Prof. Waldstein points to issues surround the effects of original sin as one of the central points in Prof. Schindler's critique of Christopher West. I would be very interested in seeing Schindler's response to Waldstein on this -- it was one of the key issues I studied long and hard on my journey into the Catholic Church. Catholics have a slight optimism on this score compared to the classic Protestant position, particularly in epistemology, and I wonder how those polemics are at play in this dispute.

I don't agree that Schindler was making a "blanket negative" statement against West; he was clear (to me) that West was a faithful Catholic who worked very hard to defend and uphold the Church. My impression of this piece is that the author takes issue more with a perceived demonization of "popularizing" language than the majority of West's content. Not having read anything of West's, I don't know how he speaks/writes. I think it would be fascinating to look more into the effects of how information is presented, and at what levels it would erode the veracity of content.

I'm sure readers will know this, but for the record, InsideCatholic takes no official position on the dispute. The staff and writers hold a variety of opinions on this, and many other issues.

Dear Dr. Waldstein

As a great admirier of your excellent translation of what is clearly an extraordinary contribution to the missionary work of the Church, the late Servant of God John paul II's "Theology of the Body", your response was a welcome addition after the immediacy of some other reactions. I studied at the Institute and under Dean Schindler years ago. He is an extrordinary scholar and one of my heroes.

I sincerely hope that he does respond to this thoughtful treatment of his careful critique. It is refreshing to finally find good, robust and respectful theological dialogue in the discussion following Christopher Wests appearance.

Dr. Waldstein, we met decades ago when I invited you to come to the "Lay movements" conference during the tail end of my season of service in the early stages of what became the Steubenville miracle. You greatly influenced me in your presentation back then. How the years have flown by! When I studied your excellent translation of TOB at Catholic University in my recent academic work, I was reminded of the true treasure given to the Church and the world through what have come to be known as the Ecclesial Movements.

The only person I have not personally met in this "controversy" is Christopher West. Though I am deeply grateful for his mission of making this contribution of our champion, John Paul II so accessible and popular for millions of Catholics, other Christians, and other people of faith and good will at this crucial time in history. As a Deacon of the Church, I have used and recommended his work for many couples preparing for the Sacrament of Marriage. I have also witnessed its profound effectiveness in authentic ecumenical work.

Thanks for offering your gifts to the Lord and his Church. Thanks for writing this piece. May it elicit a response from the good Dean and continue the constructive dialogue.

George Weigel once commented that the Theology of the Body was "kind of theological time bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences, sometime in the third millennium of the Church." May this be that time and may this discussion light the fuse as we approach Pentecost. How we need this grace in our beloved Church, and through her, for the world!

Deacon Keith Fournier

Thank you, Dr. Waldstein. I have used and enjoyed two of Christophers DVD sets (I also have his book "Heaven's Song," but haven't read it yet). I was upset by Dr. Schindler's article about them so this response was very helpful to me!

If Schindler is so wrong about his criticism, why hasn't someone gone through and answered all of these? It shouldn't be THAT hard if their all wrong. Waldstein says he doesn't give specifics, but here they are!

"West’s work has involved suggesting that a man and woman bless their genitals before making love; blessing the ovaries of women in his classes; advising young men in college and the seminary to look at their naked bodies in the mirror daily in order to overcome shame; using phallic symbolism to describe the Easter candle; criticizing “flat-chested” images of Mary in art while encouraging Catholics to “rediscover Mary’s ... abundant breasts” (Crisis, March 2002); referring to the “bloodied membrane” of the placenta as a "tabernacle" (Colorado Catholic Herald, 12/22/06); stating that, while “there are some important health and aesthetic considerations that can’t be overlooked,” “there's nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse," (Good News About Sex and Marriage, 1st ed., emphasis in original), though qualifying this in the revised edition and stressing the subjective dangers of lust in such activity; and, on Nightline, praising Hugh Hefner for helping rescue sex from prudish Victorian attitudes, saying that there are “very profound historical connections between Hefner and John Paul II,” while emphasizing that John Paul II took the sexual revolution further and in the right direction."

The problem with Christopher West is not that his info on Theology of the Body is incorrect but that his 'choice' and 'style' of presentation is a total over-passionate way on the subject. When one publicly speaks about the most intimate subject of the human person, one must hold up the utter most respect. He is right on his subject matter, but in all honesty it comes across irreverent when spoken in such a scattered, and over-passionate way. Sex is a mystery, yet West's approach almost removes that truth about its mystery.

I agree with West, but disagree with his style. Im not saying he needs to be this "stone-cold" reserved speaker, but a "smarter" and "careful" speaker, who can foresee how people may take his words and passionate voice and turn it into something it is not. The subject matter is very important, intimate and extremely serious because precisely of how sex has been so distorted, perverted and abused in the past. I think his choice of words need to be also more reverently chosen Because what ends up happening is precisely what the secularist ABC did in his story. They picked his "passionate" spoken parts, chose phrases such as his "Love of Hugh Hefner" to elevate, left out so much important info, and took the whole message of Theology of the Body out of context. It left with yet another "cheapened" feeling of the Theology of sex.
This is how secularist reporters interpret info...in a very ignorant manner, and what you get is a "massacre" of the truth with reverence to God's plan.

I'm glad to see Dr. Waldstein's defense of West's work. It seems many of Dr. Schindler's quotes from West have been taken out of context, and I'm eager to see a response from Schindler explaining himself.

While I largely agree with Dr. Waldstein, I am surprised at the accusation of Jansenism on the part of Jesuits, since Jansenism was a reaction against certain attitudes the Jesuits have always had towards engaging other religions.

"Jesuit seminarians, when they took a bath, had to scatter charcoal dust on the surface of the water so that they would not see their own genitals and become sexually aroused. "

This is touching on areas of "what works best for individuals," where it is inadvisable to make "sweeping statements."

Some people need to better appreciate God's creation. Others need to work very hard to overcome concupiscence. Others need to do both. Different advice would be recommended to all three.

In order to *grow* in virtue, we need to *practice* it, and this idea of hiding the genitals in the bathtub seems like a piece of fairly good advice for those who struggle with chastity as a virtue.

I normally respect Waldstein's work, and a serious debate about these matters could certainly be fruitful, but at the same time, I'm not sure this is actually a very thoughtful response. He only addresses one of Schindler's points, and apparently did not read Schindler carefully on precisely the point Waldstein wishes to address here, since he acts as if the issue between Schindler and West is about the possibility of growth in virtue, when it is in fact about the way in which grace transforms us in this life (As far as I know, even West doesn't generally put this issue in terms of growth in virtue, but in terms of the power of the grace of Christ. These things are related, of course, but they are not the same.) I don't see how one could mistakenly read Schindler's claim on this point--that we should not expect grace to exempt us from all temptations and disordered inclinations (not actions!) in the body--as questioning the possibility of growth in virtue.

