FROM THE IVORY TOWER

TOB: My Q&A Session with Dr. Peter Kreeft

2012-01-31T02:18:00.000-08:00

My friend and fellow Knight, Jonathan, a solid young man in his early 20s from a good Catholic family, successfully petitioned his local council to bring in Dr. Peter Kreeft to speak here in Saskatoon. Tickets for the evening were $50, and this included two talks intermitted by a supper. Although very reasonably priced for an event such as this, I was initially not going to attend as I do not believe in spending this kind of money just to hear a popular Catholic come in and give us the cliff’s notes version of books I have already read and articles I could get for free. I am not caught up in the “Catholic cult of celebrity” and in fact I find the phenomenon repugnant.

However, I changed my mind due to a combination of the following factors: (1) His second talk was entitled “God and Sex” and was on Theology of the Body; (2) There would be a Q&A session following the talks; (3) Dr. Kreeft’s article, “Is There Sex in Heaven”, had what I considered some serious errors and ran contrary to John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”; (4) I found out Dr. Kreeft had just been hired to join Christopher West on the faculty of the “Theology of the Body Institute”; and (5) I had been heavily involved in the second round of the “Theology of the Body debates” following the publication of Dawn Eden’s thesis.

When you take on a man of Dr. Peter Kreeft’s intelligence and stature, it is imperative that you do your homework and come fully prepared and anticipate all possible rejoinders. That is what I did. My question was going to be directed towards the argument he made in the aforementioned article. Here is the pertinent excerpt:

Intercourse on earth is a shadow or symbol of intercourse in Heaven. ... This spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man ... The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven. Monogamy is for earth. ... The relationship may not extend to all persons of the opposite sex, at least not in the same way or degree. If it did extend to all, it would treat each differently simply because each is different – sexually as well as in other ways. I think there must be some special "kindred souls" in Heaven that we are designed to feel a special sexual love for. That would be the Heavenly solution to the earthly riddle of why in the world John falls for Mary, of all people, and not for Jane.

THE STUMPER

I was going to apply to this position the following question:
“In heaven, are there some women Jesus has a special sexual love for? And are there some men that Mary has a special sexual love for?”

I was going to tell him that this question puts him in a quandary, because either way he answers, there will be serious theological problems that would invalidate his argument:

If NAY ...

If he answered, “No, Jesus and Mary do not because they were virgins and that continued in heaven”, then I would ask him why the Church means when it teaches that celibacy is an “eschatological sign?” If he had trouble answering (because his article made it clear to me he was very fuzzy on this issue), I would assist him by telling him that celibacy is the state of universal charity that sexual love and expression is a sign of, and that the intimacy that one has with the person of the opposite sex that he is married to is a foretaste of what that person will have with God forever in heaven and with everyone in the communion of saints irregardless of sex. The whole point of virginity, I would say to him, is that one gives up an earthly good in order to embrace a heavenly good, and that the life the virgin lives is an earthly example of the love we will have in heaven: namely, university charity, which is the same kind of love that the article says love will “not” be restricted to in heaven. The self-forgetful love of the other in marriage and family life is but a “school” of love that is meant to train and form the married man and woman so that they can go out and love “all” people with that same self-forgetful love and experience the ecstasy of that love in their relationships with everyone, which will be fulfilled even more intensely in heaven.

If YAY ...

However, if he answered, “Yes, Jesus and Mary do” (which I highly doubt he would), then I would follow that up with the question, “Does this mean Jesus and Mary had a special sexual love for certain persons of the opposite sex while on earth?” This opens up numerous absurdities and theological problems which I had in my arsenal but which for the sake of brevity I will not reproduce here, other than to say this: Kreeft says in his article that the only point of sexual intercourse in heaven would be the desire to express personal love. But if Jesus expressed personal love in non-sexual ways on earth, why would he then express personal love in sexual ways to some selected women (but not men) in heaven? If Christ’s sexual love was restricted to women alone, then would that not mean there must be higher expressions of love? And if that was so, then what would be the point of sexual love in heaven at all? Dr. Kreeft would probably be forced to admit that this “sexual love” was sexual simply insofar as Jesus was a man and loved certain members of the opposite sex more intimately (such as female saints) while Mary was a woman and loved certain members of the opposite sex more intimately. But is that "sexual love?" I would tell Dr. Kreeft, "I am friends with Ryan and I am friends with Penny. Is my love for Ryan non-sexual and my love for Penny sexual?" This would put him in another quandary. If he said that it was a sexual love that I had for Penny insofar as she was a woman and I was a man, then I would point out that in his article, this is not what he means by "sexual" when speaking about "sexual love" in heaven. He is clearly talking about a sort of romantic love rather than a love of friends that I have with Ryan just the same as I have with Penny.

ON THE CONTRARY, JOHN PAUL II SAYS ...

Either way, I would point out how his article clearly contradicts John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. In Audience #68 (December 16, 1981), he states the following:

Virginity, or rather the virginal state of the body, will be totally manifested as the eschatological fulfillment of the nuptial meaning of the body ... [This will mean] a new, perfect intersubjectivity of all ... For this reason we profess faith in the 'communion of saints' (communio sanctorum) ... Christ’s words which affirm that in the other world, 'They neither marry nor are given in marriage' are at the basis of this (December 16, 1981)

In the following catechesis, Audience #69, he states the following:

“In the unity of the [original] couple [the human being] becomes male and female, discovering the nuptial meaning of his body as a personal subject. Subsequently, the meaning of being a body and, in particular, being male and female in the body, is connected with marriage and procreation (that is, with fatherhood and motherhood). However, the original and fundamental significance of being a body, as well as being, by reason of the body, male and female—that is precisely that nuptial significance—is united with the fact that man is created as a person and called to a life in communione personarum [the communion of persons]. Marriage and procreation in itself do not determine definitively the original and fundamental meaning of being a body or of being, as a body, male and female. Marriage and procreation merely give a concrete reality to that meaning in the dimensions of history ... The resurrection indicates the end of the historical dimension. The words, 'When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage' (Mk 12:25), express univocally not only the meaning which the human body will not have in the future world. But they enable us also to deduce that the nuptial meaning of the body in the resurrection to the future life will correspond perfectly both to the fact that man, as a male-female, is a person created in the ‘image and likeness of God,’ and to the fact that this image is realized in the communion of persons” (January 13, 1982)

THE EXCHANGE ...

Thus I came equipped to ask my question. When the Q&A started, I was second in line. The first was a woman who objected to something Dr. Kreeft said that was unrelated to sex. He dealt with her very condescendingly, and the poor woman was further humiliated when Dr. Kreeft made a sharp one-liner and the audience burst into applause. I said under my breath, “This is not right”. So admittedly, I had a bit of an edge when I got up to the microphone.

I addressed Dr. Kreeft, then quoted the above passage from his article. I followed his quote by asking, “Do you still stand by what you wrote here? Do you still believe this?” He said, “Well, I was just speculating. I used a lot of ‘if’s’, ‘perhaps’, etc.” Now, I knew he would probably try to use these “loopholes” in his article to wiggle his way out if the questions became too difficult to respond to, and I came prepared. I said, “You wrote, 'I believe there must be some kindred souls we have a special sexual love for’. That is a statement of belief, not speculation”. He replied, “I am willing to admit that these speculations could be wrong if it is shown that they contradict what the Church teaches”. I said, “They do. Audience #69. Would you like me to read it for you?” He said, “No, that’s fine, I will read it on my own later”. As he was saying this, he pulled out a notepad and jotted something down – presumably the audience number.

Now, this is one thing I was not expecting. I thought I would have to go through and demonstrate why he was wrong. Instead, he simply just conceded my point. Here was a professor who was hired by Theology of the Body Institute to teach Theology of the Body, and he simply took my word for it that his article contradicted it. He never said, “What subject was that audience on? Could you jog my memory and tell me the gist of that particular audience?” No, he simply surrendered.

That was the perfect set-up for the final question I had prepared for him. I proceeded to ask it: “Have you actually even read Theology of the Body cover to cover? If you have, then why are you teaching something so contrary to it? And if you have not, then why would the Theology of the Body Institute hire you to teach Theology of the Body?” He responded, “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them”. The audience laughed – which was a clear indication to me that he won back his devoted audience and thus did not have to answer my question. Indeed, he never did, which was another clear indication: that, no, he has never read Theology of the Body. His defense was simply to give some kind of explanation as to how he was drawing on Catholic principles.

In his talk, the only three things he really even said about JP2 or Theology of the Body was: (1) Theology of the Body is the greatest piece of theology since the Summa. (2) TOB teaches that in our sexuality we image the Trinity. (3) TOB did a better job of explaining why contraception was wrong than Humanae Vitae. In fact, he used Aristotle more than he used JP2 in laying out his theology of sexuality.

I think I am just as fortunate (or maybe more fortunate) as he that I had left the microphone before he answered, “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them”. I also came prepared with a response to that. Had I still been at the mike, I would have said, “I don’t need to ask them because I already know why they hired you, and I think you do too, but if you do not, I can inform you privately afterwards if you like”. Dr. Peter Kreeft was hired for one reason: because he is a “big name” and thus he will provide the Theology of the Body Institute, and by extension, Christopher West, with more credibility. Having lost the debate over West’s theology, the game plan is now to appeal to authority. The Amazon page for Christopher West’s latest book gives a lengthy string of endorsements from a carefully chosen cross-section of “big names” with a short citation of their “credentials” afterwards. For instance, it begins with “Christoph Cardinal Schonborn”, which is followed by the credential, “general editor, Catechism of the Catholic Church; and grand chancellor, International Theological Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family”. The next is “Most Reverend Joseph P. McFadden, Bishop of Harrisburg, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Catholic Education”. The point of doing so is to get the reader to say, “well, if the editor of the Catechism and the bishop in charge of Christian education think West’s work is sound, then it must be”. That is not an honest approach, but it works so they use it.

What is ignored is the fact that many other “heavy hitters” are on the other side of the fence. Ironically enough, that also includes Dr. Peter Kreeft. A few questions later, Dr. Kreeft was asked what he thought of Christopher West’s theology. Kreeft said that on certain issues, West was “flaky” and “went off the deep end”, especially with regards to “modesty”.

Once again, however, I was the victim of the "cult of celebrity". Mere hours after the talk, a friend informed me that he heard from "a string of people" in our "young adult" community that I had the audacity to challenge Dr. Kreeft and was disrespectful to him and demonstrated a lack of class. No one, however, had any problems with the way Dr. Kreeft handled the questioner who proceeded me. He was more disrespectful and classless than I, but because he is a Catholic celebrity and because I am not, he is considered blameless and I am criticized. In doing so, we demonstrate our hypocrisy. We decry the double-standards the secular society sets against Christians, but then we apply our own.

Fortunately, I can back up the sequents of events recounted here because it was all video-recorded by Jonathan. I will be getting a copy in the near future.

Periodic Suspension of Blog

2012-01-13T05:33:00.000-08:00

As some of you may have noticed, my blog briefly "disappeared".

I changed my settings to "private" as I was applying for a position in the Church. I did not want any prospective employers to google-search my name and find this blog, because I feared it would keep me off the short-list for sure (and it probably would). However, as a reader pointed out to me, everything is "cached", although he said employers probably would not be sophisticated enough to get that far.

I was not shortlisted for that position, and I'm applying for another one, but whatevs: throw caution to the wind as that's just how I "roll".

New Blog Name: "From the Ivory Tower"

2011-12-26T23:52:00.000-08:00

I have decided to change the name of my blog from "The Longsuffering Writer" (which is me) to "From the Ivory Tower".

Increasingly, I am becoming aware that what I like to write about amounts to speculative theology and is so "novel" that it strikes even most orthodox Catholics as being "out there".

That is not to say, however, that my ideas are wrong. I am convinced that much of what I write will simply be taken for granted by most orthodox Catholics 100 years from now.

Then again, maybe some of my ideas really are "out there". Only time will tell ...

Responses from Deacon Scott Dodge

2011-12-26T23:48:00.001-08:00

See the link to the previous post. Deacon Dodge once again has failed to engage the substance of the points I have made, and once again he seems unable or unwilling to answer my questions (and most probably the former and the latter only as a result of the former). He also has a penchant for exclusively quoting non-Catholic and Modernist Catholic theologians - something that I believe is quite telling and a red flag. He also has been disabling comments after his responses, thereby ending the discussion. I will let the reader decide whether this is a tacit admission of the veracity of my arguments.

Discerning Vocations: Another Response to Deacon Scott Dodge

2011-12-26T04:17:00.000-08:00

Another response to Deacon Scott Dodge on a recent blog entry:

You are still afraid, it would seem, to speak of celibacy as having a "superiority". Before you spoke of it as being "indispensible", which is true, but then so is marriage. Now, you speak of its "excellence", but you fail to mention its "'surpassing' excellence", the term used in Vatican II's "Optatum Totius" in reference to celibacy vis-a-vis marriage (paragraph 10). Once again, I think you merely give "lip service" to the dogma of the superiority of celibacy to marriage, because in practice and in your theology, you seem to take the substance out of it.

Once again, you quote the Anglican Oxford Bible Commentary (with its anti-celibate bias), just as you quoted from a married Orthodox priest. On the contrary, I will quote from Matthew 19:11 of the "Catholic" Haydock commentary, which I think represents the true Catholic position on the "vocations" to marriage and celibacy, which would also be what was taught by St. Thomas, as seen in the book, "Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery":

"To be able to live singly, and chastely, is given to every one that asketh, and prayeth for the grace of God to enable him to live so ... There are evangelical counsels, to the observance of which it is both lawful and meritorious for a Christian to devote himself, especially for the purpose of employing himself with greater liberty and less encumbrance in the service of his God ... All cannot receive it, because all do not wish it. The reward is held out to all. Let him who seeks for glory, not think of the labour".

In other words, the "call to celibacy" is not for everyone because some refuse to pray for the gift and others do not respond to Our Lord's call to aspire to the "greater gift" of the evangelical counsels, which, as the Church teaches dogmatically, is recommended to all. This is all in the aforementioned book.

I meant to mention this before, but the problem with John Garvey's anecdote that you have just cited again is this: it contradicts the vocational call of St. Teresa of Avila. St. Teresa, as has been well-documented, mostly by herself in her "autobiography", asked the question the young man asked the monk: "Should I marry or become a monk?" But she did not follow the monk's advice to "not be a religious" for asking that question, and that she should only be a religious if being married would "drive her crazy". St. Teresa "desired" marriage, not religious life. But because her Church taught that the surest path to salvation was in religious life, she "forced" her will to embrace it. Deacon Dodge, please tell us whether or not St. Teresa was wrong to pursue her vocation as she did, and explain to us why.

Superiority of Celibacy to Marriage: Response to Deacon Scott Dodge

2011-12-11T05:09:00.000-08:00

This is a response to Deacon Scott Dodge from a homily he posted on his blog. He brought an end to the discussion after two exchanges, so I decided to put the third response on my blog. His words will be in blue, mine in black.

It is interesting to note that Deacon Dodge seemed to have agreed with my main argument, and has responded accordingly (see last paragraph).

“Christian matrimony is a holy state-of-life, something that in my view and the view of many others who have studied the matter far longer and more deeply than I have, has been downplayed to the detriment of marriage throughout the Church’s history”.

And what you and “many others who have studied the matter far longer and more deeply” have done is swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. Your blog is a good example: you speak about the holiness of marriage, but hardly ever mention the call to celibacy or extol its glories (as the Saints and Doctors and Fathers of the Church did frequently and eagerly). You “admit” that the Church teaches there is some kind of “superiority” to celibacy, but you can’t seem to actually bring yourself to say it. Even in your post of December 4th, where you were conceding my points, you speak of celibacy as being “indispensible”. Well so is marriage, so is working at soup kitchens, and so is taking out the garbage. By doing this, what you are guilty of is what others who have studied this matter far longer and more deeply than you have do: you speak of the dogma of the superiority of celibacy to marriage in such a way as to practically take the substance out of it, usually by qualifications and exceptions (similar to the little anecdote you gave at the end of your last response). Basically, what you and the others you speak of say this:

“Yes, celibacy is superior to marriage, but marriage is holy for those called to it (and all of us who are married are obviously called to it), and celibacy is the “lesser” call if you choose it for the wrong reasons, and celibacy is only superior in the sense that the eschatological nature of it is more clear, and celibacy is only for a few people, not including us, so it would be the lesser call for us personally if we chose it, and once St. Antony of the Desert went to a village and asked the Lord to show him the holiest man in the village and the Lord led him to a married man [without, of course, mentioning that the married man was a virgin in a Josephite marriage”, etc.

So, once again, the reader/listener leaves with the following impression: whatever superiority celibacy has, it doesn’t really apply to me. Whereas the Doctors of the Church did not speak about celibacy at all like those “who have studied the matter far longer than you” have. If I am to choose between Orthodox priests writing in Commonweal magazine and the Doctors of the Church, I will choose the Doctors – and so should you.

“Let me ask you (rhetorically- meaning I'll leave you to ponder these for yourself), What half-truth am I exaggerating?”

As you see, there is no need for me to reflect as I knew what I had in mind when I asserted you were presenting only half the truth. Thus, I will take your question as a serious one rather than a rhetorical one. You do what most do today: namely, speak about how marriage is holy, but never speak about how celibacy is holier. You are afraid to state unequivocally that celibacy has a “superiority”. You cannot seem to bring yourself to say it.

This is the half-truth: “marriage is holy”. But there’s more to it than that. “Marriage is holy, celibacy is holier”. Dr. Scott Hahn teaches the full truth, as I cited on your blog. You only teach half the truth – the first half. And today, to teach only half that truth is a serious and dangerous error.

You quote Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:32, and Revelation 19:7. But you do not cite Matthew 19:12, Luke 18:29, or 1Corinthians 7:38. Your selective citation of Scripture itself is a “half-truth”, and it demonstrates the point I am trying to make.

“Marriage is a state-of-life that has very often been dealt with, especially in the Latin Church, on the basis of a dualistic anthropology? It has been observed that St. Augustine’s view of sexual relations, especially within marriage, represents a vestige of his earlier Manichaeism. I am not in a position to make an authoritative judgment on that, but I am inclined to agree with it”.

