Christopher West condemned by Alice von Hildebrand

Having taken the Theology of the Body course established by Christopher West, I can say that I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. von Hildebrand. There is a significant gap in T.O.B. as presented through Christopher West's in the teaching and dangers presented by the concupiscence that results from our fallen nature.

Another problem not mentioned is the frequency of T.O.B coursed being presented in Churches while in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. The proper protocol is to have the pastor or priest remove Our Lord so as to allow the Church to be used for an educational purpose.

All in all, I was disappointed by West's course and found Bishop Sheen's writings and lectures on the subject, more informative, balanced and respectful.
West's presentation should be cleaned up a bit with a more solid catechesis in foundational Catholic teachings.

I would like to express my oppinion in this matter. I personally and totally agree with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand. I had originally watched a series on EWTN by Christopher West, and there were things that I found strange as for the Pope to say and even disturbing. I thought that maybe they didn’t realize what the entire series were about, since Christopher West is well known and trusted in this matter. When I heard the news, it didn’t surprise me at all. I suspected he was turning the wrong way and sooner or later someone would point it out. No matter how Christopher West wants to justify this, there is no point at all in comparing John Paul II’s teaching with prominent pornographic personality as Hugh Hefner. This is really way out of proportions. He just went too far.
I read what Christopher West said, and I personally watched his series, and there is no mistake he’s gone too far, even if he said it was edited. I think his interpretations of JPII teachings are becoming more of his own understanding and not those of the Church’s teachings.
And here’s the reason why: In many instances, Christopher West seems to misinterpret John Paul II’s teachings. For example, in a particular paragraph, of "Love and Responsibility", bottom of page 275, John Paul II says: “Marriage cannot be reduced to the physical relationship, it needs an emotional climate without which the virtues - whether that of love or that of chastity - become difficult to realize in practice." An expert commenting on this said that, “the man's love for his wife must pre-exist the sexual act, since the sexual act cannot achieve the goal of man loving woman on its own”. Christopher West completely misinterpreted and misunderstood this and he translated it into his own language and turned it into a real disaster that I feel uncomfortable commenting here. I even threw into the trash can a book by another commentator because I felt so uncomfortable as a woman that couldn’t keep on reading. I read a comment by an expert who said that: “The center of the Holy Father's teaching is "to create the conviction that "the other person is more important than I." THAT is the purpose of sex education, not teaching someone about the importance of mutual satisfaction.”
So from now on, I only read the original translations, whether it is JPII or any other writing, I personally don’t read commentaries on books by anyone. Anybody can misinterpret thing his/her own ways and it can lead to disaster in the way we understand Church’s teachings. I think it’s important to have a deep prayer and sacramental life, though, (especially in the days we’re currently living) so the light of God can always warns us and suggests: something is not right, here.
Thanks, God bless

Anthony: Dr. von Hildebrand has hit the nail on the head. She is not the first I have heard this from. Our parish priest attended one of his presentations and came back with similar impressions.

While Christopher West probably started out with the best of intentions, he's lost his way in his attempt to "relate" to a secular society. The comparison to King David ought to be a wake up call for him and his followers.

Pray for him.

I completely concur with Van Hildebrand's analysis, which springs from her 'sensus Catholicus', enabling her to recognize erroneous teaching when she sees it! Christopher West may be very well intentioned but his understanding of concupiscence is dangerous and certainly not in keeping with the Church's teaching on sexual morality. He needs to seek out true Catholic instruction on the Christian virtues of modesty and chastity, which require Catholics to avoid all occasions of lust and impurity i.e. by practicing custody of the eyes, refraining from speaking of the sexual act in mixed company and by dressing modestly, etc. West seems to minmize these things and to disregard the sacredness of sexuality. The need to keep sex sacred has been emphasized by the Church through the centuries for good reason. Catholic teaching on sexual matters is not prudish (as West likes to say) - it is sensible and balanced, with full acknowledgement of human weakness, concupicence and the ease by which man sins mortally because of his fallen nature. Further, exalting marital sex act above everything else is not even close to being all that marriage is. His is a disordered over-emphasis of sex.

Again, I've no doubt he is sincere in his desire to help others on their path to holiness, but West should listen to the recent criticisms, and realize he is touting serious errors and likely leading many catholics into dangerous territory. He would be wise to take Von Hildebrand's words of admonishment to heart and seek the counsel of Catholics like her who have the wisdom, truth and holiness necessary to be a real leader of men.

ABC spun the interview to their liking and weren't the most careful with it. For example, at one point, the voice-over mentions the "Theology of the Bible."

West took a risk in agreeing to do the interview; he had to know he'd be spun. Mentioning Hefner... well, I understand the point that he's trying to make, but it's too fine a point to make on television, especially without control over editing.

As for disrespect, West is not saying that Hefner is on the same level as the Pope or, for that matter, that the Song of Songs is the centerfold of the Bible. He's trying to (perhaps ineffectively) use those comparisons as analogies to point people at the truth. And for the people he's trying to reach, those analogies work.

