Is Christopher West Dangerous?
Well, I have just completed my first full week of unemployment. I think that I had more leisure time while employed. Unemployment began by waking up to 8 inches of water in the basement Saturday morning before last. The sumps had stopped running for some reason. I was able to get them started before heading off to Mass. The water was pumped out by the time we returned. Tricia spent the morning trying to dry out our files that had been inundated with water while also holding a garage sale. I spent the morning cleaning up the basement. We headed out to Chicago to visit some friends in the afternoon and made it back home by 11pm. That has been one of our more leisurely days.
We are in Dayton for our goddaughter’s graduation, so that is the only reason I have a breather right now. I thought I would take the time to comment on a topic I have seen in my inbox this month. Several articles by several different persons have been forwarded to me about Christopher West and the fallout from his Nightline interview. He has been taking quite a bit of heat for it. According to some (Alice von Hildebrand and David Schindler), it is not simply the case that West was taken out of context and misconstrued, but rather that he has some underlying problems in his anthropology.
First for some caveats and disclosures: I cannot speak as an expert on Christopher West’s interpretation of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, as I have read and/or heard relatvely little of his thought. However, I have read and heard some and have found that I share some of the concerns being presented. I know David Schindler. I took a course from him at the John Paul II Institute which, by the way, served as the inspiration for the title of this blog. He was also a reader for my dissertation. I do not always agree with Schindler’s take on John Paul II. I think it is often too heavily read through his “Balthasarian lens.” However, I do think that some of Schindler’s criticisms are well-founded, and these criticisms will be the focus of this post. I don’t claim to be the world’s foremost expert on John Paul II or his theology of the body, but I do consider myself to have an above-average expertise, as this was the foundation of my dissertation, and I have taught undergraduate courses on the theology of the body for several years.
Schindler begins with some apparently rather questionable statements that Christopher West has made. Oftentimes, these questionable statements can seem to be reconciled with orthodoxy when contextualized, but even in doing so, Schindler says that there is a residual problem. Schindler lists four issues he sees with West’s approach, and also with the substance of his theology. These Schindler sees as giving rise to what many find vulgar and prurient in West’s approach.
Schindler first lists West’s underestimation of the damage done to humanity by concupiscence. Schindler refers to his having brought this up to West a number of years ago. I recall Schindler’s having mentioned this discussion (back in 2003, I think it was). He mentioned West’s problematic dismissal of the perduring effects of concupiscence and West’s response. However, I also recall that I did not agree with the way the Schindler seemed to frame the meaning of concupiscence. He seemed to reify it as some positive reality then, as something that resides in the body. His statement in the above linked article also intimates this understanding. Nevertheless, what I have heard from West seems to suggest to me that he does in fact underestimate the impact of concupiscence on the human person. Redemptive grace in this dispensation does not remove concupiscence, and concupiscence in sexual attraction cannot be ignored. West seems to forget this, though “Christopher” of this blog, who has recently taken a class from West, indicated that West is reconsidering his take on concupiscence.
I have the impression of West that he seems to consider puritanism as a greater threat than the sexual libertinism of the sexual revolution. I seem to recall seeing this written by him, but if I am wrong about this, I apologize. However, if it is true, it would explain many things about his overemphasis on sex which Schindler thinks arises from his lack of a proper sense of the analogia entis (the analogy of being), which takes its archetype in God but never forgets that the difference between God and His creation is greater than the similarity. Puritanism is a distortion of chastity. Libertinism is a rebellion against not only puritanism but also against chaste virtue.
West seems to think that concupiscence can and must be defeated. This is impossible. Temptation must be overcome and defeated but concupiscence remains for the entirety of this lifetime. Concupiscence is not an object to be defeated. Concupiscence is a privation of integrity between the affects (i.e. emotions and appetites) on the one hand and the intellect and will on the other. The original state was one of integration among these faculties, which we had only because of original grace–but this is how we were created–we were created for grace. This integrity can be provisionally restored to a greater or lesser extent by cooperating with sanctifying grace, but the proclivity to sin always remains, and so it must not be tempted. West can seem to dismiss this. In doing so, it seems that he is falling into the error of presuming upon God’s grace in order to reject the admonition to avoid the near temptation of sin. God’s grace can transform us if we cooperate it, but in our fallen state this is not a straight path that one can achieve simply through the force of will or by a quietist presumption on grace.
Schindler criticizes West for a lack of Marian sensitivities in his theology of the body. The way Schindler describes this is pure Balthasar and so it is not fair, I think, to consider this a failure. John Paul’s theology is certainly sympathetic with Balthasar’s Mariology, and good arguments cans be made that he incorporated this to some degree in his own thinking. At most this should be proposed as a corrective to West’s prurience but not a fault in West’s theology. Hildebrand argued that West loses the mystery of the person by his lack of sensitivity to the dangers of concupiscence. This I think I have seen. It is, I think, the reason behind his inability to discern what is inappropriate or vulgar and what is not.