I'm not sure how it's helpful for Waldstein to speculate on why Schindler wrote what he did (something Waldstein clearly does not know), particularly since in his speculation Waldstein simply ignores everything Schindler wrote in his article. Schindler explicitly wrote that he was not taking ABC's spin at face value, and that indeed he was not addressing the Nightline interview per se, but West's work as a whole. The Nightline interview might have been the occasion for Schindler writing publicly about this, but it is obvious that his disagreements with West did not begin with Nightline.

Schindler would I'm sure be the first to admit that the web with its limitations is perhaps not the ideal place to have this debate, and this debate may well extend into academic publications as well in the future. However, Waldstein cannot have it both ways: in justice he cannot praise West for his popularization, and then complain that Schindler has responded first in a popular medium. Since Schindler's article was published, I have already spoken to a few non-academics who read it and found it very helpful in expressing in a succinct and therefore accessible way issues about West that they had previously felt were there, but perhaps had been unable to express as clearly. Should these people not have access to a critique such as Schindler's in Waldstein's view?

One of the problems I see in this discussion is the idea that criticism is necessarily a bad thing, and that if one gives criticism, it is meant to undermine the good that was not criticized. The whole point of criticism in this light is for transformation and purification. There are troubling aspects of West's theology of the body -- among of which is he gets his own interpretation of JPII as if it were JPII. One thing people should know is JPII's theology is not so systematic, and to make a system out of his expositions is to betray and abuse those expositions at times -- to make more out of them than JPII did. And this is the kind of problem I think Dr. Schindler rightfully points to -- that, once one goes that route, one begins to add and add and add questionable content, basing it upon an already exaggerated systematic content, allowing for ideas which need to be studied by others before being used as practical applications of the theology of the body itself.

Indeed, I myself am always weary over the theology of the body as it has become popularized -- not because the idea is bad, but because it has become seen as more than what it should be, and ignoring other possible theologies of the body, some which I think if we explored in history, are far more concrete and less suspect (in part because they have already been tried and found acceptable).

When theologians (or their defenders) begin to get defensive over criticism, I feel it is time for the theologians (or their defenders) to take a break and explore new areas (pride comes before a fall). It's humility which is needed.

Darcy and seekbella have already expressed views similar to my own so I won't be redundant.

But I would add that Schindler, as West's former teacher, is a person uniquely qualified to critique West as long as he's charitable which he indisputably was - he practically fell over himself making it clear that West had pure *intentions*, going as far as to say that West would throw himself in front of a bus for the Church.

In another thread about this topic one supporter of West's described how in the past West has responded quite positively to thoughtful criticism and has actually toned down his live presentations after being told some found them too strong and graphic in language.

So I would guess West has a different reaction than Waldstein et al to Schindler's piece and is seriously considering the critique of his former teacher. Charitable criticism is always welcome by those truky seeking to do God's work.

Alice Von Hildebrand also has an excellent synopsis of what is wrong with Christoper West's presentation of ToB.

Personally, I think it is a cruel joke for people to put so much hope in ToB. It is difficult to understand and it does not address the real issue with our society which is a lack of modesty. Catholics are the worst of the bunch as far as modesty. How many Catholic girls/women walk around in skin tight clothes, revealing clothes, short shorts, mini skirts, low neck lines, crop tops, hot pants, etc. There is something seriously wrong when I walk into a church and I can see some "cleavage", every curve and mid-riffs on at least 1/2 the women. Society will not change until Catholics take up the "old" call to modesty in dress. People like Christoper West only make things worse by frowning upon us "jansenists and putritans" and never mentioning a serious reform of the way we dress. Catholics who listen to the ToB crowd will never hear the Truth that they need to reform their dress. After all, that nice Christopher West person lecturing on EWTN or in the chapel told us to not to be ashamed of our bodies and that anyone who tells us different is a prude and a Jansenist.

I am wondering if seekbella hit the nail on the head with this controversy -- that it's a stylistic thing, and choice of language, more than anything else.

How reverent or irreverent someone is being is subjective. Style is also subjective. Faithful Catholics disagree about the way sex and the body should be discussed to reach today's culture. Is there be room for more than one way?

Schindler took West's quotes out of context, and this is a problem. There should be room for criticism and debate about TOB and its presentation, but the arguments should be fair and based in fact and context. Then we might get somewhere. The fact that the translator of JPII's TOB is coming to West's defense should speak volumes.

As regards the blunt (and apparently offensive to many) approach which West uses in his writings and speech I think it is (unfortunately) necessary to note that many--whether living moral or immoral lives--first encounter particular aspects or mechanisms of sex and sexuality through either soft or hard pornography. Just two days ago a friend of mine who is very innocent and pure told me that her first knowledge of some permissible marital acts were introduced to her by some PG-13 chick flick. The result was that it left a very negative impression on her because the scene in the movie was very utilitarian and perverted. My point is that many of us have questions about the nitty gritty, so to speak, because our first impressions are by the all too vivid nitty gritty which surrounds us in this pornographic culture. (Watching the Super Bowl is now even a dangerous thing to do b/c of the sexually explicit advertising and "wardrobe malfunctions"). As a result it is necessary to be blunt in order to thoroughly answer people's questions and clearly explain exactly what is and is not permissable because many people today are all too familiar with a variety of methods and techniques that have left them deeply confused about the purpose of the marital embrace and their bodies. People know far more about techniques today than at any other time because impure scenes are constantly put before them.

You might want to read this article by Drm Janet Smith.
www.headlinebistro.com/en/news/janetsmithresponse.html
I do hope that this series of exchanges on ToB between Catholic intellectuals will help us all having a better understanding of JP II's teachings...

What? Is this supposed to be an exemplar of academic rigor? Should Schindler, instead of at least trying to quote West, have made sweeping generalizations about the results of ethereal "-isms"?

I am very familiar with Christopher West's presentation style. He uses a "shocker" to grab your attention. It is ALMOST as if he will say anything to keep the audience listening. When he does say ALMOST anything it taints the rest of his message for serious scholars. If we could throw out West's sensationalistic content, everything else he writes is mostly orthodox.

I think he needs to quit fighting heresies that supposedly exist within the Church and just spread the message of truth plainly rather than sensationalistically. Everyone loves a controversy and it does not surprise me that there is a controversy over West's presentation. It does not surprise me that listener's often do not truly understand West's intent, due to the actual words he speaks. I believe he is probably good intentioned, yet there is something quite peculiar about his choice to sensationalize things.

There is a simple way of combatting against Jansenism. It is called, "raise your children with love and acceptance." When this happens, the supposed Jansenistic tendencies in parts of the Church have no detrimental affect.

