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 1:42 am
I'm worried about his less than "no-way-no-how-not-EVER" opinion of consensual, married anal sex. He (and Greg Popcak) never come out and say "NO" but just dance around its possibility as foreplay. YUCK!!!!!
October 28, 2009 at 1:46 am
I've heard him talk both in person and via radio interview. When I heard about some of the upset regarding comments including Hugh Hefner for example, I knew for a fact that West was being taken out of context. If the whole of what he is saying is taken into account, I see no problem with anything I've heard.
October 28, 2009 at 1:46 am
He introduced Theology of the Body to me.
I think he represents "normal folks" that people will listen to. He's publically admitted his faults and failings many times. He seeks the truth and realizes that he needs the Church to have final authority on the answers to his questions.
Many people complain that only wierd people believe what the Church teaches. He can speak to these believers and non-believers alike (in RC).
To the comment at 9:42 PM:
Point him to the Church teaching on it (yes, yuck). Can you post a link anon (I'm not agreeing with West's belief, I think he would be persuaded by the Church's teaching)?
October 28, 2009 at 1:51 am
My (somewhat educated) opinion:
Theology is built on Philosophy. JPII's papal adresses, called en mass "The Theology of the Body" are built upon the philosophical school known as Phenomenology, a response to Cartesian skepticism.
Some Catholics don't like Phenomenology because it acknowledges the existance of enlightenment philosophy. Their esteem for the angelic doctor brings them to ignore any system that displaces St. Thomas from his rightful pre-eminence. Rather than engaging moderns and leading them out of error, they simply condemn and ignore anyone with whom they disagree.
As far as I know, the opposition to West is a combination of opposition to phenomonology and misrepresentation of his ideas. His own choice, for example, to title a lecture series "Naked without Shame" can lead people to think his ideas are quite odd.
October 28, 2009 at 2:22 am
Steve makes some fair points, but I think he focuses a bit too much on his own ideas of what West's intent was. On the other hand, West should have known better than to use Playboy as a starting point for any discussion on sex, especially one to the "general public."
Reading West's defense, you can definitely see why one would be quick to attack: he's using the Theology of the Body to examine a much more hopeful, holy way of life than is offered in the typical American ideas. Either permanent, sinful adolescence or Ken-and-Barbie apple picking for a forty year "marriage journey." Both pretty terrible, thanks Hollywood!
Speaking from my own experience with the Theology of the Body, any misstep taken on this route can get you down a very dark path, very quick. And as a younger voice on this blog, I can tell you that a lot of my friends lead lives of true despair because of misconceptions on this. In my own sinful state, I at least always have hope.
October 28, 2009 at 2:42 am
My wife and I attended a talk by West on TOB – West held our attention, he was witty, intelligent, and interesting. He speaks bluntly and is very refreshing. I can see how his approach might ruffle some feathers but I think his critics are going overboard.
October 28, 2009 at 3:31 am
Bishop Rhoades is my bishop and he is awesome. I admire that Mr. West waited until he heard from his shepherds before writing to defend himself. To me that shows a humble spirit.
As a convert, the Theology of the Body issues were some of the hardest for me to come to terms with – still are to this day. But Christopher West's work has done a lot to challenge, enlighten, and inspire me.
October 28, 2009 at 4:06 am
The Theology of the Body has and continues to change lives for the better all over the US through West's work. He has done an awesome job (certainly not perfect) of bringing JPII's thought to Catholics. His work helped me to understand why the Church teaches what it does about human sexuality.
In particular, I think he does a good job of helping us see what we're saying yes to – the holiness and sacredness of human sexuality – and then building the necessary no's on that foundation.
I've never encountered any seriously questionable statements or even example in the materials I've used. On the other hand, I'm sure he's had faux pas's like every human. I'm very excited to be using some of his materials to prepare a series on Theology of the Body for college students where I serve, man do they need to hear this message!
Fr. Ben
October 28, 2009 at 4:09 am
To Edmund above…
I don't know if I agree a 100% with your point that Phenomenology is a response to Cartesian skepticism. I don't even know if I would consider Descartes skeptic in that sense… at least Ontologically.
