Headline-Bistro Theology of the Body Debate

PART I: Christopher West on ABC's Nightline

[A Statement from the Theology of the Body Institute]
Christopher West and the Theology of the Body Institute are pleased that a wider audience has
been exposed to their work through the segment which aired Thursday, May 7, 2009 on ABC
News Nightline. It is our hope that it will encourage people to take a deeper look at the Churchs
teachings on the sacredness of human sexuality as God intends it. In an effort to correct any
editorial comments which may appear misleading, the following few points will help clarify the
actual teaching of The Theology of the Body:

Regarding the connection between John Paul II and Hugh Hefner, Christopher often points out
the interesting historical coincidence of the work of these two profoundly influential men. In
the early 1950s, as Hefner was founding Playboy magazine, Karol Wojtyla began to lecture and
write about the need for Christians to experience a redemption of their bodies and sexuality. In
their respective work, both Hefner and John Paul II responded to a puritanical/Manichean
approach to sexuality, but they offered completely different solutions to the problem. This is the
historical "connection" of which Christopher spoke in the Nightline interview. ABC latched onto
this point, but they failed to provide the larger context Christopher offered in his extended
interview with Nightlines correspondent. This lack of proper context has led some to
misinterpret Christophers remarks as somehow endorsing Hefners views.

The point Christopher madebut which wasnt included in the Nightline piecewas that, as
Catholics, we agree with Hugh Hefners diagnosis of the disease (i.e., a puritanical rejection of
the body and sexuality is utterly contrary to Catholic faith), but we radically disagree with his
cure. Christopher told the Nightline correspondent that the Theology of the Body is the true cure
for the disease that Hefner diagnosed. These distinctions were lost in the seven-minute piece that
ABC aired. Indeed, Nightline made it sound as if West considered Hefner a "hero" of his, which
he certainly never said. West has dedicated his life to fighting the terrible distortions of
pornography. West's "love" for Hugh Hefner is a Christian lovea hope that Hefner would
come to discover the riches of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the profound insights of the
Theology of the Body. To see the full context of what Christopher
said visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqRKvNX4IKU.
Christopher West is not a sex therapist. He is a Catholic educator, author, lecturer, and faculty
member of the Theology of the Body Institute. The TOB Institute is an educational organization
and does not engage in sex therapy.
John Paul II's Theology of the Body is intended for every human being,regardless of his or her
state in life and regardless of what sexual tendencies one might experience in this fallen world.
The TOB povides not only a vision of God's glorious plan for human sexuality and married love,
but a vision of what it means to be human and what it means to love in the image and likeness of
God.
From beginning to end, Sacred Scripture unfolds a glorious love story, a story about the
"marriage" between God and humanity, Christ and the Church. By inviting men and women to
particpate in this love, Scripture shows us the "path of love" -- including the path for spouses in
their sexual intimacy. However, in a cultural climate fixated on the mechanics of sex rather than
on authentic marital love, to describe the Bible as the "ultimate sex guide" can be misleading. It
is certainly a guide to love, and, indeed, to the "ultimate" love: the love revealed in Christ.
The Song of Songs presents an unabashed biblical celebration of the chaste love of a husband
and wife, including multiple references to the intimacies of "tasting" the goodness of the other.
To construe this as an endorsement for "oral sex" (as the culture uses that term) can be more than
misleading. Please see Christopher West's book Good News About Sex and Marriage (chapter
5) for the full context of his answer to this question.

PART II: Christopher Wests ideas on sexuality ignore tremendous dangers, Alice von
Hildebrand says.
[Catholic News Agency Article]
Renowned Catholic thinker Dr. Alice von Hildebrand has criticized Theology of the Body
speaker Christopher West, saying his approach has become too self-assured. She criticized his
presentations as irreverent and insensitive to the tremendous dangers of concupiscence.
Also cautious of Wests remarks on his recent interview with ABC television were Mary
Shivanandan and Fr. Jos Granados, both Catholic authors and theologians.
The news segment showed him calling for Catholics to complete what the sexual revolution
began. He also described very profound historical connections between Hugh Hefner and
Pope John Paul II.
West spoke to CNA on Friday, claiming the report somewhat sensationalized his views. He also
denied several characterizations conveyed by the news story, explaining that he believed Hefner
to be right in rejecting the disease of Puritanism but radically wrong in beginning the
pornographic revolution.
He had told ABC that Hefner had a "yearning," an "ache" and a "longing" for love, union and
intimacy.
In a Monday interview CNA spoke about West with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, a Catholic
philosopher and theologian who is professor emerita of Hunter College of the City University of
New York.
Dr. von Hildebrand said she knew the gist of Pope John Paul IIs Theology of the Body and
believed it was very indebted to her husband Dietrich von Hildebrands 1927 book In
Defense of Purity. She said there is obviously an abysmal difference between the views
shared by her husband and John Paul II and those presented by Christopher West.
Reporting that she had seen CNAs follow-up interview with West, Dr. Von Hildebrand was
very critical of the speaker.
My feeling is that Christopher West has become famous because he started discussing the
Theology of the Body, which is extremely appealing topic. The difficulty is that, in the
meantime, he became so famous that I do believe he has become much too self-assured and has
lost sight of the extreme sensitivity of the topic.
This is very troubling because what she calls the intimate sphere is something very
mysterious, very profound, something that has a direct relationship with God.
My feeling is that his vocabulary and his way of approaching it totally lacks reverence.
Reverence is the key to purity, she told CNA. The intimate sphere is not a topic of public
discussion but is extremely serious.
It seems to me that his presentation, his vocabulary, the vulgarity of things that he uses are
things that simply indicate that even though he might have good intentions he has derailed and is
doing a lot of harm.
