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

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