I think that it is less with the higher level Phenomenological & Epistemological aspects of the belief and more of the Personalist sense.
I don't think that Catholics dismiss Personalism en masse, mostly because those catholics you speak of, the Trads, which I would loosely place myself in, do appreciate the Personalism of JPII. Sure it creates a problem when you ask us what we think of Aquinas, but I think Personalism can co-exist with some Thomist philosphies, as they exist on a lower level of existence than say phenomenology does. (At least in terms of school of thought hierarchy.)
Likewise I think that Catholics dislike "Personlist" thought, is that it is expanded beyond the strict bounds of Catholicism, and exist in a "hedonistic" sort of way. Rather than limiting the philosophy of their ideas with Catholicism, they limit Catholicism with Personalism. This is where the boundaries are blurred and the ideas begin to conflict.
But I could be wrong… for I have been wrong many time before. I am still trying to work this all out in my head.
October 28, 2009 at 4:27 am
Janet Smith has also defended West very vocally and passionately, and in the process also opens gentle reader to the possibility of sodomy as foreplay. Just google Janet Smith and sodomy.
Wait.
If you are googling Janet Smith and sodomy, doesn't the common sense of the layperson (or any sane person) kick in and announce "What in the freak am I doing googling this garbage?"
So, now that you see where the train is headed, don't you think you might think about jumping off before it gains steam? Don't you think we have strayed from Catholic sexual ethics just a smidge? When philosophers are tying themselves up in knots justifying the disgusting, the dangerous, the ludicrous, it's time to admit that the emperor has no clothes.
But, maybe that's just "foreplay," so let thine idols naked be.
I'll be in the shower. Covered in bleach. Crying.
October 28, 2009 at 4:29 am
I honestly think Christopher West is a hack. While I do appreciate Theology of the Body for beginners, I think he has capitalized on the TOB. I understand people need to have something to focus on, but I feel like he took the TOB and has almost claimed it as his own in some ways.
But then again, I don't really see too big of a deal with the TOB to start with…so maybe its just me.
October 28, 2009 at 4:32 am
I take a slightly less positive view of West than most of the commentators here, and I am not sure it has anything to do with "Neoscholasticism," for the simple reason that I don't have a problem with JPII, or even with modern philosophy (though I do have philosophical issues – from very modern grounds – with certain strands of 20th century philosophy, but that's another matter). Nor it would seem are the complainants being prudish, or opposed to JPII. I mean, Janet Smith is not opposed to JPII.
In some respects (criticizing Christopher West for making the argument that certain aspects of the liturgy are charged with sexual imagery), I think the critics go too far. What is problematic though is the combination of the failure to see that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (i.e. as Wittgenstein points out, the view that everything is sexually charged is tremendously attractive, but is only a result of the human fascination with a point of view), and on the other hand a kind of ultra-supernaturalism about sex. To put it differently, sex is an aspect of human experience. One wonders whether it can carry all the expectation placed on it. I think one can usefully contrast West's attitude to sex with say Lassus' or Monteverdi's.
Some of what West (and Grisez before him, I think) says on what is allowable within marital intercourse is at the very least unfortunate, and potentially dangerously protestant. This is particularly true, I am told by those who don't share my own negative view of West, of the early West.
I think basically, the problem with West, in contrast to JPII, is oversimplification.
October 28, 2009 at 4:36 am
It is not Janet Smith, I mean (Sorry), but David Schindler, who is hardly anti-JPII, but has critiqued West.
October 28, 2009 at 5:58 am
A very valid and funny point, Anony. You too, Kiran.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't see the dangers in West's approach. While it's great to ask much, it's also easy to ask for too much. Which, to me, has always been one of the chief dangers of Protestant thought.
And once you get to such a fine line that people aren't sure whether you're endorsing sodomy, Playboy, or giving your kids more hugs, maybe it is a little too fine.
I don't know. I really am of two minds on the subject, hence the two posts, I guess.
…Also I really, really want to work blue on this one, so I'm definitely going to tap out.