Would you also say, then, that St. Augustine’s Manichaean-influenced view of marriage influenced Thomas, the other Doctors of the Church, the Fathers of the Council of Trent, and the Magisterium itself until “John Paul the Great” came along and corrected it? That is, of course, what you are implying, correct? That is a dangerous assertion – one that is, of course, quite common in this era where our theology comes almost exclusively from post-Vatican II sources while the Doctors and Fathers are merely considered valuable as proof-texts rather than for the entirety of their thought.

I was involved in the second round of the “Christopher West” debates that ensued after Dawn Eden published her Master’s thesis. We made the allegation that West and his followers were teaching that pretty much every theologian before Vatican II was tainted by the Manichaean influence and that skewed the Church’s view of marriage. The breaking point came when we cited something from De Sales’ “Introduction to the Devout Life” and his chapter on sexual intimacy, and Christopher West’s editor, Sr. Lorraine, stated that this showed that De Sales was also influenced by Manichaeism. Kevin Tierney responded by writing an excellent defence of the passage from De Sales.

“On the contrary, you seem to suggest that marriage is not an authentically Christian way of life, but only a negative vocation reserved for those who can’t hack the demands of celibacy, thus failing to recognize in Christian marriage any eschatological value ... I reject the idea that marriage is but a remedy for concupiscence. I view marriage as a positive vocation, an insight supported by my own experience”

Actually, I consider it to be both. I would assert that there is some truth to the idea that marriage is a vocation for those who cannot handle the demands of celibacy. Why do I say this? Because Jesus Himself said so: “Let he who can accept this teaching do so”, and so does the Church by teaching that Christ has recommended the evangelical counsels to all. Now, if I merely left it at that, it would be a “half-truth”. Indeed, those who cannot “accept this teaching” (Matthew 19:12) “do well” to marry (1 Corinthians 7:38). That is the words of Scripture. And I am guessing that you, like many others who have been influenced by the heresy of the “equality” of marriage and celibacy (not unlike St. Augustine who retained vestiges of his Manichaean past when theologizing about marriage), cringe when you read 1Corinthians 7 in toto. Christopher West, when speaking of 1Corinthians 7 in his magnum opus, “Theology of the Body Explained”, did his best to take the substance out of Paul’s words and qualify them – you could almost picture him cringing at the keyboard. I, for my part, have no problems with what St. Paul wrote – in fact, when I read, I nod enthusiastically in complete agreement, without the need to qualify his statements to bring it into agreement with my theology.

“At least as regards the Roman Catholic Church, I agree with something I heard Fr. Ray Carey say during a session of diaconate retreat a little over a year ago, namely that we didn’t even have a theology of marriage until after the Second Vatican Council. While that may be a bit of an exaggeration, it is not much of one”.

Things like this make me question the quality of the training that deacons in the Church are getting (something I have long been concerned with). When I read the Catechism of Trent and the section on marriage and sexuality in St. Francis de Sales’ “Introduction to the Devout Life”, I certainly do see a well-developed theology of marriage.

Please answer me this, Deacon Dodge: what in our current “theology of marriage” was not there before Vatican II? Please give me examples ... and I will attempt to show you from past Popes, Councils, Doctors, and Fathers that they were indeed there.

Dawn Eden, who was in the forefront of the debate, recommends Fulton Sheen’s 1951 book, “Three to get Married”, as one of the best resources for teaching or learning the Christian theology of marriage. Now, how can that be if there was no real “theology of marriage” until the Second Vatican Council? This is not a rhetorical question – I would like you to answer.

It would be interesting to see what Dawn Eden, Steve Kellmeyer, Kevin Tierney, Alice von Hildebrand, and all those who were involved in this debate would say about your quotation. All of the aforementioned, along with myself, are concerned with how widespread this error is, especially among our clergy, and how this is not just an error restricted to West and those who listen to him but rather is an error rife throughout the post-conciliar orthodox Church, which is where West got it to begin with. Dawn Eden speaks in her thesis about the “hermeneutic of continuity” and the “hermeneutic of discontinuity”, and says that West has applied the latter to the topic of marriage and sexuality. I think Eden, Kellmeyer, and others involved in the debate would agree that you, too, Deacon Dodge, and Fr. Carey, have done the same.

“You missed the most important point I made in my response, which was that any authentically Christian mode of life, including marriage, is eschatologically-oriented”.

Of course. Then again, that goes without saying. Everything is eschatologically-oriented. The dirt on the ground is eschatologically-oriented because it was created by God, as are all other things in the world, as a faint reflection of His glory and our heavenly home. Thus, I am glad you followed this sentence up with the following:

“What I did not note, but perhaps should have, is precisely what makes celibacy superior, namely that in light of Christ it is a “purer”(?) eschatological sign than is marriage”.

That is why celibacy is referred to as an “eschatological sign” in the Church’s Tradition. Marriage is never referred to as such.

“One of the most balanced (i.e., an example of holding competing truths in tension) treatments of Christian marriage vis-à-vis celibacy is found in the unified code of canon law for the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome [Canon 373]”.

It is interesting that you mention Canon 373 – my last blog post was in regards to that precise canon. There are times where “competing truths” are actually in contradiction with one another rather than being complementary. I would argue that is the case concerning the Western practice of a celibate clergy and the Eastern practice of a generally married clergy (as I pointed out in my last two blog posts and the links I provided in those articles). I believe there is a synthesis between these two practices, but I would submit that it would be that the Eastern practice of a married priesthood is an exception necessitated by accidents of history to what should ideally be the norm of clerical celibacy universally, similar to what Cardinal Cochini would argue.

Why, may I ask, do Western Catholics always bring up the Eastern discipline as though it is the ideal model?

And just as you think it “bears noting” that the author of the piece you cited is an Orthodox priest, I would likewise say it “bears noting” that you are citing from the extremely-liberal Commonweal magazine. Certainly, there is a legalism about celibacy and it can be chosen for the wrong reasons. I would say the best celibate priests have a certain humility about their call, like the associate pastor back home, who told me one time, “they say priesthood is the higher call, but when I think about the struggles of married life and what it takes to raise a family, I would say they have the higher call”. Of course, the priest is wrong - he does have the higher call. However, St. Francis of Assisi was also wrong in considering himself to be a more likely candidate for damnation than most of his brother monks. Such is the virtue of humility.

“My homily was an exhortation given [sic] follow Christ by faithfully living out the state-of-life which one is called, as well as encouraging young people to consider religious and priestly vocations, and urging parents not to be an obstacle given that Catholic parents are often a hindrance to those young people who consider responding to this call. Preaching on the last item is a delicate matter requiring pastoral judgment”.

Another hindrance to the call is the heresy that holds that marriage and celibacy are different but equal calls. And Catholic parents are often a hindrance because they have bought into that heresy and have taken it a logical step further – namely, if they are equal, marriage is actually superior because, as I stated in a series of articles I wrote years ago, “since many Catholics were taught that celibacy was a ‘different’ but ‘equal’ call to that of marriage, they actually began to see celibacy as a lesser call, because they knew the married person, who was the ‘equal’ of the celibate, had one huge ‘perk’ over the celibate - he could get married and have children while the celibate could not”. West essentially teaches that we will all have the “heavenly marriage” – it’s just celibates get there a little quicker than we do. Well, if we all end up with the same thing in the end, then why not have marriage and a children while you’re on this earth as well? Of course, the glories of celibacy and its superiority as taught by the Saints will tell you that celibates have greater access to grace and will more likely win more merits in heaven. But West doesn’t teach what the Saints have taught, nor what the Church has taught before Vatican II.

“What people who listen to any given homily may take away is beyond knowing and certainly varies widely”.

Correct, but depending on what you say, you can either maximize or minimize possible misunderstandings. In this case, you were increasing greatly the possibility that the high majority of people would come away with the misunderstanding I mentioned previously.

“However, knowing the people to whom I preach places me in a position to judge how best to approach certain matters with them, whereas you are in no such position, at least with regards to the parish I serve”.

Yes, but not to the extent you think. My guess is that the people in your parish are pretty much like the people in most other parishes. In other words, you preach to the “typical American parish”. I have been a member of many “typical American parishes” and I can assure you that the preaching does not need to change much from one parish to another. In the “typical American parish”, 95 percent of the people believe that marriage and celibacy are “different but equal” calls, and when those 95 percent hear your homily, they will hear you saying just that.

“It also bears noting that while homilies can and frequently do have catechetical features, preaching is not essentially catechesis, which is not to say that preaching shouldn’t be doctrinally sound, which mine is, even if not to your personal liking, which seems to be the cause your quibbling. So, I am not going to make an act of contrition for what I preached”.

Let me ask you, Deacon Dodge: considering 95 percent of the “typical American parish” spends only one hour a week at the parish (Sunday Mass), and considering we have on our hands one of the most poorly catechized generations in Church history, how are we supposed to catechize most of our Catholics if we do not do so through the homily? Preaching before Vatican II was very much “catechetical”, which can be clearly seen by going to any Fraternity of St. Peter parish. My catechetics professor at Steubenville was booked to give a talk to seminarians one time about preaching, and he asked us if there is anything he should mention. I said, “Yes. You should speak about preaching catechetically”. He agreed. A good preacher in the church today will incorporate catechesis into his homilies. He will expound on the Scriptures, but in such a way that he incorporates catechesis. Also, it “bears noting” that for pastoral reasons, the preacher can in fact make his homily into a catechesis – and I would argue that considering the state of affairs in your “typical American parish”, that would be a good idea.

And the “cause of [my] quibbling” has nothing to do with personal taste. It has to do with the perpetuation of a damaging heresy. Just as “while homilies can and frequently do have catechetical features, preaching is not essentially catechesis”, so too, “while homilies are not teaching heresy, they can perpetuate heresy by not making the proper distinctions among people who have embraced a particular heresy”.

“You merely restated, albeit more strongly, what you wrote in your first comment”.

I had to. You were constructing straw men (i.e. “Wade, I never taught that marriage is greater than celibacy”; of course you were not – I was saying you were implying they were “equal”, not that marriage was “greater”). And you were responding with a lot of red herrings as a result.

Finally, I find it interesting that on your blog, like many other blogs in this post-conciliar church, you have a section of links for "Christian Marriage" but none for "Religious Vocations", of which there are plenty of good and important ones. To me, that speaks volumes.

Priesthood: Marriage or Celibacy? Eastern Canon 373

2011-11-18T02:22:00.000-08:00

I read with great interest Sandro Magister's article on the ongoing debate in the Western Church regarding the Eastern practice of a married clergy. I was also pleased that Dr. Ed Peters responded. I wrote Dr. Peters, not only to thank him for bringing some "balance" to the issue (I could see many Westerners reading Magister's article and simply agreeing with him as it was well-argued), and also to share with him a couple of reactions I had to the article. I would like to share what I wrote. It especially concerns Eastern Canon 373.

The reader may also like to read my last post (which was on the same issue) and the links I gave.

Here is the email:

One thing that gets missed and I believe misinterpreted with regards to Eastern Canon 373 is the preeminence the practice of clerical celibacy seems to be given, in as subtle a way as the Holy See can manage in this ecumenical age.

That canon states, "Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor".

Clerical celibacy is "to be greatly esteemed everywhere" while the practice of married clerics is "to be [merely] held in honor". The esteem given clerical celibacy is "supported by the tradition of the whole Church" while the practice of married clerics is restricted to "the primitive Church and the tradition of the Eastern Churches" Clerical celibacy is specifically identified as being "suited to the priesthood", hearkening back to Vatican II's defense of clerical celibacy (and in opposition to its abolition opening the way for a married priesthood) in Presbyterorum Ordinis 5. And of course, the fact that the canon speaks only of "married clerics" without further specification opens itself up to the interpretation of a "continent" married priesthood as in the early Church.

Where I give Magister a lot of credit is that he is one of those rare people who believes there is an "unresolved contradiction". He just happens to fall on the opposite side of the issue that I do.

East vs West: Celibate or Married Priesthood?

2011-08-29T13:14:00.000-07:00

I am currently engaging in an exchange with the blogging Preoteasa, or "Priest's Wife", who runs the popular blog, "Fear Not Little Flock". It was in response to a post entitled, "You Know You're a Priest's Wife When ...".

I basically take the position that the Western practice of a celibate priesthood as enshrined in its theology is incompatible with the Eastern practice of a married priesthood.

I believe that this is merely the logical extension of the argument made by Dr. Peters with regards to Canon 277 (for which he was unjustly criticized by many with a number of fallacious rebuttals, reductio ad absurdiams that did not address the issues, and arguments from ignorance by those who had not read his article and those who were too uneducated in the pertinent issues to really form a proper opinion). Dr. Peters seems to imply (in the above link) that this is pretty much where his research has led him to as well. Dr. Peters and I kind of "partnered" in debating Deacon Bill Ditewig and other deacons and lay people on Deacon Bill's blog.

Here is my argument in a nutshell (although it has covered a lot of other side-issues):

""I say it is illogical because of Paul VI's encyclical, "Sacerdotalis Caelibatus". He begins by saying that many want the Church to make celibacy optional (as they do in the East), but then goes on to give 12 reasons why it is better to have a celibate priesthood than a priesthood which is generally married (as in the East). Now, if he were to have said, "both Eastern and Western traditions are good, we have each done them this way for centuries, and each works for their respective rites", then I would not say it is illogical. But as it is, Paul VI went on to state why it is better, for 12 different reasons, to have a celibate clergy than a married clergy. Realizing how this reflects on the Eastern practice, Paul VI makes the attempt to synthesize in paragraphs 38-40, but does so unsuccessfully. It remains a contradiction. If I were to press the Holy Pontiff or those who defend his position further, this would become clear.""

I have posted this paragraph twice, and I have yet to receive a rebuttal.

UPDATE

As per Priest's Wife's suggestion ("I doubt that jen will come back to comment because she doesn't like to 'take over' someone's blo- maybe if you click over to her blog and question her, she will answer"), I went to the blog of one of the people arguing against me - Jen - and posted further comments on her blog. Her response was to deny me access to her blog henceforth and to post the following on my blog, in the combox of the post in which I announced my return to blogging: "please use your own blog as a bully pulpit and stay off of mine".

Priest's Wife also ended the conversation, saying "I believe that it is time for you to publish your thoughts on your blog. I wish you well- but I do not agree with your conclusions." In other words, she said I was wrong, but did not say or show why I was wrong nor respond to my points.

*Sigh*

The Longsuffering Writer Returns to Blogging

2011-08-17T00:24:00.001-07:00

I am pleased to announce that "The Longsuffering Writer" is making his return to blogging!

Three things led to my hiatus beginning in December:

1. I was frustrated that my original purpose for starting the blog was not being met.

2. I needed to revise two of my manuscripts and continue work on the third, which necessitated I step back from blogging.

3. Life got a little bit "interesting", I guess you could say, and I had to deal with some people and issues.

However, these no longer apply.

1. Looking back on it now, I think the blog was a lot more successful than I originally thought, because although it may not have helped me much in fulfilling that original purpose, there are other benefits that have come from it that I did not see at the time and other benefits that I could see it potentially having.

2. "An Acceptable Sacrifice" has been revised and the revision of "The New and The Old" is well on its way. I also discovered that doing a little writing on the side unrelated to my manuscripts (including personal correspondences and other letters) can help me "snap out" of those frequent dry spells and writer's blocks.

3. Life is back to normal, which for me, still isn't all that normal. (lol) I mean that in a good way.

So "whither the blog", you may ask?

x. Although I have no interest in reviving the Theology of the Body debate, I do want to take care of unfinished business. I had planned before my "blogging sabbatical" to write a couple summary pieces on Christopher West's theology and approach, which I will do. I also told Sr. Lorraine almost a year ago that I would share some more of my thoughts on the Easter Candle with her, and I hate assuring someone I will do something and then not do it. There were three parts to it, and I stalled out after the second part, so I want to finish that up.

x. I have written some letters and reflections in the last nine months that I would like to post excerpts of.

x. There are a number of pertinent issues I think need to be tackled.

x. More than anything, I will be visiting other blogs and doing a substantial amount of commenting and engaging because that will help my blog and help me achieve my goals.

December Lights

2010-12-25T00:34:00.000-08:00

The "National Film Board of Canada", which is devoted to creating artistic works and audio-visual materials that express Canadian culture, has over the years produced some excellent "shorts" or "vignettes" (as they say in French).

Here is my absolute favourite - which just so happens to have a Christmas theme.

Enjoy! And have a Merry Christmas and Blessed New Year!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiypaeHHBMo

Being a Grinch

2010-12-19T09:19:00.000-08:00

Have the weeks leading up to Christmas done this to you? ...

... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4F6b_199dQ

I hope so!!! That's what Advent is for!

Linus the Theologian

2010-12-14T08:18:00.001-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKk9rv2hUfA

This gives me goosebumps every year I watch it.

From my favourite Christmas cartoon special ever.

The Pope Issues His Declaration on Medjugorje ... in "Vaticanese"

2010-12-02T17:03:00.000-08:00

Kevin Symonds of Desiderium has reproduced an interesting snippet (in Croatian and Italian) from the Holy Father's latest Wednesday audience. According to the Google translation of the Croatian, Pope Benedict addressed the Croatian pilgrims thus:

"Since I greet all the pilgrims, Croatian, and especially those from the parish of St. James Medjugorje! Your pilgrimage to Rome is part of the way of preparation for the coming of the Lord. Therefore, in hope, be evangelizers of God's love in your nation. May God bless you!"

The "Vatican-ese" here is pretty clear. Allow me to interpret ...

Medjugorjeans are being told that "coming to Rome" for Christmas is a "preparation" for how they will have to "come to Rome" in a pilgrimage of faith with the submission of their minds and wills in response to the impending negative declaration against Medjugorje.

The key is when he says that they must be "evangelizers in their nation" rather than "in the world". If the Vatican is on the verge of a positive declaration following the apostolic visit, he would have said the latter, not the former. After such a declaration, Medjugorje will no longer be a "universal phenomenon", and the members of St. James parish - including some of the "visionaries" - will no longer have a "universal audience".

The incredible thing about "Vaticanese" is that strong and substantial statements are made in short and seemingly trivial and equivocal sentences. The stronger the "accent", the harder it is to interpret; but although the accent here is quite "pronounced", I think it is still clear what the Pope is saying.

The last time Ratzinger spoke publicly about Medjugorje (in 1985 in "The Ratzinger Report"), it was not as clear as to where he stood. If I am properly understanding the Vaticanese, he is coming through loud and clear.

