Theology of the Body

[PRmerger]

There appears to be little doubt that Mr. West’s understanding of Catholic moral theology has been deeply fashioned by his experiences in his late teens at the Mother of God Community, a Catholic Community in Gaithersburg, Maryland. It was, dear sister, a very rigorous regime and the Communities leaders exercised what would now be termed Puritanical control over the members lives, including courting. Now whether or not we regard this as ‘Puritanical’ (we may do so by the standards of today’s amoral climate), it seems almost next to certain that these negative experiences “appear to come into play in his interpretation of JPII’s teachings continence” (Dawn Eden, Revised Master’s Thesis on Christopher West’s TOB). Indeed, there are indications that he was greatly affected by these early experiences and that this has shaped his entire theological outlook into one of strong negative reaction against what he perceives to be Puritanism or Manachaeism.

No doubt, friend. No doubt.

That, however, is quite different from maintaining that Mr. West has taught that the Church’s teachings on sex were, pre Vatican II, repressive.

I don’t believe he has said this.

If you could provide some examples, however, of text/dialogue in which CW maintains this paradigm, I will certainly examine them!

 

[Portrait]

No doubt, friend. No doubt.

That, however, is quite different from maintaining that Mr. West has taught that the Church’s teachings on sex were, pre Vatican II, repressive.

I don’t believe he has said this.

If you could provide some examples, however, of text/dialogue in which CW maintains this paradigm, I will certainly examine them!

Dear PRmerger,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

It is not, dear sister, that Mr. West has taught that the actual pre-Conciliar teachings themselves were repressive, his concern, or rather his idee fixe, is with how those teachings were understood, taught and practiced. Now whether or not he is correct in his evaluation of how they were taught and practiced is another issue altogether, but I actually think he is completely wide of the mark and has been heavily influenced by his own personal experiences, which he has projected on to the teachings of H.H.JPII.

This whole notion of American Catholicism being plagued by ‘modern Puritanism’ is a red herring, especially given our sex saturated Western society. “Anyone who reads Christopher West’'s books, or listens to his talks, cannot help but notice one thing: he is obsessed with Puritanism. Indeed, one might believe, listening to him, that it is the one great danger of our time” (Alice von Hildebrand). It is for this reason that his presentation is so very unbalanced and unsound. Puritanism never was or is the universal problem (within or without the bosom of the Church) that Mr. West imagines.

God bless and goodbye for now, dear sister.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Cider]

Where in Pope John Paul II’s discussions on the Theology of the Body does it say anything about physical acts between a married couple? I have read several posters who quote Christopher West who is supposedly basing his work off of John Paul II.

Here is the link to John Paul II’s work:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

I thought it was discussed in JPII’s book Love and Responsibility?

 

[R1ch4rd]

Apparently, Archbishop Chaput’s name has been removed from the lists of Theology of the Body Insititute episcopal advisors and it should be noted that he was silent during the entire controversy. Perhaps, dear friend, following David L. Schindler’s learned critique and the ensuing responses and rebuttals, the Archbishop’s eyes have been opened to see some things that he did not see hitherto.

Perhaps…or perhaps not but it’s one opinion.

In any event, dear friend, an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat only mean that there are no blatant heresies within the book. They do not mean that the book is free of theological errors, which can still be found within the pages of such books (it is important that we distinguish between things which essentially differ, in this case, between dogma and theology). Moreover, these designations do not mean that the bishop who grants it necessarily concurs with everything that the author says and they certainly do not imply that every point the author makes is correct. All that the Imprimatur is saying is that there are no discernible heresies within the work, it is decidedly not saying that there are no theological errors, historical errors or logical errors. However, all this is a jolly long way from an official endorsement

I believe your mistaken here

Wikipedia: The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.[5]
The person empowered to issue the imprimatur is the local ordinary of the author or of the place of publication.[6] If he refuses to grant an imprimatur for a work that has received a favourable nihil obstat from the censor, he must inform the author of his reasons for doing so.[7] This enables the author, if he wishes, to make changes so as to overcome the ordinary’s difficulty.[8]
If further examination shows that a work is not free of doctrinal or moral error, the imprimatur granted for its publication can be withdrawn. This happened three times in the 1980s, when the Holy See judged that complaints made to it about religion textbooks for schools were well founded and ordered the bishop to revoke his approval.[9]

americancatholic.org/newsletters/imprimatur.asp

In case you don’t go with Wikipedia…

The imprimatur was not revoked so it still stands.