Puritanism and sexual libertinism are both threats. The former because it set the stage for justification of the latter. However, both reject the authentic meaning of the human person and the sacredness of the body. The danger is (and I think that this is the trap that West falls into) that the response of one who suffers from puritanical thinking can look very much like the response of one who has an authentic anthropology and responds out of a desire for purity. That is, when subjected to sights that might be a temptation both will turn away. The puritan because he thinks that the naked body is dirty or evil and the wannabe saint because he realizes that the goodness of the naked body is sacred, and in his fallen state he can be tempted to reduce the other to his sexual value. Furthermore, there is a stewardship for the weaknesses of others that must be observed in order to protect them from temptations.
When inadvertantly subjected to experiences that can lead to lust, one does indeed have the obligation through self-mastery to overcome the temptation. However, one also has the obligation to avoid the near temptation of sin. It is ill advised, indeed it can be sinful, to subject oneself purposefully to anything with which Satan or our simple fallenness can use to draw us more easily into sin. Everyone is different. Men and women are tempted differently. Men tend to reduce women to their sexual value for the sake of pleasure. Women tend to reduce men to the latter’s ability to meet their need for complementary bonding and personal fulfillment. Among men, however, temperament, experience, history of subjection to pornography, etc. all factor into what can lead to temptations and how difficult it is to master oneself in this regard. One may not sin in a misguided attempt to attain self-mastery. Neither may I assume that what I can safely be subjected to is the standard for everyone.
West’s use of images that offend the sensibilities of many good Catholics seems to be motivated by the fact that he thinks that puritanism is the root cause for their offense. He needs to be reminded that puritanism is a relatively recent phenomenon and that chastity and purity are age old virtues. While it is true that some cultures are not offended by things sexual that do offend others (a point I recall West often making), one must not draw conclusions based upon superficial assessments. Lack of offense does not imply purity in reception. Cultures in which men and women are both publicly naked must not be assumed to show that public nakedness is a possibility for a society that wants to achieve purity. In fact, these cultures rarely show a high regard for women and their sexuality.
Ok, enough blathering and back to the question: is Christopher West’s interpretation of theology of the body dangerous? First, I will say that I wish that this discussion could go on in private because it serves to give comfort and aid to dissenters and can undermine a good apostolate that West has developed, albeit, one that is in need of some course corrections. However, with respect to the question, I suspect that for some people it can be. I do think that in many ways he has done very much good, and I have no way of knowing how much that his disregard for concupiscience may have caused damage to those misled by it. I do hope that he will take the public criticism to heart and find someone who can help him to correct his misinterpretations. Our culture needs it and so does the Church.
.jpg)
I am grateful for the chance to express my concerns with west and his approach. I have always felt uncomfortable with his style and language. I say this and at the same time remebering (with much gratitude) that West and his books are first exposure I had with TOB. I got all “the basics” from West. Then I moved on to Detrich Von Hildebrand, Bishop Fulton Sheen, St John of the Cross and St. Terese of Avila. Once I was able to see the connection between the basic principles of TOB and how they should (I think rightly used) to grow in greater inimacy with God Himself I saw my life transformed. TOB is ultimately about God and God as Love itself and our entering into that Love. When West focuses too narrowly on male female sexuality and male female relations he leads his listeners/readers away from their ultimate goal – union with God. I see this not just in West’s approach but in many catechists and priests and religious. They seem to say “God is great – God made us – we image God – We are great” they fail to see how this can wind up in pride and an inordinate focus on our own love our own sexuality and our own human relationships. My further study with most of the help coming from Bishop Sheen and Terese of Avila has lead me to see (and to live out) “God is great – let me worship Him with all of myself – my mind, my soul, my body/sexuality” This I think is JPII’s intended goal for his TOB. He was a mystic and mystics seem to me to be very in touch with every aspect of creation – including their own bodies and other’s bodies – and how these things all lead us and help us to achieve greater union with God Himself. West’s TOB tends to be often translated into “TOB – how to achieve Good Catholic Holy Sex, get over your Catholic guilt and find true happiness and fullfillment” This too shallow and too narrow a goal for TOB and that is where the greatest defect lies. West does not dive deep enough and is swimming along the surface. Is this dangerous? Well that depends upon the person who is reading/listening. If he/she stops with West and his teching then yes it is dangerous. But if West is a first step towards a greater understanding then no. Wset was for me a great first step into something wonderful. If people focus on a goal of how can I get closer to God rather than how can I get closer to my spouse, or have a better self-concept etc. then West does no harm. Only if they use West as an Oprah Winfrey type guru will they run into trouble. I hope this makes sense – Your sister in Christ – Kristan
Comment by kris — May 26, 2009 @ 11:14 AM
Kris – thanks for the testimony and the insight. You have much more insight into West than do I but you confirm the concerns that are out there.
Comment by David — May 26, 2009 @ 1:19 PM
As one who has greatly benefited from Christopher West’s apostolate, I can’t help but weigh in. First, the Nightline interview. I do think that West’s comments were taken out of context. I’ve heard all of the points made in that interview and can see how they fit in with his presentation, but how outside of that they’re simply “shocker” statements. For example, when West says the sexual revolution didn’t go far enough, he means that it didn’t go deep enough, that it remained an external thing and didn’t consider the depth of the person as a spiritual being. The Hefner bit was a bit of a gaff. I’ve heard him use that material very well in the past, but it came out all wrong in the interview.
