Christopher West reflects on the Theology of the Body debate...

... and "the pivotal question." From Headline Bistro:

When the public conversation about my work unfolded following my appearance on Nightline last May, I did not think it was wise for me to respond until I had submitted the matter to my local bishops.  Now that Cardinal Justin Rigali and Bishop Kevin Rhoades have issued a statement, it seems appropriate for me to offer some reflections as well.

First, I want to thank the many men and women – former students, married couples, catechists, theologians, seminarians, priests, deacons, religious, and bishops – who contacted me to offer their encouragement during this time.  

Your prayers and support were a tremendous gift to me.  I would also like to thank those scholars and teachers of the faith who wrote in support of me, especially Janet Smith, Michael Waldstein, Michael Healy, Father Thomas Loya, Matthew Pinto, and, of course, Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Rhoades.  Your willingness to speak out on my behalf remains a profound consolation.

Second, I want to thank those of you who offered thoughtful critiques of my work and helpful suggestions on how to improve it.  I have taken them to heart.  Indeed, I have always weighed my critics’ observations carefully and prayerfully.  They have helped me refine my approach a great deal over the years and I remain very grateful for that. 

That said, much of the criticism that appeared after the Nightline interview significantly misrepresented what I teach.  Rumors were repeated so often that subsequent commentators simply treated dubious accusations as fact.  Although I do not intend to respond point by point to the various criticisms, it seems I would be remiss as a teacher of the Theology of the Body (TOB) not to reflect briefly on what seems to be the pivotal point of the conversation.  It is “pivotal” in the sense that people’s perspective on this point pivots them in very different directions when evaluating my work.  This point is also critical in as much as it leads us to what I, and many others, consider to be “the pearl” of John Paul II’s TOB.

I offer these reflections in a spirit of humility and love for all those involved, not in an effort to “defend” myself.  I am well aware that those looking for flaws in me will always be able to find them.  I, like every interpreter of the Pope’s thought, bring my own personal perspectives, gifts, and shortcomings to the table.  That’s why I remind my readers and students often to “test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess 5:21).  The same applies to what follows.

Read West's entire response.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

Looking forward to reeading this, but this line got my attention: "I offer these reflections in a spirit of humility and love for all those involved, not in an effort to 'defend' myself."

Heck, why not defend oneself? Self-defense is thoroughly compatible with Christian virtue. We tend to act as if it's not, these days.

Now, back to CW.

[Ed Peters]

Another quick point, if I may. CW writes "One of the most common responses I receive when I present this beautifully challenging and hopeful vision of human life and sexuality is this: 'I’ve been a Catholic my whole life – why haven’t I ever heard this!?'"

Brother, have I ever heard that about six dozen times myself in classes and speaking nites, and not just when my topic is marriage and annulments. It's an echo of the truth behind Schall's great line: "What we really need is a generation of students angered at the fact that they have been deprived of their intellectual and spiritual tradition."

Now, back to CW. Again. :)

[joe]

This piece is encouraging. But I do not think West is really engaging his critics here. Much of the criticism was style. Which remains an issue, given he claims not to defend himself only after unrolling the list of all those who came to his defense, and naming the hierarchal supporters twice in the first three paragraphs.

What would be helpful is if he could say, "Here in a paragraph or two were the major criticisms leveled at my seminars, and here in a paragraph is why I think they were over-stated." My take was that critics think he casualizes sex and too much chases after the culture, opening up the door of over-valuing the gift of sex in the tradition of "The Joy of Sex: A Gourmet Guide...," treating sex like fine food. From this reading the second half of the criticism does not seem on target. As for the problem of casualization, I don't think he comes close to even recognizing the criticism here, unless I missed something. The best thing about West is that he is a MAN teaching about how men should responsibly look at sex. The problem with him is he sounds a bit too much like John Eldredge of 'Wild at Heart' fame, and invoking John Paul II as overbearingly as the pre-conciliar church may have browbeat people with St. Thomas. My two cents. A worthy sounding apostolate: I hope he has advisors not afraid to reel him in, as we all need to be from time to time. Godspeed.

[Carl Sommer]

If I could give Christopher West one piece of advice, it would be that when you appear on the secular media (and Catholics should do so), you have to speak in sound bites, so they can't take small quotes out of context and use them to make you look stupid, or mean, or crazy. Because, believe me, if they can, they will. We've seen it over and over again. By 'speaking in sound bites', I mean that each sentence, each clause, must be able to stand alone as a coherent summary of your thought. Sentences that need context, elaboration, explanation, etc., must be avoided, because the context will end up on the cutting room floor (do they still have a cutting room?).

This advice is well meant and heartfelt. I hate it when good people are the subject of a hatchet job in the media.