 

[Portrait]

Must resist . . . must not jump into another West thread . . . nooooooo

Dear Portrait,

You neglect any of West’s own responses, as well as his many and varied defenders, like Janet Smith IIRC. Have you worked with any younger couples on explaining the Church’s vision and understanding about marriage and sexuality? I have, in a diocesan pre-Cana program, in which the materials are based on TOB and prepared by West. Most of the couples are already living together and contracepting; many do not attend Mass even monthly. You must reach your audience where they are. If you think handing these couples a copy of HV or Casti Connubi, or even Love & Responsibility is going to reach them, I suggest that you are wrong. I have seen first-hand the effect that explaining the Church’s actual teaching, via West’s understanding of it, can have on engaged couples, and it is overwhelmingly positive.

No one is saying West is perfect or above criticism, but it really is unfair the way he is criticised when he is out there trying to actually reach people.

Dear choose to love,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response and I am sorry that I was unable to reply to you yesterday, dear friend.

First, let me say that you are quite correct, we do have to reach our audience today, an audience which I freely admit is immersed in a very secular and sexualised culture. Thus I can truly appreciate that Mr. West is actuated by a sincere desire to get through to modern man where he is by speaking his lingo so as to win a hearing and have some influence for good. Notwithstanding, the spiritual illiteracy of 21st. century man can never afford justification for the use of indelicate and irreverent speech, which undermines the very message one is endeavouring to impart. As St. Paul exhorts: “Conduct yourselves wisely to outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone” (Col. 4: 5,6). Thus, dear friend, whilst we must adapt our message to the particular target group to whom we are addressing, and even simplify it, we must also ensure that we do actually commend that message itself by our lips. All of the faithful should be distinguished by the winsomeness and reverence of their speech, but especially those who are called to be teachers of faith and morals. Please note, I am not saying that this precludes unpacking complex theological concepts and thus making them more easier to understand and assimilate mentally, but I am saying that this is a wholly different thing from using gutter-filth expressions to get the message across. An obligation is laid upon us to avoid the use of any speech that does not comport with Christian standards of language and that includes our mission to a secular godless society where multitudes see no wrong with living in sin or birth prevention methods.

As regards Janet Smith, her support of Mr. West has been responded to. Now whilst it is true, dear friend, that Christopher West made considerable changes to his presentation of Theology of the Body and altered offensive language and laboriously rewrote his Theology of the Body Explained,Dr. Smith still continues to overlook some serious flaws in content and not merely style or tone. To take just one example, Mr. West must surely be aware that our lot is cast in a radically materialistic society, where the cult of the body is dominant. Therefore, do we really need any further encouragements to idolize the body in our sexualised Western culture? Mr. West places far too much emphasis upon the body in a debased culture in which everything is already highly body-centered. This, dear friend, is most unbefitting in one who purports to be a teacher of Catholic moral theology. Again, it is arrant nonsense to claim that the Church has, until recent times, been blinded to the deep meaning and beauty of sex as the good Lord intended it. 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, in all, and in everything, that is, in all its parts” (Introduction to the Devout Life, Part 3, chap. 38). It is simply untrue to claim, as West does, that, until recently, the beauty and meaning in this sphere had been totally eclipsed by Puritanism and Manachaeism. That sounds more distinctly like propaganda to bolster his pet theories.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I believe your mistaken here

americancatholic.org/newsletters/imprimatur.asp

In case you don’t go with Wikipedia…

The imprimatur was not revoked so it still stands.

Dear R1ch4rd,

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

With respect to the Imprimatur (Lat. “it may be printed”) and Nihil Obstat (Lat. “nothing stands in the way”), “Neither (of these) implied agreement with the content or opinions, merely that nothing in the writing contradicted Catholic doctrine” (Catholic Q & A, Fr. John J. Dietzen, Crossroad Publishing, 2005, p. 495). In other words, dear friend, that the book/pamphlet did not contain within its pages blatant heresy. No one, as far as I am aware, is claiming that Mr. West is teaching actual heresy, only that there are some serious flaws as regards content and some immoderate emphases.