She said people should not forget that we have been profoundly affected by original sin.
In paradise there was perfect harmony between Adam and Eve. There was no concupiscence.
After original sin, not only were we separated from God and condemned to losing eternity. On
top of it, every single human faculty was affected. Our intelligence was darkened. Our will was
weakened. And all of a sudden, we had the dreadful experience of something called
concupiscence.
Before the Fall, there was no inner temptation to impurity between Adam and Eve even though
they were naked, she explained. After they sinned, the two started to look at one another with
concupiscence.
The Fall had consequences that are so serious that it was only the Redemption and the grace of
God could remedy.
The fight against concupiscence is not an easy process, Dr. von Hildebrand continued. It is
something that calls for holiness, which very few of us achieve. It is a sheer illusion to believe
that by some sort of new technique we can find the solution to the problem.
While one can lead a holy life in marriage, she said to become a saint is a long and difficult
process that calls for a spirit of penance, a readiness to sacrifice.
The tragedy of original sin is that all the beautiful male qualities of strength, courage,
objectivity, nobility, a chivalrous attitude towards women, degenerated. The danger created by
original sin is that many men use their strength and become brutal and abuse women or look at
women as mere objects of pleasure.
Eve was also profoundly affected by original sin, she added.
To my mind the conflict between man and woman can only be healed by striving for holiness,
she said. There are many things Christopher West does not mention.
Additionally, she charged that West does not mention the Old Testament figures who fell to
sexual sin: David, King of Israel, who was blessed in an extraordinary way but ordered the
murder of the husband of a woman with whom David committed adultery.
Adulteries lead to murder. It is one of the most abominable stories you can imagine, she said,
explaining the Prophet Nathans rebuke of David led to the composition of Psalm 50.
She said it was upsetting to her as a youth to learn that a young man who prayed for the straight
and honest heart so that I may serve my people went on to have 750 concubines.
How can you be so good when youre twenty, and lead such an abominable life when youre
seventy? she asked. As far as I can tell, this is something that Christopher West forgets, in this
sphere which is extremely dangerous.
She reported that a priest friend of hers had told her 90 percent of the sins that men accuse
themselves of involve the Sixth Commandment against adultery.
Christopher Wests approach makes him forget that sex is an extreme danger. Though sex can
be sanctified, that sanctification implies a humility, a spirit of reverence, and totally avoiding
the vulgarity that he uses in his language.
Im shocked and horrified by the words that he uses. His mere mention of Hugh Hefner is to my
mind an abomination.
Mary Shivanandan, a theologian who authored the book Crossing the Threshold of Love: A
New Vision of Marriage in the Light of John Paul IIs Anthropology, was also critical of Wests
remarks.
The sublime teaching of John Paul IIs theology of sexuality is not well served by Wests
comparison to Hugh Hefner and his playboy bunnies, she told CNA in a Monday e-mail. The
late pope had a profound reverence for Gods plan for human love, which such a comparison, no
matter how well intentioned, can only diminish and degrade.
Also providing comment for CNA was Fr. Jos Granados, a theologian who co-authored with
Supreme Knight of Columbus Carl Andersen a book on John Paul IIs Theology of the Body
titled Called to Love.
Fr. Granados said Wests suggestion that John Paul II took the sexual revolution a step further
was highly inadequate and open to serious misunderstanding. He explained that Puritanism
shares with pornography a negative vision of the body, viewing it without reference to the
dignity of the person and to Gods plan for man.
It is deprived of its symbolism and its language, he said. While Puritanism attempts to silence
the body and its urges, the sexual revolution exalts them as an absolute.
Pornography is in no sense an attempt to recover the beauty of the body and sexuality, but a
sign of despair regarding this beauty and the possibility of finding meaning in human love, he
said.
John Paul IIs Theology of the Body recovers the meaning of the body with reference to love
and to man and God, Fr. Granados told CNA.
The Popes proposal is not just about sexuality, but about the truth of love as the foundation of
the persons dignity and the meaning of reality; and about the family as the place where the
person finds himself and his way towards happiness.
Moreover, one of the results of the sexual revolution is precisely the pansexualism that
surrounds our society. We cannot respond with a different kind of pansexualism, with a sort of
Catholic sexual revolution, which in the end promotes a similar obsession with sex, even if
holy.

PART III: Christopher Wests Theology of the Body
David L. Schindler
Regarding his interview on Nightline, Christopher West says that his remarks were taken out of
context. In some sense, this is surely true. However, the comments as aired are the latest in a
long list of statements and actions not inconsistent with the context set by the Nightline editors.
Though occasioned by Wests Nightline appearance, the present statement addresses his
theology as a whole.
Let me stress that I agree with those who vigorously defend Wests intention of fidelity to the
Church. Certainly he has had positive results in drawing many Catholics into a deeper
understanding of their faith. As for myself, I do not initiate anything about West in my classes,
but only respond when asked a question. Then I begin by emphasizing Wests intention of
orthodoxy. As I have often put it, "he would throw himself in front of a bus for the Church." It is
important to understand, however, that good will is not synonymous with sound thought; and I
must say, not without reluctance, that Wests work seems to me to misrepresent in significant
ways the thought of John Paul II.
The following examples have been verified by persons directly involved or by things written by
West himself (and I regret the necessary adoption of Wests own language).
Wests 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 Marys ... 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 cant 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.
I offer these examples not merely because they are vulgar and in bad taste, not to mention
sometimes bordering on the just plain silly, but because they indicate a disordered approach to
human sexuality. An objective distortion in approaching sexuality does not cease to be such
simply because it is theologized. West to be sure will point toward the orthodox intentions and
context of the examples, but my criticism bears on the substance of his preoccupation as
reflected in the examples. (As a Thomist friend of mine used to say: pay attention to a man's
subjects, not his predicates.)