JC, Alphonsus Rodriguez, SJ wrote: "If you wish to prevent all evil thoughts, let your eyes be modestly reserved, and make a league with them never to look upon any thing which is not permitted you to desire. Who would not be astonished, says St. Chrysostom writing on the same passage (Job 31:1), that so great a man as Job, who had made head against the devil, fought hand to hand with him, and triumphed as well over all his stratagems as his power, should not dare to look a woman in the face?
... Another saint, compares the sight of a woman, to a poisoned arrow, whose every wound reaches the heart...
Surius says, that Hugh, Bishop of Grenoble, bishop of Grenoble, heard women's confessions every day, for above fifty years together, and conversed with all sorts of persons, who addressed themselves to him concerning their affairs, by reason of his great sanctity, and yet that he never looked any woman so much in the face, as to know her by sight, except one, and this so slightly that he did not know whether she was old or young, handsome or ugly. This saint used to say, that we ought to be extremely cautious in this point; for if we once give scope to our eyes, we shall never be able to deny admittance to bad thoughts into our hearts." (AD 1606)

Rodriguez was for a long time required reading for Jesuits, and apparently this practice point was encouraged. I knew a Jesuit (recently some years ago), who said in his training they were told never to look at anyone's eyes.

Even if one might argue that for a particular person it was necessary for avoid looking anyone in the face, one should not give it as general advice, and to do so does seem Jansenist.

Tony, I believe Waldstein was referring to Schindler's theological criticism of West, the four points he makes, without citing any of West's work. In any case, before "answering" such a list as the one you copied, Schindler (or someone) should say how this list indicates "a disordered approach to human sexuality", as Schindler asserts.

I think it's unfair to say Schindler went in for a "quick kill." The fact is that many of the TOB and chastity speakers tend to use language that is imprudent and immodest. Do we lead people to a clearer view of the truth by presenting it in crude terms and using images likely to conjure up impure connections. Calling the Song of Songs the "centerfold" of the Bible is imprudent, especially for those who actually have pornographic centerfold images locked in their imaginations. I have no problem with calling it sensual. But in a culture dominated by impurity and vulgar talk, I think following the example of the crude is the wrong approach. Greg Popcak comparing the "Big Bang" to God having an orgasm is worthy of a Planned Parenthood sex counselor, not a Catholic who sees the Blessed Mother as a model. The title of his new book is deliberately provocative. Alice von Hildebrand hit the nail on the head with her criticism.

As an NFP teacher with experiencing addressing teens and adults on marriage and sexuality, we have the challenge of addressing a delicate subject with reverence. That doesn't mean you can't tell a joke, but you sure need to make sure you never undermine the mystery of marital love or lose sight of the fact that modesty is the guardian of chastity. And some questions are so sensitive they are better handled one on one.

After reading much dialogue about criticism of Christopher West and professor Schindler, something struck me. If one is to compare JP2's pontificate, he seemed to offend conservatives of the church as being too liberal and at the same time, seemed to offend liberals of the church as being too conservative. What a paradox! This confirmed to me that John Paul was hitting the right chord much like Christ did during his earthly ministry. It appears Mr. West is doing the same with his presentation of TOB. Mr. West manages to draw criticism from the liberal minded of the church and also the conservative minded. Seems to me that Christopher West is hitting the right chord.

I agree with Matthew's assessment of the situation. It is very true that TOB and Christopher West seem to offend most everyone! But that seems to be the case often when something good, but revolutionary, comes before us.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this article. There are many good comments following it that I won't need to repeat. But there is one issue that has not yet been addressed which arises following from Dr Waldstein's mockery of the former practice of the Jesuits of sprinkling coal dust on the surface of their bathwater, and that is the issue of cultural standards of modesty which arise in response to the correct Catholic understanding of concupiscence. His tone of disparagement and obviously negative judgement of this practice betray a view which is notable for an insufficient emphasis on the humility and modesty required of us in view of the reality of concupiscence. He and West admit its objective existence but only in theory. But its existence calls forth in us not only a theological affirmation but a genuine practice of modesty that recognizes its ability to corrupt our souls at any moment. The jesuit practice was a reasonable and probably effective means of countering this inevitability which accompanies man whenever he finds his body without sufficient covering. This is not Jansenism. This is simply something which our feminized culture finds unacceptable, because it would result in a change of clothing style which most women find restrictive and outmoded. Waldstein of course creates a straw man by saying that women, to be chaste under this understanding of concupiscence, would have to dress in a 'black box.' This is of course mere rhetoric but his use of it supports my contention. The Virgin Mary said that in the last days there would be bad styles of clothing. What is Waldstein doing to correct that, or to help Catholic men and women avoid falling into this sin, which affects not only themselves, but all those around them?

Western civilization has for a long time now decided to ignore the reality of concupiscence when it comes to dress, especially the dress of women. Nevertheless this reality is felt in other cultures in the world, especially the muslim ones, and because of our lack of good example in this regard, they have taken to extreme measures to control the social effects of concupiscence. At the heart of our civilization's refusal to acknowledge the physical and social effects of concupiscence is an individualist, liberal and Protestant understanding of the body in particular, and the physical in general. Christopher West has adopted this understanding in his presentation of JPII's theology of the body.

David Schindler seems to disregard any good that Christopher West has done. I was away from the church, heard the man speak (West) and came back to the church. He made sense. I have continued to grow and keep up with Mr. West. He has never led me away. I have never heard of David Schindler until this. He attacks with such ferocious venom I was reminded of Pharisees or Sanhedrin. Or maybe a case of the pupil surpassing the teacher. Men in the church have egos too, it might be an ego out of control. It sounds like at the heart jealousy has blinded this man to see any good that West does. I am eternally grateful to Christopher West for his simplicity, his clarity and his ability to boil stuff down for a simple man like me. Look at the fruit of his work!

I consider myself to be a modest woman. But even in my own modesty I meet men who glance at certain parts of my body. The fact is, it doesn't matter if a woman is clothed from neck to ankle, if a man struggles with impure thoughts, all he needs is his imagination. No amount of modesty on my part is going to help this person change his thought process. Therefore, I believe Mr. West is correct in helping to change man's perception of the human body. And, unfortunately, due to the exposure that these men have had, Mr. West does need to be very blunt and explicit. By reclaiming the language we can help untwist the distortions that occur in the mind of one who is struggling with sexual impurity. Words that once aroused the mind begin to have a different connotation and bring about holy images.

Just a mom of ONE here, but also a modest woman. I come from a family of eight, does that count? No expert in TOB or NFP. Just wanted to say I agree with Tony, Mary Ann, and Discrete. There has always been something creepy to me about TOB as interpreted by Mr. West. It was so interesting to me how it grabbed all the liberal Catholics I know. They never liked JPII much before then. They pick and choose what to follow as far as “authentic Catholic teaching” goes and can always find some Catholic on a faculty somewhere to back up whatever they profess to believe and promote.

I counsel women in crisis pregnancies, mostly teens. They do not need to be talked down to and the nasty stuff I have read attributed to Chris West is better left to the gutter. I do not believe it is possible to reclaim bad language. Hugh Hefner is a pig, and to even mention him in the same sentence as JPII is ridiculous. No one can convince me that JPII meant any of that garbage.

True liberals always attack the messenger. Schindler is now a target because he dared to criticize the great Catholic sex speaker. Of all people, Waldstein should have taken on the criticisms point by point for Inside Catholic. Unless he is willing to do just that, this piece is just a pat on the back for his comrade with no new information shared.

The fact is, if West is offending you or creeping you out, he's not talking to you.

If you are a chaste/NFP using/parent of many/daily Mass going Catholic, he's not talking to you. You should read JPII.