October 28, 2009 at 7:41 am
I think CW means very well…As I've gotten more traditional, I've gone away from TOB.
I think that when TOB is treated well as Theology, then it's fine…When it's presented as a glorified form of what the Secular world has to offer, then in that case it's wrong.
October 28, 2009 at 10:27 am
Personalistic norm for the win. Love and Responsibility is easily one of my favorite books ever…And quite frankly I'm not really attached to Thomas Aquinas as the gold standard of all of Catholic theology/philosophy. I'm wondering, though, why you'd get away from the TOB as you get more traditional? I've not read it myself, but if it's anything like L&R (and I've heard it implied that although it's more expansive and more in the realm of theology proper, it is) I really don't see how it conflicts with being more of a 'trad.' But I don't know my traditionalists that well. So someone fill me in.
October 28, 2009 at 10:51 am
I am a big fan of Christopher West and I genuinely believe him to be spreading the Truth. However, he is still a human and will no doubt fail at this in some, if not many regards. He has worked to dispel the notion that the Puritanical view of sex is not the Catholic view. He talks about a touchy subject to a society which is over-sensitized about sex. He popularized the work of a Great Pope, perhaps too soon, but treasures such as TOB should be shared. I have heard him speak in a day-long seminar and have read three of his books.
The Via Media is not an easy path.
October 28, 2009 at 12:27 pm
"I don't really see too big of a deal with the TOB to start with…so maybe its just me."
Sorry, it's not just you.
I actually took a class on TOB. Didn't get to finish it, though. I honestly couldn't understand what the fuss was all about, because I wasn't hearing anything I hadn't heard before, somewhere. That's when other things began to occur to me.
The idea that a priest's nuptial relationship with those whom he serves, is not new. But in our day and age, we hear talk about "sexual imagery" in the sacred liturgy, and all hell breaks loose. We tend to view all intimate masculine/feminine relationships solely in terms of genital actions; the biological, rather than the cosmological. The ancients would have understood the broader definition which is lost on us today. It seems to me that the TOB is an attempt to recover a more divinely measured view of human sexuality.
And as to Thomas Aquinas being "the gold standard of all of Catholic theology/philosophy," that's nothing new, either.
October 28, 2009 at 1:02 pm
We were gifted a set of TOB CD's. We listened, we got it. We moved on. We consider ourselves Ancients rather than Moderns. IMO, Chris West is trying to help Moderns grasp that human beings are more than mere biological creatures. That does not translate well for most. I think he means well. Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
October 28, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I'm not a big West fan– in all honesty, his delivery annoys me (tried to listen to CDs/books) and he makes assumptions about where Catholics are starting (sex=dirty/bad/only-good-if-you-get-pregnant) that seems to be…. well, off….
On the other hand, he was apparently raised in a cult (Mother of God Community before it shut down) so maybe his perspective on what the 'Average Catholic Thinks' has been skewed by the adults HE grew up with?
Personally, I'd always thought the dichotomy was "Fornication=Bad/ Married sex open to life = good"— which DOES seem to confuse a lot of non-Catholics. (We had friends who were confused about why, when they were living together before marriage we made them sleep in seperate beds—especially since once they got married, we gave them OUR bed when they visited. They thought it seemed schizo….)
And, yes, some of his comments are downright UCKY. I mean seariously… THAT is foreplay? FOR WHO????? UGH. What a great way to spread intestinal germs to places they should NEVER BE. Not to mention that our bodies were designed to work a certain way….. GROSS.
Or maybe I'm just a prude. That must be it. Which is back to the problem with West's delivery–he implies there's no middle ground. Either you embrace sodomy, or you're a hopeless, anti-TOB prude…..
Anyway, I've pretty much given up on TOB right now– Love and Responsibility is too hard to read when you have to stop every 5 minutes to help a toddler, West is irritating, and heck, I'm still trying to find a good way to cure my 5 year old of her various heretical views concerning the Trinity! So I'll work on that first, and get back to TOB when I have the concentrated mental effort available to read JP2's original……