What, then, are the objections to Wests theology?
First, West misconstrues the meaning of concupiscence, stressing purity of intention one-sidedly
when talking about problems of lust.
When I first pointed this problem out to him several years ago, his response was that he refused
to limit the power of Christ to transform us. 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.
Second, West has an inadequate notion of analogy. He conceives love in a reductive bodily-
sexual sense, then reads the Christian mysteries as though they were somehow ever-greater and
more perfect realizations of what he emphasizes as key in our own experience, namely, sex.
But sex is not even the most important part of human love, let alone the key to the Christian
mysteriesthe Eucharist, for example. Missing in Wests work is an adequate idea of the radical
discontinuity (maior dissimilitudo ) between the divine love revealed by Godand indeed the
(supernatural) love to which we are calledand sexual love or intercourse. To be sure, the
spousal love between man and woman is central in mans imaging of God, and the gendered
body and sexual relations are an integral sign and expression of spousal love, which also includes
what John Paul II calls all the other manifestations of affection. However, as Joseph Ratzinger
says, it is only because man has a capacity for God that he also has a capacity for another human
being. The former indicates the content, the latter the consequence, of mans likeness to
God.
In the end, 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.
Third, West's treatment of shame and reverence is marred by a too-male vision of thingsnot
only too much maleness but distorted maleness. If we could just get over our prudishness and
sin-induced guilt, he seems to think, we would be ready simply to dispense with clothes and look
at others in their nakedness. He has no discernible sense of the difference between what might be
a feminine as distinct from masculine sense of unveiling. He (thus) lacks a reverence for the
body entailing a modesty not reducible simply to shame, or again a patient reverence
presupposing the veiledness proper to what essentially contains mystery. His work is
preoccupied with what is external to the detriment of the interiority proper to persons. In this
context, we can say that West's theology ultimately lacks a Marian dimension: not in the sense
that he fails to make references to Mary, but because his work is not adequately formed, in
method or content, in Marys archetypal feminine-human sensibility.
Fourth, a style of preaching is not merely a matter of "style"a difference in personality or taste.
It is always-also a matter of theology itself. West often tends to treat resistance to the content of
his lectures, for example during the question periods, as matters of resistance to the Holy Spirit
(to the Spirit now speaking in and through West's charism), urging questioners to pray to
overcome the fear induced in them by their bad theological-spiritual formation. Well-balanced
persons have spoken of how West makes them feel a sense of guilt, of resistance to the Holy
Spirit, if they experience uneasiness about what he is saying.
Pope Benedict XVIs sacramental style, integrated within the objectivity of a larger truth that
always first calls ourselves into question even as we preach to others, provides a helpful lesson
here.
Regarding Hefner: West fails to see that Hefner at root does not correct but misconceives and
then only continues the error of Americas Puritan Protestantism. For both Puritanism and
Hefner, the body is merely a tool, though to be manipulated differently: by the former
exclusively for reproducing children and by Hefner for pleasure. It is not only Puritanism but
also Hefner that fails to understand properly the body and bodily desires in their natural meaning
as good.
In sum, West's work provides a paradigm of what is most often criticized today in connection
with John Paul IIs theology of the bodyand rightly criticized, insofar as that theology is
identified with Wests interpretation: namely, that it is too much about sex and too romantic.
West presents a problem for the Church, not because he lacks orthodox intentions, but because
his unquestionably orthodox intentions render his theology, a priori, all the more credible. His
work often deflects people from the beauty and depth of what is theauthentic meaning of John
Paul II's anthropology of love, and thus of what was wrought in and through the Second Vatican
Council. It is scarcely the first time in the history of the Church that abundant good will did not
suffice to make one's theology and vision of reality altogether true.
West has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Church. However, if his work is to bear the Catholic
fruit he so ardently desires, he needs to subject basic aspects of his theology to renewed
reflection.
PART IV: Moral Theologian Says Christopher West's Work is 'Completely Sound'
Janet Smith
Christopher Wests interview on ABCs Nightline has sparked some terrific discussion on the
Internet. An impressive amount of the interaction is intelligent and illuminating, even some of
that which is seriously wrong. One of the better responses is that by Jimmy Akin of Catholic
Answers and the follow-up comments to his blog.
Here, I want to offer a brief, partial, response to Prof. David Schindlers assessment of Wests
work. The fact that Nightline got a lot wrong about Wests work is not surprising. In fact, it is
surprising how much it got right. Those of us who work with the media know that potential
martyrdom awaits us at the hands of an editor. West has likely been suffering a kind of
crucifixion over the past week. What is puzzling is that an influential scholar chose this moment
to issue a sweeping, negative critique of West in such a public forum. I have great respect for the
work and thought of Schindler and realize that it must be difficult to be on the receiving end of
criticisms of the work of one of their most high profile graduates. I wish, however, he had found
another occasion to express his reservations about Wests work.
I think we should be very careful in our evaluation of the work of someone who is on the front
lines and who is doing pioneer work. Virtually every pioneering author and presenter has had
severe detractors in his own time. Some of them have been disciplined by the Church and
eventually exonerated. I would like to give examples and mention names, but I dont want to
ignite a firestorm of "how can you compare Christopher West to X, Y or Z?"!
I want to add my voice to those who are enthusiastic about the West/Theology of the Body
phenomenon. I think it is important to keep in mind, as Akin does, who Wests audience is. It is
largely the sexually wounded and confused who have been shaped by our promiscuous and
licentious culture. People need to think long and hard about the appropriate pedagogy for that
group. Yet, as West himself knows, his approach is not for everyone. An analogy that pushes the
envelope may be "offensive" to one person and may be just the hook that draws another person
in. West has adopted a style that appeals to a large segment of that populationand even to
some who are pure and innocent.