If you are a college student raised by TV and R rated movies who doesn't really know why they should be Catholic at all, let alone follow the Church's teaching on sexuality, he IS talking to you. These are the people he's helping by speaking the truth in their language.

I can see why some might think Christopher can be somewhat outrageous at times during his presentations but to me he is talking to primarily young people and they have heard so much worse regularly in todays culture that he does not come across as offensive. Having seen a number of his talks in addition to tapes and CD's I put him in a class by himself at least with the young adults. Janet Smith is also excellent but in a different way. She's a great addition to West as she gives results of going against "God's Plan" etc. This discussion is great and after reading most of the comments I only hope I can hear Schindler and Waldstein someday.

Father Angelo Geiger has commented at length on this subject as a guest blogger over at Dawn Eden's, most recently in support of Professor Schindler in response to criticisms by Drs. Smith and Waldstein. Check it out:
http://tiny.cc/dnft4

Wendy's post says it best. Christopher West isn't speaking to the theologians, philosophers and scholars. He's speaking to the common man. Apparently what he is saying and how he is saying it is benefiting those that need to hear it the most at this time. It's a bit reminiscent of those Christ spent most of His time speaking with.

Jesuit seminarians, when they took a bath, had to scatter charcoal dust on the surface of the water so that they would not see their own genitals and become sexually aroused.

This sounds like an urban legend to me.

1. Did JS have to undress with their eyes closed?
2. Did JS have to urinate with their eyes closed?
3. When they stood up wouldn't the charcoal dust have dirtied them again?

Doesn't mean he can't be criticized by them when he says something off. Indeed, when one tries to become popular instead of academic, the academic still has an important role in correction. And just because it "helps people" doesn't mean the "help" is the right kind, either. Many centuries you will find techniques which "help" people end up proving to do more harm than good. Reminds me of how people defend condemned locutions. "Well, people converted!" Doesn't mean it is right.

Some speak from the heart, some from the head. West speaks from the heart.

The work that needs to be studied and discussed is JPII's work on TOB. West is to be commended for bringing it to the Church's attention. I value his passion.

May the Lord be with him.

Adam said: "After all, that nice Christopher West person lecturing on EWTN or in the chapel told us to not to be ashamed of our bodies and that anyone who tells us different is a prude and a Jansenist."

The above statement was given sarcastically and missed the point completely. I watched a video of CW's shortly before the Nightline program aired. CW pointed out that our bodies should not be covered out of shame; they should be covered because they are HOLY.

It is hard to tackle the subject of sex because of the range of emotions people have attached to it. If the subject makes one uncomfortable, then it's hard to address anything at all. Yet, with so much porn out there, how can a Catholic learn what is from God and what is from the world? Since sex was not discussed openly, people usually had the choice of limited knowledge or the perversion of God's gift for sexuality pushed in movies and the porn industry.

The fact is, if God made our bodies and gave us sexuality, then those things must be good. If we misuse these things, then the good becomes tainted. Some people cannot separate the good from the bad.

Because TOB followers, like me, are passionate about this teaching, it can easy to allow that passion to get in the way of respectful dialogue over disagreements.

I think the dialogue expressing various viewpoints is great. As someone who has learned much and greatly appreciates Christopher West, I too have sometimes found him, at least in his later talks (he's been doing this for many years now), to be a bit more "sensationalistic" in his style - moreso in his live talks to general audiences at a church presentation than in his recorded presentations.

I attended his weekend seminar given at the University of St. Thomas when the Created and Redeemed series was recorded and also at his first "Summer TOB Institute". Since then I have also participated in more than one TOB study group as well as number of other live talks by Christopher at different churches and schools since. I think anyone who has met and talked at length with Christopher would agree that he is a true Catholic who is passionate about his Catholic faith as well as getting the TOB message out to people. Back then, I really didn't think Christopher was crossing the lines or going to far to "push the envelope" back then, but I do get the impression sometimes that he feels he needs to in order to break through and reach his audience so that he can connect wtih them and get the TOB message to penentrate to their heads and hearts.

I believe that Christopher's effort to get the message out sometimes does seem to "cross over the line" (a stylistic point, not a theological one) at times, even for me. Christopher's presentations are strong and passionate, and it is not surprising to me that some people are overwhelmed or offended on occasion which his choice of words and style. My hope is that this is what most of the disgreements will be found to center on, since both "sides" seem to supportive of the TOB message in general.

Having talked to him personally on several occasions, I have always been struck not only by his faith and knowledge, but by his humility and honesty, as well as his compassion and love for others, especially those who have been hurt deeply by being misled by the current culture's teaching regarding sexuality.

I have no doubts that Christopher would be most willing to listen and dialogue directly with Mr. Schindler and others who disagree with him. My hope is that both "sides" of the issues will constructively dialogue on these issues in a way that will help the TOB message in getting out to people.

I think Christopher's efforts to get the TOB message out have borne wonderful fruit that benefits the Catholic Church. In addition to John Paul II's message about TOB, another strong effort of his was towards unity in the body of Christ and getting Christ's message and teachings out beyond the walls of the Church, something I also feel strongly about. I think Christopher's efforts towards this end have seen important successes, as both many Protestants and non-Christians have been hearing and examining the TOB teachings for themselves, and some have made efforts themselves to get the TOB message out to people they can reach. I hope this dialogue going on now helps that effort instead of hurting it.

One thing I have observed is that Christopher stresses, both in his recorded and his unrecorded live talks to audiences, for them to examine the TOB message for themselves. I have heard him say more than once that if anyone doesn't like the way he is "presenting" TOB or don't like his style or even Christopher himself, to please listen to someone else with a different style who they do like, just as long as they consider TOB for themselves. I think this is very important - Christopher has acknowledged that people may not like him or his style, and that is to be expected, but he doesn't really care so much about that as he does that people will hear about and be helped by TOB's teachings. At least this has been my impression and experience. I believe him when he says what is important is the TOB message, not Christopher West.

I hope and pray that the dialogue continues in a helpful, loving and respectful way that will honor God and His Church, and help to bring the TOB teaching out to more people and bring more people to a knowledge, faith and appreciation for God in every aspect of their lives and being.

The truth is The Spirit is working here. What is it that God wants us to understand about ourselves, His creation. I don't recall Jesus avoiding humanity to preserve his own virtue, but made himself available to those the "priests" of the day shunned. The church today appears to be taking a similar preservationist attitude that will not help the ones lost by believing lies as truth.

West, in his approach and research, is in keeping with Christ's work and this God will make good. The simple truth is we were created good, and this message itself will liberate so many young people who may believe otherwise. I have heard West in person and have witnessed the Spirit in him. It has helped me conquer fears and walk with souls I was afraid to before.

If the church's mission is salvation, how can this be done through the walls we are building to keep ourselves holy? Who would have us believe that if we jump in mud to save another then we too will be lost. This would be true if we do it with our own strength. But with God we are safe and all things are possible.