As much as I love Prof. von Hildebrand and her husband's writings, they're not particularly accessible to the average fallen-away-Catholic. West manages to reach out to those Catholics and introduce them to the Theology of the Body. He never claims he's teaching the entirety of it -- anyone so interested can read the text direct from John Paul II and see the fullness of the teaching.

Prof. von Hildebrand is correct that "There are many things Christopher West does not mention." She's correct that he doesn't exactly empathize that following the Theology of the Body's teaching is not going to be easy, that involves denial of self, of training oneself to subject one's body to the command of one's souls -- He doesn't mention or highlight that because he's trying garner interest in the Theology of the Body to an audience that's grown skeptical of Church teaching in this area, that's bought into the media's misrepresentation of Catholicism as a faith for prudes. He speaks to his audience and meets them where they are, and I think, on the whole, the ABC interview was worth it, because if even one Catholic learns of and studies the Theology of the Body because of it, so much the better.

As for those of us who have some familiarity with the Theology of the Body; well, we know that West is providing the Cliff's Notes version, in essence. But sadly, our modern culture many times won't even consider an idea until they can have it expressed in a Cliff's Notes version, and West does that effectively, bringing more people to the teachings of the Church, and pointing them in the right direction, along the right path.

West's not perfect, but neither is anyone else, apart from Our Lord and His Blessed Mother.

Why read Christopher West talking about John Paul II when you can just read John Paul II?

I have heard Christoper West's talk and watched the 8 part DVD and think he's wonderful. Why Dr. Von Hildebrand would criticize him publically creates an unnecessary divide and confusion, and I wonder if she has ever taken the time to actually watch his 8 part DVD series, or is she commenting solely on the ABC interview? Her refererence to her own husband's views on this topic sounded a bit high and mighty, and I think what she really has a problem with is Christopher West's style of teaching.

I think Christopher West's talks are refreshing. Finally someone makes Theology of the Body and the Church's teaching on sex understandable to the average person, and not just to people who have theology or philosophy degrees. His own struggles with lust, trying to understand sex and the Church's teaching on it while growing up as a teen, is something we can all relate to.

I think Dr. Von Hildebrand needs to understand that there are different styles of explaining the matter, and her husband's views aren't the only way. God inspires a lot of people, not just her and her husband. Christopher West is a courageous man, and if she really feels like he is going overboard, why not have a good motherly talk in private. Why criticize a man who is trying to do a lot of good?

I have heard Christopher West speak and found his message and summation of the TotB too simplistic for my tastes. That being said, I think Dr. Hildebrand's language is MUCH too strong and needlessly divisive. I also get the distinct impression that her condemnation is based solely upon this Dateline interview and does not fairly taken into consideration West's written work on the subject, which is very orthodox.

Recently, Dr. Alice von Hildebrand criticised Christopher West after an ABC special that distorted his views on human sexualtity. Christopher West has brought healing teaching to over 3 million Catholics. He has made Theology of the Body accessible to a new generation.

Alice Von Hildebrand and her late husband, are much respected in the Church and she has appeared numerous times on EWTN and at Catholic Family Land. Cool. So why is she taking such a heavy handed swipe at Christopher West? I think it’s a big mistake.

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand first met her husband as his student in 1940. She took 18 courses from him, became his secretary and co-writer, and married him after the passing of his wife, 19 years after they met, 35 years younger than the professor. I am in no way intimating any moral line crossing, but I’m not sure this is the model of family life I’d be looking to for great advice on how to communicate marriage and sexuality to young people. She grew up in the puritanical culture that Chris is criticizing.

I think she needs to spend time with West’s books, and not rely on ABC specials, when criticizing a man who is trying to bring difficult readings of Theology of the Body to a highly sexualized culture.

JP II was not against using the tools of modern world, including modern language, to articulate age old truths. I think Mr. West is following that guidance. JPII didn’t freak out when a topless woman came for communion in Papua New Guinea, May 8, 1984. He ministered to the natives as they stood there topless. Alice von Hildebrand claims to understand JPII better than West. I’d be glad to have her explain these photos and the photos of bikini acrobats in the Vatican palace. She’s a philosopher, he’s a communicator. She should not measure him by philosophical standards.

John Paul II understood that the cultural context of an audience needs to be considered when teaching. Dr. Hildebrand has a great heart for the Church, chastity, and modesty, but I suggest at 85 years old, she is not in touch with the battle “on the ground” that is raging in our culture, that Christopher West is masterfully addressing, using the powerful teachings of JPII. This is no way disrespectful of Dr. Hildebrand.

Perhaps Chris will have to tweak his presentation to be more reverent of sex, but I’m not even sure of that. I’m still trying to figure out if he’s a modern Saint who is getting bashed by people in the Church just like all the other Saints were bashed.

I am inspired to add the following to my former remarks.

