I have heard West talk of these things (except perhaps marriage debt). No it is not too theological for Catholic laymen audiences. That’s why he talks about it ALL THE TIME!!!
In the link above, Jimmy Akin makes the following statement regarding West’s comments on Song of Songs:
OK - here’s one source quoted below:
Or perhaps you disagree.
Yes, well it took JP2 a period of decades to reveal it as well.
West doesn’t claim that it is revolutionary. If you are implying this, then you are putting false words in his mouth. West claims that it is a consolidation and repackaging of JP2’s teachings on this subject.
Perhaps the Pope didn’t teach it as part of TOTB. So what? The Pope didn’t cover everything in his sermons. So long as what West teaches doesn’t otherwise conflict with the faith, and it dovetails into his pitch on TOTB, why shouldn’t he say it?
Nothing I said “implied” that West said anything of the sort. I was trying to address the points of the original post. The theology is old. The discussion is new. It’s not revolutionary in the sense of it being some innovative theological breakthrough. It’s revolutionary in the sense that it runs completely counter to modern ideas.
The “so what?” is the difference between the magisterium and a layperson’s opinion. West does a poor job of delineating where the Pope’s teaching ends and his own ideas begin. Lots of speculative stuff doesn’t conflict with the faith per se. That doesn’t mean that it should be thrown around in popular discussion. The problem remains that West isn’t the magisterium, and while he doesn’t directly present himself as such, he definitely muddies the waters by not being clear on such things.
Strange. I was wondering why this conversation seems to have touched such a nerve with others here who are treating disagreement with West as some sort of personal attack.
Thank you for pointing out that West is not part of the magesterium. Nobody would know that if you hadn’t mentioned it. Of course, he should begin each talk with “I am not part of the magesterium.”
Some here are personally attacking West. Based on what I’ve read and seen of West, a lot of the criticism is unfounded, and in my mind he is innocent of those charges. It seems like a reasonably Catholic thing to do to defend him. He has changed many people’s lives for the better. Given the overall good he has done, it would seem that he should be given some kudos instead of “He’s not part of the magesterium.”
Yeah, that’s exactly what I meant. What he should do is clarify when he’s departing from papal teaching and inserting his own ideas so that people don’t think that what he’s saying is what the Pope said. One is authoritative. The other is not. When he gives his take on things, he decribes it as a discussion of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Except that isn’t entirely true. Part of it is, while the rest is “Christopher West presents Pope John Paul II’s TOTB.” These are two different things and he shouldn’t blur the line. That would be the reasonably Catholic thing to do so as to avoid the very confusion that has set in about him.Thank you for pointing out that West is not part of the magesterium. Nobody would know that if you hadn’t mentioned it. Of course, he should begin each talk with “I am not part of the magesterium.”
Some here are personally attacking West. Based on what I’ve read and seen of West, a lot of the criticism is unfounded, and in my mind he is innocent of those charges. It seems like a reasonably Catholic thing to do to defend him. He has changed many people’s lives for the better. Given the overall good he has done, it would seem that he should be given some kudos instead of “He’s not part of the magesterium.”
Perhaps the magesterium was not available to give the presentations, so he filled in the best he could.
Some of us are not confused at all.
How marvelous that you are so enlightened.
Nor did I suggest such a thing. I simply said that West should make clear when he departs from papal teaching and begins his own speculation.
How? By wishing he would be clear when he’s just giving his opinion? I’ve never suggested that his works don’t meet the standard for an imprimatur. I’ve said that his talks blur lines between his ideas and those of the Pope. People who hear such things and think they are odd/strange/dangerous then wonder if they themselves are going theologically afield because, after all, this is “papal teaching.”
No, but I’m clear on distinguishing between what the Church teaches and what is my opinion.
Already done, actually. If you wish to see someone with greater credentials than myself discuss such issues, see what Dr. Alice von Hildebrand had to say. She’s probably just jealous of his success, though.
So long as West’s speculation does not contradict Catholic teaching, everything is just fine. Even if it’s not papal teaching.
So long as West’s speculation does not contradict Catholic teaching, everything is just fine. Even if it’s not papal teaching.
So long as West’s speculation does not contradict Catholic teaching, everything is just fine. Even if it’s not papal teaching.
Ah. Now you’ve got it.
I think as a general rule in all teaching it is a good idea to differentiate somehow between the laying out of the of the facts, and the personal commentary on them. THis was always expected of me when I was a student, and later on when I was in the army. It is easy to do, and makes for much more clarity.
I agree, and I suspect that West would agree as well.
zenit.org/article-27657?l=english
I may have missed the cite to von Hildebrand; if you have one or more I would be interested. and by way of question, is she a Thomist or a neo Thomist? If os, that might explain some difficulties.
Kellmeyer somewhat overstates his case. One interview is not and never should be the sole criteria by which we examine someone’s views. Granted the point that Mr. Hefner is a pornographer and may well be a liar, that does not mean that every statement he makes is a lie or pornography. The vernacular “even a blind pig can find an acorn” should be kept in mind. There is a streak of Puratinism in many people, and Catholics are not any less exempt from such attitudes than anyone else. The answer to that streak of Puratinism is not Mr. Hefner’s approach, we can all agree; and I suspect that Mr. West was not pushing that approach at all. It was undoubtedly a ppor interview and a poor response; but if one is paying any attention to the whole as opposed to losing sight of the forest for one tree, one would be able to see that lack of familiarity with the press, coupled with the pressure of such a public interview can lead to inadequate statements that do not reflect what the interviewee holds. Add to that the editing that is done with all interviews and giving even a cursory nod in the direction of the biases of ABC, and charity would dictate that the comment was poorly chosen, but not presume that it was indicative of anything more major than foot in mouth disease suddenly striking.
Per the bolded part above, you are correct. Watch West in person, or on a DVD. Apparently Kellmeyer thought it best to crucify West before letting the facts get in the way.
Actually, Mr. Kellmeyer comes across as a seriously pompous ***. He may or may not be correct in how he dissects what Mr. West allegedly teaches and/or believes. They both have a background in Philosophy, it would appear, and I am sure that Mr. West could tighten up some of his commentary. But the bit from Mr. Kellmeyer is so over the top as to show a serious lack of basic charity. Mr. Kellmeyer hardly comes across as one seeking to educate the average young Catholic; rather, he seems to enjoy erudition in the persuit of intellectual battle. I wonder if he has bothered to attempt to teach TOTB to anyone not on his intellectual level of sophisitication.