There is really just one point that I want to respond to from the articles. Schindler wrote: “First, West misconstrues the meaning of concupiscence, stressing purity of intention one-sidedly when talking about problems of lust.”
This is really two points. First, regarding “purity of intention,” I have heard West discuss it more often working in the opposite direction than Schindler suggests. That is, rather than purity of intention exonerating objectively immoral acts, West talks about the possibility that an objectively moral act can be immoral due to an impure intention. Thus West points to JPII’s suggestion that a man can commit adultery WITH HIS WIFE if he treats her as an object for selfish gratification. Perhaps the story of Bishop Nonnus and Pelagia used by West would lead some to “delight” in a woman’s “great beauty,” but the way that West employs that story is precisely to encourage custody of the eyes.
For concupiscence, I’ll take David’s critique: “West seems to think that concupiscence can and must be defeated. This is impossible.”
True, it cannot be defeated. We must always say with St. Paul, “It is not that I have already taken hold of it or have already attained perfect maturity.” The question comes in drawing the line – how far can Christ’s Redemption bring us? There is a tug-of-war between concupiscence and Redemption, between coping mechanisms and the freedom found in Christ. In fact, the line is in different places for different people – some must rely heavily on coping mechanisms and others have obtained a high degree of freedom (though never complete). What encouragement does West have for dealing with temptation? I’ve heard him say, “Get on your knees, put your arms out in the shape of a cross, and beg for the grace to overcome.” This is a 1-2 punch in my book – practical avoidance of temptation combined with the pursuit of Redemption. It addresses both the reality of concupiscence and the real possibility of Redemption.
David, I appreciate your comments about how this would be better addressed in private. The US mentality is that the best way to correct someone is to smear them in the public eye. Why is the only question people are asking, “How much damage has Christopher West done?” I have another (rhetorical) question – What single person has gotten more Catholics to joyfully embrace genuine Catholic sexual ethics, including (especially!) her teaching on contraception? West put himself on the line by taking that interview, and when it got spun in a sour way (what did you expect from ABC?) everyone rushes to distance themselves from him. Critique is fine, but he’s being grilled right now.
See the official response from Christopher West at http://www.christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=118
Comment by Jim S — May 26, 2009 @ 9:15 PM
Thanks Jim. Again, I am not a West expert but I am not yet convinced that what I have seen does not suggest an underlying problem. I agree with you that a lot of good has been done. However, there is also the question about how much harm may be done by those who subject themselves to temptations they should not. I am especially concerned about the suggestion that sodomy is not intrinsically wrong. In the end, I do wish the correction (which I continue to think is required) could be done in private…in fact, that might have more chance of success.
Comment by David — May 26, 2009 @ 11:34 PM
I think the problem boils down to two issues: eschatology and the roots of the sexual revolution. Let me first deal with the latter.
The sexual revolution is not a starting point for Catholic Sexuality. It is rooted in the same basic problem that puritanism is: the material end of the body, the controlling (puritanism) or licentious use (animalism/”sexual liberation”) of the body. Both the SR and Puritanism see the body as a tool to be used and not as essential to an integrated human person. Both positions fall into a dualism which sees the body and the soul as separate entities and, ultimately, a twisted Manichean perspective. The SR is NOT a response to Puritanism, but is the logical conclusion of it, just as liberalism – in its modern manifestation – and moral legalism are one and the same. For an excellent discussion of the topic, see Tracey Rowland’s “Ratzinger’s Faith”. So, we cannot approve of the SR because we cannot approve of puritanism. The SR is not a response and not a beginning, but a continuation, and so we cannot approve of such a movement, in my honest opinion.
The second issue is much more important. I have been to West seminars and have read his books numerous times. Indeed, much of what he does have to say is very good and true. I think Schindler is right in saying that West has all intentions of orthodoxy. This does not imply that Schindler is stating that West is unorthodox, as Dr. Smith implies, but rather that West is intending to fall into the Catholic position as best he can. What Schindler criticizes is not a denial of concupiscence, this would be heresy if West did deny it! Rather, Schindler is simply stating that West does not give sufficient weight to concupiscence. Perhaps Schindler’s use of the word “orthodoxy” is a tad misused in the piece he wrote. The problem really isn’t orthodoxy, but it’s having an emphatic balance. West emphasizes too much the redemption. The problem with his redemptive emphasis is that it is not seen in its totality. Redemption has an intimate connection with eschatology, with the final judgment. Redemption has happened in Jesus Christ, but we cannot claim its fulfillment until the Second Coming when God will be all in all. Until that time, Jesus reigns, but things do not have completion. West has confused this many times and does need to clarify this as this is based in a false eschatology.
-Harrison
Comment by Harrison Ayre — May 27, 2009 @ 11:34 PM