JP2 and West- and hopefully all theolgians- would want us to consider God in adressing these matters. It is encouraging to see that dialogue has been opened to see the truth be revealed about what we really think about ourselves. We are made for love. Let's restore it to God's original plan, please.

West says Hefner liberated sex from the prudes. Consider that the prudish times saw little abortion and big families, and in the era of liberated sex we see big abortion and little families. My conclusion is that West has turned south, and is being joined by Smith and Waldstein.

...it hadn't been for C West. I know there's alot of good, solid TOB info out there but West can say it so that ordinary people in the pews understand it. So, he steps over the line once in awhile. Big deal. We need this teaching SO much & no one else, to date, has done such a great job of translating it for us.
Has Schindler read West's last book "Heaven's Song", for heaven's sake??? There couldn't possibly be anything in that to object to. Its wonderful. You know, Catholics really have enough battles to fight in this country without shooting ourselves in the foot.

For a great perspective on this, read this blog post in its entirety, by David MacDonald. http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/?p=138

An excerpt:

"David Schindler doesn’t know what to do with Christopher West. He intimates that Christopher’s faithfulness gives false credibility to his message. For shock value, he reprints every body part that Chris has mentioned in his seminars as if context means nothing. He chastises Christopher for having prayed for women’s ovaries during seminars, as if they are unmentionable, and as if women wouldn’t want the most precious part of their fertility prayed over. He criticizes West’s advice that couples bless each other’s private parts before sex, as if that is crass. As if they are less important than the tea set you are giving to your gramma that you would bless. It’s a seminar for couples and it includes issues important to them, and yes sex is important to married couples."


And later:

"Chris is not one of those post Vat II morally challenged liberal flakes. He’s bringing a new generation to orthodoxy, against contracepting, against divorce, against homosexuality, etc… Neither Dr. Alice or Dr. Schindler have made any “real” arguments against his theology, except saying he put emphasis on things they don’t agree with. Their way of communicating chastity has failed, and their generation of Catholics contracept 95%. I think they should step aside and let someone younger be successful, rather than pulling him down."

You are either misreading him or distorting his words. In charity, I have to assume it's the former. West has (as has been stated above) sensationalistically compared Hefner with JPII in that they both wanted to liberate sex from Puritanical thinking, but he makes it clear that JPII does so in a good way and Hefner in a bad.

Hefner's work is both a disease and a symptom of the bigger disease, and West has not glorified him. He was using controversial rhetoric to make a point.

I just want to send a brief response to Maria G, who, quoting David MacDonald, makes accusations against Dr. Schindler that need to be rectified. I am not sure what you, Maria or David, are assuming as your starting point, but as one who has studied under Schindler I think it's important to say that you seem to miss the point entirely and in fact make personal judgements about Schindler and von Hildebrand that reveal only your ignorance of their lives and their work.
Schindler is an adamant promoter of the truth of the nuptial mystery as articulated by John Paul II, and the John Paul II Institute has been instrumental in articulating and forwarding the beauty of John Paul II's message. Had you ever read any of Schindler's articles (try the Communio publication), you would perhaps have an insight as to who you are attacking. To say that Schindler and von Hildebrand have not made any "real" theological criticisms regarding West only goes to show that you have not read (carefully or at all?) Schindler's piece, in which he lays out 4 particular criticisms of West -- with, I might add, a great deal of charity within his fraternal correction.
For Schindler and for theologians seriously interested in this question, the Theology of the Body is not simply a 'moral code' for marriage or sexuality, but is in fact much more than that. The sexual difference (which Schindler teaches an entire semester class on) understands the body as the way in which we as persons experience ourselves as relations of love. (See Ratzinger's "Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology" article for greater depth on this subject.)
I would just like to make one final point regarding many of the streams that have been added here, and that is the notion that the problem is only with West's "presentation" or "style" but not with his "theology." In fact, Schindler (and others) ARE bringing up particular points of theology that need to be discussed. I appreciated reading "The Dawn Patrol" blog which acknowledges these 4 points. The critique is not simply one of 'style', then, but one of 'content' (and in fact, we should note that those two cannot be separated: a certain style bears with it a certain content). In this regard, whereas John Paul II speaks of human sexuality in a way that is beautiful, West often (not always!, but with frequency) uses terms and images that are crass. That method, in-itself, bears a content. But as Ratzinger/Benedict is fond of reminding us, truth is beautiful. We are attracted to, drawn to, what moves us. Virtue, then, is not first a "decision" that I make to be moral, but a natural outflow of living a beautiful life, drawn by the beauty of Christ. This is the message of the ToB.

I'm not so sure that Waldstein hits the mark here. Christopher West has done amazing work in getting out the message of the Theology of the Body, and that has been a huge blessing. Undoubtedly, communicating TOB is complex because it's a celebration of the gift of sexuality in a way that reflects the purity of Christ... This is NOT easy for our secular culture to understand!

But I've gone to a couple of West's seminars where his responses to audience members politely challenging certain interpretations weren't quite appropriate. In addition, a lot of the young women seemed to have a kind of infatuation for him at the end of the seminars. He is definitely charismatic. That was "most striking" to me - not "humility."

And BTW, this discussion is healthy. This is a relatively new area of catechesis. It's appropriate to discuss what the best and most faitful methods are for educating. I disagree that it's harmful to TOB ministry to discuss this. The only way to greater evangelization is through purification.

Sam,
I believe your statement: as one who has studied under Schindler I think it's important to say that you seem to miss the point entirely and in fact make personal judgements about Schindler and von Hildebrand that reveal only your ignorance of their lives and their work speaks volumes.
Schindler in particular has made a vicious attack against Christopher West that has no credibility due to its through trashing of Christopher. Look at the fruit of his ministry. He is bringing people into the church and they are not liberal catholics.

I will make this judgement about Schindler, jealously has raised its ugly head and he owes Christopher West an apology.

Our Priests bless:
Our motorcycles, homes, pets, schools, choirs, airplanes, rosaries, medals, troops, etc.
Christopher West asks that you and your spouse bless your genitals in the privacy of your own home. I guess if we shouldn't bless what is bringing our future church into the world we should curse it? Ignore it? Act like it isn't there? Oh, be prudish I get now!

Christopher West wrote this in the book FREEDOM: "In a way beyond our wildest imaginings, and in a way that floods us with peace and rejoicing, one day we will see all and be seen by all; we will know all and be known by all; and God will be all in all (see Ephesians I:23)...". This best captures the hope I had been given by Christopher from the first time I saw him speak in June 2007....At that point, I had been married (and in love) for 20 years to a man who shares my love of the teachings of the Catholic Church...We had been doing our best to live in accordance with these teachings and to raise our three children to do so...Yet my intimate time with him had been marred by the inescapable pain of abuse that started when I was four and continued sporadically for a span of 15 years...My husband had been very patient with me but I simply could not get past the belief I was damaged goods and nothing we did together was sanctified...Until I saw Christopher in Kingston NY...His presentation of the Theology of the Body brought me to life. Since then I have gone to many seminars and studied this as much as I can..I am very happy to say that things are so much better with my husband and me...AND I am bringing these messages to my students, freshmen boys, who seem to be embracing what they hear...The language Christopher has taught me is what they understand ! I thank Jesus and His Mother every day-- EVERY DAY --for giving me these truths through Christopher...

