Went to the Jesuit cemetery at Georgetown early in the evening on this Solemnity of Pentecost and prayed the Divine Mercy chaplet for the Holy Souls in purgatory.
As the sun lowered in the sky, it occurred to me that, since the campus ministry put a stop to the Tridentine Mass at Copley Crypt, the cemetery is the only place in Georgetown where the Jesuits face ad orientem.
Some comedy relief courtesy of video diarist and author Mark Gauvreau Judge. For those unfamiliar with his deadpan style, he is joking—and particularly, I think, making fun of hinself. I started cracking up at the line beginning, "You are nothing but 'Spirit of Vatican II' ..."
Mark alludes to his bandanna, the latest head covering he has assumed since going through a course of chemotherapy. He reports that the chemo is doing its job; pease say a prayer for his continued healing.
Schindler's list Sparks fly as JP2 Institute dean raps Christopher West for errors
A guest post by FR. ANGELO MARY GEIGER F.I.
In the last couple of days, Professor David L Schindler’s critique of Christopher West as come under attack by some heavy guns, namely, Professor Janet Smith and Professor Michael Waldstein. I would like to comment only relative to the main point I made here on The Dawn Patrol last week. That point is that the very effective popularization of the theology of the body (TOB) by West has a severe liability insofar as it promises too much: it is supposed to be the bombshell that will delivered us from the death-grip of that nasty Catholic Puritanism.
I am not a scholar; while my argument with West is theological, it is not academic. West is a popularizer. He is targeting the sex-saturated masses with arguments that are largely apologetical in style and substance. It seems to me that Schindler, dean of the John Paul II Institute, is addressing West on an academic level, and he does so fairly and accurately.
That being said, it is not true, as both Smith and Waldstein claim, that Schindler does not offer sources for his arguments. He gives precise instances of remarks made by West, which he documents, and then he summarizes the problem as follows (emphasis mine}:
I offer these examples not merely because they are vulgar and in bad taste, not to mention sometimes bordering on the just plain silly, but because they indicate a disordered approach to human sexuality. An objective distortion in approaching sexuality does not cease to be such simply because it is theologized. West to be sure will point toward the “orthodox” intentions and context of the examples, but my criticism bears on the substance of his preoccupation as reflected in the examples.
It seems that Schindler is arguing that to do things like advising young men to look at their naked bodies in a mirror in order to overcome shame is an example of a “disordered approach to sexuality.” Taken together with the other examples of West's teachings, Schindler indicates a “preoccupation” West holds which, from the many blog comments I have read over the last week, seems to be a common complaint about his approach. West justifies all he says on the basis of his knowledge of the corpus of John Paul II’s TOB, including the above advice. Schindler does not seem to be impressed by this extrapolation of the pope’s teaching--this theologizing that really has nothing to do with the John Paul’s corpus of writing.
Professor Schindler then goes on to make four points about West’s theology that are problematic: 1) the distorted notion of concupiscence; 2) the inadequate notion of analogy; 3) the overly-masculine vision of shame and reverence; 4) the way in which West’s preaching style inherently and adversely affects the substance of his presentation.
With theological acumen, Schindler summarizes the concerns that have been brought up to West for years by those who have listened to his presentations or read his books. It seems to me that where there is that much smoke, there is fire. It’s not a matter of condemnation, but of critique, and the critique is sufficiently well documented to be taken seriously.
In “An Open Letter to a Concerned Listener,” dated September 2001, which was inserted into his tape set “Naked without Shame: Sex and the Christian Mystery,” West admitted, “Listening to the tapes myself, I would even admit that some of my statements could have been better nuanced in order to avoid some potential confusion.” However, he qualifies that by saying: “Though my own style and personality is evident, the essence of the message in those tapes is not my own.” But I believe it is not the essence of West’s message—that of John Paul II—that Schindler has an argument with, but with the particulars that belong to West alone, the complaints against which West has been aware of for a long time.
This brings me to a delicate topic, which in view of the highly sensitized Catholic blogosphere on this matter, I will be sticking my neck out by highlighting it. It is the question of presentation (Schindler’s fourth point), because really, it seems to me this is what the debate is all about. What do we say to sex-saturated men and women who are either barely hanging on to their faith or who have completely bought the modern prejudice against a chaste life? All along my whole point has been that West’s approach has strengths and it has liabilities. Schindler just thought it was time to be frank about it. Smith and Waldstein have called foul.