TOB: A New Paganism I: Balancing Eros and Agape

2010-11-25T13:34:00.000-08:00

In his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about the relationship between eros – the desire for and seeking of personal happiness, and agape – selfless giving for the good of the other. Like the Pope, I see the need for a synthesis of the two and a greater balance between them. However, whereas the Pope was primarily addressing the World, I would like to primarily address the Church. I will do so in this series of three articles.

Paganism tended to inordinately exalt eros, or, as the pagans called it, “divine madness”. This can be seen in the fact that some religious rites consisted of sexual acts. In fact, the word “orgy” came from the Greek orgia, which literally meant “secret worship”. It can also be seen in the fact that the pagan gods were all very “sexual”. It is not surprising that the greatest of the Greek gods, Zeus, was also the most promiscuous, having fathered many of the other Greek gods by numerous different women.

With Christ, however, this would be turned upside down. Christ preached that the poorest were the richest, that death is the path to life, and that those who surrendered their liberty attained the greatest freedom. Christ also taught us, especially by the example of his life, that the greatest “pain” can become the greatest “pleasure”. With Christ, agape love attains a pre-eminence: “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

However, this exaltation of agape did not denigrate eros. On the contrary, agape purified eros and exalted it higher even as it subordinated it to itself. It was a baptism of eros, so that the greatest act of agape would also become the greatest experience of eros. For Christ, it was through his greatest act of agape – His Passion and Death – that He experienced eros most intensely.

The Saints, when they described their mystical experiences, often spoke of sharp, penetrating, and even burning pains with intensity beyond anything they had ever experienced in the flesh. And yet, they reported that this pain had a most delightful sweetness to it. On the other hand, they also described their human suffering as being their greatest joy, to a point where they desired to suffer more and more. For the Saint, whatever state he is in, he is content (Philippians 4:11), and this is the “baptism” of eros and its “union” with agape.

Unfortunately, for “fallen man”, eros and agape tend to divide rather than unite, just as the differences between the sexes are meant to unite but often divide. For fallen man, he must go through a process whereby the two become united in complete harmony. Regarding eros and agape, the latter is often experienced as “pleasure-less pain”, while the former is experienced as “painless pleasure”. It goes without saying, then, that fallen man tends to exalt pleasure (which by nature he enjoys) and his pursuit of it to the detriment of agape (which is often experienced as pain, a thing disagreeable to his nature).

When Christ announced to the Apostles that He would brutally suffer and be unjustly killed by the leaders of his own religion, Peter “rebuked” him, and told him that as the “Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), He should experience eros, not agape. Peter was thinking as “fallen man” does and not as “God thinks” (Matthew 16:23). He had it backwards – as fallen man often does. Rather, the Son of God, who “came not to be served but to serve” (Matthew 20:28), who had “nowhere to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20), who rode “triumphant” into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:2-7), would be “enthroned” and “glorified” by being nailed to a Cross (John 3:14-15), where He would experience true eros through the most extreme agape.

Just like we too often do, the Apostles wanted to remain on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke 9:33, 37a) or continue to gaze indefinitely at the glory of the heavens Christ ascended to (eros) (Acts 1:9-12). However, we are created in the image and likeness of God to love as He loves. And this is how He loves: The Father gives (agape) Himself to the Son, who receives (eros) that gift, and in turn gives (agape) Himself back to the Father, who receives (eros) the gift of His Son. So it goes for man: there is a time to “give” (agape) and a time to “receive” (eros), a time to weep (agape) and a time to laugh (eros), a time to mourn (agape) and a time to dance (eros) (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8). Likewise, after the eros of their “Sabbath rest” (Matthew 17:1a), God made the Apostles descend from the mountain and return to the agape of their hard and often painful “work” of evangelization.

The Mass is the “source and summit” of the Christian life. It is the source from which “grace is poured forth upon us” and we are drawn “into the compelling love of Christ” and “set on fire” through the Eucharist (eros). But soon after we are dismissed with the word, “Go” – go back to the world and “give” (agape) what you have “received” (eros) here, go back to your crosses, go back to your work, go back to sowing in tears (Psalm 126:6a). Do not remain here at the font of grace, as tempting as that might be. Then, after you have laid down your lives as I have and given (agape) yourself away to my children and your brothers, come back full of joy next Sunday and you will receive (eros) from your Father every good “gift”, you will “reap in joy” (Psalm 126:6b), for this is the summit toward which all your “apostolic works” are ultimately directed (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10; Lumen Gentium, 34).

It is the same with marriage, where we go forth from the marital embrace (eros) to the carrying of our crosses and the dying to ourselves in the daily trials and challenges of married life (agape). It is the same with “the element of life” – water. The seas “give” themselves (agape) through evaporation to the skies which “receive” (eros) its water; the skies in turn “empty” themselves of water vapour (agape) through precipitation in order to replenish and “fill” the seas (eros). And so it is for all of nature, in all human experiences, and for all created things, just as it is in God.

However, we live in an age of a “new paganism”, where “erotic” pleasure is exalted over sacrificial love, where man more and more “takes” from the earth without “giving” back, and where Christians are very much “of the world” (John 17:14), failing to use the things of the world as though they possessed them not (1Corinthians 7:29-31).

It is no surprise, then, that the Mass, which is the “source and summit” of the Christian life, has been transformed from a “sacrifice” to a “celebration”, where the crucifix has been replaced by the “risen Christ”, and where the penitential and adoring gesture of kneeling has been supplanted by the “joyful posture of standing” that is more befitting of an “Easter people”. But without the sorrow of Lent we cannot experience the joy of Easter. And without the Cross, there is no Resurrection. That is why the true Christian, like St. Paul, was “content in all things” – if called to “give”, it is an opportunity to “boast in the cross of Christ” (Galatians 6:14) and be “strengthened by our weakness” (2Corinthians 12:9); and if called to “receive”, it is an opportunity to experience the breadth, length, depth, and height of God’s love in all its glory (Ephesians 3:17-19). Thus, whether we are called to “receive” (eros) or called to “give” (agape) – and we will be called to a good measure of both – we will “count it all joy” (James 1:2).

In many popular presentations of the Theology of the Body today, the influence of this “new paganism” is discernable. Much is said about “Carmelite spirituality”, but almost always, the raptures and ecstasies (eros) are spoken of to the near or full exclusion of the dark nights of purgation (agape).

For my Christian Spirituality course at Steubenville, I was required to read Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross and The Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila. The “former” spoke of how praying through desolation (agape) actually increased grace and did more for the soul than praying through consolation (eros). The latter repeated, over and over, that as beautiful as these mystical experiences might be, the reader was warned, in no uncertain terms, against desiring these “gifts” at all, and was told that it is far greater to “receive” none of these “gifts” but simply to pray because God wills it (agape). What was repeated, over and over – in fact, one might say it was the theme of this book – is that what matters is not the receiving of mystical gifts (eros), but rather, bringing one’s will in conformity with that of God’s (agape).

I was also struck by how at each and every stage of spiritual growth, in each mansion of the Interior Castle, the mystics experienced the cross (agape). The trials did not end at the seventh mansion; in fact, at times, they increased. But so did their love, which allowed them to transform their moments of agape into experiences of eros.

After reading these profound works, I desired not the great mystical gifts and spiritual experiences of eros that some Theology of the Body presenters promise us; rather, I desired to do God’s will and pray for His sake, not my own (or as my professor asked rhetorically, “do you want the consolations of God or the God of consolations?”). This, to me, was what I believed St. Teresa and St. John were clearly trying to teach their readers. It can happen that a Theology of the Body presenter can simply pick up the idea of “mystical ecstasy” from snippets and quotations found here and there rather than reading Teresa and John in toto. The latter would go a long way to correcting this imbalance.

We must be careful not to take our focus off the cross and off those “dark nights of purgation” for too long. Why? Because almost without exception, we are still in the first few mansions, and not in the seventh like St. John or St. Teresa. Unlike the Saints in heaven, we still sin; we must still kneel at Mass; we must pull ourselves away from the glory of the transfiguration on Mount Tabor because we have a great deal of work to do in the valleys – including the work of our salvation, which we labour at “with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:13). In fact, the mystics themselves did not spend all their time gazing at the Lord’s transfigured glory even in the seventh mansion. They received these mystical experiences with gratitude, then humbly went back to their “work” and the “humdrum” of everyday life at the monastery.

Like the Prophets and like the Saints, who “imitated Christ”, we, like sons in the Son, are called to accept everything, both eros and agape, as from the hand of a loving Father and Creator. We are called not just to experience pleasure (eros), but to also embrace pain (agape) and even intentionally make it a part of our lives (penance, fasting, abstinence, etc.). It is thus that eros and agape will gradually unite in us like it has in Christ and His Saints. Thus we will be filled with the Holy Spirit, who Himself is that exchange of “Love”, being simultaneously “given” and “received”, thus making Him the perfect union of eros and agape.

All Souls Day (Dies Irae)

2010-11-02T12:04:00.001-07:00

Sequence for Requiem Mass (Dies Irae):

Audio Recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fMHms5Cvsw

Lyrics (Interlinear Translation): http://requiemonline.tripod.com/lyrics/latinlyrics.htm#Sequentia%20%28Dies%20Irae%29

Reading from Lauds (Office for the Dead): "If we believe that Jesus died and rose, God will bring forth with him from the dead those also who have fallen asleep believing in him" (1Thessalonians 4:14).

Antiphon for Benedictus (Office for the Dead): "I am the Resurrection, I am the Life; to believe in me means life, in spite of death, and all who believe and live in me shall never die".

(Grandma) Imelda St. Onge (neé Boucher), born November 2, 1906, died 1996. "Réquiem ætérnam dona ei Dómine; et lux perpétua lúceat ei. Requiéscat in pace."

TOB: Second Response to Dr. Janet Smith

2010-10-22T16:16:00.000-07:00

Introduction and Outline

As I said in response to Dr. Smith’s critique of von Hildebrand’s essay, I too noticed a number of errors, poorly-made arguments, and straw men in the essay. Part of this, I believe, is that she relied too heavily on arguments made by others – specifically, others who worked from a bias that led them to make some invalid critiques. Part of this, too, is that von Hildebrand, admittedly, has little familiarity with West and his work, although despite that, I believe that, contrary to Dr. Smith’s statement that “many of us who have heard and read West do not find the West we have come to know in von Hildebrand’s depiction of him”, von Hildebrand does in large part properly understand West.

1. However, although I agree with much of what Dr. Smith says in this essay, there are certain arguments I disagree with. I would like to respond to these briefly.

2. I also said the following in my combox response: “I also noticed some excellent points in von Hildebrand’s essay that I believe remain valid and applicable. These are points you did not address here, which makes sense considering your focus was on that which she had wrong.” As a result, what I would like to do after responding to selected arguments made by Dr. Smith, is highlight (reprint) some points in von Hildebrand’s essay that I believe are strong and that bear repeating and which I also believe demand a response. Those who have followed the debate on my blog or in various comboxes I have contributed to know that one of my main points of contention is that a number of excellent arguments and critiques have not received responses, sometimes repeatedly.

Part I: Response to Selected Points from Dr. Smith

1. Dr. Smith states: “Some fail to see that West has made considerable changes in his presentation of the Theology of the Body over the years. Some examples: he rerecorded his DVD/CD series on the Theology of the Body and altered language some have found offensive; he has revised his book Good News about Sex and Marriage to clarify a few matters some found problematic; and he laboriously rewrote his Theology of the Body Explained upon the publication of Michael Waldstein’s Man and Woman He Created Them.”

The question is, does he change his problematic views, or does he just stop presenting those views? If the former is true, than this is good and bodes well for West. However, if the latter is more the case, then this is not enough.

2. Dr. Smith: “Because I respect von Hildebrand and others who have criticized West’s work, I have read their critiques carefully. I have tried to see whether my enthusiasm for his work has led me to overlook flaws or truly objectionable elements (as opposed to matters of taste).”

I still believe that Dr. Smith continues to overlook some serious flaws in content (not just style or tone). I will get to these later.

3. Dr. Smith: “Furthermore, von Hildebrand’s essay in some sections has the unfortunate tone of some of those whom she thanks as her advisors rather than the scholarly tone one typically associates with the von Hildebrands.”

I do not find her tone any more “unfortunate” than her husband’s tone in Trojan Horse in the City of God. Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand had some very strong language in that work. His wife comes across as a pussy cat in this essay compared to her husband in that work.

4. Dr. Smith: “She even seems to suggest that West is akin to Havelock Ellis, that West thinks ‘pleasure’ rather than God should be the ‘King of the Bedroom.’ If she had read West, von Hildebrand would know that he absolutely thinks that God is the King of the Bedroom—and when He is, spouses experience greater pleasure, the greater pleasure that happens when sexual intercourse is an expression of self-gift rather than an act of self-indulgence.”

Of course, West believes God is King of the Bedroom. But in West’s presentation it seems as though the “King” wants us to experience “maximal” pleasure. It is almost like the “self-gift”, in West’s conception, is the means to the end that is “maximal pleasure”. Hence why he speaks about St. Teresa looking like she is having an orgasm in paintings which show her in mysical union. What is conveyed is this: “the pleasure that comes from loving is great and what we all desire; but you have to make a self-gift to get it”. In other words, “pleasure” is what we are after. What von Hildebrand is saying is that this is the wrong goal. The proper goal is that we love – not in order to experience “pleasure”, but because God has called and willed us to love. Our goal is to desire what God wants of us, which is to love without any consideration for the reward of “pleasure” or anything else. Of course West believes this; but it does no good for a speaker to believe something if it is not conveyed through his presentations. Of course he stresses “self-gift”, but he almost does so as though it is a means to the end of “the heavenly orgasm”, as he referred to it in Good News About Sex and Marriage.

Also, what von Hildebrand was saying is that “pleasure” is not something we should “seek” to “maximize” but rather “accept” as a “gift”. As long as West is making this clear to his audiences and not leaving the impression that as married couples they should be trying to maximize their sexual pleasure, then I am sure Dr. von Hildebrand would have no cause for disagreement.

Perhaps Dr. von Hildebrand was confused by the subtitle of Popcak’s book Holy Sex!, which is, “Your Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving”. That full book title seems to cry out “maximize your pleasure” to me! The euphemism “toe-curling, mind-blowing” is used by secular maganizes that print articles on how to “maximize orgasmic pleasure”. I will not cite examples here – the reader can look for himself the next time he goes to the checkout counter to pay for his groceries.

5. “She believes that West is implying that anyone who hasn’t read Popcak’s book (such as St. Elizabeth of Hungary) could ever have a happy marriage.”

I believe that von Hildebrand’s issue is that Popcak’s book is seen as a sine qua non for any Catholic, because the author has become, along with West, the de facto authority on the Catholic teaching on sex and marriage. The impression left is that in order to have the greatest possible marriage you can have, one must read West, Popcak, or JP2’s TOB, because without one or all of these, the Church before Vatican II just didn’t provide a good enough teaching for married couples. I would challenge anyone who believes such rubbish to look at the marriage of Zelie and Louise Martin and tell me how JP2 could have “improved” their marriage, when it was clear they were already living everything he taught!

6. Dr. Smith: “Von Hildebrand mentions that her husband, instead, would have praised books like St Augustine’s Confessions and St Francis De Sales Introduction to the Devout Life. The implication seems to be that West would prefer Popcak to them. But what is the evidence for this implication?”

The evidence for this implication is that I have never heard West cite De Sales. His classic on lay spirituality contains some excellent advice and teaching regarding marriage and sex. But because West probably believes he is tainted with Manichaeism (Sr. Lorraine just spoke about this in her latest blog article: http://thomasfortoday.blogspot.com/2010/10/janet-smith-responds-to-alice-von.html, Comment #27), he is not one of the Saints he quotes when he “cherry-picks” from the Tradition (as I spoke of in my own critique).

7. Dr. Smith: “Talking about sex is always problematic: people have very different comfort levels for what is appropriate speech and action in this area.”

That is true. But the fact is, there are also some objective standards and lines that one should not cross irregardless of where some people’s comfort zones might be.

8. Dr. Smith: “I don’t understand what von Hildebrand means when she says that ‘West follows Freudian thought, looking for understanding in the lower rather than the higher.’ To what is she referring? West, following John Paul II, believes that the human body, made as it is in the image and likeness of God, reveals something to us both about God and man.”

If St. Francis de Sales can be tainted by Manichaeism, West can be tainted by Freudianism. It is the same logic.

9. Dr. Smith: “Von Hildebrand and others object to West’s reference to the Easter Candle as a phallic symbol—again, an issue that is in no way central to his presentations.”

Any time a defender of West in part agrees with a critic of West, the response is often, “it is not central to his teaching”. (1) First of all, West defenders should rather simply admit there are (or may be) some problematic aspects to his presentation without having to qualify or minimize it. (2) As I told Sr. Lorraine, some of the things West says only once impress themselves on the memory and consciousness in such a way that those “peripheral” portions become very “central” in the minds of his listeners, and something they never forget and remain very vivid and in the forefront.

10. Dr. Smith: “Von Hildebrand’s response to West’s likening the birth of his son to the birth of Jesus is curious. She believes it is incorrect to think that Mary may have expelled a bloody placenta. Pregnant wombs have placentas. Did not Mary’s? Would it be wrong to think it might have been bloody? Christ’s body was covered with blood when he died, was it not? Scripture itself makes reference to Mary’s womb and breasts; is the placenta really so objectionable that it could not be mentioned? West has good company in his thinking. St Jerome argued: ‘Add, if you like, Helvidius, the other humiliations of nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes. Picture to yourself the infant in the enveloping membranes. Introduce into your picture the hard manger, the wailing of the infant, the circumcision on the eighth day, the time of purification,… We do not blush, we are not put to silence.’” (St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary Against Helvidius) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html)

I am not sure St. Jerome is the best source to cite when it comes to drawing up the standard for sensitivity. Furthermore, Dr. Smith “cherry-picks” St. Jerome here. In that same document, Jerome denigrates marriage by saying: “Then come the prattling of infants, the noisy household, children watching for her word and waiting for her kiss, the reckoning up of expenses, the preparation to meet the outlay. On one side you will see a company of cooks, girded for the onslaught and attacking the meat: there you may hear the hum of a multitude of weavers. Meanwhile a message is delivered that the husband and his friends have arrived. The wife, like a swallow, flies all over the house. She has to see to everything. Is the sofa smooth? Is the pavement swept? Are the flowers in the cups? Is dinner ready? Tell me, pray, where amid all this is there room for the thought of God? Are these happy homes? Where there is the beating of drums, the noise and clatter of pipe and lute, the clanging of cymbals, can any fear of God be found?” He also says sexual union is a barrier to holiness: “I do not deny that holy women are found both among widows and those who have husbands; but they are such as have ceased to be wives, or such as, even in the close bond of marriage, imitate virgin chastity.”

