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.
I recently finished reading a book entitled
Harvard University seniors Sarah Kinsella and Justin Murray
Fruit of the Loom withdrew their claim that a film made by Catholic film-maker Michelle Messina, called
The very creative Dawn Eden sends along a
……………………………………………

The St. Louis Review
Did the Baby Boomers make a Faustian bargain that they have come to regret? 
.jpg)











































































