Here is the sensitive part. Schindler writes the following:
West often tends to treat resistance to the content of his lectures, for example during the question periods, as matters of resistance to the Holy Spirit (to the Spirit now speaking in and through West's “charism”), urging questioners to pray to overcome the fear induced in them by their bad theological-spiritual formation. Well-balanced persons have spoken of how West makes them feel a sense of guilt, of resistance to the Holy Spirit, if they experience uneasiness about what he is saying.
If what Schindler says is true, and so far, neither Smith or Waldstein have denied it, then that, my friends, is manipulation. It may be honest and sincere. I am sure it is done with the purest intention, but it is manipulation pure and simple. I want to emphasize that it is in no way my intention to judge Christopher West, but this method of dealing with the doubt of good people just does not wash.
I have seen this kind of nonsense before and it is no good. West and his supporter just do not know how the Holy Spirit is working in the hearts of his hearers—no way, no how—unless of course we are implicitly assuming some kind of charismatic grace here, which so far I have not heard asserted. There are many secular organizations that use this kind of technique. None of them would I recommend to anyone.
I do not want to overplay the significance of this. However, since we are really focusing on a popular presentation and the means by which this is being carried out, I must point out that recourse to age-old groupthink tactics is an example of how this whole presentation promises too much and cannot deliver.
Just a couple of other particulars in regard to the critiques of Schindler by Smith and Waldstein to illustrate my point about the focus of the argument being on presentation: Smith defends West’s admonition to bless genitals:
A friend of mine who was sexually abused often finds it difficult to engage in the marital embrace (trying not to offend!). A very orthodox Catholic therapist recommended that her husband pray over her reproductive organs (being delicate here). Since he has been doing that, she has experienced some healing, and her enjoyment of the marital embrace has improved considerably.
But what the professor is talking about is private counsel directed at an individual known well by the therapist. This is not the same as general advice to be proliferated to the masses. The whole thing, again, is a matter of the “preoccupation” of the “presentation,” which is very effective, in one sense, as a way of dealing with our wounded society, but which has real liabilities that need to be acknowledged and dealt with.
The second particular I want to mention has to do with the exaggerations of prudery such as the very extreme examples offered by Waldstein and the reaction against any attempt to question the way transformation in grace is being presented.
We are told: Ignorance of the principles of TOB along with the heresy of Jansenism have led to a deep-seated Manichaeism among Catholics. Waldstein writes that early 20th-century Jesuits hid their genitals with ashes when they were bathing, while trads want women to wear black cardboard boxes. The implied solution is to bless genitals and stand naked in front of a mirror—of course, while studying TOB and praying. Is this a caricature? I certainly am not arguing for the other extreme, but I know there are some confused people out in the blogosphere.
There is no sense whatsoever, contrary to what Waldstein suggests, in which Schindler minimizes the power of transforming grace. Yes, as St. Augustine says: "Love, and then do what you want!" But transforming grace has to do with the life of perfect charity, and while the perfection of virtue leads to spontaneity in what is right and just, it is foolish to suggest to a general public that struggling with concupiscence that if they do things right, not only will they be freed from their dirty sex hang ups, but they will, in fact, live “naked without shame.” I do not know where this “holiness trumps temptation” comes from. Perhaps it is time for West and his supporters to cite some sources other than the oblique statements of John Paul II. If it is true, then let’s see the tradition.
Both Puritanism and the culture of pornography are a function of original sin. Only a thorough sacramental catechesis and a developing spiritual life are going to manage these problems. An exalted view of human sexuality is part of the solution, but it is not a panacea. We should not confuse apologetics with catechesis, let alone with theology. As I said in my earlier post, I don’t expect us all to agree on our analysis of Christopher West’s impressive work, but I do think the issues raised should be taken seriously. And even if Professors Smith and Waldstein disagree with Professor Schindler, there is no reason to criticize him for saying publicly what many people have been saying directly to West for a long time.
Just for the record, I would like to say again that I do not question anyone’s integrity or good will. But this needs to be talked about frankly and openly and in a spirit of charity. No one is being crucified and no one’s reputation is being ruined. If it is, I will have none of it, but abusus non tollit usum, the abuse does not vitiate the use. There is no reason we need to be silent about this. God bless all those in the pursuit of truth.
Father Angelo Mary Geiger, a Franciscan Friar of the Immaculate, blogs at maryvictrix.com.
Yesterday's highly anticipated matchup between Prof. Robert P. George and Prof. Douglas Kmiec over whether there was truly common ground between President Obama and pro-lifers—George says no, Kmiec yes—was not exactly a clash of the titans.