[Randy]

I don't think you can speak in sound-bites. The most controversial statement was one he never made. The claim that Hugh Hefner was one of his heros. The reporter asserted that but West never said it. How can you speak about complex subjects like sexual morality and make sure none of your statements can be edited to make them misleading. Basically you need to find a reporter you can trust. If you can't you have no idea how it will come out. News shows do smut pieces regularly. This was one. They were not looking for facts. They were looking for titilation. West would have been well advised to pass.

[Carl Sommer]

Randy,

Politicians speak in sound bites all the time. I admit, it's not conducive to complex theological discourse, but if you're going to appear on the mainstream media outlets, you've got to protect yourself.

[joe]

Trying to compare JPII and Hugh Hefner is simply a bad idea, no matter how bite-sized the sounds you are making. Especially when the root observation is off. The Nightline interview of course sensationalized things, but the Hefner item offended because it was interpreted rightly, not wrongly, if you go back and reread all the back and forths.

[W.]

I have heard West give the talk where he contrasts JPII and Hefner. Though it unsettled the crowd quite a bit (and pleased some?), I don't think what he said, when "interpreted rightly," was wrong. At least in the talk he gave us, which was about a year ago this month.

His point was that Hefner realized there is a sexual longing in many young men, a sexual dissatisfaction going on in the culture. He tried to satisfy it through his Playboy-like ways. West said the longing for sexual union was natural, just being misguided by popular/secular culture. West said what Hefner saw was true, what Hefner diagnosed was the reality. Hefner's solution is where the problem is. A big problem, too, West emphatically stressed.

JPII, according to West, realized the same thing. He suggested a different way to satisfy it, one through a real an authentic union, both physical and emotional/spiritual, which is found in marriage. The theology of the body, for West during the talk, is the way to express this reality and the suggested solution. I know that summarizes things too briskly, but my only point is that the Hefner contrast (not so much a comparison in the talk I heard) is not the more controversial side of things in the talk I heard, at least when one takes what he said and analyzes that.

What really bothered some was bringing a man to the front and center of stage and discussing looking at him naked as well as some other symbolism he discussed.

[Mark Brumley]

I still don't see that Hugh Hefner contributed anything positive to the culture. CW should just drop the HH stuff.

W, you say that CW's point was that Hefner realized there is a sexual longing in many young men. Well, what a realization! Really, was that something most people missed at the time? They didn't really understand that young men had sexual longing? I don't think this was a discovery.

The promotion of sex in popular culture was already in full swing when HH came on the scene. The pop cultural exploitation of the appeal to young men's sexual longings had long existed. HH just took things further. He managed to reinvent porn by associating it with a kind of elite, debonair culture. It was brilliant. diabolically brilliant.

CW argues that HH rightly diagnosed a problem in America's culture but simply gave the wrong prescription. I think that analysis is just wrong and I think it is the source of a number of problems with CW's presentations. HH didn't diagnose a problem; he exploited a weakness. And he did so to great effect by using the mass media.

Although there may have been segments of American culture that were sexual repressed, it seems implausible that this was a general and widespread problem. So it doesn't seem to me HH added anything substantively positive to the situation. I'd need more evidence than CW gives in his presentation to think otherwise.

CW has a great deal to offer. But say goodbye to the HH stuff. It is wrong or else too easily misunderstood.

[W.]

Mark,

Point taken. "realized" is a bad word of mine. HH "exploited." I agree. West's point is that HH picked up on something, responded to something, that (in West's narrative) was not getting the proper cultural attention. Not sure if that makes a different point, but I presume your overall criticism of West is not changed by this.

I agree with your last line about West's words being "too easily misunderstood." I am not convinced this part is wrong, just worded in a way that makes it all too easy to miss the point. But you already said that.

Perhaps I can say more when I have more time.

[Ed Peters]

right Mark.

[W.]

With all this back and forth on West, his methods, and his content, and in light of the endorsement or message of support from the two bishops (one also a cardinal), how should the laity understand their "endorsement"?

Let's say the critiques are accurate or close to accurate, how should we take what the bishops have said on what seem to be issues of faith and morals?

What is the bishops' authority here and what is the assent owed to them?

Just a question I was thinking about in trying to piece all this together. Or perhaps someone has already addressed this?

[NW Clerk]

Sigh. And still no answer to the ORIGINAL PROBLEM: that the first critic, David Schindler, was commenting on the problem of ANALOGY,as re-stated by the Fourth Lateran Council - that when you say something about God and humans, as an analogy, you must remember that the DISSIMILARITY is greater than the SIMILARITY. West speaks too often as if human sexuality were the original and what happens in the Godhead is a mere reflection of that, instead of vice versa! But there is no point going on. This was Schindler's point; all else (Hefner etc) was extra, and no one, not Janet Smith, not the good Cardinal, and not West himself has addressed it.

[Joe]

"I still don't see that Hugh Hefner contributed anything positive to the culture. CW should just drop the HH stuff."

Thank you, sincerely.