I cannot tell you how many times I have read Catholic blogs and articles ridiculing St. Jerome for stating these things. Now, if St. Jerome could be wrong about the quotations I gave, surely he can be wrong about the quotation given by Dr. Smith. This example does not prove Dr. Smith`s point. I believe she must choose another.

11. Dr. Smith: “Repeatedly, von Hildebrand asserts that West `puts too much emphasis on the body in a culture in which everything is body-centered.` Does he?”

Yes, I believe he does. For proof, one need only refer to his “bedtime prayers for children.”

12. Dr. Smith: “Alice von Hildebrand states that only West’s interpretation of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is controversial; that no one has objected to the Theology of the Body itself. I find it curious that von Hildebrand does not know that John Paul II’s Theology of the Body has been seriously questioned by both conservatives and liberals.”

It has not been as controversial as West`s presentations, and that for a number of reasons that have already been stated in a number of places by a number of those critiquing West`s work.

13. Dr. Smith: “Von Hildebrand tells us that West recommends we should stand naked in front of a mirror so as to realize that our bodies need not be a source of shame (Where did he say this? What was the context?) Again this is not proposal he regularly makes; if he said it, it was likely said on the spur of the moment.”

His “look at Joe. Now look at Joe`s body,” is a staple in his presentations. The same error is at root in both of these. And it is not enough to say that it is not a proposal he regularly makes, because it is one of those things that again, even though mentioned once, make a huge impact and remain vivid even after much of what he says is forgotten.

14. Dr. Smith: “I don’t agree that any man who looks upon a prostitute will experience sexual attraction, as von Hildebrand asserts. Many feel compassion and sorrow when looking at a prostitute. They see a wounded person rather than the physicality of a female. They may even see her inner beauty. Von Hildebrand implies that West thinks a saint would say, `I am beyond and above temptations of the flesh.` Does he think that? Why does she think so?”

At this point, I will refer the reader to two very interesting blog articles recently, which together with the comments that follow (which I would say are even more valuable) show, I believe, that this is exactly the errors West`s listeners are coming away with. One is the original blog posting of an article Catholic Exchange ran by Dr. David Delaney recently on this issue (http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2010/10/06/concupiscence-west-schindler-debat/) and one is by “Theology of the Body Explained” editor, Sr. Lorraine, who posted a link to a critique of Dawn Eden’s blog (http://thomasfortoday.blogspot.com/2010/10/another-critique-of-edens-thesis.html). I believe Mr. West has seriously and perhaps dangerously misunderstood the Church’s teachings on “custody of the eyes” and the “gaze of purity” as these relate to “concupiscence” and “redemption.

15. Dr. Smith: “It is certainly true that anyone could experience severe temptations at some time; it is also true that Saints and truly virtuous people as well may be free from sexual and other temptations for a very long time. After all, asceticism and receiving the Sacraments do have a purpose and a good effect, don’t they? Virtue is real, isn’t it? Or are all attempts to discipline the flesh futile? This concept posed by West critics sounds more akin to Protestant theology’s “total depravity” doctrine than it does to Catholic teaching.”

The problem is that West speaks little about asceticism. He speaks about offering up temptations in prayer and asking for the grace to continue to look and see purely instead of lustfully. St. JoseMaria Escriva spoke about Benedict throwing himself into the thornbush and Francis rolling around naked in the snow, and asks why we think we do not have to do the same. John Paul II used “the discipline” even into his old age. But yet, we hear nothing about these penances from West. His listeners do not leave realizing how essential practicing penance is (and not just abstaining from meat on Fridays and fasting every year on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday – which they do not hear about from West either).

16. Dr. Smith: “In their endorsement, Bishop Rhoades and Cardinal Rigali tell us they believe that West has a `particular charism` for the mission of promoting the Theology of the Body, and they state explicitly that he does so `with profound reverence for the mystery of human sexuality.` Von Hildebrand is questioning their judgment and, it seems, largely based on what she has heard about West’s work from others, rather than from direct experience.”

I would question their judgment too. It would not be the first time that a theologian picked up on something that bishops were oblivious to. Read about Vatican II – it happened more as a rule than as an exception there. Dr. James Hitchcock has written extensively about this (http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02205.htm).

17. Dr. Smith: “Moreover, bishops have a special charism for ensuring fidelity in Church teaching and by extension for knowing who teaches reliably.”

Why is it, then, that in my home country (Canada), we have been using, for over 40 years, the official children`s catechism, which is based on the Dutch Catechism, remains mandated for use in all Catholic schools? Is it not possible that our Canadian bishops have been as irresponsible and mistaken on this as Cardinal Rigali potentially is in his evaluation of West? Dr. Smith cited in her last article about how catechesis in America has been abhorrent over the past 40 years. But this seems to contradict what she states above here.

18. Dr. Smith: “Those of us defending him find that when we carefully go step by step through some critique and show that West did not say what a critic says he said, his critics respond, `Well, just because X has not shown that West is guilty of Y, does not mean he is not guilty of Y`.”

The problem is that his defenders seem to only focus on those critiques that have the potential of ``doing more damage``, while other critiques, which might be much less prone to error and make much stronger cases, are ignored because they are having ``little impact on West`s apostolate``. It is a good strategy, but less honest if one is truly concerned about examining West`s work for potential errors.

19. Dr. Smith: “Upon careful examination of critics’ works, I have found the more “global” criticisms of West to be false; such as the view that he violates a “hermeneutic of continuity,” or that he doesn’t appreciate the power of concupiscence. ”

Regarding the former, I believe I made a strong case for this in Part IV.C.5-17 of my critique (http://wademichaelstonge.blogspot.com/2010/09/theology-of-body-debate-ii-critique-of.html).
Regarding the latter, I refer the reader back to the links I provided above under Point 14.

20. Dr. Smith: “I am pleased von Hildebrand acknowledges that West has `great oratorical talent` and `does much good.` I sincerely hope that those who want to get to know the “real” West will go to his work and read and hear what he says, as Bishop Rhoades and Cardinal Rigali have. I guarantee that they will meet a very different person from the one portrayed in von Hildebrand’s essay. Those who read and listen thoughtfully will encounter a man through whom God has touched thousands of persons with authentic Catholic teaching on the true meaning of human love in the divine plan.”

One of the problems I have had with many defences of West is that they almost read like canonizations. For reasons I spoke of on my blog (http://wademichaelstonge.blogspot.com/2010/09/theology-of-body-debate-iii-conclusion.html), I find these out of place for a man whose “great work” has come at the expense of his family and the duties he has towards them. He admitted it himself when returning from sabbatical, when he spoke about the “lack of balance”. We Catholics are just as much caught up in the “cult of personality” as our secular counterparts, as much as we like to think otherwise, and we value a man for the work he does rather than who he is in God`s eyes. West is insignificant compared to the contemplative nuns in God`s purview, or even those holy Catholic janitors who scrub toilets for a living. Yet, if most Catholics were in a room where West was on one side and contemplative nuns on the other, they would flock to West. This proves how spiritually blind most Catholics really are to the supernatural realities about them.

I think the Gospels make it clear that “popular speakers” will be least in the kingdom of God (if they even get into the kingdom), because they often neglect the duties of their state in life (which is the key to sanctity) and because, in the process, they get “swelled heads” (and pride is the chief of all sins). Perhaps it was solely a humble desire to evangelize the world that led West to go on Nightline, but as one who pursued media engagements in the past in order to further the message of the Gospel, I know my motives were certainly mixed (and maybe less pure than pure). And when I was pursuing a possible national television appearance in 2007, it was my pride that led me to do and say something that brought me crashing down. It was probably no different than Mr. West. As I said in my blog piece, that is my biggest issue with Mr. West – he preaches about living the nuptial meaning of the body and then divides his body between his apostolate and his family so that he does not fully give himself to either. The tragic thing is that others, such as Steve Pokorny, want to emulate him, and make the same mistake – embracing marriage but also an apostolate. And thus, they are “divided”, as St. Paul says, rather than making a “complete gift” of themselves to the “Beloved”. Their very lives seem to belie the message they are trying to convey.

Part II: Reiteration of Selected Points from von Hildebrand

Now, I will reprint some portions of von Hildebrand`s essay that I believe make good points but that I believe still remain unaddressed after 17 months.

I. HUMILITY AND REVERENCE

(1) I.3. Throughout all his Catholic writings, (Dietrich von Hildebrand) insists upon humility and reverence: humility because nobody, except the Blessed One among women, Mary, is safe; and reverence because of the depth and mystery of this sacred domain—a domain Dietrich always believed called for veiling. ... My general criticism of Christopher West is that he does not seem to grasp the delicacy, reverence, privacy, and sacredness of the sexual sphere. He also underestimates the effects of Original Sin on the human condition.

A. HUMILITY

(2) III.4.d. A humble awareness of our fallen nature creates a strict moral obligation to fly from temptations. ... As Monsignor Knox points out, to believe a Christian, however faithful, can place himself in spiritual danger and never fall prey to it, is a common error among religious enthusiasts. ... But this is to commit the sin of presumption.

B. REVERENCE

(3) I.5. Sex enthusiasts in the Church like West often speak about the “raging hormones” many feel growing up, but the solution they propose to cure it—stimulate people even more, with a hyper-sexualized presentation of Catholic teaching—can easily aggravate the situation.

(4) II.1.a. Dietrich would have vigorously opposed Popcak's so-called ”one rule”--that married couples “may do whatever they wish,” as long as they don’t use contraception, “both feel loved and respected,” and the marital act culminates within the woman. (p. 193). As another reviewer commented , this reduces marital love to a lowest common denominator, where “everything else can be left to the judgment of each couple. A variety of sexual positions, oral sex, sexual toys, and role playing are all judged permissible as long as couples follow the ‘one rule.’” (Catholicbookreviews.org, 2008). ... These ideas would have struck Dietrich von Hildebrand as abhorrent. It is precisely because the marital bed is sacred that one should approach acts within it with enormous reverence. Degrading and perverse sexual behavior-- even it is it done by a married couple, who do not practice contraception-- should be condemned, as an assault on human dignity. The “pornification” of marriage should be resisted as vigorously as the pornification of our culture. ... In this context, it is important for couples to avoid what Canon Jacques Leclerc calls “any corruption of love” in the marital bed. He writes: “There are many who believe that once they are married, they may do whatever they like.” But “they do not understand,” he continues, that “the search for every means of increasing pleasure can be a perversion.” He cautions: “Now, there are even among the most Christian young people many who know nothing of the moral aspect of the problem and have only the rudimentary idea that everything is forbidden outside marriage, but that within marriage everything is allowed. It is thus a good thing to remember that the morality of conjugal relations does not allow that pleasure should be sought by every means, but calls for a sexual life that is at the same time healthy, simple and normal.” (Marriage: A Great Sacrament, 1951, p. 88). These are sentiments which my husband, Dietrich von Hildebrand, would have thoroughly approved.

(5) III.4.b. Christopher West should know that we live in a society, which is radically materialistic, characterized by a cult of the body. Do we need encouragements to idolize what St Francis called "Brother Ass"? Christopher West puts too much emphasis on the body in a culture in which everything is body-centered.

II. ANALOGY and MYSTERY

(6) II.1.b-c. Analogy, in the AGE OF FAITH, was understood in a way that is completely different from our age of secularism, relativism, subjectivism and eroticism. Hence, a beautiful, sacred book like “the Song of Songs,” which draws parallels between God’s love and romantic love-, is bound to be misinterpreted by the modern, sex-obsessed mind. ... This false mentality of analogy was strongly opposed by Dietrich von Hildebrand, even though it was (and still is) countenanced by many contemporary writers. Chesterton, on the other hand, took my husband’s side. One day, Chesterton writes, he was taking a walk in the woods with a man whose “ . . . pointed beard gave him something of the look of Pan.` At one point this companion said to him: `Do you know why the spire of that church goes up like that?` I expressed a respectable agnosticism, and he answered in an off-hand way, `Oh, the same as the obelisks; the Phallic Worship of antiquity`. Then I looked across at him suddenly as he lay there leering above his goat-like beard; and for the moment I thought he was not Pan but the Devil. No mortal words can express the immense, the insane incongruity and unnatural perversion of thought involved in saying such a thing . . . (Everlasting Man, p. 152).” These words are a striking and prophetic rebuke to Christopher West’s efforts to employ “phallic symbolism to describe the Easter candle,” as Dr. David Schindler pointed out in his critique of West. Hugo Rahner has pointed out where these aberrant ideas about “phallic symbolism” came from: pagan mythology, not authentic Christianity. (See his book, Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, 1963)

(7) II.1.d. This defective attitude might explain why Christopher West also believes that after the Holy Virgin gave birth to our Savior, she ejected a bleeding placenta, just as his wife had done after delivering their son. ... This is a dogma of our faith, that she was a Virgin, prius ac posterius. The conception was miraculous; the delivery was miraculous. Any intrusion into this mystery would have been a source of grief to Dietrich von Hildebrand who, because he recited Vespers and Compline every day, knew Psalm 130 well: "I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me". ... For Christopher West to offer graphic, speculative details about the Virgin Birth—like the ejected bleeding placenta—underscores my point. The analogy of the Virgin Birth with the birth of West’s own son is mistaken. The latter, though obviously a great blessing, was not conceived, through God, by a Virgin; and it was not the product of a miraculous delivery. Further, to "tear the veil" away from Bethlehem, and to believe an imaginary, explicit description of it is a more powerful way of referring to the mystery of mysteries, is something that Dietrich von Hildebrand would, as I say, have fiercely contested. Between a normal birth, and the mystery of Bethlehem, lies an abyss which man - out of trembling reverence—should not traverse. Silent adoration is the only valid response to such a mystery.

(8) IV.4.2.a. Dietrich von Hildebrand, who came from a privileged cultural and artistic background, and had been acquainted with holy paintings since his earliest youth, would never have made remarks about the size of the Holy Virgin’s bosom, as West has, repeating with praise an exhortation for Catholics to “rediscover” Mary’s “abundant breasts” (Crisis magazine, March , 2002) To Dietrich’s mind, this would be an act of irreverence. Her breasts were sacred and the response to the sacred is awe and not a critical approach to the size of "the blessed breasts that sucked thee". True religious art has always understood this. ... One of the requirements of sacred art is that the artist succeeds in creating, through visible means, an atmosphere of sacredness. When Mary is represented, the crucial element is that the image inspires in the viewer a feeling of reverence; whether she is painted with “abundant breasts” is totally irrelevant—otherwise, most other icons would have to be discarded. It suffices for the faithful believer to be inspired by a work of art; he or she should never be titillated by it.

(9) Conc. When referring to mysteries (such as the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Eucharist) Dietrich’s choice of words invited his listeners to a trembling reverence and adoration. Christopher West's aforementioned remarks, in contrast,-- however well intended-- about the "bloodied membrane" that the Holy Virgin ejected after Christ's birth would strike Dietrich as close to blasphemy. Were he with us today, Dietrich would have surely quoted the Holy Office’s warning to West: “Theological works are being published in which the delicate question of Mary’s virginity ‘in partu’ is treated with a deplorable crudeness of expression and, what is more serious, in flagrant contradiction to the doctrinal tradition of the Church and to the sense of respect the faithful have.” (From the Holy Office monitum, July , 1960, reprinted in A Short Treatise on the Virgin Mary by Rene Laurentin, AMI Press, 1991, , pp. 318-329)

III. PRUDERY

(10) I.3. It is simply false to claim that the Church has, until recently, been blind to the deep meaning and beauty of sex as God intended it: we need only turn to St. Francis de Sales to see how profoundly he understood the meaning that God gave to this sphere. He writes: “It is honorable to all, in all, and in everything, that is, in all its parts" (Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III, Chapter 38). It is simply not true to claim that, until recently, the beauty and meaning of this sphere had been totally obscured by Puritanism and Manichaeism.

(11) III.3.a. Anyone who reads Christopher West’s books, or listens to his talks, cannot help but notice one thing: he is obsessed by puritanism. Indeed, one might believe, listening to him, that it is the one great danger of our time.

(12) III.3.a-b. One of the strange things happening today is that any hint that the intimate sphere should be marked by a caveat, tempts some people to accuse West’s critics of playing Cassandra, and of "being a dualist". The problem is that “dualism” can have a number of meanings, and not all of them are contrary to Catholic belief. ... From the very beginning, the Church—the "pillar of truth” has rejected Gnosticism and any form of Manichaeism. Nothing, however, is easier for man than to fall in his reason. The human mind, wounded by sin, has the uncanny tendency to go from one error to its (apparent) contradiction, while in fact errors are usually first cousins. ... Today, the condemned "dualism” just referred to, has become for some a kind of philosophical obsession. They detect "dualism" in the writings of thinkers who totally agree with them in rejecting a false dualism, but, in obsessing about this point, miss a larger one, and the necessary distinctions. ... It is tempting ... to angelize him, and discard the body. ... Some claim that the union of body and soul is for the benefit of the soul: without sense organs, man's mind would be condemned to blindness. It should, however, also be said that the union of body and soul is very much to the benefit of the body: for the soul “personifies” the body, that is, it clearly separates us from animals.

IV. ASCETICISM AND SUFFERING

(13) I.5. It must be recognized: “happy talk” about sex and sexuality, even if it is wrapped in religious language, cannot communicate the full truth about God’s plan for human sexuality unless it includes the difficulties of living out an elevated moral life. ... Moreover, they consistently ignore the one successful remedy the Church has always called upon to address this malady: asceticism, the spirit of renunciation and sacrifice. ... Why does St. Paul teach us, “And they that are Christ’s, have crucified the flesh with the passions and lusts” (Galatians 5: 24)? Why did St. Benedict throw himself into a thorny bush? Why did St. Francis engage in self-mortification? Because, following Scripture, they believed that disciplining their bodily desires, was indispensable to overcoming temptation. ... If such measures are considered unnecessary and too “extreme” today, other forms of asceticism—an intense prayer life, frequent confession, modesty in dress and language, and avoiding all possible occasions of sin-- should not be considered so. ... it is sheer illusion to believe that moral perfection can be pursued without this purifying discipline.

