More on Christopher West

Thank you, Anthony, for calling attention to a counter point-of-view. In my opinion, the Dean has an audience, of which I am not a member. Its not that I have deliberately chosen to withdraw my membership from his audience, but rather I simply have not been prepared by my up-bringing to grasp the fullness of his message. To the point-- I do not know the meaning of several words he used in his article. Yes, I could get a dictionary and better educate myself. However I am struck loudly by the fact that I would never even would have been interested enough to read the Dean's opinion on Theology of the Body as interpreted and shared with many by Christopher West if Christopher West himself hadn't used a style of teaching that resounded with me and called me to study my Catholic faith even further. Instead of criticizing Christopher West's teaching methods, I suggest the Dean applaud the fact that Mr. West has "opened the door" so that I can at least finally see what I'm missing. As a result of Mr. West's teaching I am going to confession, to Adoration, I am living my faith and I am actually studying and participating in Catholicism with more fire and commitment I ever could have imagined. I will continue to grow, to put my best foot forward. All because, several years ago, after one of his talks Christopher West took the time to meet individually with anyone who wanted to ask him a personal question and when he heard mine he suggested that I, "Pray to Mary." He never said 'buy this book' or 'listen to this CD' He just said "Pray." And I've been in prayer ever since. Thanks be to God for giving us messengers with different styles of communication, who can appeal to different audiences. I also had a very similar experience with The King's Men: they allowed me access to the fullness of our Catholic faith even though I never went to Catholic school and actually knew very little about what it means to be Catholic. I cannot thank enough those who have not yet risen to the rank of "Dean," for their commitment to their faith and their willingness to share it with others.

Having read some of these criticisms of CW's, I must say that on the whole I agree that some of his methods/ideas are problematic, particularly as to reverence. I only sympathise with the people who say: well, it's not perfect, but we take what we get in this very messed-up world, and CW is doing more good than harm.

However, what really shocks me, more than the teachings, is what I hear about him talking during Adoration (or rather that the Host is exposed during his talks) and that he blesses womens' ovaries. Excuse me, is CW a priest or deacon!? Is this stuff even allowed? Furthermore, is his ministry under Church supervision? How much? Does he have a nihil obstat/imprimatur on all his materials? Orthodoxy without obedience is a poor orthodoxy indeed - I have heard this before: people in self-appointed unsupervised ministries are a scandal waiting to happen. You can't just improvise your thing and call it inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

Also, if true, these insinuations by CW that people resisting/criticising his work are resisting the Holy Spirit sound to me like a lot of schismatics do.

Unfortunately, this article is not written for a layperson. I admit that after reading it twice, I still don't feel I have a good enough grasp of Mr. Schindler's criticism of West's Theology to either agree or disagree.

But on this list of things that Mr. Schindler condemns:

"West’s work has involved suggesting that a man and woman bless their genitals before making love; blessing the ovaries of women in his classes; advising young men in college and the seminary to look at their naked bodies in the mirror daily in order to overcome shame; using phallic symbolism to describe the Easter candle; criticizing “flat-chested” images of Mary in art while encouraging Catholics to “rediscover Mary’s ... abundant breasts” (Crisis, March 2002); referring to the “bloodied membrane” of the placenta as a "tabernacle" (Colorado Catholic Herald, 12/22/06); stating that, while “there are some important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked,” “there's nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse," (Good News About Sex and Marriage, 1st ed., emphasis in original), though qualifying this in the revised edition and stressing the subjective dangers of lust in such activity; and, on Nightline, praising Hugh Hefner for helping rescue sex from prudish Victorian attitudes, saying that there are “very profound historical connections between Hefner and John Paul II,” while emphasizing that John Paul II took the sexual revolution further and in the right direction."

I also find some of this very silly, but nothing blasphemous? (Let's not debase the meaning of that word by using it in situations where it does not apply).

As for the comment about anal penetration as foreplay (I never thought I'd be addressing this stuff on a Catholic blog!) Schindler glosses over West's hesitancy and ambivalence in the text and how deeply West then goes on to discourage the practice, due to the uncomfortable and disordered symbolism involved.

I do have a problem celebrating Hugh Hefner as any kind of hero (Schindler is on the money when he writes "Hefner at root does not correct but misconceives and then only continues the error of America’s Puritan Protestantism"), but I WOULD argue that there are profound historical connections between him and JPII. TotB was, in many ways, a response and correction to the changing attitudes about sex in the second half of the 20th Century.

With regards to Schindler's article, I agree with some people’s comments on this blog in that I can't understand some of Schindler's vocabulary. Nor could I understand some of the vocabulary in Love and Responsibility by JPII. Many people like Christopher West and have come to a better understanding of the Church's teaching through his talks and books because - WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT!!! I don’t think this can be stressed enough. I have a degree from a highly accredited university in the US, but I am not in the circle of "Catholic academia.” Even though I am educated, I need someone like West to break it down for me. I have enough formation to know that in the moral sphere, West doesn’t propose anything that goes against Church’s teaching (With regard to anal penetration – the Church has never been very clear about this issue or oral sex, as far as I know). No one would come away from his talks or books thinking that he or she had a license to practice immoral behavior.

I feel like West is very good for people who are struggling to live the Church’s teaching on chastity, while hormones or sexual addictions are pulling them in the opposite direction. A lot of Catholics fall into one of these two categories because of original sin (including “good” Catholics). West brings it out in the open and lets people know they aren’t alone in their struggle to live chastity. I think he’s trying to show people why and how sex is distorted in our society, and give us tools to deal with our concupiscence. West tries to explain the “whys” behind the “thou shall nots,” which he rightly states have been lacking in Catholic education. If we don’t do this, we breed Catholics who have neurotic habits of sinning and running to the confessional on a weekly or even daily basis.

Maybe West’s mistake is that he doesn’t make clear that some of his ideas (like standing in front of a mirror naked, etc.) are his own and not JPII’s. However, I don’t find anything morally wrong with West’s material. If there are things that are not theologically correct, I pray that the Holy Spirit guides him to the truth. In the meantime, he seems to be doing a lot of good and I think there are more serious problems in the world to worry about than Christopher West. He’s definitely not dangerous as some people are suggesting.

After reading what West says about "flat-chested" Blessed Virgin Mary depictions, I am offended that he would promote the idea that a so-called "flat-chested" woman would be somehow less feminine. Also, he seems to really want to be 'hip', and his other comments on sexual acts that are immoral being accepted as ok really bother me. I think he tries to shock people into thinking, and I don't believe there is enough reverence in his delivery.