It is not hard to find hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals who will testify that they have
come to love Christ and his Church, and better understand and live the Churchs teaching about
sex because of the work of Christopher West. Cohabiters separate, contracepters stop
contracepting, and men cease looking at pornographyand that is the short list. Countless
young people are now taking up the study of the Theology of the Body because of Wests work.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Schindler objects to the language used in a list of comments made by West and dismisses them
as "vulgar," "in bad taste," and "silly." Was Schindler careful to verify those comments and take
into account the context in which they were made? Let me defend two matters mentioned by
Schindler, praying over genitals and anal sex, that might seem peculiar if not properly
understood. I hesitate to draw further attention to these subjects because I do not want to give the
impression that Wests work focuses on tangential and sensational issues of sexuality. It does
not. West focuses on making John Paul IIs vision of our creation as male and female accessible
to the common person in the pew. But people deserve answers to their honest questions, and
West is charitable in his willingness to meet people where they are.
A friend of mine who was sexually abused often finds it difficult to engage in the marital
embrace (trying not to offend!). A very orthodox Catholic therapist recommended that her
husband pray over her reproductive organs (being delicate here). Since he has been doing that,
she has experienced some healing, and her enjoyment of the marital embrace has improved
considerably. One has to ask why praying over throats is fine while praying over other parts of
the body wrong or silly? It would be Manichean to suggest that some parts of the body are good
(e.g., the throat) while others (e.g., the reproductive organs) are not.
I never like to talk about anal sex (sorry, I dont know a good euphemism). As one of my friends
has observed about my sensitivities regarding sexual matters, "You would censor Shakespeare!"
(I would.) But the fact remains that Catholic couples in todays world have questions about such
issues. Many cannot understand why anal sex could possibly be appealing to anyone (include me
and, indeed, West in that group), while others seem to find the act attractive. Certainly there isnt
any Church teaching about this action at a magisterial level, but few seem to know that there is
a tradition of approval of such behavior as foreplay to intercourse (not to be confused with the
biblical condemnation of sodomy which replaces intercourse) by orthodox Catholic ethicists. The
principle generally invoked is that consensual actions that culminate in intercourse are morally
permissible.
People are free to challenge the "tradition" on this point, but it should be acknowledged that
West is not a maverick concerning this issue. Indeed, his position is perhaps more
"conservative" than that of the "tradition." In his book Good News About Sex and Marriage,
West clearly discourages the practice. Perhaps it is time for ethicists to work on the question, but
what Schindler failed to mention is that Wests position is precisely (or even stricter than) what
priests have been trained to teach married couples for a very long time.
In the second portion of his article, Schindler provides a list of his objections to Wests theology
without citing one text to substantiate his charges. I would be very interested in seeing a more
sustained presentation of Schindlers critique. As it stands, I do not find that his concerns
correspond with what I have read in Wests work or heard in his lectures. I believe a thorough
discussion of the issues Schindler raises would enrich our understanding of the Theology of the
Body.
But for those whose lives are not spent in the academic world, a world in which minutiae can
take on epic proportions, let me note that disagreements of the sort that Schindler has with West
are an everyday occurrence in the world of academia. That is, we scholars disagree not only with
our archenemies but also with our closest and dearest allies. And not just about small matters;
Thomists disagree with other Thomists about serious issues of interpretation of Thomistic texts;
Thomists and phenomenologists who both are entirely faithful to the Magisterium can have
fierce disputes on all sorts of issues. Prof. William May and I once debated on the best way to
defend Humanae Vitae.
My point is this: The fact that the dean of the John Paul II Institute in Washington D.C. has
issues with Wests approach should not discourage anyone from reading Wests work or
attending his lectures. Schindler has serious disagreements with other reputable, orthodox
theologians, including professors on staff at the John Paul II Institute. Wests extensive
commentary on the Theology of the Body, "Theology of the Body Explained," was reviewed for
the nihil obstat for the Archdiocese of Boston by Prof. May, a longtime colleague of Schindler at
the John Paul II Institute, who also gave it a glowing endorsement for the book jacket. (I also
reviewed and strongly endorsed West's book "Good News About Sex and Marriage"). Several
times in his piece Schindler refers to Wests intention to be orthodox which could imply that
he has not necessarily achieved orthodoxy. We should be clear that Wests works have been
given an imprimatur, an ecclesiastical judgment that a work is doctrinally sound. I share the view
of others that it is completely theologically sound.
Again, I would be very interested in reading a sustained critique of Wests work by Schindler
because of his own tremendous knowledge of the Theology of the Body. Yet, until he
substantiates them and we have a response from West and his supporters, we will not be able to
evaluate the validity of Schindlers evaluation. West has been giving his presentations for over a
decade now; he has shown spectacular docility and humility in reworking them in response to
criticisms. I suspect that as a result of this recent dust-up West may want to adjust some of his
approach (or he may not!), but I also am confident that onlookers will find that many of the
criticisms against West are without foundation. Some are erroneous because the critics are not
sufficiently acquainted with Wests work. Others are not sufficiently acquainted with John Paul
IIs work. Sometimes differences are not about substance but about emphasis or semantics.
When dealing with a subject as fraught with distortions and sensitivities as sexuality there are
surely going to be differences between people of good will.
Scholars and graduate students will be studying and arguing over the proper interpretation of
Pope John Paul IIs Theology of the Body for centuries to come. I think West has already made a
very worthy contribution to that discussion. Others are free to differ with him, but I am sure that,
in the end, Wests influence will not be found to be a pernicious one. Rather, I expect we will all
have an immense debt of gratitude to him.