I actually think one of the best resources for recovering an authentic Catholic "theology of the body" are the writings of William McNamara, the founder of the Spiritual Life Institute and author of "The Human Adventure" and "Mystical Passion." McNamara called his approach "earthy mysticism." A great fan of JP II's Theology of the Body, McNamara rejected the casual sex of contemporary secular culture for being insufficiently erotic... a deadening "half life"... and insisted that human beings are normally called to the much more erotic and exciting adventure of Christian marriage. There is a new website dedicated to his thought at http://earthymysticism.com.

I think this particular incident is an interesting example of the great divide between orthodox and conservative Catholics; and one thing conservatives are good at is attacking their own. Having read and listened to Christopher's vast writings on JPII and TOB over the years, I am at a loss to understand why has Schindler come out on the attack now?

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment expressed through the various threads here - "The work that needs to be studied and discussed is JPII's work on TOB. West is to be commended for bringing it to the Church's attention. I value his passion."

Bless you Christopher - for your passion and commitment in the new evangalization.

For Gary: It seems to me that your reading of Schindler may be misconstrued. You write of Schindler's "vicious attack" and "trashing" against West, and yet those statements seem pretty off-base here. I am not surprised that Schindler's comments have sparked such controversy, but to suppose that he (and others who are trying to deepen this discussion) do not have goodness at heart is not a very generous or patient reading of the criticism. You betray yourself here. The point of this entire discussion is a humble attempt to clarify the original meaning of the ToB, on behalf of JPII and the Church. I hope you can come to understand this. Let's all try to patiently and thoroughly look at the questions being raised.

Schindler is coming out now with his candid but charitable criticism because West's Nightline appearance was a complete debacle and because, as West's former teacher, Schindler is bound by Catholic charity to point out any error he sees. He was also probably asked his opinion; he points out in his piece that he is often asked his opinion on West because West is a notable former student.

I realize that West's words were twisted by Nightline, but the fact is that millions recieved that twisted message about Catholic sexuality and now damage control must be done. What is wrong with trying to figure out how to solve the problem so this type of thing doesn't happen again as West's audience grows larger??? This is our Faith we're talking about, not just this guy.

Has West complained about the criticism? Not that I've heard. I would guess that West *welcomes* any and all advice/criticism especially from former teachers and wonderful and brilliant Catholic minds like Alice vonHildebrand.

BTW, why do some commenters call West "Christopher"? These tend to be the posters with the least sense of balance, calling Schindlers piece an "attack" etc. West doesn't need blind support or infatuation, he needs advice and prayer.

Whatever else Christopher West may be doing, he is certainly addressing an intensely personal, private issue for Catholics who are hungry for the Church's insights because they've discovered that our culture's therapeutic answers are disastrously off the mark. Many can read Pope John Paul II's TOB, but in our age of seminars and workshops, many more learn better when spoken to. It can be easy to think speakers at podiums are so expert that they're--well, guru-perfect. Audiences need to be reminded that they're not. They have their areas of expertise from in-depth study and their insights from experience and the Holy Spirit. From what people who have attended West's talks have written, his passion may have outstripped his scholarship TEMPORARILY, but that's what criticism is about. Like all of us, West is subject to error. His audience has the responsibility to weigh what he says and "sort the wheat from the chaff". They are normally not equipped to do so, and the spiritual/carnal nature of his subject makes it easy to err on either side. But by West's subject matter and training, he belongs to the community of scholars, and it is their job to, as Schindler has done so charitably but incisively, correct his direction so he can go on to continue bringing his audiences to Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Just like Peter did for Paul.

Speaking as a man who was sexually molested at the age of twelve and then struggled with pornography for many years, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Christopher West and his ability to speak to the heart of those who have been so wounded by the degradations of lust. He is doing what is necessary to build bridges from our own sexual desires to our ultimate fulfillment and true satisfaction, namely, union with Christ. These connections are what bring about a deeper reverence and sense of holiness to an act that has been brutally plagiarized by Satan. It doesn't matter what language is used just that people can begin to make the connection between the icon and that which it points to. This is what makes sex holy and reverent.
There is much that I disagree with in Schindler's criticisms of West's theology. First, before even listing examples of so called "vulgarity" he states: "I regret the necessary adoption of West's own language” I’d like to know what other language could be used to describe the things that he has taken issue with. Its one thing to have a problem with the subject matter, but Mr. West is simply using the words the English language has to describe these topics. He criticizes Mr. West for encouraging Catholics to "rediscover Mary's ... abundant breasts". I'm curious to know if he is familiar with Isaiah 66: 10-11: In reference to Jerusulem: "That you may nurse and be satisfied with her comforting breasts, That you may suck and be delighted with her bountiful bosom." Is this vulgar? We need to recognize that there is a mystical correlation between Mary and Jerusalem and this is what Christopher is trying to help people to "rediscover”. She who provided food to our bread, will nurture us as well, if we let her.
As far as spouses praying over their genitalia, it was through one man's lustful fixation on my genitals that I became so wounded. It was these actions that lead me to begin to see my own genitals as something dirty. I am currently not married, but it brings me great joy to think of someone being able to bless this part of their spouse’s body to help them see that this part of their body is holy and good. That ALL of their body is a temple.
In regards to the phallic symbolism of the Easter candle, on the Easter vigil the priest takes the candle, which is symbolic of Christ, the light of the world, and submerges it three times into the baptismal font, each time deeper than the last. The baptismal font is where new life comes forth for the Church. Is the phallic symbolism that West has used that far fetched? What other act can our minds grasp that brings forth new life? Ultimately, all analogies of Christ and the Church fall short, but this is the best analogy we have. Even the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen described the blood and water that gushed forth from the side of Christ as seminal fluid. This linking of marital love, especially the marital embrace, with Christ and the Church has brought a sense of awe and reverence to me, especially in receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist, because as Paul says in Ephesians "it is a great mystery" Ephesians 5:32
I also disagree with his understanding of our struggle with concupiscence. I quote from Schindler: "My response is that concupiscence dwells "objectively" in the body, and continues its 'objective' presence in the body throughout the course of our infralapsarian existence; and that we should expect holiness to "trump" temptations or disordered tendencies in the area of sexuality exactly as often as we should expect holiness to "trump" the reality of having to undergo death." Dr Schindler should realize that gravity exists objectively in the world, but that did not stop Peter from walking on water, as long as he stayed focused on Christ. If we think that "white knuckle chastity" is the end all and be all to purity, than how could we ever expect to enter into the marriage bed with our spouse in love. It would be too easy to make the marriage bed an outlet for lust. It is precisely because a spouse is sister first and then bride that we can look at her naked without shame. Granted, West himself would be the first to point out that every man needs to "know himself". This isn't an invitation for everyone to "jump out of the boat" so to speak, but instead to follow Peter's lead who said: "'Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.' And He said, 'Come!' And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus." (Matthew 14:28-29) It must be Jesus who calls us out of the boat.
Last, Dr Schindler speaks about West's treatment of shame and reverence in, what I believe to be an overly opinionated and ungrounded manner. He makes this broad sweeping statement that Christopher seems to think, again I quote: "If we could just get over our prudishness and sin-induced guilt, we would be ready simply to dispense with clothes and look at others in their nakedness” This couldn't be further from the truth. I have had the awesome privilege of attending two different week long courses that Mr. West has offered and the message I have received, in this regard, is that if we can get over our prudishness and sin-induced guilt, then we would actually be able to come face to face with our disordered sexual appetites and offer them to Christ, instead of repressing them. How are we supposed to redeem our desires if we're too afraid to address them? This same mentality can be seen in the difference between those who fast to whip there hunger into submission, versus those who fast to allow there bodily hunger to awaken a deeper hunger for Jesus Christ, the bread of life. Our hunger isn't wrong; it's what we're feeding it on that is wrong. Time and time again I have heard West say that we have made an idol out of sex instead of an icon and yet Schindler is claiming that his "disproportionate emphasis on sex, promotes a pansexualist tendency". It's the world that has a disproportionate emphasis on sex, sex stripped of its true iconic meaning. West is trying to reattach the true meaning and value to the act to draw people into the deep. We must understand in this pornographically saturated world, that which is most prophetic, is that which is most profaned.

