Just How Authoritative Is Christopher West on Matters of Sexual Morality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThuribleGuy45
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ThuribleGuy45

Guest
So many threads in this forum cite West’s works on “Theology of the Body.” While I have not real all he has written, my *initial *reaction to what I have read is that he has “pushed” John Paul II’s discourses on marital theology into the moral acceptability of physical acts and physical pleasure that many of us “seniors” were taught were questionable, if not outrightly sinful. I am frankly puzzled at Mr. West’s authority to teach these things, as well as at the following he - and his many websites and books - seem to have garnered.

In researching his CV and the Theology of the Body Foundation, I find the following: He has a MTS from the “John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family,” which on further research is incorporated in D.C.as the “Knights of Columbus Family Life Bureau.” It seems to be authorized by the Holy See to grant degrees, but it also doesn’t seem like a competitor to the Gregorium. He is a certified Catechist in the archdiocese of Denver, and a certified marriage prep instructor in the archdiocese of D.C. American dioceses being what they often are, I am unsure what weight to give these certifications. He is a visiting lecturer at several universities. I cannot determine if he has a Mandatum.

So: with what degree - if any - of Magisterial authority does he teach and write? If he says that “X” is acceptable as part of the marital act, is it? What, if any, “official” Magisterial document that could be cross-checked to validate something’s moral acceptability? Please understand that I am not seeking to discredit or undermine him, but am reacting to the almost “knee-jerk” reference to his works whenever a poster asks a question concerning marital intimacy. I am also not necessarily trying to “disbelieve” him, but his approach to the role of pleasure in marriage and that pleasure is part of the “unitive” aspect of marriage is significantly foreign to the Catholic teachings that shaped me in the 50’s and early 60’s (as some will remember – before everything “broke loose.”)
 
Hi, Thurible Guy 45,

Since it seems that his work has both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur classifications (acc to google) one can believe that he has stated nothing in direct opposition to Church Teaching - but although I am likely of your generation, I have to add that I have never heard of Christopher West until this thread of yours.
 
I am also not necessarily trying to “disbelieve” him, but his approach to the role of pleasure in marriage and that pleasure is part of the “unitive” aspect of marriage is significantly foreign to the Catholic teachings that shaped me in the 50’s and early 60’s (as some will remember – before everything “broke loose.”)
I haven’t read any of Christopher West’s works yet. But I did grow up in the '50’s, and I don’t recall anything about pleasure in the unitive aspect of marriage being foreign to Catholic teachings. In fact I can recall a priest teaching that nearly anything between husband and wife which ultimately led to consummation was perfectly valid. We just didn’t talk incessantly about it, as seems to be the case now.
 
Unfortunately, the Imprimatur does not always indicate orthodoxy. Fr. Richard Mc Brien and Hans Kuhn have both published with Imprimatur.

OP, I too have questions about C. West. I understand his popularity and respect his credentials but I seriously question his “authority” on the issue of sexual morality within marriage. Like you, his assertion that certain acts (which in my day were considered always immoral) are acceptable does not follow reason or logic when applied to Catholic moral teaching. If you follow his selective application of this “moral logic” to it’s natural conclusion, you find yourself having a very difficult time defining any act as instrinsically wrong. On both CAF and the EWTN forums, I have seen Catholics ask questions about sexual antics that would be more appropriate in the Penthouse forums. And often, the answers they receive are even more shocking.

Perhaps the Church has not had to deal so definitively on these matters in the past but it seems to me that back in the day, there at least was a consensus among the clergy that certain acts could never be seen as moral. While official documents may have neglected to deal openly and articulatly with such issues, it would seem that there has never been a time before when there was such a need for clarity. I doubt we will be seeing an encylical on the specifics of marital sexuality any time soon, but I do think we need to pray for the careful and thoughtful discernment of all Catholics.
 
Having watched his Created and Redeemed series and listened to a couple of his tapes, it sounds like the guy is pretty well versed in the material. I’ve read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and what struck me is that he wasn’t teaching anything The Church had not taught and accepted for hundreds of years, he simply repackaged it for our time. I believe John Paul II perhaps gave some more meat to Humane Vitae, but it wasn’t new material.

Now how folks were taught about Church teachings is a different matter, but the Church has remained consistent in her beliefs even if the culture has not.
 
Unfortunately, the Imprimatur does not always indicate orthodoxy. Fr. Richard Mc Brien and Hans Kuhn have both published with Imprimatur.

