Everywhere I go in the Catholic blogosphere somebody’s got an opinion on Chris West. Cheeky Pink Girl is defending him. Countless blogs including Steve Kellmeyer’s are very very upset with him.
The furor surrounding West has grown to such a level that Cardinal Justin Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia, and Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg both announced their support of West’s work.
And West himself wrote a piece about the swirling controversy.
I’ve received a number of emails asking me about what our take is on him but I honestly don’t feel I know enough about him.
So I’m asking you guys to give me your thoughts. If the combox gets crazy or nasty I’ll just shut it down for the day. But I’m truly interested in what the thinking is on Chris West.
Update: Chelsea Zimmerman has a post up on Chris West today. I found it informative.
And thanks to all of you for keeping the dialogue above board.
October 28, 2009 at 1:46 pm
West lacks a lot of common sense. He comes across as a bit of a 'shock-jock theologian' and doesn't really think through what he is doing/saying sometimes. Then when it back fires, its the fault of the listeners or the detracters.
I have the greatest respect for Alice von Hildebrand and she critizied him for many things, but most importantly for taking this matter too lightly.
October 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm
What I'm seeing in the comments is largely what I suspected when I first saw the bru-ha-ha a couple of months ago after his MSM interview. Having participated in his Created and Redeemed series, I liked the content very much. He is setting up to appeal to the 90% who are not well catechized. I think that he appeals to them as well as probably 1/2 of the well catechized who had to get there from the bottom. But for those who were raised well in the faith, and don't have the memory of being raised from the ICKY or puritanistic, he is not going to have the appeal. They will find him base or less than appealing and even heretical because he uses a starting point (the modern) that they can't identify with to explain the transcendent. My opinion of his ministry is very favorable. I like that he makes these teachings accessible to anyone. Most people (especially priests) can't or won't and just avoid teaching them at all. This situation has created the 90% in the first place.
He reaches people where they are to try to help them understand the beauty of what they have been abusing.
October 28, 2009 at 5:56 pm
He's taken something basic and good- JPII's Wednesday reflections on Genesis- and made them into something else entirely (I was amazed when I read JPII's addresses that they weren't anything like West's work!). As the previous poster says, he is trying to appeal to Catholics who are not necessarily well catechetized- I think much of his rumination (Easter Candles as representing male anatomy, etc.) is for shock value. But the problem is that it is scandalous! The Church is not prudish about sex, and doesn't need Christopher West to show it a good time and make its members comfortable about sex (how else have Catholics always had large families, when possible?). While there is a nugget of truth and goodness to his work, he has elaborated and ruminated on things that depart from JPII's work for too long.
For verification of the easter candle business, see the Catholic News Agency article that I can't seem to post a link about (the blog won't let me).
October 28, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I have a problem with appealing to the masses. That's what the media does. Give the most base, simple version so everyone can get it and what we get is a lot of misinformed people who no one views as intelligent enough to understand the finer points of the subject. While I don't believe at all that West thinks most people are unintelligent, I feel that he operates in a "lowest common denominator" type of way.
A few years ago I wrote my Theology thesis on the body as the physical expression of the soul and how this is a call to chastity. I used JPII's TOB, Love and Responsibility, and the Summa, mainly. I had looked through some of West books but I didn't use him as a source. Now I know I was a theology major, but I was also a catechetics major so the 2nd half of my thesis was on how to apply these things in catechesis, where West could've been very helpful! But he wasn't. I found his delivery preachy and light. And I found some of his opinions/assumptions to just not be hitting the mark.
That being said, I know I'm a think-I-know-it-all-20-something (I'm a little younger than you, William!), but I know that I don't know it all. I like to think I do, but I know I don't. I just feel that why sex is so truly beautiful (the union of 2 ppl made in the image of God reflecting the inner, creative Love life of God) is a little lost or muddled or not given enough weight in West's teachings.
October 28, 2009 at 6:20 pm
"I had looked through some of West books but I didn't use him as a source."
Well, if he wasn't a primary source, would the reviewing faculty have signed off on it in the first place?
October 28, 2009 at 7:11 pm
i'm not sure i know what you're asking. i included West in my initial bibliography, where i listed all of the sources i would be looking at to gather my info and my advisor signed off on it. my final bibliography didn't include West because i didn't use any of his quotes or ideas in my paper and my advisor was still fine with it.
October 28, 2009 at 7:43 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
October 28, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Thanks for the link.
When I say that I defend West, I say this because no one else is out there the way he is, doing what he does. Back when this whole fury started up, I got into some vociferous arguments in commboxes defending West, but ONLY because I strongly assert that if he wasn't out there promoting and teaching what he does, many, many people would NEVER come across these teachings. Including myself.
Let's face it – is a young college student going to read TOB? Or a young, newly-married couple? No. TOB, as written by JPII, is not academically or intellectually accessible to the average person, even those who have the time to read such documents – or have the desire to. Thus, West serves a purpose.
Those who I argued with stated that misinterpretation of TOB (i.e. "error") on the part of West did not justify his "sex ministry." I disagree. Would you rather have young people (who, in my opinion, are West's target audience) walking around knowing NOTHING about the Church's teachings on sex, marriage, and fertility – continuing on in the dark of porn and conctraception and recreational sex? Or would you rather that someone tell them the basic truth about birth control, NFP, masturbation, and life-giving sexual acts? As Catholics, I think we would agree that the latter is more appealing. Still, those who hold to more traditionalist notions of the Church would seemingly prefer the former – and justify their beliefs with alot of big theological concepts that again, don't matter to Ashley and Jack who are living in the dorms at a nominally Catholic college. (And for those who reject NFP, which I am coming to realize are ALOT of traditional Catholics – please don't tell me that the use of artifical contraceptives is a better alternative to NFP. Because we all know that without NFP, alot of Catholics would be right back on the pill.)