As you can see in the C-SPAN video (which I am unable to embed), George was the only one who answered every question directly. Kmiec dodged frequently, which made the debate less entertaining from an audience standpoint. George Bernard Shaw he ain't. Witness, for example, his response to a question I submitted, which comes up in the video at 58:44.
Kmiec's use of "proportionate reasoning" to excuse support of candidates who vow to expand access to abortion is wrong because cooperation with abortion, unlike participation in war or capital punishment, is an intrinsic evil. The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer explains that issue well.
RELATED:Jimmy Akin explains why the concept of "proportionate reasons" comes into play only when the choice is between two candidates who both support intrinsic evil. In that case, one is to vote for the candidate who is most likely to limit evil and least likely to expand it. Kmiec's use of proportionate reasoning with regard to his support of Obama clearly falls outside the acceptable parameters.
When I posted yesterday about my wonderful new job, I asked you to please keep up the prayers for me.
I had a particular reason in mind as to why I needed prayers, but was holding off on reporting it because I first wanted to share my joy and thankfulness over my new position. It was because I will be undergoing surgery on June 11—not as serious as the operations and radioactive-iodine treatment I had last year that eliminated my thyroid cancer, but a concern nonetheless.
If you do not like reading descriptions of women's physical ailments, I recommend you stop reading here and just send up prayers for me—thanks.
So—I have a uterine fibroid tumor the size of an orange. As far as my doctors know, it is benign; they nearly always are. For some time, it has been causing extremely heavy monthly bleeding and has been putting pressure on my bladder, making it uncomfortable to sit through long grad-school classes.
It has been very hard for me to get straight answers from gynnecologists about what, if anything, I should do about the fibroid. The answers I have gotten from several doctors in the past is, "If you can live with it, do nothing." It was only this year that I learned from my gynecologist that fibroids grow larger but, until menopause, do not grow smaller, and that mine would most likely prevent me from getting pregnant and would certainly bar me from carrying a baby to term.
Although the symptoms are troublesome, I made the decision to have the fibroid removed primarily so that, if I do have the opportunity to be married before menopause (and my surgeon says I might have another ten years of fertility), I will be able to bear children. To that end, I am having a laparoscopic myomectomy, which is the least invasive procedure. If you have a strong stomach, you can see photos and video of that type of surgery on this highly informative Web site; scan down the page for "What Is a Laparoscopic Myomectomy?"
Then I started crying. I explained to him that it was painful for me to undergo this procedure for the sake of an uncertain future—because, although I would like to be married and so have children, it is possible that it may never happen.
He reassured me that, "although we can discuss this surgery in the light of day," it is "not elective surgery." It is necessary, to the point that it is covered by Medicaid. He said that, given how many years I may have until menopause, it was possible that, without surgery, I might wind up like the women he has seen who have to receive monthly blood transfusions until their fibroids are removed.
Learning of the necessity eased my mind a bit, but it is still difficult for me to contemplate the surgery, because the reproductive system is intimately bound with so many emotional issues—especially, I suspect, for women. That is another reason I have refrained from discussing my surgery here until now, because, in the past, bloggers and commenters who oppose my being pro-life and pro-chastity have used my opennness about my life experience as an opportunity to make personal comments intended to hurt. And they do hurt, although I know I shouldn't let them. But I would rather be open about what I am about to undergo, in the hope that the information might guide you in praying for me, especially since your prayers brought me so many blessings and graces during my cancer treatment last year. Also, I would be grateful for information from anyone who has undergone similar surgery.
Again, the surgery is June 11. I am expected to stay in the hospital for one day and then spend two weeks recovering at home. Thanks so much again to all the readers who have given me prayers and support. Please e-mail me if you have any prayer needs you would like me to have in my intentions as I go into surgery. The one thing that I am looking forward to about the experience is being able to offer up my suffering in the hope that God will use it to help others.
UPDATE, 5/29/09: Thanks so much to everyone who has commented and written to me with prayers. I hope to write back during the weekend to everyone who has sent e-mails.
If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that, as I finished my first year of graduate studies in theology earlier this month, I asked for prayers to help me find a summer job.
Today, I want to thank you so much for your prayers, because they were answered—and how!
I didn't just get a summer job, but a job job, working for a nonprofit whose mission is very close to my heart. Yesterday was my first day as Senior Fellow, Publications and New Media Outreach, for America's oldest national pro-life organization, Americans United for Life. My focus will be on writing and research to promote AUL’s legal expertise through both traditional media and online outlets.
After I became a Christian nearly ten years ago, protecting the dignity of life from conception until natural death became increasingly important to me. In 2005, when I made the decision to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, it was in no small part because of the Church's consistent stand for life.