Part V: Translator of John Paul IIs Original Work Defends Christopher West
Michael Waldstein
I know that David Schindler is a careful scholar, but I was surprised and taken aback by his
recent blanket negative statement about Christopher West in reaction to West's Nightline
interview. He cites a few anecdotes, quotes some snippets of texts, recalls some discussions he
had with West in the past, and then makes a number of sweeping, massive accusations against
West's work as a whole.
His West is not the Christopher West I know from studying West's commentary on the Theology
of the Body.
Because of my close work with West during the writing of the new translation of John Paul II's
original work, I know he has a deep and faithful understanding of the late pope. West's work is
uncompromisingly in line with the Church's faith.Perhaps most striking is his humility in
approaching the Theology of the Body and the great desire he has to reach broken humanity with
this liberating message.

To answer all of Schindler's objections would require a response too lengthy for the moment; the
fact that he cites no texts from West's work on which to base his four main objections also makes
a response difficult.
Let me take a single example of Schindler's critique to show how it misses its target: Schindler
claims, "West misconstrues the meaning of concupiscence" by denying the permanence of
"objective" concupiscence. In fact, West does not contradict the Catholic teaching that
concupiscence and the fomes peccati (the tendency to sin) are objective consequences of the Fall
that remain in every human being until death. He is correct in diagnosing strong Jansenist
influences in the American Catholicism of the early Twentieth Century, which have historical
roots similar to those of Puritanism. 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. The appropriate dress for attractive women according to the same
spirit would be a black cardboard box. This Jansenist negativity, which is still deeply rooted in
some conservative Catholic quarters of the United States (much less in Europe), is profoundly
opposed to the pedagogy of the body proposed by John Paul II.
John Paul II considers true growth in virtue not only possible, but necessary for every man and
woman. This is the authentic teaching of the orthodox Catholic tradition in contrast to Jansenism:
Also in the sexual sphere, true growth in virtue is possible; virtue can overcome the tendency to
sin, though objective concupiscence and the consequent danger of sin remain real. The path to
virtue leads through deep awareness of the spousal meaning of the body and through authentic
growth in love. "Love, and then do what you want!" says St. Augustine, who is (wrongly)
invoked as the father of both Puritanism and Jansenism. These are the truths West highlights in
his writings and presentations. I doubt that Schindler denies these truths, but his critique of West
sounds almost as if he does.
There are circumstances that make the vehemence of Schindler's condemnation of West
somewhat understandable. As the Provost/Dean of the John Paul II Institute in Washington,
Schindler has the responsibility of protecting the name and reputation of this Institute -- a great
common good. Although getting the Theology of the Body message out to the very large
audience on Nightline was potentially an important moment in Catholic evangelization, the
distortions have the potential of harming not only West's reputation, but the Institute's as well. If
Nightline is right, one would expect the main textbook at the John Paul II Institute to be The Joy
of Sex According to John Paul II, edited by David Schindler and Hugh Hefner (centerfold
included).
Yet, it is exactly at the point when the defense of a great common good becomes pressing that
care needs to be taken so that one does not trample on particular persons, especially when doing
so seems to be an effective means of achieving one's end.

The salacious spin Nightline put on West's work (suggesting West is a fan of Hefner's Playboy
Magazine) did not come from West, but from ABC, which knows that "sex sells." I see a great
irony in these circumstances. Schindler has a remarkably clear and profound perception of the
defects of our dominant liberal culture. He also has a correspondingly keen x-ray vision for the
regular distortion of Catholic life and theology in the dominant media. Yet in this instance, he is
ready to accept ABC's spin at face value, regardless of West's protestations to the contrary and,
more importantly, regardless of West's published works. To use ABC's spin against West is
an act of injustice. It does violence to one of the most eloquent and effective messengers of the
Theology of the Body.
Since he is a careful scholar, Schindler should offer an analysis of West's position as documented
in his most recent published works in an appropriate journal, rather than using this media
firestorm to go in for a quick kill. He should allow the scholarly process of close reading and
judicious interpretation, argument and counterargument to take place, in which West has the
opportunity to respond to criticisms in a deliberate fashion.
West's main strength lies in his effective communication of John Paul II's teaching on
a popular level. An academic might look down at such "popularizing" and disdain serious
intellectual engagement with West. In fact, West's theological penetration of John Paul II's work
and the expression of his insight in his published materials have high academic quality. They are
worthy of serious scholarly engagement. In writing my own book about the Theology of the
Body (which is almost completed), I turn to West's commentary often and with profit.
Both ABC's spin on West and Schindler's condemnation of him in agreement with that spin do
harm to the cause of the Theology of the Body. I appeal to all who work for the promotion of the
Theology of the Body to do their utmost to counteract this harm.

PART VI: Response to Profs. Smith and Waldstein Regarding Christopher West
David L. Schindler
I appreciate the not unexpected personal testimony on behalf of Christopher West by my former
Notre Dame colleagues, Janet Smith and Michael Waldstein. Both of these Catholic professors
are justly well- respected for their work on behalf of embryonic human life and the family, and
Waldstein also for his fine translation of John Paul IIs discourses on the theology of the body.
The differences between Smith-Waldstein and myself with respect to the propriety of my
statement regarding Wests work seem to me to stem most of all from our differences with
respect to the nature and seriousness of (possible) problems embodied in that work. I will first
respond regarding methodological issues (I), and then return to the substance of the issues
raised in my posted statement (II).