I am grateful for the scathing and negative critiques of West that were presented when this all began, as well as now (for example, as in this commbox), because they have helped me to more critically think through what West is presenting and teaching. But despite what I've learned (and might even agree with!), I still belive he does more harm than good as concerns a topic where I have yet to see anything or anyone else step up to the plate to make a difference to a crowd that desperately needs to see and believe in that different. Thus, I am still a West fan, although now a cautious fan.
October 28, 2009 at 7:52 pm
That last line, I meant "more good than harm." Sorry!
October 28, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Charlotte, I thought you might have been right the first time. And there are any number of people who are doing what West does. There's one right here in DC. They're just don't have his PR.
October 28, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I sum the arguments up this way.
Most are ignorant about what the pro and anti West arguments really are, because they go right over their heads, but they don't really want that to stop them from joining the fray.
Some want to dogpile on CW, because it seems to be the most "Catholic" thing to do right now.
Some want to defend him to the death, even if there are problems.
I for one have gotten to know Christopher, and can speak to his humility. If a theologian or Bishop has a valid criticism, then he is willing to dialogue and listen. He has changed his approach several times because of good criticism. But, the professional mud-slinging hasn't done anyone any good. I think he has handled himself well.
I don't think he uses the best approach every time, but he has my utmost respect, because he is changing lives. He has a positive approach to issues that the Church has avoided all too often and one that is reaching people that the Church has ignored, in many ways. To me, he is a very good evangelist.
Is he perfect? No.
Is he correct in everything he says? No.
Is his approach always spot on? No.
But, he is willing to take correction, he is talking about things that we ignore too much, he is reaching to many who are not evangelized others, and he is bringing hope to a sex-saturated world that virtue, chastity, purity, and holiness are achievable goals.
For that – he gets my two thumbs up.
October 28, 2009 at 11:32 pm
The notion that Christopher West called Hugh Hefner his 'muse' and railed against 'Puritanism' makes me sick. After listening to "Naked without Shame," I worried that he was past his depth intellectually and spiritually. He strikes me as having a lot of backhanded pride and lust.
October 29, 2009 at 1:18 am
As I had a chance to read the TOB as written by Pope John Paul II, I noticed a divergence in the interpretation as done by Christopher West and TOB letter. Because of this divergence, I went away from the interpretation by Christopher West…Though his interpretation has helped me with a few things, most of it I've gone away from
October 29, 2009 at 2:09 am
The last two comments in particular betray a central problem with how the Theology of the Body may be taught in this case. At what point does John Paul II end, and Christopher West begin? And if one cannot render the distinction, how is that a mark of humility?
October 29, 2009 at 3:51 am
Christopher West is an intelligent fellow taking complex material written by a wise man with no actual experience of the sensetive subject which was read mostly by us theology geeks. He is trying to make it accessible to the masses and apply it to real bedroom situations. A few mis-steps along the way are to be expected.
Take West's written work and you will be hard pressed to find anything that would draw ire from CDF. Get him out of a written medium and he sometimes gets himself into trouble. On balance, he deserves credit for trying to make sexual morality interesting to people who actually have sex.
Anybody who reads here knows Justin Rigali is orthodox. For those unfamiliar with Kevin Rhoades, he is my bishop and he is a blessing to the church of Harrisburg. He is an orthodox pastor with an affection for the traditional. His support should be regarded as reliable.
October 29, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I have never heard CW, just read his books. As an adult convert to Catholicism, with a history of sexual abuse, his work has been Very Helpful to me. It helped me make sense of particularly Catholic teachings on sex which aren't shared by the greater Christian community any more. Also, I've never had anyone else explain sex in a way that helped me deal with the abuse so well, and reframe it to understand better what was really happening inside me at the time.
October 31, 2009 at 3:16 am
I find it interesting that so far no one has noted what would be two primary critiques of Christopher West. I will go on record and say I think West does much good. I also believe that he leads many people astray. First, he tends to have a flawed approach to the question of grace and free will, usually sounding as if he thought man could reach a state of perfected virtue in relation to sexuality. That is just bad theology, for it either limits the role of grace or limits the reality of fallen human nature. Secondly, his presentations, even when perfectly doctinally sound, do not take into account fallen human nature, and do not emphasize the care and privacy with which human sexuality should be taught. What should be passed on from couple to children is spoken of in front of hundreds, and far too often ends up being an excuse to talk about sex. One last point is that West's focus tends lead his hearers to think: "All we need is TOB to lead a moral life." TOB is one drop in the bucket of Catholic Tradition, and is not a new one, at that. West and TOB (not really a Theology) cannot answer all our questions, and sex is not a key to unlocking a mystical and amazing understanding of everything that is.
October 31, 2009 at 3:28 am
"[S]ex is not a key to unlocking a mystical and amazing understanding of everything that is."
If you understand "sex" solely in terms of biological expression, you're right. If you understand "sex" in the context of the relationship of masculine vis a vis feminine as a parallel with the entire work of creation, it is a place to start. That is a point I believe JPII tried to make in his writings. Otherwise, there would be little point to celibacy, or any other understanding of human sexuality, other than the ability to … well, have sex.
October 31, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Has ANYONE in this thread read West's latest book, "Heaven's Song"?? That shows the development & integration of his thought on this topic.
West is able to translate JPII thought into language that modern couples can understand. West has never claimed to be the last word on this complex issue. Sadly, those who claim the 'traditionalist' corner of this great Church seem to be the last to understand the union with God that this message points to…