(14) III.4.e. Why is asceticism so stressed in religious orders and in authentic Catholic tradition, be it hair shirts, abstinence, the discipline, or the limiting of one's sleep to a minimum? Is that ever mentioned by Christopher West? Does he not know that John Paul II himself engaged in acts of self-mortification? And yet, that fact might be of great importance to teach us how to love, and it is love, which is the key to sex.

V. SHAME

(15) II.2.b. English does not distinguish between shame in the negative sense (response to what is ugly, disgusting, repulsive, filthy) and shame that is positive (in the sense of personal, private, intimate, mysterious). This lack of distinction certainly explains certain "simplifications" and “misunderstandings” about human sexuality which punctuate the work of Christopher West. ... After our first parents discovered they were naked, they were ashamed. This shame had a positive, instructive purpose, because it made them aware that they had stripped themselves of the beautiful “veil of innocence” God had given them, before they sinned. These profound truths should be embraced and highlighted by Christopher West, not minimized or ignored.

(16) III.4.a. Christopher West confuses "shame" in a negative sense (ugly, disgusting, repulsive, morally repugnant) with pudeur—the aforementioned French word which refers to the reverence we should have toward what is personal, mysterious, private, or sacred. ... Reverence and humility were always regarded as keys to maintaining our purity. The idea of trying to be “naked without shame” was never contemplated, and for good reasons.

Theology of the Body Debate: To Be Continued ...

REF: Quotation I

2010-10-22T16:14:00.001-07:00

"A Holy Hour a day keeps the Devil away". (Wade St. Onge)

Abba's Little Girl's Little Girl ...

2010-10-18T16:04:00.001-07:00

... by which I mean "Esther Bonds", daughter of "Patty Bonds".

Patty (aka "Abba's Little Girl") runs a blog that I am subscribed to. For those who do not know her story, all I will say is that it is incredible, even miraculous! She had quite a life and bore some heavy crosses, but through the grace of God, those trials have been transformed and have formed her into the strong and faithful woman she is today!

But the obstacles which she had to overcome were not limited to that. She also came from a very anti-Catholic background (her brother is "Dr. James White" - a famous Protestant apologist who has written extensively against the Catholic Church and has debated almost every well-known Catholic apologist in the last 20 years).

I heard Patty on the "Catholic Answers Live" radio program years ago, but only met her personally last year through her daughter, Esther.

At the beginning of the winter semester at Franciscan University of Steubenville, the weather was miserable. It had recently rained and then froze, meaning the campus sidewalks were like sheets of ice. Being from Canada, I was used to this, and knew how to walk without slipping. But many students who were new to campus and had come from the southern U.S. were not so prepared.

One evening, while I was leaving the dining hall, a young lady who was walking just behind me, shrieked and grabbed onto my coat sleeve. I immediately realized that she had slipped on the ice. I asked her where she was from. She said "Arizona". I chuckled, and after finding out she was new to campus, told her that God providentially placed in front of her a Canadian who was pretty solid on his feet to save her from falling. I offered to walk her to her dorm, but she decided she would brave it and make the icy trek by herself.

I saw her again the next week in the student union building, so I knew she had survived her walk home that night. A number of us students had gathered to watch the Pittsburgh Steelers continue their playoff run (Steubenville is 40 miles from Pittsburgh). We enjoyed each other's company, and I also got to meet her roommate, Maria (who I later called "Pink" because she was always wearing at least one article of clothing that was pink - in fact, she even has a pink Roethlisberger jersey!).

We gathered again for the Super Bowl, which pitted Arizona against Pittsburgh. Esther was just there to socialize - she didn't have a clue about football. But of course she was cheering for Arizona. I asked her at one point, "how many yards does it take to get a 'first down'". She paused for a few moments, and then answered, "um, five?" Later in the game, there was a big play and a reaction from the people watching and the announcers. Esther said, "what's going on?" I said, "Arizona just intercepted the football." Esther said, "is that good or bad?" I said, "it's good". She then let out a booming "WOO-HOO", and Pink, her friend Sarah, and myself (we were all sitting together) just lost it!

I had these three over to my place later in the semester as well for homemade lasagna, caesar salad, and apple pie. We had a good visit, and I got a good picture of Esther crawling on the floor (she was looking for something - we won't get into that right now!).

Esther and I ended up becoming good friends and we have shared some deep and profound conversations. We have also had some lighter exchanges. I remember one day in the dining hall when we were making each other laugh so hard (and we can both be pretty loud!) that everyone in the dining hall (200 + people), at one point or another, looked over at us. Good times!

She is young but very wise. Like her mother, she has had her fair share of suffering, and that has made her a stronger and more mature person.

Anyway, enough about memory lane. I hope you take the time to visit her blog!

A Beautiful Blog from a Beautiful Young Lady

2010-10-13T16:43:00.000-07:00

About a month ago, I did some serious "Catholic blog-browsing" and probably "checked out" over 200 Catholic blogs.

One of the blogs I stumbled across was from a young homeschoolee by the name of "Grace Marie", who runs a blog called "From the Rustic Home".

I read a few entries, and I was profoundly struck by how someone who is only 17 could have so much wisdom!

Her blog is like a breath of fresh air in the Catholic blogosphere. So many of us Catholic bloggers and writers get so caught up in the "pressing issues" that threaten our Church and our World that we lose sight of the God who has definitively triumphed over evil.

I know that God has called me to write about these "pressing issues". However, it is also true that God has "first" and "fundamentally" called me to love Him, and to "be" loved by Him. His will for me is to contemplate His beauty, goodness, and truth, which is found in all His creatures, and continually grow in my relationship with him.

"From the Rustic Home" paints a vivid portrait of someone who does just that. She blogs about her love for nature (with titles such as "New Moon", "The Harvest Is In", "Monarch's Progress" [about a caterpillar], etc.), various reflections (such as her piece on "happiness" or her reflection on Proverbs 31), and features on various fruits of the earth and articles of clothing.

Grace Marie has the maturity of an adult in almost every way but with the heart of a child. And "It is to such as these that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs" (Matthew 19:14).

Chicago Churches

2010-10-13T16:14:00.001-07:00

Coming soon!

Kansas City Churches

2010-10-13T15:22:00.000-07:00

When I was a seminarian in St. Louis, I became very good friends with a classmate, (now Fr.) Matthew Cushing (or "Cush", as we called him to distinguish him from a second "Matthew" in our class), who was then studying for the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas (but became a priest for the Diocese of Covington, Kentucky).

Since I lived so far away from my home in Canada, (Fr.) Matt invited me to come home with him on various breaks. His parents were (and are) great people and very hospitable. They raised eight children - including one priest and one religious sister.

During our 2003 Easter break, I decided to take in the Triduum according to "the old rite", the Missal of 1962. Fr.) Matt was friends with Fr. Philip Wolfe, FSSP, who was then the pastor of "St. Phillippine Duchesne Latin Mass Community". They met each other through their pro-life work, most specifically, in praying the rosary outside the abortion clinic on Saturday mornings.

The Masses/Services were held at "Blessed Sacrament Church".

I absolutely loved the community. It was made up of mostly young families and young adults. I absolutely loved the choir - most of them were young women and they sounded like angels.

Some time after leaving seminary, I applied to teach at "St. Padre Pio Academy", a new private school set up by many of the parishioners. I dreamed of moving down to Kansas City, teaching at the school, and joining the choir (they were certainly in need of more male voices!) I went down to KC, stayed with (Fr.) Matt and his parents, went for a tour and for the interview, and attended Mass at Blessed Sacrament on Sunday. When the choir sung "Credo IV", I knew this is where I wanted to move.

However, God had other plans, and the position went to a young lady from KC. I have not been back since, and at times I still have the desire to move down there.

During one of my visits, (Fr.) Matt and I went to an ordination at St. Peter Cathedral. It was a beautiful church (unfortunately, it is a little too small to be a cathedral). What I loved most was the seven stained-glass windows in the sanctuary which depicted different sacramental types from the Old Testament. There was the Sacrifice of Abel, Noah and the Flood, the Sacrifice of Melchisedek, the Sacrifice of Abraham (Isaac), the Parting of the Red Sea, and a couple others I cannot remember.

On weekdays, We went to "Our Lady of Good Counsel" for noon Mass. Msgr. Blacet was a very holy and humble priest who offered Mass devoutly (his daily Masses were about an hour long) and heard confessions for 45 minutes prior to every Mass. It was a very well-attended Mass, and many young people came. Coincidentally, it was also the church that (Fr.) Matt's parents were married in 50 years earlier.

Picture #1 from "Kansas City Dale" Flicker Account
Picture #2 from "St. Philippine Duchesne Community" Website
Picture #3 from "St. Peter Cathedral" Website
Picture #4,5,6 from "Kansas City Catholic" Blog

St. Louis Churches

2010-10-08T22:05:00.001-07:00

Ah, this brings back memories! When I was a seminarian at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis (2002-2004), we were given the occasional "free weekend" where we were allowed to attend Sunday Mass elsewhere. On my free weekends, I almost always went to St. Agatha's for the Tridentine Mass.

I remember the first time I went there - I literally fell in love with that parish. It brought on a crisis in my vocational discernment which divided me on whether I would remain diocesan or join a traditional order. I remained, but in the end the point was moot anyway because I left the seminary.

Anyway, I was on the blog of photographer, Mark Scott Abeln, "Rome of the West", and these pictures took me fondly down memory lane. These were from his "St. Agatha" page. The pictures were taken after the Traditional Mass was moved to St. Francis de Sales Oratory and after St. Agatha became the new Polish parish following the schism at St. Stanislaus Kostka Church. Here she is:

Beautiful shot of the exterior at dusk.
It is right near the Budweiser plant - you can smell brew on your way to the church!

The interior, from the back.
It was gorgeous on Sunday morning: the church would let in so much sunlight.

The interior, from the freestanding altar.
You can tell this was taken after the move because this altar was not there before.
Fr. (now Msgr.) Ed Rice told us a funny story about how he was asked to say a Novus Ordo Mass there one Saturday evening, and how he did a double-take when he got there, and said,
"Where is the altar?" Celebrating ad orientam was a new experience for him!

A close-up of the sanctuary. It was radiant on Sunday mornings.

Beautiful St. Agatha

Now to our second church: St. Francis de Sales Oratory. When I was a seminarian there, it was a Latino parish. Every Sunday, myself and a classmate would serve Sunday Vespers for the Holy Spirit Adoration Sisters (aka "The Pink Sisters" - their habits are pink) Fr. Ed Rice would usually treat us to dinner afterwards, and on our way home, we would always go by this big old beautiful church. One day, I asked my classmate to stop. I told him I just wanted to see if perchance we could get in for a look. Sure enough, one of the front doors opened for us (from the inside, it looked as though someone failed to lock it properly!). I walked around with my jaw dragging on the floor - it was the most beautiful church I had ever been in! It was just as it was before Vatican II - except they had added a little freestanding altar. But nothing had been removed or destroyed. It is called "the Cathedral of the South" [South St. Louis, that is]. I never did attend Mass there, and I would love to return to St. Louis to worship at the Tridentine Mass there.

The view of St. Francis while driving down I-44.

View from the front. She is tall!

View from the back. She is big!

Beautiful shots of the interior and sanctuary.

The high altar at night.

The sanctuary.

The altar and reredos, with reliquaries.

Side altar.

Stained-glass windows. They were (are) beautiful!

And now, for the "main attraction": the "Cathedral-Basilica of St. Louis". I was blessed with many opportunities to worship at Mass and attend many events here, the most important of which was the episcopal installation of Archbishop Raymond Burke.

These beautiful churches are like a piece of heaven on earth. I wish I could worship at Mass every Sunday in such magnificent churches, and looking at St. Agatha's and St. Francis de Sales churches trigger a pain of the heart, an "ache" if you will, it simultaneously strikes me with a feeling of anticipation and excitement, because I know that in the next life, I will (God help me) dwell within such beauty forever and soak it in eternally.

Pictures 1 and 11 are from "Tradition for Tomorrow". Pictures 2, 3, 6 are taken from "Rome of the West". Pictures 4, 5, 9, 10 are also taken from "Rome of the West". Pictures 7 and 10 are likewise taken from "Rome of the West". Picture 8 is taken from the "Archdiocese of Washington" blog. Pictures 12-18 are also taken from "Rome of the West".

REF: Isn't Life Beautiful?!

2010-10-07T15:31:00.000-07:00

At one of my former jobs, I had the great pleasure of working with a young man named "Vladimir", whose family had emigrated from Russia. Vladimir was a young man with a bright future. He was pursuing his MBA and had big plans and the gifts to make them happen. He was intelligent, charismatic, very sociable, and athletic. He loved to work out and give others advice on how to get fit and stay healthy. But what I remember best about him was his great sense of humour. He could light a room on fire, and often did.

Vladimir was a man who I always described as being "full of life". Not only was he "full of life", but he also "loved life". One of his favourite sayings, which often concluded his frequent discussions regarding his plans and his experiences, was, "Isn't life beautiful?!"

Then one day, some time after I had quit that job, I received the news that Vladimir had had an asthmatic attack and died. My initial reaction was one of shock and sorrow. But shortly afterwards, I was struck (and still am) by the irony. Here was a man who was more full of "life" and had a greater "life" ahead of him to look forward to than anyone else I knew. And yet, it was his "life" that was taken from him.

There are many lessons I have taken from Vladimir's "life". First, his love for life helped me to appreciate life more. I realized how much I took for granted. By merely asking the rhetorical question, "isn't life beautiful?", this fact was brought to my attention when that fact is so easily forgotten or ignored. Second, I was reminded by how "backwards" this life really is. The poor are the richest, the ones who suffer are the most blessed, those who never give birth have the most children, etc. Finally, I was struck by how uncertain our futures are in this life, and that we must always seek to best to store up treasures in heaven and care more about the next life than this current one.

TOB: Response to Dr. Janet Smith

2010-10-06T14:38:00.000-07:00

Introduction.

I have followed the “Christopher West debate” from its beginning (Dr. Schindler’s critique) to the present (the most recent being the public release of Dawn Eden’s masters thesis and Dr. Janet Smith’s response). As someone who taught Theology of the Body for three years (at John Paul II Bible College in Radway, Alberta) and who made use of West’s work, I was very interested in arriving at the truth of this matter. For years, I had had my own criticisms of West, although that did not stop me from using him (and in fact, I still use him). However, as the debate unfolded, I found that many of my criticisms were justified, and I became consciously aware of other problems that I previously only had vague notions or impressions of.

When Dr. Michael Waldstein and Dr. Janet Smith issued their responses to Dr. Schindler’s critique, I was surprised to see that neither of them really responded to the actual substance of Schindler’s arguments (more about that later). As time went on and others entered the debate, I noticed that the critiques issued against West were not really being “engaged” by those defending West. Rather, they were largely responded to through ad hominem attacks (“they are just ‘attacking’ him because they are ‘jealous’”), red herrings, and often enough, silence. This alone did more to convince me than the substance of any of the arguments made by either side.

When Ms. Eden publicly released her thesis, I read it and found it to be a solid though not flawless critique. I had my own issues with it which I mentioned briefly in my own critique of West (which can be found here: http://wademichaelstonge.blogspot.com/2010/09/theology-of-body-debate-critique-and.html). I was aware that Dr. Janet Smith was planning on responding to it, and I was looking forward to reading it as I wanted to see if Ms. Eden’s thesis did have some serious problems that I did not see. As someone who falls more on the side of the “West critics” in this debate, I know that my bias might blind me to truths that “West supporters” may see clearly.

However, just like Dr. Smith’s response to Dr. Schindler, I believe that Dr. Smith, in her essay, “Engaging Dawn Eden’s Thesis”, once again largely failed to respond to the substance of Ms. Eden’s points. What follows is a point-by-point reply to Smith’s critique of Eden’s thesis (Smith’s revised critique, which is the one I decided to respond to, can be found here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0207.htm). I have reprinted Dr. Smith’s subtitles to make it easier for the reader to cross-reference Smith’s essay as he goes along. I too will use Dr. Smith’s abbreviation “ET” as short for “Eden’s Thesis”).

A. Response to Smith’s Preliminary Comments.

Dr. Smith begins by speaking about how Mr. West has been open to critical response and has changed accordingly, and how Mr. West is a good Christian man whose teaching has done a great deal of good for a great many people. No doubt, Mr. West has over the years changed portions of his writings and presentations in response to critical feedback. I do not think anyone can deny this. In fact, Eden herself states this (ET, Preface, ix). No doubt, Mr. West’s teaching has done a great deal of good. It has resulted in many conversions and has led many to a purer life. Once again, no one can deny this – it is quite evident. However, Dr. Smith also praises Ms. Eden for her desire to protect the Catholic faithful from distortions of Theology of the Body, and I too laud her for that. Now, whether or not Mr. West is guilty of that we will set aside for now.

Dr. Smith begins by saying that Ms. Eden’s thesis is “seriously flawed and may potentially do much harm”. Will it do any harm? Perhaps. However, Dr. Smith does not seem to say it will do “much harm” due to the fact that it is “seriously flawed”, even though Smith believes it is. Rather, Dr. Smith’s concern is that “some people have taken a mere glance at her thesis, and since they are predisposed to accept her conclusions, they are dazzled by the number of quotations and footnotes into thinking that she has provided a worthy critique West's work.” It logically follows that those who are already “predisposed to accept her conclusions” have obviously decided, before this thesis was published, they did not like West’s approach or presentation(s). If such people are using Eden’s thesis to pressure priests and organizations not to use West’s material, Eden herself should not be blamed for that. She can be blamed for putting out a “seriously flawed” thesis, but if people who didn’t like West before are going to use Eden’s “star power” to carry out what they have presumably wanted to do for years now, is that not the fault of those who oppose West and those priests who are unable to sift truth from error?