This is what happens after decades of promoting a Catholic version of birth control and focusing so much on sex (and preventing children while doing so).

This argument reminds me of the liturgy -- people crying about how Vatican II was read, when in fact all of the shenanigans since the 1960s are perfectly licit in a loose reading of the novus ordo version of rubrics.

The lesson is to write clearly. Notice how Trent didn't have so many problems of interpretation? Same with Vatican I. Liberals may not have agreed with the teachings, but there was clarity, not chaos.

John Paul II has created chaos by his promotion of putting sex and the body before procreation. Now the reformers, just like with the liberalized, confusing Mass, are scrambling to put together the pieces.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'd just like to make a couple of points:

People have precious little idea how frank the Puritans were in bodily matters. Our view of them comes consistently either from their enemies (Shakespeare and Jonson come to mind), or from the darker corners of the Victorian imagination. If you really want to read a Puritan-sympathizer on the holiness of sex, check out Milton.

Next: I too believe that the Theology of the Body is a time bomb, waiting to explode. Until it does, I wish with all my heart that people would remember that it is a Theology of the Body, and not a Theology of the Genitals. That is, unless you are prepared to consider manliness and womanliness as embodied realities, manifest in the whole body and even in the psychical makeup of man and woman, you're reducing what the Pope had to say. I'm waiting for a theologian to point out, for instance, that men have broad shoulders....

Next: it is not true that modesty and genuine attraction to the opposite sex do not go together; nor is it true that exhibitionism and immodesty bespeak a healthy attitude toward sex. It seems that we have a shaky view of what the holy is (and I could point you to a passel of medieval and Renaissance poets who could instruct us) and how it is related to the sex of man and woman. Shame and what used to be called "shamefastness" are not the same thing either. That is why Adam and Eve, in Milton's poem, make love innocently and passionately -- but in their holy bower, where they sleep, and where none of the animals enter, so great was their awe of man. It is also why, after Adam asks Raphael whether angels also make love, Raphael blushes -- the color of love, says Milton. But we are a vulgar anti-culture -- with neither reverence for the holy, nor honest bumptious bawdiness.

All Church teachings need be aligned with Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial teachings. This is the Analogy of Faith. I submit that all criticism of West, pro or con. be subjected to
this framework. A good starting place is Pope JPII's "Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality." TOB is a rather erudite work.
We are now running with a popularized version by one man, with educators of all stripes reading and attending seminars so as to bring it into the classroom - stictly forbidden by Church teaching! How does West's work measure up to the doctrine of Original Sin? How does it measure up to past writings of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand and Dr. William Marra. Let prudence and caution guide our approach. I doubt that what we are seeing from C. West, Brian Butler,and the Everts was ever envisioned by Pope John Paul II.

Ken, I disagree, sure NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, but it can also be used with the mentality of being a responsible parent. There needs to be much prayer and discernment while using NFP. As for JP II putting sex before procreation, well that is how it works. Sex and then baby. We need to understand what the unitive aspect of the Marrital embrace is meant to image to fight against the counterfeit. When the unitive meaning of the Marrital embrace is lived out then new life will come.
Tony, I agree that it's not Theology of the Genitals, but I'd like to remind you that it wasn't Adam's broad shoulders that he covered up with a fig leaf after the fall. Our Genitals are extremely sacred and holy and point to something profound about being made Male and Female and our call to become one flesh and that is why we cover them up. We cover them to protect them from the degredations of lust.

NFP is diametrically opposed to a contraceptive mentality. They do not co-exist. With NFP, we use fertile days to achieve, or we abstain to avoid a pregnancy, yet recognizing, that as married, we no longer have an absolute right not to get pregnant. With NFP, we reverence the gift of fertility as God has implanted into our human nature. As a 30 year instructor, couples so practicing are generous, on average, in the size of their families. Contracepting couples appropriate to themselves the right to alter God's gift - an act of irreverence towards God and a sin against the virtue of religion. How many children a couple has is a separate question. It is not for us to question the size of another's family as we know not the shoes they walk in. It is not a sin not to practice virtue to a heroic degree.

I wonder why Dr. Hildebrand's concerns were not addressed by Dr. Waldstein?

All these speakers may have good intentions but that is bliss. If you go back to the basic Catechism you will find the answers and there won't be any scandal or embarrassment to the Church.
One will always find that every program has some good in it but what is the one thing wrong with all of these sex education programs?

They all deny the doctrine of original sin, they all defy Church authority, and they all are a scandal to the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II wrote TOB for married couples and they are responsible to follow it and only they are to teach their own children about sex. West and all the rest used chastity and TOB as another route to teach sex education openly. No one can constantly be talking, teaching, thinking about sex and not fall into a trap of becoming too explicit. Sex is private, it is intimate, it is personal. It is a closed espousal garden of love between spouses and God for procreation. It was never meant to be a constant subject of discussion.

So I just have one question, How is it that as a young teen years ago I knew the danger of sex education, that it was the root cause of abortion, and that it would strip everyone from all their purity and innocence and yet so few understand this. How can it be that so many parents and elite do not know this.

Chastity is temperence, fasting, sacrifice, and prayer. If these programs taught what chastity is rather than what chastity is not, we would live in a much different society. When people pray they will see the error in all of these programs. The biggest thing about these sex programs is that there is a lot of money and personal gain involved. Ask yourselves what saint in heaven talked about sex all the time?

Of everything I've read about this issue this gets to the heart of the matter the best. In the current state of our society we are so used to hearing about sex all the time that the privacy and intimacy of sex have have been all but forgotten.