OP, I too have questions about C. West. I understand his popularity and respect his credentials but I seriously question his “authority” on the issue of sexual morality within marriage. Like you, his assertion that certain acts (which in my day were considered always immoral) are acceptable does not follow reason or logic when applied to Catholic moral teaching. If you follow his selective application of this “moral logic” to it’s natural conclusion, you find yourself having a very difficult time defining any act as instrinsically wrong. On both CAF and the EWTN forums, I have seen Catholics ask questions about sexual antics that would be more appropriate in the Penthouse forums. And often, the answers they receive are even more shocking.

Perhaps the Church has not had to deal so definitively on these matters in the past but it seems to me that back in the day, there at least was a consensus among the clergy that certain acts could never be seen as moral. While official documents may have neglected to deal openly and articulatly with such issues, it would seem that there has never been a time before when there was such a need for clarity. I doubt we will be seeing an encylical on the specifics of marital sexuality any time soon, but I do think we need to pray for the careful and thoughtful discernment of all Catholics.
It seems foolish to suggest that the nihil obstat and imprimatur suggest anything less than orthodoxy. That both can and will be removed if an author, in later developments, prove to be less than orthodox in his teachings is entirely another matter, as you must know.
 
Foolish? I think prudent in our current times.
I keep no hit lists of bishops and I trust that Rome does get around to reviewing all works that bring enough questions/alarms. There’s a process to revoking such “approvals.”
 
I’m no fan of CW either but here’s my take:
  • Orthodoxy can only be discerned in reference to CCC and other official pronouncement from the Magisterium. Anything outside of these systems is left open to the faithful to use their good sense and educational wisdom.
  • The ‘authority’ and ‘orthodoxy’ questions have already generated so much complaints of interference into individual personal lives. Need we expand and exacerbate this further?
  • Besides, anyone who can question CW’s ‘authority’ will have to invoke a higher ‘authority’ of his own to do that. Fairness dictates that those who do so should cite theirs.
 
So many threads in this forum cite West’s works on “Theology of the Body.” While I have not real all he has written, my *initial *reaction to what I have read is that he has “pushed” John Paul II’s discourses on marital theology into the moral acceptability of physical acts and physical pleasure that many of us “seniors” were taught were questionable, if not outrightly sinful. I am frankly puzzled at Mr. West’s authority to teach these things, as well as at the following he - and his many websites and books - seem to have garnered.

… but his approach to the role of pleasure in marriage and that pleasure is part of the “unitive” aspect of marriage is significantly foreign to the Catholic teachings that shaped me in the 50’s and early 60’s (as some will remember – before everything “broke loose.”)
Hi, ThuribleGuy45!

I’m not quite sure what in particular you have read that you are questioning. You are saying that he has “pushed” JPIIs discourses on marital theology into moral acceptability of things that you have been taught as questionable or sinful…

Why don’t you just bypass Christopher West directly and read JPII’s “Theology of the Body” and “Love and Responsibility” yourself. Cut out the middleman!

The Theology of the Body by JPII has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, but as blessedtoo points out, it does not indicate orthodoxy… Also, The Theology of the Body does not carry the weight of “authority” as an encyclical because these are only a set of talks given during papal audiences. However, much of the material in The Theology of the Body can be found woven into many of JPII’s encyclicals.

Apologetics are not “licensed” by the Catholic Church so basically anyone can write a book or make a DVD saying whatever they want… Christopher West has received a lot of attention because he is one of several people who have taken the time to interpret The Theology of the Body into something that more people can understand. Others have written their own books and you may find those more useful in studying the Theology of the Body.

Finally, I’m not sure what you are specifically referring to in your post regarding the role of sexual pleasure in marriage, but you may wish to read CCC 2360 to 2362.

Personally, I like the message that Christopher West delivers. He does an excellent job of explaining the Theology of the Body and relating many of its points to what is happening in the world today. I think his message is 100% faithful to what JPII originally presented and his message is in alignment with Church teachings. I hope and pray that more and more people read and understand the Theology of the Body every day!

Peace,
 
I’ve cross checked on some of his teaching with such books as Moral Theology by Heribet Jone and he seems to be on target.
 