[LRS]

The main problem, I believe, in the presentation of TOB as CW attempts, is that the subject is, as George Weigel says, revolutionary. That means that it is probably going to be unsettling to many because, even though it is a teaching that is old, it is being presented in a new way. CW is trying to reach as many people as possible with this teaching but it is something that seems to me most people are going to misunderstand when they first hear it. I know that I had to listen several times to begin to properly understand what was being said.

I don't know about most people but I got the point about analogy from CW quite well, as did my husband also. Our primary source of knowledge about TOB has been CW and we have listened to several of his tape series. All of them seemed to do a quite sufficient job of getting across the point of analogy as far as we could tell.

The issue of Hugh Hefner seems to me to be taken quite out of context. My understanding from listening to one of CW's presentations about him was that, according to HH's biography, Hugh's family was incapable of showing him physical affection and love because of their unhealthy attitude about sexuality. He then reacted to this perceived rejection from his parents by beginning the lifestyle with which we are familiar. JPII also recognized this unhealthy attitude about sexuality and the problems from it and responded by teaching a healthy understanding of sexuality. I never got the impression that CW was trying to say that HH's contribution to society was a positive one but that his life was a result of an unhealthy understanding of sexuality. Hence, the urgent need for the good news of TOB to be spread as much as possible.

[Mark Brumley]

Hugh's family was incapable of showing him physical affection and love because of their unhealthy attitude about sexuality.

Or so he claims.

CW has said a lot of things in connection with HH. Some of them are clearer than others. I am certainly CW never called HH a hero. But CW has been sloppy enough at times with his comments about HH that some of the confusion and controversy are CW's own doing. He should simply drop the HH talk. His TOB presentations don't need it.

[LRS]

Mark,

You seem to doubt that an unhealthy attitude about sexuality is a major problem in our culture, now or in the past. I would say that HH is THE icon proving that fact. If people had healthy attitudes about themselves and their sexuality, HH would be a pauper because first, no women would pose for his magazines, and second, no one would purchase them.

Our culture is showing how unhealthy we are in the area of sexuality—and love-- in myriads of ways. Many good, solid Catholic psychiatrists and counselors are telling us that homosexuality comes from the emotional unavailability of the same sex parent. Dr. Conrad Baars has documented many cases of what he called emotional deprivation disorder in books he has written. These were primarily cases of priests and religious that he treated. The sex abuse scandal in the priesthood is another indication.

I know personally of many instances of parents being unable to express affection and love toward their children as well as many cases of sexual abuse. Our culture is dying because we do not know how to love one another!

Finally, I have been shocked at my fellow Catholics' comments about HH. We should pity a man who has such a warped understanding of himself and others, not hate him.

[Ed Peters]

LRS writes: "Mark, You seem to doubt that an unhealthy attitude about sexuality is a major problem in our culture, now or in the past....I have been shocked at my fellow Catholics' comments about HH. We should pity a man who has such a warped understanding of himself and others, not hate him."

Oh, crimeny. Try reading before posting.

[siena]

Perhaps we should pity a man such as CW who has such a need to expound on Theology of the Body. I believe an element of prurience and coursness creeps in when something sacred is delivered 'lecture hall' style to all comers.
What happened to the respectful reserve and nuances offered to engaged couples in past generations? We had a healthier attitude towards sex as procreative act. Often it could seem more sublime with the crucifix over the bed and sex AFTER saying the Rosary!
In a sadly uncatechised but savvy generation saturated with sex, Christopher West's talks may be a way to disseminate information but why, oh why have bishops dropped the ball on the subject?
A criticism that came up in the recent brouhaha was concerning anal sex not being clearly defined by West as mortal sin! A big omission!
Why not let TOB speak for itself?

[LRS]

A criticism that came up in the recent brouhaha was concerning anal sex not being clearly defined by West as mortal sin! A big omission!

Following is Janet Smith's response to criticism of CW about the subject of anal sex. I guess one would have to talk with priests to see if this is how they were counseled about how to respond to this subject, but I am assuming that since Janet teaches at a seminary, she may have some familiarity with what priests are learning.

Many cannot understand why anal sex could possibly be appealing to anyone (include me and, indeed, West in that group), while others seem to find the act attractive. Certainly there isn’t any “Church teaching” about this action at a magisterial level, but few seem to know that there is a tradition of approval of such behavior as foreplay to intercourse (not to be confused with the biblical condemnation of sodomy which replaces intercourse) by orthodox Catholic ethicists. The principle generally invoked is that consensual actions that culminate in intercourse are morally permissible. People are free to challenge the “tradition” on this point, but it should be acknowledged that West is not a maverick concerning this issue. Indeed, his position is perhaps more “conservative” than that of the “tradition.” In his book Good News About Sex and Marriage, West clearly discourages the practice. Perhaps it is time for ethicists to work on the question, but what Schindler failed to mention is that West’s position is precisely (or even stricter than) what priests have been trained to teach married couples for a very long time.