B. Response to Various Points

1. The Importance of Fair Analysis and Accurate Representation.

Dr. Smith states that “I am going to assess only one criticism that Eden makes of West: the claim that West’s view of the Theology of the Body as causing a ‘revolution’ is not faithful to a ‘hermeneutic of continuity’.” When I read this, I thought back to Dr. Waldstein’s response to Dr. Schindler’s critique (http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/waldstein/06117.html). Dr. Waldstein too said he would only respond to “one” of Schindler’s criticisms, and by doing so he would demonstrate that the rest of Schindler’s charges were unfounded. As I have said elsewhere regarding Waldstein’s response, “He did not really respond to the substance of Schindler's argument, and when he addressed the first of his four points (on concupiscence), he states simply that, on the contrary, West is in fact on the mark, then goes on to ‘prove’ this by writing ‘a clear outline of the Catholic position in this matter’ (as Schindler described it in his response to Waldstein: http://www.headlinebistro.com/hb/en/news/schindler_response.html, II.7), with a short discussion on Jansenistic tendencies in recent Catholic history. None of this Schindler would disagree with, except for Waldstein’s simple assertion that ‘No, West does not contradict the Catholic teaching’.”

So when I read Dr. Smith saying she has found in Eden’s thesis “a distortion of what West said, a misreading of texts, and numerous irrelevant claims”, I thought back to Waldstein’s response. I was not sure if she would reply to the substance of Eden’s thesis, or if this response would be similar to that of Waldstein’s. The following is my evaluation of Smith’s critique of Eden’s thesis.

2. The Hermeneutic of Continuity.

I agree with Dr. Smith that for something that Ms. Eden considered to be “the most serious flaw in West’s work”, she did not spend a great deal of space defending this charge. She probably now regrets that. She should have done something similar to what I did in my own critique of West as found on my blog.

As I said on Sr. Lorraine’s blog (http://thomasfortoday.blogspot.com/2010/09/putting-christopher-west-in-context.html), if before this thesis came out, someone was to give to those who have read or listened to Mr. West a true-false test that consisted of the “ten themes”, and if the question was, “according to Christopher West, [insert theme]”, most would answer “True” to most of them. In fact, I would have answered “True” to most if not all of them, and would still answer “True” to many if not most of them.

Dr. Smith criticises Ms. Eden for “bombard[ing] her readers with words that she seems to believe will shock them”, such as "all-encompassing," "recontextualize," "everything," "revolution," and "dramatic development." Two things must be said here. (1) West himself has used these or similar words to describe TOB, and once again, if this was a “true-false” question, I would answer “True” as well. He does give the impression that TOB is all this, even if he may not use these exact words. (2) West himself often “bombards [his] readers [or listeners] with words that [he believes] will shock them”. If he can be justified in doing so, I think Eden can as well.

West says it “isn’t just about sex and marriage”, but sometimes his inordinate focus on sexuality and marriage in his presentations can belie or contradict this. When we are told that St. Teresa of Avila appears as though she is experiencing orgasm in portraits depicting her in ecstasy, that the Easter candle is a phallic symbol of the sexual union between husband and wife, that the vagina is akin to “the holy of holies”, when the TOB Institute website features couples and families in 14 of its 15 pictures (only one of them is a picture of a priest; there are no religious sisters, no religious brothers, no single people), etc., many single people (actually, people in general, regardless of state) can think it really IS all about “sex and marriage”.

Certainly, Mr. West is better than most TOB presenters in that he makes it clear that TOB is for single people too, and that single people can live out TOB. However, this is heavily outweighed (and I would say “drowned out”) by his frequent exaltations of praise for sex and marriage. It is similar to what takes place at the annual “Family Life Conference” in Lac St. Anne, Alberta (which Mr. West spoke at a number of years ago, though that is beside the point). It is a difficult conference for single people because they see so many families and the teachings all focus on the beauty of marriage and parenthood. Religious and single life both get “short shrift”. Of course, the conference organizers stress that this is for everyone, and that happiness depends on holiness and not marital status, but that is not what most single people “experience” or what they “receive” and thus “take away” from it. It is quite possible – and in fact it happens frequently – that the totality of the presentation does not line up with particular assertions that are made within those presentations.

In contrast to this, I spoke at length and very passionately about “single life” (I have actually developed a “theology of single life”) when I taught “Theology of the Body” at the Bible College. I found it interesting that the most common comment from students in the “most important thing I learned” section was that “single life is a ‘blessing’!” or similar such comments. This gave me a great deal of satisfaction, because most of my students were single, and I know how much young Catholics struggle with finding themselves single. I was very pleased that they were able to leave with this impression after I said so many glowing things about sex and marriage. Of course, it also helped that I spoke about celibacy in (even more) glowing terms, and that I stressed the superiority of celibacy (which West unfortunately does not “stress” even though he might at times “mention” it).

3. Recontextualize Everything.

On Sr. Lorraine’s blog, I also criticized Eden’s choice of words when she said “theologians and religious educators” would be “required” to “recontextualize” everything. However, I also pointed out that West often cites Weigel’s quote, and thus people do get the impression that in the future, this will be the case.

Regarding John Paul II’s quote: “Since our creation as male and female is the ‘fundamental fact of human existence’ (Feb. 13, 1980), the theology of the body affords ‘the rediscovery of the meaning of the whole of existence, the meaning of life’ (Oct. 29, 1980),” (from Christopher West’s article, “What is Theology of the Body and Why is it Changing So Many Lives?” http://www.christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=71), I would agree with this but would qualify it. Yes, the “theology of the body” does have this potential. But then again, so do many spiritual classics. So does Introduction to the Devout Life – which had me “reflecting [and praying] on the ‘three levels’” (original, historical, and eschatological man) and has personally helped me “rediscover the meaning of life” more than Theology of the Body has. So does the Catechism. So does the Bible. So does the Rosary. I am not saying Theology of the Body is not a great theological work, nor am I saying it has not had a great impact on the Church. What I am saying is that it is one of many works that have impacted, continue to impact, and have the potential to impact Christians. For some, it might be Theology of the Body. For others, it might be Scripture, or St. Augustine’s Confessions, or the Dialogues of St. Catherine, or the Little Flower’s Story of A Soul. As I said, some of these other works have done more for me than Theology of the Body. And in fact, it is not so much that “theology of the body” has done me wonders, but rather the Church’s centuries-old teachings on marriage, sexuality, and the human person that Theology of the Body presents. One can easily come away from West’s presentations believing that “Theology of the Body” is the most important Catholic work in the Church today, when in fact, that is not universally true, even if for some Catholics it might be.

4. Dramatic Development in the Creed.

Dr. Smith says that “West is hardly giving instructions to theologians and educators to ‘recontextualize everything’.” Dr. Smith is correct – in the particular quotation she is addressing here, he is not doing so. However, as I said, Weigel’s quotation is a staple in his presentation of Theology of the Body. It is quite easy to leave West’s presentations believing that the entire deposit of faith is going to be “recontextualized” in light of TOB.

I believe Eden cited the claim without indicating why she believes it is a false assessment because the totality of her thesis seeks to make that case. It was not her purpose at this stage to make a point that she was attempting to make throughout her thesis and in a more direct way at other specific points in her thesis.

Dr. Smith says, “I am quite certain it doesn't mean that the Creed will change – it doesn't mean there will be a dramatic change in doctrine – or any change in doctrine, for that matter.” I do not think Ms. Eden, a Masters student in Theology, believes Weigel is saying this. This would clearly be heretical, and Ms. Eden knows Weigel is not a heretic, and she knows he is not ignorant enough to believe this could be possible. I think what Weigel means is clear, which is why Dr. Smith says that “careless readers” might misunderstand. With all due respect to Dr. Smith, it appears there was an attempt here to critique a point that should not have been critiqued, but that Dr. Smith believed needed to be critiqued, because the quotation is incriminating and must be dealt with. If a “careless reader” misconstrues anything, I would blame the “careless reader”. As for the rest of us “careful readers”, I do not see a problem here.

5. Imago Dei.

Dr. Smith says, “Eden seems to disapprove of West’s claim that it is a major development in Catholic thought to say that the imago Dei is located ‘not only in the individual man or woman but also (in the pope's words) ‘through the communion…which man and woman form right from the beginning” (ET, 11). I do not think Eden disapproves of West’s claim that there has been a major development. I think Dr. Smith isolated this statement of hers from the broader context of her “first theme”. In that context, Eden’s concern is clear – she objects to what she perceives as an inordinate focus on this aspect. She expands on this later when she speaks about the primacy of the “filial” relationship with God over the “spousal” relationship in the section subtitled, “Nuptiality as key to sexual healing,” which begins on Page 32.

Once again, Dr. Smith, seeming to know that Eden may be making a solid point, qualifies her objection. This time, Smith’s criticism is that “it is difficult to know what point she is making.” She then goes back to speak of Eden’s “previous negative tone” and how that might confuse the reader. Smith goes on to set up a sort of “straw man” by showing that Cardinal Scola agrees with the idea that John Paul II’s locating the Imago Dei in the communion of persons has been a major development in Catholic thought. But Eden would not disagree with Cardinal Scola – she would acknowledge that there has indeed been a development. Smith also uses somewhat of a red herring by stating that “a major development in ‘thought’ is not a major development in doctrine.” But Dr. Smith can “cover” these fallacies by saying that Eden has so confused the reader that Dr. Smith may have come to the wrong conclusion as to what Eden was actually trying to say! Let it be noted here that the substance of Eden’s point was not responded to by Smith.

6. Sex and Mystery.

Dr. Smith is correct in saying that Ms. Eden should have commented further on the texts she cited in her “ten themes”. As I said on Sr. Lorraine’s blog, “[Eden’s] middle section should evaluate the ‘ten themes’ [one by one] and show how West is wrong about them.” However, once again, the criticism of Eden is more about her style than the actual point she is attempting to make. Smith once again asks, “What does West mean?” In other words, Eden does not clearly lay out West’s position. However, Smith says nothing about whether or not that particular “theme” is wrong. Indeed, at the end of this paragraph, Smith admits that “Here, I would say is one place where West needs to continue to show caution in explaining how John Paul II uses the term ‘sex’” (Smith had explained earlier that John Paul II more often than not uses it as a “noun” and not as a “verb”).

7. Maturation in Thinking vs. Doctrinal Development

Once again, this section begins with a criticism of Eden’s “sceptical and even mocking tone” rather than the precise point Eden is trying to make. Smith continues with a criticism not of the substance of Eden’s point (namely, that West says the Church is maturing through time and has only reached “puberty”; ET, 12), but of the fact that she once again quoted West without explaining the quotation for the reader. Smith’s problem is that “[Eden] comments not at all on the passage cited and thus the reader cannot know what she finds objectionable about it or, of course, if she does find it objectionable. Again, the previous tone of her thesis suggests that she does.” Once again, Eden’s point goes unaddressed. But to the “careless reader”, it may seem that Smith has refuted this particular “theme”, and said reader may not pick up that Smith’s argument about Eden accusing West of claiming “doctrinal development” again is a “red herring”. In reality, all Smith has demonstrated is that Eden committed errors in method and style rather than substance, and that her thesis directors did a mediocre job at best.

8. True Dangers?

Dr. Smith says, “I would suggest to Eden that her readers (and even West’s audiences) would not find it hard to distinguish what West is saying from the views of someone like [“liberal” Catholic Paul] McHugh”. Certainly, the teachings of McHugh and West are like night and day. But then again, isn’t it possible for two people who are diametrically opposed regarding their beliefs to have certain commonalities? After all, if Mr. West can find “profound historical connections” between Pope John Paul II and Hugh Hefner (as he said on the Nightline piece, http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7527380), could we not find similarities between McHugh and West? Perhaps McHugh came to the wrong conclusions, just as Hefner did, but just as both Hefner and John Paul II were both attempting to redeem authentic sexuality from prudish Victorian morality, so too is it possible for both West and McHugh to both be reacting to what they perceive to be a “prudish Catholic Church”.

This is followed by another straw man, which Smith answers by stating that “West has no expectation that Church doctrine will or should change. He is a fierce defender of Church teaching as it is.” Eden was not concerned about West “changing doctrine”; rather, her concern was that West has the tendency to divorce TOB from its interpretive keys – namely, what the Church has taught through Her Fathers, Doctors, and Popes in the centuries preceding 1965. My blog article gives an extensive treatment of this very issue (which I wish Eden had done more of).

9. Revolution.

I too believe West is correct in his belief that preconciliar Catholics were “often repressive”, and that some still are. However, I believe Eden’s concern is that West may have the tendency to paint with his “prudish brush” a lot of Saints and Church Fathers and Doctors who were not in fact prudish. I spoke about this on my blog as well.

I also agree with Dr. Smith about the sections that were left in Latin. I remember being told when I was in seminary about the days when the priests would lecture exclusively in English, then switch to Latin when it came time to discuss the Sixth Commandments, then go back to English when they concluded and moved to the Seventh. Smith says this “suggests some ‘repression’ to me”, and I would concur.

Dr. Smith goes on to say, “West’s work in promoting the Theology of the Body is doing a lot to redress that problem in a very effective fashion.” Once again, I agree. But as Fr. Granados said in his critique, “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’” (http://www.headlinebistro.com/en/news/granados_west.html). In other words, we have to take care that when correcting prudery, we do not swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme.

Citing ET, 63, Dr. Smith states, “Eden faults West with using ‘frustration’ at previous repressive ways of teaching as a ‘starting point’ for catechesis on marriage and sex.” I believe this is another example of how Ms. Eden was at times careless in her formulations and use of terms and choice of words. I would not have called it a “starting point”.

However, if you continue to read and thus take in the fuller context, I believe Eden makes a good point. Citing ET, 64, Dr. Smith asks, “What evidence does Eden have that West’s teachings cause people to ‘resent’ yesterday’s Church?” I think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence from those who have read or listened to West. Just visit some of the comboxes where supporters of West have posted defences of him and criticisms of those who have critiqued him. Dr. Alice von Hildebrand is certainly seen by many of them as a pre-Vatican “prude” who has not really read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body – which they see as the “antidote” to “Catholic prudishness”.

Dr. Smith asks, “Does all criticism of ‘yesterday's Church’ foster resentment and is it thus wrong to criticize yesterday’s Church?” Smith then goes on to make what I would consider a blunder. She says: “Who would deny that across the board, catechetical teaching in the US for several decades was seriously inadequate if not erroneous? Bishops have lamented how poor catechesis has been (e.g., “ Archbishop Hughes outlines Deficiencies and a Plan of Action” [http://catholicparents.org/NCCBontexts.html]). Are they guilty of fostering resentment and setting up a hermeneutic of discontinuity?” In Smith’s analogy, she is equating “yesterday’s Church” with the “deficiencies” outlined by Archbishop Hughes. However, Archbishop Hughes is lamenting deficiencies in catechesis since Vatican II, not before Vatican II. This does not set up a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” because the “discontinuity” as Pope Benedict has discussed has come from priests, theologians, and teachers divorcing conciliar and post-conciliar teaching from pre-conciliar teaching. To answer Dr. Smith’s question, I would say, “No, it is not always wrong to criticize certain things about ‘yesterday’s church’. However, it is wrong and even dangerous to leave the impression that John Paul II through his Theology of the Body is finally freeing the Church from a centuries-long prudery that is even reflected in the writings of the Church Doctors such as St. Francis de Sales.”

10. The Importance of Tone.

I too noted in my blog one particular “put-down” in Ms. Eden’s thesis, and I agree that it seems to reveal a bias.

11. Refusal to Admit Error.

I too believe Ms. Eden is a bit hesitant to admit error when they are pointed out to her. However, as I said elsewhere, she may be concerned that if she admitted so much as one error, people might take that as “proof” that her whole thesis is incorrect.

12. Definitive Interpreter.

Smith quotes Eden as saying, “Christopher West presents himself as the definitive interpreter of the teachings of John Paul II.” Once again, Eden chooses her words poorly. However, even though “West has never claimed to be such”, as Smith rightly points out, it is practically true that at least in this country, Christopher West has become the de facto interpreter or John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”. What most people in this country know about TOB they have learned from West. Few of these have ever read John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” for themselves.

13. Teaching Authority.

Dr. Smith says that West’s “writings and presentations have been favourably reviewed both by bishops and top scholars.” However, what she fails to mention is that some “top scholars”, including many professors at his alma mater, have not given him “favourable reviews” but rather the opposite. It must also be asked if there are some dioceses in which bishops have privately refused to allow Mr. West to speak in their dioceses?

Although I would agree with Dr. Smith that we must “be very cautious about questioning the judgment of loyal bishops”, I do not believe caution should absolutely keep us from questioning their judgment. For instance, a little more questioning of the “loyal bishop” who used to head the Archdiocese of Boston may have saved some children there from being victimized by pedophile priests. I said in my own blog piece that I did not fully trust the judgment of Cardinal Rigali myself, even though I recognized his gifts as a pastor and leader. Certainly, it is sometimes true that “to assert that one has found serious errors (Eden’s Thesis, 63, “ET”) that have escaped the notice of bishops who have a legitimate claim to be judges of the fidelity of an author’s work suggests that one is lacking in docility and humility.” But this is not always the case.

And once again, this is another fallacy. By saying Eden “lacks humility”, the issue is being deflected from the substance of her argument – namely, that some bishops may have been ignorant of some of these “finer theological points” that theologians such as Dr. Schindler are aware of because theological insight is the charism of theologians and not always that of bishops. It has been a long time, at least in this country, since bishops were chosen on the basis of their theological prowess or aptitude. And in fact, Dr. Smith seems to concede this when she says, “I would advise those with master’s degrees (really anyone) to be very cautious about questioning the judgment of loyal bishops” and to approach them privately rather than make it public. Yet, Smith still wants to leave the impression that by pitting herself against a number of “loyal bishops”, Eden has demonstrated that she is wrong and they are necessarily right. Once again, this is the impression the “careless reader” may take away from it.

Smith says, “Some may find that it smacks of real chutzpah that Eden took the opportunity of Cardinal Rigali’s address to the Theology of the Body conference calling for promotion of the Theology of the Body to ‘release’ a thesis accusing West of making errors in his presentation of Church teaching.” First of all, I think it is interesting that Smith said “some may find” rather than “I find”. It is as though she is accusing Eden of “chutzpah” but allowing herself the “out” of defending herself by saying, “ I didn’t say she had chutzpah; I said some might think that”. Secondly, and more to the point, although it is a bit audacious, Eden is indeed helping fulfill Rigali’s desire to see TOB “mined and proclaimed” (ET, Preface, xi).