I. (1) I am surprised by the weight Professor Waldstein gives to the Nightline interview. As
emphasized in the opening sentences of my statement, Wests Nightline appearance was the
occasion but not the reason for my statement, whose purpose was to address Wests theology as
a whole. Indeed, the statement was one I had considered making in some forum for a long time
hence my reference to Wests comments (sensationalized to be sure by the Nightline editors)
as the latest in a long list of statements and actions. In this light readers presumably can see
that Waldsteins charging me with an act of injustice for accepting ABCs spin at face value
and using it against West is without warrant.
As many people are aware, West was a student of mine some ten years ago; also, we exchanged
substantial correspondence regarding his work in its early years; and Ive listened to some of his
tapes, watched some of his videos, and read some of his writings. Over the years, Ive also had
innumerable questions and comments (mostly unsolicited), brought to me by those who have
attended his lectures and workshops, and indeed by representatives of diocesan offices, usually
by virtue of my position as Dean of the John Paul II Institute in Washington.
(2) Waldsteins and Smiths repeated insistence on the need for substantiation on my part in
terms specifically of Wests written work is puzzlingbecause disproportionate. Good
Aristotelians that they are, they know that not all evidence comes in the form of written
documents. This is certainly true in the present case. West is not primarily an author of books,
but a public lecturer, a publisher of tapes and videos, and a director of an institute offering study
programs. He has also appeared, not against his will, on national television.
Massively more people thus have heard West than have read him (he has sold one million books
and three million tapes, for example). Not surprisingly in this context, much evidence
undergirding criticism of West has come via the many people who have encountered West in
these different forums, and who have then brought their concerns to me. What one rightly does in
such a context is pay attention to the character and number of incidents, to the consistency of
what is reported, and to the credibility of those reporting, assessing all of this in terms of its
correspondence with ones own direct knowledge and experience all sound Aristotelian
methodology.
Waldstein and Smith seem to assume that a given criticism, insofar as it lacks explicit
justification in terms of some recent published text of West, is thereby without warrant. As a
result, they tend repeatedly to demand evidence where it would have been more reasonable
simply to have addressed the substance of the issues on their own intrinsic terms.
(3) Consistent with the foregoing, Waldstein and Smith both insist that my arguments should
have been made in a different forum, developed in slower, scholarly fashion, and finally
published in an appropriate journal, rather than using the media to create a firestorm. Needless to
say, this would be the proper way of proceeding in normal circumstances. But Waldstein and
Smith fail, again, to take sufficiently into account the implications of the fact that West is a
popular public figure. As I said in my posted comments, I decided to put forward a public
statement only with much reluctance. I did so only because it has seemed to me in the present
situation that the great numbers of people who have experienced some uneasiness in their
encounters with Wests work not only as edited in the Nightline interview, but also and
primarily in his lectures, tapes, videos, and workshops need to know that this uneasiness has an
objective foundation in the work of West itself: it is a consequence not only or always of
unconscious Puritanism on their part, but often simply of their spontaneous and authentic
human and Catholic instincts.
The purpose of my statement was thus to identify the objective patternorder and emphasisof
Wests theology which in my opinion warrants such uneasiness. My hope in so doing was not to
cause him to fail in his projects, but to help establish a horizon of objective concerns, awareness
and discussion, which seem to me essential for any adequately conceived theology of love and of
the body.

(4) Regarding Waldstein: what he dismisses as a few anecdotes and snippets of texts in fact
indicate a pattern in the order and emphasis of Wests theology over the years, and they have all
been verified (and there are more), though of course I recognize that West would surely want to
give them a different interpretation. This pattern is outlined in my four criticisms. I suspect
Waldstein knows that his reference to a few anecdotes and snippets amounts to a rhetorical
dismissal that begs the answers to what are scarcely impertinent questions. Does he see no
pattern? Does he think that the statements and actions cited are isolated incidents or inoffensive
matters, bearing no implications relative to my four criticisms? That the statements and actions
did not take place? Assuming the accuracy of what is reported in the examples, what
interpretation would Waldstein give them, and (how) would he defend them?
(5) In response to Smith: first, with respect to the examples of Wests language that I
characterized as vulgar, I would reaffirm that some things just ought not to be talked about in a
public setting, on the grounds not of prudishness but of simple human decorum and respect for
others. This is not a matter simply of identifying euphemisms to replace vulgar language, nor
simply of avoiding mention of acts that may be immoral. Smith herself indicates a personal
sensitivity with respect to public speech about sexual matters, but then affirms that Wests style
can appeal to those who have been formed by our culture, suffused as it is by sexual content.
My own view is that the habit of communication of the dominant culture, which knows no
discreet activities that ought not to be fully exposed, and no mysteries that ought not to be fully
unveiled, is precisely what needs to be called into question, by both the form and the content of
an authentically Christian-human response. To be sure, this does not mean that things which
ought not to be talked about publicly should not be addressed in private for example, if a
personal question needs to be clarified or if counseling is warranted.
(6) Smith appears to think that theological errors can be serious only insofar as there has been
some explicit magisterial definition pertinent to the matters under discussion. But this
misconstrues the dynamics of doctrinal development and magisterial definition in history.
Magisterial definition normally occurs as a later but integral part of the process of clarification,
undertaken for the sake of the unity of the Church. Magisterial clarification, in other words,
normally presupposes the theological discussion that uncovers the errors in the first place, even
as it then judges regarding the latter.
The point is that determining whether theological error exists and the extent of its significance is
rightly accomplished only by first assessing the issues on their own merits. In this context,
Professor Smiths referring to reputable scholars who have disagreed with me in other matters
and of authorities testifying to Wests orthodoxy serves mostly to beg, and not answer, the
substance of the issues I have raised. In a word, whether or in what sense my criticisms raise
significant issues can only be determined by giving an account in terms of the issues themselves.
