What is the latest on Christopher West

  • Thread starter Thread starter waterdog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

waterdog

Guest
I was talking to my pastor about the possibility of using the Christopher West video on Winning the Battle for Sexual purity for men at our parish for a Father/son date. He had read something by a cardinal (he thought, but had no names) that had some serious issues with some of West’s stuff. I do not want to use West, as much as I like his stuff, if he has come up against the Vatican. Now–I do not want to start a thread arguing the pros and cons of West’s approach. Some are offended, some are invigorated in their understanding of Catholic Teaching. My opinion, built on years of Chastity education among young people is that his approach is valid and we must talk in bold terms about our sexuality today–indeed if we had been more explicit in the past we may not have reached the point where we are today. But that is another topic. And no, I don’t want to trot out the edited interview between him and dateline. That was a hatchet job.

My question–what is the latest? Has he been officially censored? If so why? Was he summoned by the Vatican and did he refuse to go? Thanks y’all and God Bless your day.
 
The book I read was good, but apparently in his talks he goes off the deep end at times, coming dangerously close to denying Original Sin. In a televized discussion West said that if his heart was in the right place, he could look at Mrs. Hahn unclothed without lust; Dr. Hahn almost lost his temper at that. But as far as I know his writings are sound.
 
(name removed by moderator) thanks–nothing beats hierarchy in support. Where can I get these quotes in official context?
 
About 3 years ago, there was a lot of back and forth about Christopher West’s approach. At no point was he censored or the subject of any sort of ecclesiastical penalty.

This website has links to many of the main articles pro and con:

headlinebistro.com/hb/en/news/jp2_theologyofbody.html

In response to this brouhaha, West actually took a sabbatical to reflect on his approach. I think he wrote a book about that time of reflection.
 
The biggest criticisms come from Dr. Alice VonHildebrand, theologian and wife of the even more famous theologian Dietrich VonHildebrand.

Having read her criticisms, I can’t help but think that her reaction is based less on reason and more on an emotional uncomfortableness with blunt talk about sex. Look her up and decide for yourself. She certainly was raised in a different era in regards to how respectable people discuss such things!

IMO, West’s critics simply fail to recognize that West sees his role mostly as that of popular translator. He wants people to grasp the basics of JPII’s profound insights even if they lack the vast theological vocabulary (and attention span!) to read it for themselves. He tries to express TOB in common examples, situations and language. You can’t help but at least add ambiguity in doing so. Criticizing him for that amounts to making the claim that only theology students should try to understand it. (IMO)
 
The latest is that he is even more of a theological flasher than ever.
 
thank you (name removed by moderator)
manualman–this has been my thought as well. While concepts and virtues such as purity and chastity are crucial and beautiful, they can be rendered meaningless, without detail–according to the audience at hand. Explaining in detail may be uncomfortable for some people–especially those raised in an environment in which sex was a forbidden subject. However couching this important subject in vague terms leads to rationalization and lack of clarity. I truly believe that if we had been able to talk about sex the way we needed to, the sixties would not have happened. We would have known true freedom and not gone racing off after its counterfeit. (West talk, lol) And most criticism I have heard has been from ultra-conservative, type people, including my dear dad, (82 years old, God bless him) who literally thinks that the reason Adam and Eve took on clothing is because beind naked was wrong–as you said, emotional response.

My best example is from my own life. My parents raised me in love, to love my Faith. I knew that sex before marriage was wrong (not sure how, because neither parent would talk about sex at all) What I didn’t know was why it was wrong or how to maintain in that. This made it a struggle. To explain why or how–so crucial to a young person taking this message of God’s plan to heart and living it–you have to use language that some old-school people find offensive.
 
I would avoid West altogether. Freud was ok, he snorted some coke, looked at his doodad and decided the world must revolve around it. That just makes perfect sense. West has taken it two steps further, not just the world revolves around his doodad, but the universe, indeed, even the Almighty himself.
 
excellent example of an emotional, reactionary and indeed unsubstantiated response to CW
 
white_sheep said:
I would avoid West altogether. Freud was ok, he snorted some coke, looked at his doodad and decided the world must revolve around it. That just makes perfect sense. West has taken it two steps further, not just the world revolves around his doodad, but the universe, indeed, even the Almighty himself.
Click to expand...
Uh…

…oooook…

I have no problem with you rejecting a prominent thinker like Freud, but could you not reduce his arguments to absurdity? That’s just wrong.

