious focus of the carnal sensuality upon the spiritual, appeals to some people, or even is perceived to draw some of these people away from some of their bad practices, does not mean it is acceptable. Moreover, his inoculating people to a proper reaction against obscenity by presenting it in a “Catholic”, quote unquote, context, is yet another one of the moral evils included in his work.

Until people recover a proper shame in regards to these subjects, a natural law reaction that is not to be ‘overcome’ as Christopher West encourages, but is the reaction of a proper conscience, purity of heart will always be far away.

And without purity of heart no one sees God. The person they meet at the end of their life is from a different place entirely. A very agonizingly place full of fire.

People who can’t accept St. Francis de Sales, can’t accept Christ.

But accepting the a good deal of what is said and writ by Christopher West… is frankly, I say it clearly, the way to lose Christ. It is called a malformed conscience at best, in regards to matters pertaining to purity. A deviation, or disorder, because of acceptance of worldly values. But more than this too light picture: Mortal sin. Sacrilege. Blasphemy. Hell. That is how serious it is.

This is very common in this world and society, and in the Church in all circles, sadly. But it is not of the Church. Not at all. It’s being presented as part of it. It isn’t. People flock and rush into danger because it is being presented as acceptable… because they’ve lived in the hot waters of the world for so long, and finding it in the Church they accept what is not to be tolerated.

If people are to flock out of it, follow the Good Shepherd, go to the saints. The saints followed Christ to Heaven. They write on these subjects. They write quite differently than Mr. West. His words, his immodest and obscene manners, would -not- pass through their pure lips nor should they yours.

Christopher West is still on earth. And he isn’t going in the right direction, and he’s preaching filth – he’s causing a lot of harm by presenting evil under the guise of good. Like Fr. Cutie, he sounds good, but delivers evil.

If you found some genuine good in his books, fine, take that out with you, what little was left amidst the trash. But don’t stick around, and watch out for how much you might have been misled because of the admixture of error. You likely do not even understand properly what you think is good in there.

Don’t fall for it. What’s popular in the mainstream is not always good. A lot of people who approach Catholicism from a perspective of human wisdom fall for it. That’s not how Catholicism works. You look to the saints, you look to tradition, give to us from Revelation – you don’t make it up as it goes along, however logical you try to make it sound, there is nothing new, in matters of purity, under the sun.

It is, and always will be the standard of the past. That is the standard of today, and the future, of God’s.

I encourage everyone here who has felt a hint of embaressment or shame upon reading anything Mr. West wrote, to cultivate it. Be ashamed. So that you can purify yourself. It is of God. To anyone who has it not, pray for purity and to learn of shame, to remember it. It is part of what makes a decent and clean soul.

'Self-love is so subtle a robber that it commits its thefts, even upon God himself, without fear or shame, employing his goods as if they were its own, and assigning as a reason that it cannot live without them. And this robbery is hidden under so many veils of apparent good that it can hardly be detected except by the penetrating light of true love, which always desires to remain uncovered and bare, both in heaven and earth, because it has nothing shameful to conceal.

And, therefore, self-love never understands the nature of pure love; for pure love sees not how the things which it knows as they are in truth could possibly be possessed or appropriated; nothing would displease it so much as to find anything which it could call its own; the reason of this is that pure love sees not, nor can it ever see, anything but truth itself, which, being by its nature communicable to all, can never be monopolized by any. Self-love, on the other hand, is in itself an obstacle to truth, and neither believes it nor beholds it, but rather, confiding in itself, holds truth as an enemy and an alien.’

St. Catherine of Genoa

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I did not understand why contraception was wrong until I saw Christopher West’s theology of the body videos. Now I know why, and I believe it in my heart, instead of just following a rule “just in case its true and I’ll go to hell for it”. Now I know that God wants what is best for us and thats why I will not use contraception if I get married.

Frankly, Shin, your attitude is why so few people follow or understand the Church’s teachings. Until you can change even a handful of people’s hearts, don’t criticise Christopher West who has saved untold thousands of souls with his talks.

 

[choose_to_love]

Oh boy.

Re: St. Maximos - - actually, the concepts quoted here are,I think, at the heart of the TOB. Stop lusting, start loving, and treating one’s spouse as a child of God and with the dignity that entails, along with the reverence for the life-giving act. I do not see where West contradicts this is any meaningful way. Seeing as how we are made in God’s image, and our bodies, male and female, are images of God, they are a clue to the life and love of the Trinity. Our sexual lives should reflect that life-giving love of the Trinity.