14. Faulty Evidence.

I agree with Dr. Smith here. However, I believe that West has been responsible for some “strange ideas”, if for no other reason than he sometimes does not issue the proper caveats and clarifications.

15. Too Much Information.

Dr. Smith says that “Scholars need to respect the intelligence of their readers and not give them information they can be presumed to know.” Smith goes on to quote Eden’s clarification on what an episcopal blessing and an imprimatur is and is not. Smith states that “it is doubtful that any of Eden’s readers ... need instruction ... that an imprimatur does not imply agreement with everything a presenter says.” I disagree with Dr. Smith here. There is a great deal of confusion with regards to what an imprimatur is and is not. One of the most common responses against West’s critics is that “his books have imprimaturs, so we shouldn’t question anything in them”. On one of Eden’s articles on “Headline Bistro” in which she critiqued West, Eden, Kevin Tierney, and Myself had to correct numerous misunderstandings regarding imprimaturs as given by West supporters. In fact, the conversation became a discussion of imprimaturs rather than Ms. Eden’s article. It can be found here: http://www.headlinebistro.com/hb/en/columnists/eden/082610.html.

16. Range of a Thesis.

I agree that Ms. Eden has bitten off more than she could chew in her thesis. Nonetheless, she does make many excellent and valid points.

However, Dr. Smith states that “it would have been best had [Eden] confined herself to critiquing West’s Theology of the Body Explained. ... authors generally speak more freely in columns and with less precision. Their most considered thought is to be found in their more formal presentations.” However, as I pointed out on Sr. Lorraine’s blog, the problem with West is generally in his “popular presentations” where he “speaks freely” and with “less precision” and not in his more “considered thought” as found in TOB Explained. Most who listen to West will never read his TOB Explained and thus have their “misunderstandings” clarified.

C. Response to Smith’s Concluding Remarks.

Dr. Smith states that in her opinion, “nothing in Eden's thesis, gives me any reason to believe that West is claiming some discontinuity of the TOB with Church teaching.” I do not think West is “claiming” a discontinuity either – in fact, he often quotes St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Louis de Montfort, St. Teresa, and other Saints from our Tradition. However, as I stated on my blog, West “cherry-picks” these Saints as well as the Tradition as a whole. West certainly believes his teaching is in “continuity” with our Tradition. However, as I stated on my blog, his thinking does not seem to be permeated by the preconciliar sources, even if he uses a number of “proof-texts” from our Tradition.

Dr. Smith says that “Those who have concerns with the work of Christopher West should publish in respectable journals so that there is some hope that the work will need to respect standards of fairness.” And yet, when Dr. Schindler offered “Communio” as a forum with which to discuss this issue, West refused.

Conclusion

Following the release of Dr. Smith’s initial essay (http://tob.catholicexchange.com/2010/09/29/2345/), Dr. Gerard Nadal of “Coming Home” responded in the combox by asking, “is it at all possible to put together a day, or weekend of reconciliation, both academic and personal, to discuss openly and academically the differences and seek consensus, as well as take time to break bread with one another?” I think this is an excellent suggestion and is really the only way I see this issue getting resolved.

Dr. Janet Smith and I have exchanged private emails regarding this debate over the past month or so, ever since I contacted her and referred her to my blog article that I had just published. All of our exchanges have been very cordial, respectful, and fruitful – we found much common ground. In our exchanges, my previous impression of Dr. Smith as a beautiful woman of God who had a profound gift for teaching and a sharp mind was confirmed. Although we are on “opposite sides” of this debate, our ability to approach each other charitably has enabled us to do some bridge-building. We need more of this. And I believe Dr. Nadal’s suggestion is a way to achieve this.

In his next comment, Dr. Nadal went on to give his reasoning for his suggestion: “I’m a firm believer that once you sit down to a table filled with pasta, great meats, good wine and followed by great coffee and italian pastry, you can’t quite go at someone in print with anything sharper than a butter knife. ... I honestly believe that the TOB community’s scholars and speakers need to come together over good food and wine, as a family, and look one another in the eye. ... Harsh words are easily written when we have no personal relationship with the object of our ire. Telephone calls and private emails tend to become the means of communication when airing differences between people who fellowship regularly, and tend to be characterized more by loving forbearance.”

One of the things I said to Dr. Smith when her critique was still “in the works” was that this was going to be a never-ending cycle. Eden would not be the last to critique West, I said. And when another critique is inevitably published, she or others will feel compelled to respond. After the response, the “critics” would reply. After this, another critique would be issued, and the cycle will continue. However, I said, these exchanges would not bring the two sides together but rather continue to reinforce the chasm or even further polarize the two sides. What would help bring the two sides closer together is the suggestion made by Dr. Nadal and for the excellent reasons he gives.

We have in the Church “principles for dialogue”. Vatican II, in its “Decree on Ecumenism”, Unitatis Redintegratio, gives three chief principles for ecumenical dialogue. Although the Council had in mind “Catholics” and “Protestants” or “Catholics” and “Orthodox”, these principles also hold true for any two groups, including “West supporters” and “West critics”. We have seen the excellent progress made by certain ecumenical dialogue groups over the past 45 years. Catholics and various Protestant bodies have come together to issue “joint agreements”, such as “Catholics and Evangelicals Together” and the “Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification”. Could we not do the same with this Theology of the Body debate?

I would recommend a five-day “mini-conference” between the key members in this debate. It would be held in a retreat-type atmosphere where they would gather at times for common prayer, for meals, and for socials. They would have certain “committees” with representatives from both sides working together on certain issues that have been sources of disagreement. They would also gather as a “large group” (with all present) to deliberate upon the agreements, disagreements, and resolutions arrived at in the committees. After the conference, I would recommend that the group be reconvened after all members had time to reflect upon what was discussed at the conference. There can be a second conference, shorter in length, where some final resolutions are made and a statement of agreement (and areas of continued disagreement) is issued. After this, I believe Dr. Nadal makes another excellent suggestion: “ perhaps a regular meeting of the principal members of the field could facilitate minor corrections as the need should arise, and also serve as a forum for ideas, encouragement, and renewed strength.” And get this: Dr. Nadal has even offered to send the wine!

I wish all my Christian brothers and sisters on both sides of this debate Godspeed and many blessings as we move forward, hopefully in Christian charity. I pray that we all keep the end in mind: for all eternity, we will all be in heaven together feasting at the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb”, and this present argument will all be water under the bridge.

In Cordibus Iesus et Mariae,

Wade St. Onge

Returning to TOB Debate

2010-10-06T12:25:00.000-07:00

On September 28th, I announced my withdrawal from the TOB Debate.

However, I began to reconsider this after returning from a discernment retreat which took place the weekend of October 1-3.

Normally I am not this fickle (or fickle at all - I generally stubbornly stick to my decisions and stand by my word), but I am returning to the debate.

I cited four reasons why I was withdrawing. However, I believe that they no longer apply, or at least to the degree they did before. I will reprint them and respond in square brackets [ ].

1. Frustration. I have found that too many good points and arguments that are being made from those on "our side" of the debate (for lack of a better term) are either being ignored or the substance of our arguments are not being engaged or responded to (fallacies are used, etc.).

[I have decided that I will continue to point out the fact there has been no response. If it is responded to with more silence, I simply reinforce that point. I think that would be a valuable contribution to this debate, even if I end up saying the same thing over and over].

2. Exhaustion. I do not mind putting in the time and effort I have - if it bears fruit. However, when one puts in a great deal of time and effort, but his well-crafted and well-formulated arguments are ignored and his "opponents" in the debate turn around and post another "defense" by shifting to another aspect of the debate, one begins to feel demoralized, and this can drain a person.

[I feel very much refreshed after my retreat. And since I said all of these are related, since Point #1 has been resolved, this will help resolve Point #2 as well].

3. Poor Stewardship. Considering that the dialogue continues to follow this pattern, considering such a small number of us are participating in this debate, and considering that Mr. West and other TOB presenters are probably not among those following this discussion, I believe that I am spending too much time and effort for such little effect or outcome.

[Once again, a consequence of the first two. It should be added that I will be writing less now due to what I stated in Point #1]

4. Primary Focus. When engaging in "religious debates" (or debates of any kind), I often find that (a) I lose my peace, and (b) my prayer life suffers. These are sure signs that one is straying from the path God has called him to follow and thus must pull away or at least "detach" from the debate.

[I have “detached” and as I pointed out I will also be “scaling down”, which means these “religious debates” will probably not continue to cause these problems as they had before my retreat. However, I will continue to monitor this very closely].

TOB Debate: Summary and Brief History

2010-10-05T16:22:00.001-07:00

Stephen Ryan of Ministry Values contacted me again, but this time with regards to Theology of the Body.

He said that he knew very little about TOB, so he asked me to write a short piece which would outline the issues regarding the debate. I proceeded to do so, but after sending it to him, he responded that perhaps instead “we” could take a “different angle” and “push back” against either Eden or West (because he claimed he was neutral – which I would soon find out was not true). He suggested one thing – Eden’s “financial motive”, seizing an opportunity to go public with a hot-selling issue like sex and get rich while riding West’s coattails.

I responded by saying I was beginning to feel used, and that I would not agree to this because I was not his “lackey”. I told him that if Eden had financial motives, so has West all these years. He knew when he began his career that there was a huge and eager audience willing to pay a great deal of money for this “Theology of the Body”, because TOB, at least as West presents it, has a lot to do with “sex”, and sadly, Catholics are more “obsessed” with sex than most people in the secular world. For instance, Franciscan University of Steubenville is a very “devout” place; and yet many have made the astute observation that the campus is “sex-obsessed”. So West knew he would make a great deal of money from this. As I said elsewhere, if the financial consideration did not so much as even cross his mind when he started, we should open the cause for his canonization immediately. It would have crossed my mind, and when I think of books I want to publish, it does cross my mind – money is a practical aspect of life. I do believe, however, West should allow those who own previous editions of his books and recordings to send in the bar codes of those books and recordings and be able to buy a newer edition at cost.

Anyway, since I told Mr. Ryan I did not want him to publish my work, I decided to print it here because I did not want it to go to waste.

I would also like Patrick Madrid to explain to me why again he did not feel as though Stephen Ryan was taking us for a ride. He clearly was. Perhaps Mr. Madrid can give me another "description" if "being taken for a ride" is inaccurate.

I also hope that Our Lady of Medjugorje was not the one who taught him as long as he fulfilled his "five spiritual stones" (did his Friday fast, went to Mass and received Holy Communion, etc.) he could go ahead and feel free to use people like this, be deceptive, and argue fallaciously and unfairly. I have heard it is uncharitable to disclose the contents of private emails, but in this case, people need to be warned against this "Stephen Ryan" of Ministry Values and cautioned to avoid him. Kevin Symonds of Desiderium can tell you all about it as well.

Here is the article:

Over the past 17 months, a great debate has raged in the Church that has pitted cardinal against cardinal, layman against layman, theologian against theologian. It is a debate over the work of a lay evangelist, Christopher West, in his popular presentations of the “Theology of the Body”.

For those who are unfamiliar with the “Theology of the Body”, I will provide a short explanation. Between 1979 and 1984, Pope John Paul II delivered a series of teachings at his Wednesday audiences in which he took the Church’s traditional teachings on marriage and sex and presented it in a fresh way to a modern world which was in need of such a new approach. It was more a work of “anthropology” – who we are as human beings and what our purpose in life is – but taught in light of our “sexuality” (i.e. our “masculinity and femininity [noun], as distinguished from sexual union [verb]).

Although Theology of the Body (sometimes abbreviated “TOB”) was an excellent theological work, it was dense, used complex philosophical categories and terms, and thus was very difficult for most people to understand. As a result, few read it.

However, in the late 1990s, a young theology student named “Christopher West” began to take the Pope’s teachings and “simplify” them so that the “average layperson” could understand them. He disseminated this sort-of “TOB Cliff’s Notes” through various books, CD and DVD recordings, conferences, courses, and presentations, and has been doing so for the past 12 years.

His presentations were very dynamic and he himself was a passionate and charismatic speaker. He had a gift for “meeting people immersed in the secular culture where they were at” and thus “spoke their lingo”.

However, after West was interviewed on the secular news program “Nightline”, his former theology professor, Dr. David L. Schindler, who specializes in John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, published a critique of West’s work over the internet. He explained that these were issues he has had with West’s work for some time, but after attempts to correct him privately were unsuccessful, he decided to go public.

He outlined four problems with West’s popular presentations: (1) He teaches that we can actually completely conquer “concupiscence” (that disordered tendency we have to selfish gratification) when in fact “concupiscence” dwells objectively in the body and thus always remains a threat to our holiness; (2) He gives inordinate place to sexual union (or “makes it out to be greater than it really is”) and “inverts” analogies by projecting sexual characteristics onto God and supernatural things. The example Schindler gave was West giving the Easter Candle which is “plunged” into the baptismal font at the Easter Vigil a “phallic” interpretation; (3) He tends to view female modesty in dress as being necessary only because males are “lustful”, and that if males could only stop lusting, women could dispense with clothing, and this would be ideal; and (4) He responds to those who disagree with him by implying that their disagreement stems from a certain prudishness and then suggests that they pray that God so He can help them heal them of their prudishness and thus see things more clearly (which means seeing them as West sees them).

There were immediate responses from supporters of West. His friends and colleagues, Dr. Janet Smith and Dr. Michael Waldstein – who also teach Theology of the Body – defended West. Although they did not respond to the substance of Schindler’s critique, they both stated that Schindler was wrong about West, and that West’s alleged “errors” are really nothing other than necessary and successful attempts to translate John Paul’s heady theology into something easier to grasp. Another friend and colleague, his publisher, Matthew Pinto of Ascension Press, defended him on the basis that he has evangelized many people and is popular.

Schindler responded to Smith and Waldstein, Waldstein replied again, and from there, others joined in. Three other Theology of the Body professors who teach alongside Dr. Schindler came out against West. Then, Dr. Alice von Hildebrand – widow of Dr. Deitrich von Hildebrand, from whom John Paul II took many of his ideas when writing his Theology of the Body – came out against West as well. West responded by taking a six-month sabbatical in which he expressed his intention of reflecting upon his approach and upon what his critics had to say.

The debate continued on various blogs, including that of Fr. Angelo Geiger, Sr. Lorraine (editor of Mr. West’s “TOB Explained”), and Steve Kellmeyer (author of TOB book, “Sex and the Sacred City”). Recently, the debate has been rekindled as Dawn Eden, author of “Thrill of the Chaste” (which gives an account of her conversion from being a permiscuous Jewish rock music journalist to becoming a chaste Catholic), publicly released her Master’s thesis, which was a critique of West’s work. This came out roughly the same time as a lengthy essay by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand wherein she too critiqued West. Dr. Smith has since issued a lengthy response, as has Sr. Lorraine.

In the meantime, West has come back from his sabbatical. He has promised that he will publish a series of articles wherein he addresses his critics. Although he has not explicitly stated that there were defects in his approach, he did admit to being humbled. However, he also said that his critics have at times mischaracterized his position.

The debate continues, and unfortunately, it is to the point where most people are really confused and do not know what to believe anymore. There have been calls for a Vatican ruling, but I do not foresee that happening. Time will tell .. .

Theology of the Body Debate: Final Appeal

2010-10-01T17:07:00.000-07:00

Having withdrawn from participating publicly in the Theology of the Body debate, I did not have the chance to say much with regards to Dr. Janet Smith's critique of Dawn Eden's thesis. I did write Dr. Smith and Sr. Lorraine privately, and once again, our exchanges were fruitful.

Although I believe I have succeeded in helping to bring some members from both sides of this debate a little closer together, I still find there is a great deal of separation as well as "talking past" each other. I do not believe this is necessary, because I believe the two sides are actually very close to each other.

The ongoing war of words - from critique to response to rebuttal before moving on to the next critique at which the cycle begins again - has brought these two sides no closer together than when Dr. Schindler issued his critique in May of 2009.

I still believe my own "thesis" on this issue - which is an attempted "synthesis" between the two sides - provides the proper resolution to this debate. I was recently given a boost when TOB presenter Katrina Zeno stated something similar to my synthesis in the combox of Dr. Smith's critique.

Unfortunately, many people "in the middle" have become very confused about all this. When "experts" argue with "experts" and use such technical language and heady concepts, the "average layperson" simply does not know what to believe anymore. Consider this combox post from Antonio A. Badilla responding to a recent article about the ongoing debate: "Wow! This is really heating up and the problem is that we, as lay people, don't know what to think anymore. Perhaps it is time for the SCF to step in, study West's writings, and tell us what is accurate or non-accurate in West's teachings."

I really think the solution is so elementary that "experts" are not needed to either understand it or even explain it.

At this point, I would like to reprint Part V of my blog piece on this issue in order to take one last crack at ending this debate and bringing about a resolution so we can all get back to the work of building a culture of life in the face of the great evil that threatens to destroy us all. Personally, I sense that this ongoing debate continues to wear us down and tire us out. I know it has me. I am going on a retreat this weekend, and I hope to return refreshed and ready to take on the important work the Lord wills me to do - work that will no longer consist in participating in this debate. Bless you all.

I believe there is complete harmony although the two positions seem at odds. What I am about to do is validate both the critics and supporters of West, and bring their arguments into a synthesis.

Let me re-state my thesis at this point:

West's approach is good for the particular audience he is catering to. However, West's approach is not suited to the “spiritually mature” or those with a firm grasp of Catholic doctrine. These Catholics can get some good things out of it and enjoy it, but they can also be rightly bothered by some of the things he says and see them as problematic.

These Catholics need rather to be "feeding at the banquet", to use West's own analogy. West is feeding people with banquet food, but he is tossing it in a picnic basket and carrying it off to the back alleys, which by the time it gets there is not as “good”, not as “pure”.

West must over-simplify and he must also speak the lingo of the man eating out of the dumpster. But eventually those people should be led to a point in their spiritual journey where they too find that language vulgar and offensive.

This argument was really a non-argument from the start. Both Dr. Schindler and Dr. Smith are right. What they both missed was this: West is excellent for those immersed in our secular culture. West is problematic for those who have attained a spiritual and sexual maturity and a fully Catholic understanding of sex and marriage.

The problem is, the Bishops did not properly discern this, and thus they believed that West was suitable and even perfect for all audiences. ...