However, dear friend, there still remains a very distinct possiblity that Archbishop Chaput failed to discern the subtle errors and problems found within Mr. West’s presentations. In any event, it is still an appeal to authority, which ascribes a sort of practical infalibilty to certain popular bishops, giving critical assent to anything they say on the assumption that because they are bishops they cannot be wrong. However, bishops are not theologians and it surely would have been more prudent if our bishops and other Church leaders had taken more care to determine where Mr. West’s train of thought was going before they jumped on board. For myself, I find Archbishop Chaput’s silence following the controversy over Mr. West’s presentations, very telling indeed.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[R1ch4rd]

However, dear friend, there still remains a very distinct possiblity that Archbishop Chaput failed to discern the subtle errors and problems found within Mr. West’s presentations. In any event, it is still an appeal to authority, which ascribes a sort of practical infalibilty to certain popular bishops, giving critical assent to anything they say on the assumption that because they are bishops they cannot be wrong. However, bishops are not theologians and it surely would have been more prudent if our bishops and other Church leaders had taken more care to determine where Mr. West’s train of thought was going before they jumped on board. For myself, I find Archbishop Chaput’s silence following the controversy over Mr. West’s presentations, very telling indeed.

If the Church agreed with you, I,m sure it would revoke the imprimatur as it did with other writings.

 

[PRmerger]

Dear PRmerger,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

It is not, dear sister, that Mr. West has taught that the actual pre-Conciliar teachings themselves were repressive,

Excellent. Then we are agreed.

I do, however, wonder why you maintained here that he did teach that the pre-Conciliar teachings were indeed repressive.

Sadly, dear sister, he is erroneously labouring under the mistaken notion that the pre-Conciliar Church was repressive and antiquated, but this, I think, is based soley upon his own individual personal experiences and not historical fact.

Do you have any text/dialogue which indicates that he believed that the pre-Conciliar Church was indeed repressive?

 

[Portrait]

If the Church agreed with you, I,m sure it would revoke the imprimatur as it did with other writings.

Dear R1ch4rd,

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

There was, dear friend, no necessity for the Church to rescind the Imprimatur, since Mr. West is not teaching blatant heresy.

Moreover, as regards the words “nothing contrary to faith and morals”, this is simply ‘Church-ese’ for ‘no heresies’. As I said, dear friend, I freely acknowledge that Mr. West is not teaching blatant heresy, but what I am contending is that there are theological errors and teachings that dissonate with the analogy of faith, or rather sound very off to the ears and sensibilities of a pious Catholic (not to mention misrepresentations of H.H.JPII’s teachings). Thus, for example, it is not a heresy to say that the Song of Songs is the “centrefold of the bible”, nonetheless, it is a theologically flawed position and one, if you judge from the analogy of faith, does not hold up to scrutiny.

It is, dear friend, jolly important here that one distinguishes the terms ‘theology’ and ‘dogma’; making errors with respect to the former does not result in heresy per se, but making mistakes regarding the latter clearly does.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Excellent. Then we are agreed.

I do, however, wonder why you maintained here that he did teach that the pre-Conciliar teachings were indeed repressive.

Do you have any text/dialogue which indicates that he believed that the pre-Conciliar Church was indeed repressive?

Dear PRmerger,

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

First, dear sister, may I apologise for not making sufficiently clear my meaning. By remarking that Mr. West was “erroneously labouring under the mistaken notion that the pre-Conciliar Church was repressive and antiquated”, I meant not the actual Church teaching itself, which is always good and wholesome, but the manner in which that teaching was presented and taught in catechesis, which are two very different things.