I agree that sex is a private and intimate act, but in an era where information is accessed at the push of a button, it needs to be talked about. This does not rob it of it's reverence. The people who feel that way are people who already know the true beautiful meaning of sex and what it points to, but there are millions of people out there who have treated this beautiful gift from God as a carnival ride and have know Idea about the Sacramentality of the act or its iconic meaning in relationship to Christ and the Church.
As far as Christopher West's talks, he's not inviting us into his bedroom and he's not spying in on other spouses. He's trying to break open this wonderful theology and build connections between the act and its deep meaning. This is what shrouds the entire union in holiness, irregardless of how he gets the point across. When you have the truth explained the counterfeit looses its appeal.
It should also be mentioned that his talks are addressed to young adults and older. Since hearing Mr. West talk on several occasions, I feel that I am much better equipped to speak to my son as he grows into a young man about the true, good and beautiful meaning of the marital embrace. I also see that the best way to innoculate a child to this pornographic society is not to shelter him from the human body, but to show him good art. Art that portrays the body in a dignified manner and hasn't been created to insight lust and then to help him understand that there is a difference.

Also, Shirley, I would like to state that Christopher West very much talks about the doctrine of original sin and the riff that it has caused in us between, God and humanity, humanity and nature, man and woman and body and soul. This last riff is key in seeing how we try to seperate the sexual act from any true meaning. Mr West reaffirms that we are integrated body and soul and that are bodies speak a language. This language can either be the truth or a lie.
JP II's TOB is not written just for married couples. This is as much for the Priesthood and singles as for anyone. It's a reminder that our desires for union can only ultimately be satisfied in Christ. Priests, now more than ever, need to understand who there bride is, namely, the Church. Too many priest have thought that being celibate has meant repressing or ingnoring their desires for intimate union. Instead of realizing that they go to SEMINARY to learn how to INSEMINATE their bride the Church and IMPREGNATE her with divine life. I have seen priests with my own eyes come away from week long retreats that Mr. West has offered and be completely transformed and on fire for their bride. One priest described the homily as the priests opporunity to "woo" his bride.... beautiful. When priests see who their bride is, stop repressing their desires for errotic love and allow Christ to orient their passions, I believe, we will see many more priests willing to speak truth, chastise their bride when needed and ultimately lay down their life for the Church.

How exactly do they do that? A key piece I see lacking from Mr. West's presentation is the answer to this. He talks a lot about not being prudish or repressive and yet gives very little detail on how to get to a place where you are not those things. Instead he overdoes it, uses crass language(twice I have been to hear him speak live and was shocked and offended both times)and sensationalism which can at times lead people to believe that they can speak and act in ways that are in fact immodest so as to prove they aren't "prudish". I have seen it again and again --especially with young people.

It is baloney to suggest that we must stoop to the level of the culture to get the message across. God is far bigger than that and the truth and beauty of sexuality with reverence and modesty is what is needed most in our current culture.

I have to agree with Dr. Schindler that "West, in his disproportionate emphasis on sex, promotes a pansexualist tendency that ties all important human and indeed supernatural activity back to sex without the necessary dissimilitudo."

We need to be very careful with our language. The bride of Christ is a virgin and she brings forth children by the power of the holy spirit. The relationship of a priest to his bride the Church is chastely CELIBATE --like that of Mary and Joseph. Certainly St. Joseph was willing to lay down his life for his bride but he didn't inseminate or impregnate her --that was the Holy Spirit and it was done without reference to sex at all.

ALSO --


If that's true why is it not being promoted that way? I have yet to hear that from anyone specifically in the West camp. Instead TOB ala West is promoted as the end all be all that EVERYONE needs to hear.

This is an interesting debate. I have to say I fundamentally agree with Schindler. I don’t think his is a personal attack on West. He has clearly said he believes West has good intentions etc. But West has said some very highly objectionable things (which Schindler sites in his article) which I think are abhorrent and which denature and corrupt the sacred nature of the conjugal act. This is not to say that there cannot be enjoyment. The unitive character of the conjugal act is as important is the procreative one. Yet West’s disordered interest in the mechanics of it and salacious remarks are an offense to the memory of JP II.

Christian unity and Christian charity cannot be forgotten in this debate, as Dr. Waldstein rightly points out. Yet I fundamentally agree with Schindler and my aunt Alice von Hildebrand that so public and outrageous statements made by West must be responded to in a public manner to demonstrate that his teachings are merely his personal interpretation of JP II’s teachings, and therefore ought not to be taken as gospel. I think West’s approach is dangerous and could potentially lead thousands of well-intentioned people astray. Much like artists such as Damian Hirst seek to attract attention to themselves by shocking their audiences, without suggesting anything as to West’s intentions, I can only say that his style very much lends itself to the formation of such an impression by the lay observer. West does not have a monopoly on what constitutes an interpretation that is faithful to JP II’s intent on the theology of the body. I strongly believe West must fundamentally revisit his approach, and rediscover a language reverent enough to do justice to the sacred nature of his subject. His words were not taken out of context. There are numerous citations, given by Schindler, from writings by West, and I have seen other interviews/lectures of his in which I was shocked and embarrassed at his absurdly coarse treatment of the subject.

That his audience may be a young/immature/unversed in matters relating to JP II’s teaching is, in my mind, no excuse at all for the pornographication of the dialectic. If West regrets the way in which his comments were treated in the media, he has only himself to blame.

Thank you Darcy and Adam for your excellent comments!

There is much to like among the many comments here, including those who support both West and Schindler's criticisms. I wish it were easier to discern, in others as well as in myself, how much the reactions to this issue stems from things like our own concupiscence, our fear of concupiscence, and the histories of the fights we've each waged against it. There's a lot of solid thought apparent in the discussion, but there's also a lot of emotional heat that should be recognized and taken into account.

I think Clay makes some very cogent points, one of which I highlighted above. (Clay, I wish you had left a link to a website or blog, because I'd like to read more of your thoughts about faith and life.) In my view, the facts that some of West's approaches offend and that this taking of offense offends others is some evidence that the topic is very important and needs to be thoroughly explored over time with an overarching goal of seeking the truth.

Satan has gone to great lengths to twist sexuality in our world, which is a solid hint of the importance and mystery of union and communion in the full incarnational sense of participation in life and love through the fullness of our spiritual, emotional, and physical selves. Let's not tolerate anything other than full clarification by the Holy Spirit of what He wants to do for his people in this age. Let's continue to explore and seek to the best of our ability, and trust in Christ and his Church for the preservation and clarification of his Word to us.

This is too significant and wonderful for us to settle for less than God intends.

It's annoying to hear the testimonies of the many men who spit on tradition while dating, but somehow manage to get virgins to marry them.

Not just Christopher West...most of the Christian or Catholic men in the public eye who preach about decency/respect/morality did not demonstrate these qualities in their single days.

As if they didn't know what they were doing!

When they decide to publicly renounce their past behaviour, they make those women with whom they enjoyed sex to feel just like dirt. Who ever considers this reality?

The double standard still exists...a female who had an active sex life can't as easily dismiss it, get engaged to a "godly" man, and then become a spokesperson for Christian marriage.
There is little incentive for teens or men in their 20s to adhere to Catholic teachings. What would be their motivation?