Monday, October 26, 2009

Christopher West's Theology of the Body

I'm posting this article verbatim:

Christopher West's Theology of the Body
by David L. Schindler
Provost/Dean and Gagnon Professor of Fundamental Theology at the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family

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 West’s Nightline appearance, the present statement addresses his theology as a whole.

Let me stress that I agree with those who vigorously defend West’s 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 West’s 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 West’s 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 West’s own language).

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.

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 West’s 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 mysteries–the Eucharist, for example. Missing in West’s work is an adequate idea of the radical discontinuity (maior dissimilitudo ) between the divine love revealed by God–and indeed the (supernatural) love to which we are called–and sexual love or intercourse. To be sure, the spousal love between man and woman is central in man’s 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 man’s 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 things–not 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 Mary’s 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 XVI’s 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 America’s 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 II’s theology of the body–and rightly criticized, insofar as that theology is identified with West’s 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 the authentic 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.

David L. Schindler
Provost/Dean and Gagnon Professor of Fundamental Theology
Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C.

One problem I have with Christopher West is his portrayal of "Theology of the Body" as papal and thus magisterial teaching. The basis of it, the book "Love and Responsibility", by Karol Wojtyla is introduced as the private speculation of a private theologian, not the papal teaching of John Paul II. Likewise, the Wed audiences of JPII upon which West's work is based, are not magisterial, but carry the same authority as any other bishop's teaching within his own diocese. have I missed something? Truth matters, and intent nothwithstanding, I believe there to be falshood in the claim to authority of the presentation of TOB as it stands.


  1. The Theology of the Body on which West relies is not Love and Responsibility, but 129 separate Wednesday catecheses, given by Pope John Paul II in St. Peter's Square, over several years beginning 1979. These were published in book form not long after they were concluded. Since his death, in the Vatican archives, a number of presentations, which were not given publicly, due to the very sexual nature of the subject-matter were discovered. West has sought to incorporate these into his teaching.

    We should all appreciate Schindler's attempt to dialogue with West and to correct him on certain matters. However, I find Schindler's approach rather high-handed and lacking charity. After all, West is trying to bring matters that are usually dealt with at a high academic level, where Schindler lives, moves, and has being, to ordinary Catholics, with the intent to help us live what the Church teaches. It seems to me that West has been very receptive and open to correction.

    Given the reluctance of most bishops, priests, and deacons to address matters of chastity and marital sexuality forthrightly, we should all be grateful to West for trying to bridge the gap between the truth taught by the Church and our everyday lives.

  2. Dear Deacon Scott,

    The "Wednesday Catechesis" at which these presentations were made, are in turn based on the book. In any case, they categorically do not reflect papal teaching (as John Paul II himself stated), but the private opinions of the Bishop of Rome, and in that context carry the same magisterial authority as any theoretical teaching by any other bishop.

    My problem, to repeat with I hope a bit more clarity, is that "theology of the body" is categorically a body of speculative thought, not the magisterial teaching of John Paul II (which it is represented as).

    I am not saying that I disagree with it, only that I have difficulty with what on the face of it is a missrepresentation.

  3. Pope John Paul II's theology of the body is certainly part of his papal magisterium because he taught it publicly while he was pope and as the pope, especially Wednesday catechesis. By virtue of that, it is teaching that would certainly earn both an imprimatur and a nihil obstat. Is it something that is beyond question? No! After all, it is not infallible teaching.

  4. is [] part of his papal magisterium because he taught it publicly while he was pope and as the pope, especially Wednesday catechesis

    I'm glad you said that and perhaps together we can find a clarification. I would disagree, and pose that

    is not [] part of his papal magisterium because although he taught it publicly while he was pope, he taught it as the Bishop of Rome, especially at his wednesday catechesis

    I have been told and have operated under the assumption that the "Wednesday Catechesis" is as bishop of Rome, rather than a teaching directed at the entire church (such as an apostolic exhortation, consitution, encyclical, or the like) which are the official magisterial acts of the Pope directed to the entire Church.

    in other words, as a vehicle for introducing a novel interpretation and extension of the deposit of the faith in regard to marriage, it fails to pass muster (regardless of the eminance of the Bishop of Rome) and remains at the level of 'theological speculation'.

    If I have missunderstood this, I'd be delighted to see a clarification which would make it clear.