Yesterday, I broke open several books: Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla, Theology of the Body Explained by Christopher West, and Man, Woman, and the Meaning of Love by Dietrich von Hildebrand. By mentioning these three books, I do not mean to imply that these works represent definitively the fullness of Catholic tradition and wisdom on the subject of spousal love. Yet these three books I have read, and they have all had a positive contribution to my own Catholic understanding on the subject.

If you turn to the last page of the Preface in West’s book, you will read the following:

“Popularizing the Pope’s theology of the body is virtually uncharted territory. Finding the best language, images, and anecdotes with which to do so remains a process of trial and error.”

West further states:

“I, like every interpreter of the Pope’s thought, bring my own personal perspectives, gifts, and shortcomings to the table. As St. Paul says, ‘test everything; hold fast to what is good.’” (1 Thess 5:21)

For me, the language and tone of West’s writings in this book do not resemble the recent dialogue I observed he had on the ABC interview (even if heavily edited). The language and tone and even content found in Theology of the Body Explained are respectful, and attention is given to the mystery inherent in the marital act as well as the concupiscence we as humans possess. Further, there is also discussion about the sacrificial nature of spousal love. Therefore, I would certainly not discourage anyone from reading West’s book, Theology of the Body Explained, as numerous references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church are given, as well as quotes from Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body talks made early in his pontificate (TB).

Upon refreshing my memory of Love and Responsibility by the former Pope, I am reminded of the extent to which Pope John Paul II gives a metaphysical analysis of love. The second chapter titled “The Person and Love” does such. Mind you, this is not the first chapter which immediately delves into the subject of our sexual desire (urge), and perhaps this is where West bases his own approach on the discussion about the subject of the relationship between man and woman? I don’t know. I’m not saying such discussion shouldn’t be made, for of course it must in order to carry on a full dialogue which reflects the Catholic Christian truth of the subject. But I am wondering if it might be fruitful to discuss the subject of man and woman in their spousal relationship by incorporating a more balanced dialogue so as to pay due attention to the spiritual relationship between man and woman? After all, the first sentence of the second chapter to Love and Responsibility is: “The word ‘love’ has more than one meaning.” Mind you, the follow-up sentence to this is Wojtyla’s declaration of his deliberate intent to narrow such discussion to that love found between man and woman. However, Wojtyla follows this statement with the ever-important clarification saying, “But of course even in this narrow sense the word still has various meanings, and there can be no thought of using it as though it only had one.” By saying such, Wojtyla is conveying to us the “richness” (in his words) of the meaning of love which, no doubt, when grasped leads one to an understanding of true love.

Having said this, I turn our attention to the third book I’ve mentioned, being that written by Dietrich von Hildebrand. Man, Woman, and the Meaning of Love was first published as Man and Woman back in 1966. Several reprints have been made, the most recent I’m aware of being the 2002 edition as a retitled reprint of the 1992 edition by Sophia Institute Press. Of note is that this 2002 edition was published with permission of Alice von Hildebrand.

From the first paragraph in this book, we are assured that von Hildebrand does not carry a Victorian mentality on the subject. Allow me to quote the following first paragraph of this noteworthy book:

“Although we hear that sex is overemphasized today, this is not correct. Rather, we live in a time in which sexuality is no longer understood in its true nature. People today are generally as blind to its true meaning as are persons who completely lack sensuality.”

I would say that this sentiment carries no hint of a prudish approach at all.

Further, I will add that Dietrich von Hildebrand devotes considerable discussion later in the book to the subject of the error of Victorian prudery. However, I think von Hildebrand does an excellent job of explaining in plain language how shame and shyness are two very different things, and how we should not confuse an innate shyness about certain things of this subject with shame. (Note: Dietrich von Hildebrand writes even more extensively on this very thing in his book, In Defense of Purity.)

To quote from Man, Woman, and the Meaning of Love:

“But shyness, which is often confused with shame, reveals our reluctance to exhibit beautiful and noble things if they are intimate.” Further, it is said by von Hildebrand that “To oppose Victorian prudery by the neutralization of sex, to tear down the walls of this mysterious garden and to see in it progress, is a fundamental error.”

Dietrich von Hildebrand is trying to show that the true antithesis to Victorian prudery is a reverent attitude toward sex, seeing in it something great, deep, and mysterious. I have no doubt that Alice von Hildebrand shares these same beliefs. Hence, I am confident she is in no way a prude as she has been falsely accused by some of being.

I encourage everyone to read Man, Woman and the Meaning of Love by Dietrich von Hildebrand as well. It is a highly readable work, a short but impactful read, and one of those books that in my opinion remains timeless regardless of cultural shifts here in the West and abroad.

I pray that our on-going dialogue about the subject of man and woman and the meaning of love will iron out how best to unveil the subject so as to preserve in a most reverent manner the mystery and dignity there is between spousal love, which by default will preserve and promote its fullness of truth within our Catholic tradition going forward.

Pax Christi,
Karen Chohrach