Let me turn, then, to the content of the issues raised.
II. (7) Professor Waldstein addresses one of these issues. Asserting that my criticism of West in
the matter of concupiscence misses the target, Waldstein provides what seems to me a clear
outline of the Catholic position in this matter. He then gives his personal testimony that the
position he outlines is the one that West himself highlights in his writings and presentations.
Waldstein concludes by suggesting that, in my critique of West, I sound almost as if I deny the
Catholic position.
What I reject, however, is not the Catholic position regarding concupiscence as Waldstein states
it, but only his claim that that position can be unambiguously claimed also as Wests. Waldstein
rightly says that in the sexual sphere, true growth in virtue is possible; virtue can overcome the
tendency to sin, though objective concupiscence and the consequent danger of sin remain real.
But understanding this in an appropriately Catholic way depends entirely on qualifying properly
the sense in which true growth in virtue under the transforming power of grace does
overcome the tendency to sin,relative to objective concupiscence and the consequent danger to
sin.
There seem to me three issues regarding Wests understanding in this context, all of them
involving just this question of qualification and emphasis. The first regards the emphasis placed
on the subjects intention and will, or the heart, in matters involving the sexual body and
relations between men and women. He often stresses, for example, that the body is good and the
problem with lust is in your heart. The question is whether, in stressing purity of heart, he gives
sufficient weight to the continued objective presence in the body of the fomes peccati (the
tendency to sin), however much mitigated by virtue and grace. Even saints do not escape the
infralapsarian state of their existence.
The question, secondly, is whether, in treating the will immediately in relation to the
transforming power of grace and the Gospel, he gives sufficient weight to the necessary
mediating role of natural-human virtue.
The question, thirdly, is whether, in the matter of nakedness in the relations between spouses, he
gives adequate weight to the distinction between modesty and shame. He suggests that the naked
body in the spousal context is always decent, and that only an indecent look makes it indecent.
But this misses the need for a reverence that takes us beyond the categories of decent and
indecent: a reverence deriving from the mystery contained in the body whose unveiling requires
a sensitivity to time and to place which is not simply a function of sin and hence shame. (For a
discussion by West that I believe illustrates all three of the problems indicated here, see Naked
Without Shame, 2nd ed, Tape #5.)
To be sure, there is an essential truth to be affirmed in Wests position as outlined on these three
points. But this essential truth is secured in its authentic Catholic meaning only by being properly
qualified. And the question is whether Wests (to me) one-sided emphasis in each case does not
serve to overwhelm the subtle but crucial distinctions needed to safeguard that meaning in its
integrity. (Lest one be tempted to think that subtle distinctions in this context are merely
academic in Professors Smiths sense of the term, we should recall that all of the most
important matters involved in Church doctrines turn on just such subtle distinctions.)
Needless to say, ambiguity on the three points noted here can quickly slide one toward a
dangerous imprudence in matters of sexuality.
(8) The second question raised in my statement concerns the matter of what is termed analogy.
The burden of the issue is twofold: first, the body introduces something genuinely new into the
meaning of love. The soul and the body, of course, are unified in the human person, and the body
thus shares in love as loves sign and expression. But love has its roots most basically in the soul,
and ultimately in God. Sex and gender do not, properly speaking, exist in persons who are not
embodied angels and God but rather indicate the new form that love takes when it takes form
in the human-embodiedperson. On the one hand, love always transcends, is always something
other and more than, sexuality. On the other hand, sexuality, as sign and expression of love,
really does reveal in an essential way the meaning of love.
In a word, what is proper to the love that begins in the spirit and ultimately in God is revealed in
the body in a new and different way, in the sexual difference. It is this unity coincident with
(ever-greater) difference (maior dissimilitudo ) that is termed analogy.
Second, regarding the human body itself. John Paul II says that the body in its original solitude
is substantially prior to the body in its original unity and hence in its sexual difference
(see Man and Woman He Created Them, p. 157; General Audience, 7 November 1979). This
means that the body in its most original sense is made for God. The body, we may say, bears
what is first a filial relation to God. As a creature (hence child) of God, I bear a basic relation to
or capacity for God, and only consequently, though simultaneously, inside this relation, do I bear
a capacity for another human being. Indeed, this filial relation is rightly understood as a
virginal relation bearing a different shape in the celibate and married states because it
involves the whole of my being in relation to the whole God.
It is crucial to understand that this original filial relation to God retains its priority within the
relation between spouses, though the filial and spousal relations are circumincessive within
each other: that is, they each illuminate the inner meaning of the other, in their own distinct
ways. In the terms of Joseph Ratzinger, filial love is the content (Inhalt), and spousal love the
consequence (Folge) of the imago Dei. The two loves, united in the human beings single
imaging of God, nevertheless bear an order that accords filial love absolute priority within this
unity. Or, to put it differently, filial love and spousal love bear a mutual but asymmetrical
relation within what is always the unified content of the human beings imaging of God.
The overarching point here, then, is that sexual love as understood in the work of John Pope II
must be inserted within a love between spouses that itself takes its most radical meaning from
filial relation to God. Sexual-spousal love participates in this more original filial relation to God
as its sign and expression, but does so only as consequent to anddistinct from this more original
filial relation.
At least three consequences follow from the above, in summary: first, sexually differentiated
love must be approached most basically in terms of the love of God in its infinite difference as
revealed in Jesus Christ and his Eucharist, and indeed as revealed in the natural order of things
created by God. Secondly, the filial love proper to the body in its original solitude establishes the
primacy of the virginal state already in the natural order, and thus indicates that there is a virginal
fruitfulness that takes priority over marital-sexual fruitfulness, though each of these forms of
fruitfulness illumines and enhances the inner meaning of the other. Thirdly, filial-virginal love
for God entails love for all of his creatures, who bear a unity within their common relation to
Goda hierarchical unity, that is, with man at the pinnacle, as microcosm, as Maximus the
Confessor taught. Theology of the body, in other words, entails a view of sexually differentiated
love that opens intrinsically to even as it needs illumination by an anthropology and a
cosmologyin a word, an ontologyof love.