Second, the whole rationale of Mr. West’s presentation of the Theology of the Body * is that the teachings of H.H.JPII are “revolutionary” because “previous generations of Christians” were allegedly reared under the burden of a “repressive approach” to sexual issues (The New Language: A Crash Course in the Theology of the body, crisis 22, no. 11, Christopher West). Moreover, dear sister, as I have stated previously in this thread, it is almost next to certain that this erroneous opinion was formed as a result of his own personal experiences as a young man, especially at the Charismatic Mother of God Community. Indeed, he himself does use his own experiences to support his view of this supposed “repressive approach” to sex. Clearly, there are aspects in his upbringing that were pivitol as regards informing his understanding, wrong though it is, of certain Puritan attitudes that are deeply rooted in “most Christians” (The Freedom of the Gift: Priestly Celibacy and Authentic Sexual Liberation, Christopher West 2007). Moreover, he is on record as saying that “the often repressive approach of previous generations of Christians (usually silence or, at most, ‘Don’t do it’) is largely responsible for the cultural jettison of the Church’s teaching on sex” (op.cit. The New Language: A Crash Course in the Theology of the Body*). The whole burden of Mr. West is that “most Christians” today continue to follow this unhealthy path of repression, which, of course, is utterly absurd, for, if anything, “most Christians” have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice - a ‘Catholicism Lite’. Sadly, there is often very little to distinguish Catholics from their godless pagan neighbours because there is so much worldly conformity. Christians of all people should refuse to descend to the level of those whose minds are blinded and whose outlook is circumscribed by that which is temporal. Is the teaching of Mr. West really encouraging men to the pursuit of holiness and sexual chastity in our sex-saturated culture?

Therefore, dear sister, it surely admits of no doubt that Mr. West is convinced that the pre-VII approach to sexual matters was repressive and Puritan and that the entire raison d’etre for his apostolate is an attempt to redress this alleged distortion and effect liberation form the unhealthy path. Mr. West may well be sincere but he is sadly sincerely wrong and his presentations are a reaction from a repressive approach to sexuality that never existed, save for some isolated exceptions. Puritanism, either within or without Holy Mother Church, was never a universal problem and today it is barely a speck on the cultural landscape. Indeed, given the sexualisation of Western culture and the abounding decadence with which we are surrounded, perhaps a little Puritanism is just what we require.

God bless, dear sister, 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:

 

[R1ch4rd]

Hmmmm, I think (name removed by moderator) has a point. There seems to be some divine dancing with word here. I think I’ll retire also…

 

[PRmerger]

Dear PRmerger,

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

First, dear sister, may I apologise for not making sufficiently clear my meaning. By remarking that Mr. West was “erroneously labouring under the mistaken notion that the pre-Conciliar Church was repressive and antiquated”, I meant not the actual Church teaching itself, which is always good and wholesome, but the manner in which that teaching was presented and taught in catechesis, which are two very different things.

Indeed.

I trust that you are in agreement with Mr. West’s assessment, then? That is, he believes that while the Church’s teachings on sexuality have always been magnificent, holy and sublime, the members of the Church have often presented these teachings in a manner which was not reflective of its truth and goodness.

 

[PRmerger]

Second, the whole rationale of Mr. West’s presentation of the *Theology of the Body * is that the teachings of H.H.JPII are “revolutionary” because “previous generations of Christians” were allegedly reared under the burden of a “repressive approach” to sexual issues

Yes. I agree with him here.

Moreover, dear sister, as I have stated previously in this thread, it is almost next to certain that this erroneous opinion was formed as a result of his own personal experiences as a young man, especially at the Charismatic Mother of God Community. Indeed, he himself does use his own experiences to support his view of this supposed “repressive approach” to sex.

Yes. This is probably true.

Moreover, he is on record as saying that “the often repressive approach of previous generations of Christians (usually silence or, at most, ‘Don’t do it’) is largely responsible for the cultural jettison of the Church’s teaching on sex” (op.cit.* The New Language: A Crash Course in the Theology of the Body*).

And here I agree with him as well.

He states, correctly, that it is the culture that has rejected the Church’s teaching on sex.

Who could disagree with that?

 

[choose_to_love]

I agree with PR’s last several posts here. I do not think West thinks JPII did anything revolutionary with respect to substance, but in perspective and presentation. This is how I have always understood him - - the Church has a beautiful understanding of sex and marriage, but it has not taught it effectively in the past. Agreed that it is also partially a matter of the teaching being rejected, but it was rejected also because the teaching was misunderstood or not presented beyond a “don’t do it”. I do not know how anyone can dispute this, but perhaps it depends on where you live and/or your peers.