Is any of the preceding paragraph “obscene” in your view, Shin, or does it not reflect proper reverence for the holy temples of our bodies? Because it seems to me the above is at the heart of West’s interpretation of TOB. Does saying “sexual lives” not show proper reverence? I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

I realize you do not want to quote obscenity to fight obscenity, but what are the evil methods you apparently are accusing West of? What do you mean by “sleazy and sacreligious focus of carnal sensuality upon the spiritual”? How would you describe the “proper shame”? Please use your own words, not a quote from a saint.

people who can’t accept St. Francis de Sales, can’t accept Christ - - you will note that I said “initially” in my prior post. How do you propose, as I note you have not really addressed it, to convey the Church’s message to the groups I teach – living together, contracepting and having sex already (is use of the phrase “having sex” considered obscene or lacking in proper reverence in your view?)? They are at a different point in their spiritual journey. My thought when I read that those who can’t accept St. F de S. can’t accept Christ, is, well then, do we just abandon them to their disordered desires and disordered understanding?

How is he preaching filth??? He encourages us to understand our creation as male and female as a reflection of Trinitarian love - - how much more spiritual and lofty can you get?

I guess I just cannot see, Shin, how you would teach a marriage prep course, or for that manner, a natural family planning/fertiilty awareness class. Do you have a marriage prep curriculum that you find acceptable, aside from the Catechism and/or Scripture?

Shame is the proper reaction, or protection, moreso, to the lustful gaze of the other, no? As spouses, should we not be striving to love - - totally, freely, faithfully, and fruitfully - - our spouses, to see and love their whole person? To give of ourselves completely to the other spouse? To make a decision to choose the good of the other, not matter the cost? These are the themes that I find in West’s presentations, and I do not think any of that is filth, sinful, sleazy, etc.

I am not trying to give you a hard time, Shin, but I am really perplexed by this.

 

[Joe_5859]

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

I had no idea that he made the following statements:

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.

I would check the sources to make sure that Christopher West actually said what this person is attributing to him. Off the top of my head, I can say that the statement that Christopher West “praised” Hugh Hefner is a gross misrepresentation (click here for more details on that fiasco).

There’s nothing wrong with Steve Kellmeyer, though.

 

[Joe_5859]

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?

From what I have seen, Christopher West is orthodox in his views. I know that, at least the Revised Edition of his book “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” carries the nihil obstat and imprimatur.

I think, as West was starting off, he used some imagery and analogies that make a lot of people uncomfortable. I think that he has tempered things a lot in light of feedback he has received.

He’s talking about a very sensitive topic and is trying to reach out to people who couldn’t digest JPII’s words without an interpreter. Does he use some bad analogies? Probably. But that doesn’t mean he’s unorthodox. At most, it means he’s not as tactful as he should be. He is very sincere in trying to spread JPII’s message.

By the way, he does have a Masters in Theology from the JPII Institute in DC, which does make him a theologian by training.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m just catching up on this thread. Sorry for the multiple posts.

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.

Awesome! I should print this out and hand it out to people!

 

[Rach620]

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.

FYI - David Schindler is a first-rate theologian at the John Paul II Institute for Studies of Marriage and the Family.

I’ve studied JP2’s TOB-related texts (Love & Responsibility, Man and Woman He Created Them) but actually haven’t read much West. I hear that he is an engaging speaker, but my hunch is that his presentations are directed more at the poorly-catechized Catholic young adult (or maybe older?), while Schindler et al focus more on the theological side of the debate.

So far, Dr. Schindler, Dr. Janet Smith, and Dr. Michael Waldstein (translator of JP2’s original Wednesday audiences) have chimed in on the debate.

 

[lddown27]

I was talking about West’s “Theology” of the Body the other day, and began discussing what he said about foreplay. He suggested that oral sex can be used by married couples as foreplay, so long as it is a prelude to sexual intercourse itself. However, he suggests that anal sex cannot be used as foreplay. However, the reasoning he gives for this still apply to oral sex as foreplay. When I heard this, I immediately had issues, for it appears to be unnatural, inappropriate, and sinful. What are your thoughts? Do you have any legitamate sources?