I happen to reject Plato’s philosophy. But you won’t catch me running around going, “Plato says there’s only one table in the universe!” (even though one could say that if they wanted to be ignorant about him)
 
waterdog said:
excellent example of an emotional, reactionary and indeed unsubstantiated response to CW
Click to expand...
Really? West attaches a secret sexual meaning to practically everything. How exactly is it emotional, reactionary, and unsubstantiated when he says the secret meaning of the paschal candle is that it is a phallic symbol? Or that the eucharist is a symbol of sex, etc, etc.

Frankly, I don’t need to hear this stuff. And it’s wrong. The Paschal candle has nothing to do with a penis. The Eucharist has nothing to do with sex either.
 
'Cause sex is dirty, and those things are holy, right? :rolleyes:

I would agree that there is no need to consciously think of these things in sexual terms on a routine basis, but Tradition is FULL of references to the nuptial relationship between Christ and his bride, the Church. I hardly think God forgot about the steamy parts when he built the universe with the intention of becoming incarnate as Christ and making his people his ‘bride.’

West does what ALL theologians do. He has developed a particular expertise in a subject area and tends to see the world through the focus of his particular expertise. That doesn’t mean he is teaching people that we ALL should see it all the time the way he is describing it in his talks. If anything, the reverse is true. He is trying to get people to understand that God invented sex and it is built into the fabric of creation, rather than the unwritten, unspoken but often true older culture in which sex was something we’d rather not admit we think about or that it affects us in any way. As if God tacked it on at the end like an unfortunately necessary afterthought.
 
manualman said:
'Cause sex is dirty, and those things are holy, right? :rolleyes:

I would agree that there is no need to consciously think of these things in sexual terms on a routine basis, but Tradition is FULL of references to the nuptial relationship between Christ and his bride, the Church. I hardly think God forgot about the steamy parts when he built the universe with the intention of becoming incarnate as Christ and making his people his ‘bride.’

West does what ALL theologians do. He has developed a particular expertise in a subject area and tends to see the world through the focus of his particular expertise. That doesn’t mean he is teaching people that we ALL should see it all the time the way he is describing it in his talks. If anything, the reverse is true. He is trying to get people to understand that God invented sex and it is built into the fabric of creation, rather than the unwritten, unspoken but often true older culture in which sex was something we’d rather not admit we think about or that it affects us in any way. As if God tacked it on at the end like an unfortunately necessary afterthought.
Click to expand...
Yes, because once the creepy guy in a trenchcoat has theologically flashed you it is just so easy to get out of your mind that the Paschal candle is really just the Giant Easter Penis. If you can get that out of your mind, good for you. His comparisons are of a nature that is very difficult to ignore and put out of your mind.
 
West is controversial among doctrinally orthodox Catholics, basically. This essay is the best anti-Christopher West piece I have ever read; it synthesizes all the best criticisms of West, and avoids silly surface-level nonsense like “he uses crass language!”

I do not agree with all of it, and Wade comes off as arrogant at times, but he is extremely precise and thoughtful. I do not link this article to turn you against West but because I think everyone who is reading West or hearing him speak should be informed about what his critics say.

I do not know the latest on West’s status with respect to his diocese or Rome, but that page has some information on recent debates between West supporters and critics, from the perspective of a critic.
 
Best Quote of the thread: “Giant Easter Penis”… I think I’ll just stick with the chocolate bunnies, thanks!
 
Transformer’s post and the latest post by White Sheep are the ticket. Level headed discussion. I want to be able to present TOB in the best way possible and I don’t need West, but he is one of the popular presenters out there. I am uncomfortable when teachers get excited about a theological concept and take off with it, like a dog with a bag of steaks. However, I don’t want to be anywhere near the land of prudery, “oh my goodness, we can’t talk about that”, attitude that got us into the mess we are in to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top