What ***exactly ***is your objection to the teachings of CW? and can you give us references? Otherwise this “debate” could be very long and tedious, with lots of assumptions about what CW said and what point you’re trying to make. 🤷
I’m not trying to be awkward or defensive, just trying to help narrow the scope of this discussion, so that we can reach a conclusion quicker. 👍

God bless
 
Hi, Thurible Guy 45,

Since it seems that his work has both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur classifications (acc to google) one can believe that he has stated nothing in direct opposition to Church Teaching - but although I am likely of your generation, I have to add that I have never heard of Christopher West until this thread of yours.
I was of the understanding that this was not true of all his books. Cna anyone confirm which do and do not have both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur classifications. My google search was not helpful on that point.
 
Christopher West has the same “magisterial authority” as all other theologians.

Which is precisely zero.

It does not matter whether we are talking about Christopher West, Scott Hahn, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Hans Kuhn or Gregory Baum. (I bet you never saw those five names in the same sentence before! 😛 )

What Mr. West has is the ability to communicate well. To the best of my knowledge, having gone through many of his works, I believe what he teaches is consistent with the true and ancient teachings of the Church. He does go into detail on topics that make many uncomfortable, but they are important ones.

Theology of the Body, as introduced by Pope John Paul II and unpacked and explained by Mr. West, does not introduce any new doctrine. It is, instead, a different approach to understanding Catholic teachings. It is a perspective that helps many people make sense of some very difficult topics. However, like all perspectives, it will not appeal to everyone nor will it help everyone equally.
 
Christopher West has the same “magisterial authority” as all other theologians.

Which is precisely zero.

It does not matter whether we are talking about Christopher West, Scott Hahn, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Hans Kuhn or Gregory Baum. (I bet you never saw those five names in the same sentence before! 😛 )

What Mr. West has is the ability to communicate well. To the best of my knowledge, having gone through many of his works, I believe what he teaches is consistent with the true and ancient teachings of the Church. He does go into detail on topics that make many uncomfortable, but they are important ones.

Theology of the Body, as introduced by Pope John Paul II and unpacked and explained by Mr. West, does not introduce any new doctrine. It is, instead, a different approach to understanding Catholic teachings. It is a perspective that helps many people make sense of some very difficult topics. However, like all perspectives, it will not appeal to everyone nor will it help everyone equally.
I agree. I have found Christopher West’s books (and personal guidance at one point) to be very helpful. In fact, his book Good News About Sex and Marriage, helped my wife and I to understand the Church teaching about sex and artificial birth control to the point that we changed our personal practices to be in line with Church teaching.

Authority? None. In line with Church teaching? IMO…yes.
 
Christopher West is often recommended by the apologists here so while he may not have any actual authority, I would have thought that he doesn’t teach anything contrary to the Church. Certainly I am another who has found his book very helpful and enlightening.
 
I always thought that the Theologins were the people we could be sure would not lead us astray on matters of faith and morals. I know the Church would not allow them to teach anything that is morraly wrong. I grew up in the Forty’s and Fiftie’s also and I know what you mean about how we were raised
I would suggest you talk to a priest if you have trouble with what Christopher WEst teaches
If I am not mistaken the Priests learn from the Theologins in the Seminary and then guide the faithful after Ordination from what they have learned.
Theologins are the total authority on church teaching. They have to be is my feeling since they help guide us towards eternal salvation.
If you want to you can check out other catholic Web sites and see what they say on this issue. and that may help you.

Mayo.
 
I always thought that the Theologins were the people we could be sure would not lead us astray on matters of faith and morals. I know the Church would not allow them to teach anything that is morraly wrong. I grew up in the Forty’s and Fiftie’s also and I know what you mean about how we were raised
I would suggest you talk to a priest if you have trouble with what Christopher WEst teaches
If I am not mistaken the Priests learn from the Theologins in the Seminary and then guide the faithful after Ordination from what they have learned.
Theologins are the total authority on church teaching. They have to be is my feeling since they help guide us towards eternal salvation.
If you want to you can check out other catholic Web sites and see what they say on this issue. and that may help you.

Mayo.
Sorry Mayo. You may be confused about the role of the theologian. The term itself only means someone who is learned in or speculates about theology. ANYONE who studies religion or scripture can claim to be a theologian. They are no different than any other type of teacher. Some are good, some are not. There have been many, many theologians in Church history that were condemned for heretical teachings.

Catholics may look to faithful theologians for insight into matters of faith, but nothing more. They do not speak authoritatively for the Church. Only the Magisterium has that role.
 
I was of the understanding that this was not true of all his books. Cna anyone confirm which do and do not have both Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur classifications. My google search was not helpful on that point.
His “Theology of the Body Explained” carries both (the bishop is Chaput). That’s the only one I own, so I can’t answer about any other books of his.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top