1. Evangelism, Catechesis, and Theology

A supporter of West responded to criticism about his theological errors by stating, “West isn’t a theologian, he’s a popularizer”. This is well stated and captures the real charism of Mr. West and many other TOB popularisers and speakers. What Dr. Smith and Dr. Waldstein are saying is that Mr. West’s approach (with his over-simplifications and with the emphasis he places on that which our culture is saturated in – namely, the sexual) is necessary in order to attract, engage, and win over a secular audience. To that I widely agree. That is what makes him an “evangelist”. What Ms. Eden and Dr. Von Hildebrand are saying is that Mr. West has made some serious theological errors and catechetical blunders which has rightly scandalized and upset many of the faithful. To this too I widely agree. That is what makes him a mediocre or even poor “theologian” or “catechist”.

This is essentially the “three-step process” in the conversion process – evangelism, catechesis, and theology. It all begins with “evangelism”, which necessitates, as Vatican II said, an “inculturation” of the Gospel and naturally an “over-simplication”, a “meeting people where they are at”, which of course tends towards theological problems. One does not begin to try to convert heathen nations through “catechesis” or even “theology” – it just will not attract them, they will not understand, nor will they be willing to embrace it. However, once a person experiences metanoia – or makes a decisive “conversion” – then is the time to teach that person the faith he has decided to embrace. Only at that point are they ready for “theology” – faith seeking understanding – whereby they probe ever deeper the mysteries of our Faith and the Person (or Communion of Persons) which our Faith binds us into a relationship with.

So St. Patrick preached to the Irish pagans by finding “types” and “partial fulfillments” in the superstitious practices he found there, just as the Church transformed pagan practices into Christian ones by replacing the pagan practices with Christian meanings. From there, St. Patrick used the three-leaf clover to explain the Trinity and thus help the pagans understand the very difficult concept of the Trinity. As time went on in Ireland and as people were converted more deeply, this rudimentary illustration of the Trinity gave way to a “fuller”, more accurate (and more spiritual) understanding. For those who have grown deeper in the mysteries of the Christian faith, the shamrock is no longer useful, and in fact can be dangerous – it can “stunt” one’s spiritual growth or even cause regression.

The same holds true for Mr. West. He is an “evangelist”, and he is quite effective in engaging the secular audience. However, he is a poor “theologian”, because theologians must keep the often-paradoxical truths of the faith in a delicate tension and also remain faithful (and show how they remain faithful) to the Catholic Tradition. West does neither very well. He is also an irresponsible “catechist”, because catechists must take extreme care to ensure they use the precise formulas found in the Magisterial documents, and to ensure that their teachings do not “stray” into “speculative theology” (especially controversial speculations). Once again, West does neither very well.

2. West Must “Hand Off” After He “Brings In”

Listen to what Ms. Eden herself says in her thesis, as I believe this proves what I am saying here, and also speaks to my thesis: “Christopher West’s gifts as a popular presenter helped get me through the Church’s doors—as they have for numerous other Catholics, and I will always be grateful for God’s using his work in that way. However, as I got deeper into Catholic faith and practice, I began to discover discrepancies between his presentation and the teachings of the Magisterium—discrepancies that, however unintentional, appeared to be impacting the faithful in disturbing ways.” (pg.7)

I would also like to quote what Fr. Angelo says as it too speaks to my thesis: “One of the concerns I have raised for a long time is the way in which this particular interpretation of TOB argues from two mutually exclusive points of departure, depending on what sort of objection is raised. On the one hand, it is argued that such an approach is necessary in order to meet “those hearts who may not be members of the ‘choir,’ but on the other hand, when those who are more serious about practicing chastity are approached with the message, their reticence to countenance such an approach is met with the suggestion that they have not yet experienced the full message of redemption of the body. So which is it?”

I would answer that it is “both”. “Those hearts who may not be members of the choir” I believe need West’s approach. However, “those who are more serious about practicing chastity”, who have thus “matured” and grown “deeper” in the Faith and “immersed” themselves in the Catholic Tradition should not continue to listen to or read West as a primary source – they should have moved past that. The problem here is that mature Catholics who should be seeking catechesis and theology are looking for these things and expecting to find them in an evangelistic presentation. The problem is not that Mr. West was booked as a speaker. The problem is that those who booked him as a speaker assumed he was good for all audiences, including all Catholic audiences, and he is not.

Therefore, although Mr. West should certainly continue to do “evangelism”, he should not be doing “catechesis” or “theology”. And he should make it clear that he is an “evangelist” – and make it equally clear that he is not a “theologian” or a “catechist” and is doing neither theology or catechesis. Unfortunately, he has been hired as a speaker by too many people who were unaware of this distinction.

Self-Publishing?!

2010-09-30T13:07:00.001-07:00

Perhaps it is a lack of patience or trust in God, but I have decided to go ahead and self-publish my manuscripts.

I have been trying for 10 years to get various manuscripts, booklets, articles, and pamphlets published, but to no avail. As I said in my introduction, I have been rejected by 20 Catholic publishers. These manuscripts are not doing any good for anyone as they sit here and collect dust, so I figure I might as well go ahead and self-publish, even though by doing so I know very few people will probably ever read them.

I have met so many people over the years to whom I have said, "oh, I have written the perfect manuscript for what you are looking for, but I unfortunately have not published it yet." Now, I can go back to those same people (and to others I will encounter) and be able to give them what they need or are looking for.

The "pros" to self-publishing include full ownership (being able to put a work out exactly as you want it without having to make changes demanded by the publisher) and greater income per sale (anywhere from five to seven dollars per book sold as opposed to a little over one dollar per book sold). The "cons" to self-publishing, however, are that I would be responsible for my own marketing and publicity (which is hard work and will not get me into as many markets and garner as much notoriety as the publishing houses would provide) and as a consequence I will not make nearly as many sales. So the "five dollars a book" will actually result in less money as the "one dollar and change" per book.

In my spiritual journey, the Lord has continually, especially as of late, called me back to St. Therese's "Little Way". I find myself repeating the words my good friend from seminary told me years ago: "You might have been brought into this world to save a single soul." I think I have been too long dreaming about and thus shooting for publishing the next "best-seller" in theology. However, I think that my gazing up so long at the stars has distracted me from and blinded me from seeing the people who are already in my life or who I will meet at a local level that can and would benefit from my writings.

Therefore, if I can get my book to a few friends / acquaintances and various people in Saskatchewan and make even a small difference within my small circles or in my locale, I will be satisfied with my accomplishments.

There are four things I must do before I publish. (1) First, I must go back and self-edit my manuscripts. This has been a tedious process. Although my English is excellent (when Ignatius Press was considering publishing my manuscript, an editor proofread and only marked 50 errors, most of them minor), there are so many things I have discovered I need or want to "re-word" or add. (2) Second, I must obtain an "Imprimatur". I have spoken to my Chancellor here in Saskatoon, and it sounds like this will not be a problem. (3) Third, I want to get a "heavy-hitter", a "who's who", a "big name" to write a foreword for me. (4) Fourth, I want to establish a marketing plan.

Providence has worked powerfully in my life as of late to bring me to this point. I moved in with a young Catholic named "Hudson Byblow", who I would later find out had just self-published a book himself and had a marketing plan in place! He has been a true Godsend, and without Him, my manuscripts would have continued to gather dust.

I will issue an update once my "books" have been published.

Withdrawing from TOB and Medjugorje Debates

2010-09-28T10:39:00.000-07:00

I have been engaged in two debates recently - the "Theology of the Body" debate and the "Medjugorje" debate. It is not merely a coincidence that these are the two issues I wrote at length about on my blog (40 pages on Theology of the Body, 60 pages on Medjugorje).

Medjugorje

Regarding the Medjugorje debate, I had intended to allow my 7-part series on it to be my final word. Since then, I have been pretty good about refraining from commenting and simply posting the link to my blog piece and referring people to it.

However, one "Stephen Ryan" from "Ministry Values" posted an invitation to dialogue in Patrick Madrid's combox for his latest article on Medjugorje, and I decided to take him up on it. For an account of how that went, I will refer you to that article. I will just say that the exchange left me very frustrated. Although Mr. Ryan can be excused for being, I believe, a rather recent "revert" to the Faith, "Medjugorje apologist" Ronald L. Conte cannot be. We had a charitable and engaging exchange over email, but after I corrected him on his assertion that there was such a thing as "legitimate disobedience" just as there is "legitimate dissent", and got him to admit that a religious owes "strict obedience" to his superior, he did not respond to my question on how he justified the disobedience of the Franciscan friars to "Romanis Pontificibus". This left me wondering if he just did not have time to continue, or whether it was a tacit admission that I was correct.

I have decided that since (a) I have already said everything I want to say about Medjugorje in my article series, (b) the Vatican will very soon be issuing a definitive decision on this issue, and (c) it is a waste of my time to continue to formulate good points to only have them ignored and responded to with red herrings, (x) I will be withdrawing from this debate.

There are some fellow "Medjugorje skeptics" I have met through this who I am sure will continue to post, comment, and engage. These have also helped me with their feedback, corrections, compliments, encouragement, and publicity, including Louis Belanger (of "Medjupedia"), Diane Korzeniewski, OCDS (of "Te Deum Laudamus"), Richard Chonak (of "Catholic Light"), and Dr. E. Michael Jones (of "Culture Wars"). I am also greatful for "Medjugorje believer" Ronald L. Conte (of "Catholic Planet") for reading my blog and engaging me in dialogue privately. To all of you, I thank you most fundamentally for taking the time to read my article series, which was extremely long. Just as a final note, I also sent a message to Dr. Mark Miravalle and referred him to my blog piece, but have not heard back from him (yet), so I am not sure if he has read it or plans to read it or what he thinks of it.

Theology of the Body

After I posted and publicized my blog series on Theology of the Body, I entered into a very fruitful discussion with a number of people that in the beginning seemed very promising. I met some excellent people (and some prominent figures in this debate) and carried on both private correspondence and blog exchanges with them. These included (a) "West supporters" Dr. Janet Smith, TOB Explained Editor Sr. Marianne (Lorraine) Trouve (of "Open Wide the Doors to Christ"), Christina King (of "Embracing Your Greatness"), Marcel Lejeune (of "Aggie Catholics" [who like me is sort of "in the middle" - though more supportive of West than I am and has fewer points of disagreement]), as well as (b) "West critics" Dr. David Schindler, Dawn Eden (of "The Dawn Patrol"), Fr. Angelo Geiger (of "Mary Victrix"), Steve Kellmeyer (of "The Fifth Column"), Kevin Symonds (of "Desiderium"), and especially Kevin Tierney (of "Common Sense Catholicism"), who has been an excellent fellow-contributor and who I see "eye to eye" with on so many things in this broad spectrum which is "Catholicism". To all of you (as well as T.J. Nelson [of "Abbey Roads"], Eric Sammons [of "The Divine Life"], Dr. David Delaney [of "Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex"] Mark Shea [of "Catholic and Enjoying It"]), I also want to thank you for your feedback, corrections, compliments, encouragement, publicity, and "plugs", as well as for taking the time to read my extremely long piece. Bless you for your time - I hope it was not a waste. (x) I also wrote Christopher West (of "Theology of the Body Institute") and referred him to my blog, but I did not hear back from him, so I do not know if he ever read it or what he thought of it.

My reasons for withdrawing from this debate are many, although they are all related and consequential.

1. Frustration. I have found that too many good points and arguments that are being made from those on "our side" of the debate (for lack of a better term) are either being ignored or the substance of our arguments are not being engaged or responded to (fallacies are used, etc.).

In fact, Dr. Schindler's initial critique still has not been responded to. I will reprint here what I have written to other "West supporters" in this debate: "Regarding Dr. Waldstein's response to Dr. Schindler's first critique: He did not really respond to the substance of Schindler's argument, and when he addressed the first of his four points (on concupiscence), he states simply that, on the contrary, West is in fact on the mark, then goes on to "prove" this by writing "a clear outline of the Catholic position in this matter" (as Schindler described it in his response to Waldstein), with a short discussion on Jansenistic tendencies in recent Catholic history. None of this Schindler would disagree with, except for Waldstein's statement that "No, West does not contradict the Catholic teaching". Now Waldstein was understandably upset for a number of reasons and on a number of levels, and this came across in his response. He was much more calm in his second response, but once again, he only offered "a personal testimony" about listening to West's talks in Saskatoon. However, I have talked to a number of people from Saskatoon who attended those talks (as I live here), but not all of them would agree with Waldstein's positive evaluation." Now, I have yet to receive a response to this paragraph from anyone on "the other side" [I hate using this term to refer to fellow Christian brothers and sisters] of this debate. However, "West critics" have responded to this and told me that they too saw Dr. Waldstein's response as wanting.

I have also been given no response to Sr. Lorraine's critique of Dawn Eden's "Ten Themes", nor have I received a response to my challenge to "James" that even if we have "conquered" lust, we are still well advised to turn our eyes from a beautiful woman lest God withdraws that grace in the face of our self-confidence and the license we have given ourselves to look due to our perceived "high degree of mastery over lust" (to which I received enthusiastic feedback from certain "West critics" who thanked me for putting into words the very concern and objection they have had for some time but could not quite formulate or put a finger on). The only response given by a supporter of West was a commenter who did not say a word about my argument, but went on to praise James and speak about how s/he was going to print his material off and run with it, and finished off with an ad hominem attack. This was the last straw for me. I find that the issues are being deflected with the charges of "jealously", "impure motives", "fighting fellow soldiers", "turning in on ourselves when we should be fighting 'the real enemy'", etc. To me, when I see ad hominem attacks, red herrings, and finally silence (when others have been "called on" these fallacies) dominating a discussion of issues, it is usually indicative that the other has no substantial response to the issues raised.

I also think Dawn Eden made some good points which still have not been acknowledged. The focus has all been on her error. I was hoping in a second step, after we dealt with the "errors", that we would get to what she got right, acknowledge it, and bring it to bear on our view of the issue. But I have yet to see that second step being taken, and I am not sure it will ever happen.

2. Exhaustion. I do not mind putting in the time and effort I have - if it bears fruit. However, when one puts in a great deal of time and effort, but his well-crafted and well-formulated arguments are ignored and his "opponents" in the debate turn around and post another "defense" by shifting to another aspect of the debate, one begins to feel demoralized, and this can drain a person.

3. Poor Stewardship. Considering that the dialogue continues to follow this pattern, considering such a small number of us are participating in this debate, and considering that Mr. West and other TOB presenters are probably not among those following this discussion, I believe that I am spending too much time and effort for such little effect or outcome.

4. Primary Focus. When engaging in "religious debates" (or debates of any kind), I often find that (a) I lose my peace, and (b) my prayer life suffers. These are sure signs that one is straying from the path God has called him to follow and thus must pull away or at least "detach" from the debate.

x. Conclusion: I have done my part for stating the truth as I see it and drawing attention to it. I can leave the discussion content in knowing I have done my little part, just as others who have contributed to this discussion have each done their little part. It is God's Church, it is God's World, and He will have to do the rest. Mr. West can continue to present and teach as he believes is appropriate. If there are errors that need correcting, God can see to it. If his presentation is without error and exactly as it should be, I pray God corrects me and others who land on the "critical side" of this debate.

REF: The Christian and Death (Story about Ryan)

2010-09-22T12:44:00.000-07:00

"Stairway to Paradise" by Thomas Kinkade (1998)

My best friend, Ryan, came literally within centimeters of his death in 1997 (the bleeding in the brain was stopped just in time). From the time he was rushed to the hospital, his parents desperately called everyone they knew and asked for their prayers. To this day, I believe this is what saved his life.

After he "came to" following the surgery, his mother, who although relieved was still an emotional wreck from the whole ordeal, was at his bedside.

Now, Ryan is the most laid-back guy I know. He takes everything in stride, and everything is like water off a duck's back. He is the perfect best friend for me, because I tend to be the opposite - high-strung with tendency to get fixated on "little things". I remember one day his wallet was stolen at work. He came home, mentioned it matter-of-factly, then proceeded to get on the phone to cancel his credit cards as though he was making a simple dinner reservation. I was far more anxious than he was about his missing wallet! His favourite saying is "whatever happens, happens".

Anyway, at his bedside, his mother was surprised at how calm and relaxed he was about the whole ordeal. He did not seem at all shocked by how close he came to dying, or that grateful for being alive (any more than his general love and appreciation for life that is a constant with Ryan). She thought he should be more relieved, and should have been more afraid of dying.

This is what he said in response to her: "Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. We talk about how our real treasure is in heaven, how it is our true destiny, and how we are living for the next life, but when we find out we might be dying, we get just as upset and afraid as people who don't believe in God". Once again, Ryan, as he often does, hit the nail on the head.

I hear from time to time about some Christians making "provisions" for various apocalyptic scenarios (the smart card with the "666 microchip", or nuclear holocausts, etc.) by building shelters, etc. The fact is, the purpose of this world is to point us toward, lead us to, and eventually give way to heaven. When we make such provisions, it makes me think our motivation is to avoid the eschaton, and this is not Christian.

If the world gets hit with a nuclear bomb that blows up most of the world except Christians living in shelters, I would assume that this is because the world was supposed to end.

(And after all, these people who are building shelters are the ones who are talking about how "the end will take place in our lifetime". So why build the shelters then? Seems they are convinced the end is soon but they don't really want to accept or believe that - which seems odd if they think heaven is "where it's at").

Ryan makes a good point, and asks a good question: "Why do we want to avoid death so badly?" Some might respond, "Oh, but the Lord needs me for such and such". First of all, that isn't the primary reason most do not want to die - their reasons aren't so "altrustic" that they are concerned about the Lord's needs and desires; rather, their reasons are that they love life and they are attached to this world and the things of this world. But secondly, and I am sorry to break it to anyone who maybe do not realize this, but God doesn't need us! None of us. We are all relative needs. If God needs such and such to be done, He can find someone else to do it, and if He "calls you home" (the home we all seem so eager to avoid coming home to), chances are He has someone else in mind for the task. We give ourselves far too much credit. It comes from our fallen human pride, I suppose.

St. Francis de Sales in his "Introduction to the Devout Life" has meditations on "the end for which we were created". I believe most of us "good Christians" need to spend more time in prayer on this particular meditation. A Christian who values his life too much is a Christian in name only and will not be very holy or apostolically fruitful.