These three points suggest the comprehensive meaning of the theology of the body and indeed
sexually differentiated spousal love. This love retains an essential, analogically-conceived place
in our understanding of love, human and divine. The point is simply that it does so only as
always qualified by and integrated in light of the differences introduced in each of these points.
Of course, this does not mean that one must address all these different senses of love on every
occasion, or that one cannot legitimately devote sustained specific attention to any one of them.
The point is simply that one must address each of them only in light of its analogically
differentiated integration with the others. One must always be clear that the theology of the body
is not synonymous with a theology of sexuality.
(9) The third of my criticisms meant to indicate the sense in which the Churchs Marian mystery,
and also the feminine dimension, are central for the theology of the body. After Christ, Mary
reveals to us most profoundly the original meaning of body that needs to remain
present within sexual-marital love. In her fiat, we discover the contemplative meaning of the
body (Mary pondered these things in her heart). In this light, contrary to what is assumed in
the dominant culture, women have a naturally more profound sense (than do men) of the
implicit, and of interiority or of what develops slowly-organically and from within. Women have
a naturally more profound sense of mystery and thus of what is entailed in the unveiling of the
bodyfor example, an organic in contrast to mechanical sense of time, and consequently a
different idea of the meaning and significance of nakedness itself.
A theology of the body which does not sufficiently integrate a Marian and feminine dimension in
these ways, cannot but default into what becomes a one-sided and distorted male approach that
treats the body too explicitly and too reductively as the object of a look (even if a pure one).
The result is a tendency, for example, to conflate modesty with prudishness or guilt-induced
shame, with a consequent displacement of modesty in its true meaning as an enhancement of
genuine bodily beauty.
*****
I have returned at some length to these issues because I believe they bear profoundly on how the
theology of the body, and of human sexuality, is properly to be understood. Except for the
purpose of responding to Waldstein on West in the matter of concupiscence, I have stated the
issues in their own terms and without reference to West. To be sure, I believe each of the issues
poses significant questions with respect to Wests theology of the body. But I also want to
emphasize again in conclusion what I said at the outset: I have no desire to see his project fail.
My intention in this and my earlier statement has been to say enough only to identify problematic
tendencies, which seem to me serious. My intention, in other words, has been to lift a horizon of
objective concerns into relief, for the purpose of inviting reflection by all those involved or
interested in Wests project.
Here, then, is the main point I wish to stress in conclusion. None of those involved in this
discussion, myself emphatically included, question the depth of Wests faithful love for the
Church and indeed for humanity. Regarding the issues I have raised, it seems to me that what
weall of usneed to do is to ponder them reflectively. Given the nature of what is at stake, and
the vast and varied forms of Wests work, these issues have no hope of being resolved through
an endless to-and-fro of citation/example and counter-citation/example. The issues will be
resolved not by a call to arms, but only by inviting all involved to patient reflection.
Some persons have suggested to me in this context that we hold a conference to discuss matters.
My response is that conferences surely have their place. Regarding such events, nevertheless, it
needs to be said that one of the great problems of our time, in our culture and indeed also in our
Church, is not that we do not have enough dialogue, but that on the contrary we have too much
dialogue of the wrong sort. Conferences allow persons to gather together and reassure each other
of their mutual good intentions, and this can be helpful; and they also often enable verbal
agreements to be reached. The verbal agreements reached in such settings, however, are almost
always premature: more the result of strategic management than the fruit of living transformation
through genuine and sustained thinking. Only the latter kinds of agreements suffice in the present
case.
The theology of the bodyor anthropology of loveis of crucial significance for the Church and
indeed for humanity, in light of the great gift of John Paul II and Benedict XVI as interpreters of
the Second Vatican Council. Service to the Church and humanity in connection with this
anthropology is a matter above all of communicating in its integrity the truth about the nature
and destiny of the human being before God. The condition sine qua non for realizing such
service is sustained thought linked with prayerful patience, and these of their essence take time.
Above all in this context, we need to see that the issues implicit in this anthropology have to be
pondered for their own sake, in light of the whole of human experience illumined by the whole
of the faith, and guided in a special way by both the life and thought of John Paul II and Benedict
XVI. Defense of our own positions matters only in terms of the always anterior need for
accountability to the integrity of truth for its own sake.
It is somewhat ironic that, simultaneous with the exchanges regarding the work of Christopher
West, Michael Waldstein and I are in the process of discussing in the pages
of Communio various questions pertinent to the theology of the body. I posed some questions to
him, and he has replied with some challenging questions of his own. I am deeply grateful for his
questions, which have made me think about significant aspects of things that I had not thought
through sufficiently before. He has prompted me to re-think my position in important ways. I
believe there are still differences between us, and indeed that these differences are not
insignificant: that in fact they reach to the heart of what it means to be a creature, a gift ex
nihilo from God. But I trust he agrees that the discussion has been, and will continue to be,
fruitful.
I mention this discussion only because, if it seemed appropriate, I would like to offer West the
pages of Communio for his reflections on the matters that have been engaged. To be sure, he may
want to reformulate the issues in his own way, but I believe both of us agree regarding the spirit
which alone would make such an exchange into the kind of fruitful service we both want. I
would only emphasize in this connection, to all those who have followed the present discussion,
that this exchange, needless to say, would have to take time.