If anyone here thinks the Church in the U.S. in general was teaching about St. Francis De Sales’ teachings on marriage in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and even beyond, I would suggest that is incorrect. That is the whole point West is trying to make, that the Church’s understanding of our bodies, how our creation as male and female reflects the Trinitarian nature of God, and how beautifully and wonderfully made we are, is a true Good, and it needs to be shared and proclaimed. And, in this society, it needs to be proclaimed without having to use a euphemism ever time marital, intravaginal sex is meant. Respect for the holy nature of our creation and for our sexual relationships should not mean that actual words describing it are “vulgar”, which is my perception of many of the criticisms of West.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with PR’s last several posts here. I do not think West thinks JPII did anything revolutionary with respect to substance, but in perspective and presentation. This is how I have always understood him - - the Church has a beautiful understanding of sex and marriage, but it has not taught it effectively in the past. Agreed that it is also partially a matter of the teaching being rejected, but it was rejected also because the teaching was misunderstood or not presented beyond a “don’t do it”. I do not know how anyone can dispute this, but perhaps it depends on where you live and/or your peers.

If anyone here thinks the Church in the U.S. in general was teaching about St. Francis De Sales’ teachings on marriage in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and even beyond, I would suggest that is incorrect. That is the whole point West is trying to make, that the Church’s understanding of our bodies, how our creation as male and female reflects the Trinitarian nature of God, and how beautifully and wonderfully made we are, is a true Good, and it needs to be shared and proclaimed. And, in this society, it needs to be proclaimed without having to use a euphemism ever time marital, intravaginal sex is meant. Respect for the holy nature of our creation and for our sexual relationships should not mean that actual words describing it are “vulgar”, which is my perception of many of the criticisms of West.

Yes. I think the main valid critique of Mr. West’s explication of the TOB is that he sexualized Christianity rather than Christianized sexuality.

 

[fpt]

Where in Pope John Paul II’s discussions on the Theology of the Body does it say anything about physical acts between a married couple? I have read several posters who quote Christopher West who is supposedly basing his work off of John Paul II.

Here is the link to John Paul II’s work:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

The theology of the Body of JP II is the Theology of the Body of human beings, male and female at the image of God, and that means:

Theology of body of male, the theology of sexuality male, theology of sex of male, and theology of orgasm**** of male;

Theology of body of female, the theology of sexuality female, theology of sex of female, and theology of orgasms of female;

Thus,

Theology of the conjugal sexuality; theology of the marital act (theology of the unity and the procreativity of marital act , theology of conjugal sexual pleasures, theology of conjugal orgasm).

And the same for the philosophy.

The catholic church** gives the general guidelines about the marital act**: making one flesh with mutual and reciprocal sexual cooperation in the human fashion (respect the natural moral law of human beings, body and soul with the corollaries).

 

[underacloud]

Must resist . . . must not jump into another West thread . . . nooooooo

Oh, so close…but you couldn’t resist, could you.

 

[R1ch4rd]

I agree with PR’s last several posts here. I do not think West thinks JPII did anything revolutionary with respect to substance, but in perspective and presentation. This is how I have always understood him - - the Church has a beautiful understanding of sex and marriage, but it has not taught it effectively in the past. Agreed that it is also partially a matter of the teaching being rejected, but it was rejected also because the teaching was misunderstood or not presented beyond a “don’t do it”. I do not know how anyone can dispute this, but perhaps it depends on where you live and/or your peers.

If anyone here thinks the Church in the U.S. in general was teaching about St. Francis De Sales’ teachings on marriage in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and even beyond, I would suggest that is incorrect. That is the whole point West is trying to make, that the Church’s understanding of our bodies, how our creation as male and female reflects the Trinitarian nature of God, and how beautifully and wonderfully made we are, is a true Good, and it needs to be shared and proclaimed. And, in this society, it needs to be proclaimed without having to use a euphemism ever time marital, intravaginal sex is meant. Respect for the holy nature of our creation and for our sexual relationships should not mean that actual words describing it are “vulgar”, which is my perception of many of the criticisms of West.

Excellent post…glad you couldn’t resist:thumbsup:

 

[choose_to_love]

@underacloud #38: no, I couldn’t!

Expanding on a thought in one of my previous posts, it does seem that some of West’s critics, at times, give the impression that it is only acceptable to refer to sex with euphemisms and vague generalities. While I agree respect for the holiness and sanctity of our creation in the image and likeness of the trinitarian God is important, I have never got the idea from West that he was being “vulgar” in any meaningful way.