So, although AUL is a human institution, becoming part of it has a vocational aspect for me, because it enables me to use my writing and editing abilities for a cause that I believe in. As when I wrote The Thrill of the Chaste, I believe that the work I am doing for AUL puts me at one with all those who are working to heal the culture .
I also hope to work to heal the culture on more of a person-to-person level, as a professor of theology at a small Catholic college. To that end, I will be continuing my schooling in the fall. After studying full-time this past year, it will be a challenge to work at the same time as attending school, but it is worth it for the opportunity to contribute to a movement and a cause that mean so much to me.
Thank you so much again for your prayers. I would be grateful if you would keep them coming.
"So often in our utilitarian society we use people and produce things for personal advantage. Liturgy, on the other hand, as we see from the Acts of the Apostles, calls us to be 'of one heart and one mind,' and enables us to see beyond a utilitarian mentality to a new way of living where no one is ‘used’ and no product produced, rather, a person is encountered, and that person is Christ Jesus, and as Saint Paul says, 'Him crucified.' (1 Cor 2:2)"
But a sad side of her life transformation is that she has wholly embraced Catholicism and its false teachings. ...
Dawn recently had a link highlighting a video about a man struggling spiritually. He was crying out for help. Guess who saved him. Jesus? No, it was Mary. The "highlight" of the video was a vision of Mary that shifted to a statue of Mary. Just your basic idol worship.
I’ve read the Bible a bunch. I see remarkably few passages about Mary and none that even hint at the role the Catholic church ascribes to her. Granted, Protestants sometimes overreact the other direction and ignore her, but they are far closer to the truth than Catholics.
I submit that if a vision of Mary comes to you then it isn’t the real Mary. It is Satan, who is leading you away from the truth. [Read the full post.]
I think it is important to acknowledge that Neil's knowledge and instincts are right when he insists, "Mary can't save you." But he is wrong to think that the Church believes that the act of salvation comes from Our Lady. Just as a man who came to the Protestant faith could say that a fellow Christian's witness and prayers were the instrument through which the truth of Jesus' salvation touched his heart, so a Catholic who is devoted to Mary can say the same of her witness and prayers, which are powered by her eternal "Yes" to God.
As an aside, Neil seems to share the misconception of many Protestants in reducing Catholic doctrine on justification to "salvation by works." This is a common misreading of the Council of Trent that could be corrected by studying the council's decree on justification.
Over at RH Reality Check, Elisabeth Garber-Paul ponders the morality of gender-based abortions. Compared to disability, Garber-Paul considers gender to be a "more superficial reason" for killing a human being. Indeed, she flat-out concludes that it is "wrong." She doesn't supply the reason she thinks it's wrong, but, as she explains, it's also wrong to ask for reasons:
We have to be absolute in defending the right to abortion, without parsing the reasons behind it—otherwise, it’s a slippery slope to restricted access. All I can do is disagree [with] this woman, and hold the personal belief that her use of an abortion to control the gender of her children is wrong. But as far as legality, her choice should be protected. No matter what.
I was under the impression at least part of the purpose of the law was to prevent us from doing wrong things, especially things that are very wrong -- like killing. Garber-Paul seems to think that we shouldn't bother with the wrongness inquiry at all, lest the slippery slope lead us to prohibiting things that are right. Unfortunately, she doesn't define "right" either, although one can assume it relates to abortion for economic or lifestyle reasons. Note that in Garber-Paul's ethical universe, one's view on abortion is a "personal belief" whereas one's view regarding the legality of abortions is a moral absolute.
Perhaps it is some sign of progress that anyone at RH Reality Check has seen fit to use the word "abortion" and "wrong" (whatever it means) in the same sentence. But even that semantic achievement provoked epistemological outrage from an RH reader. An esteemed obstetrician/gynecologist (abortionist) writes:
The biggest issue here for me is, how is it that we think we can really determine, much less judge, a woman's reason? It's impossible to get to know a woman's entire situation, as much as we try in the clinical environment. "I don't want a girl" might mean "I don't want a girl". Or, "I don't want a girl" might mean "my husband's family will have me murdered for failing the family if I do not have a boy". As a physician, I think it is *far* beyond my right, or even my capabilities, to determine what means what - no matter how much I try to get to know my patients and understand their circumstances.
I thought that the highly-trained and perceptive Planned Parenthood counselors screened out the women who were aborting under threats of death. But doctor knows best. And if I'm reading this right, the commenter is suggesting that accommodating murder threats is a better reason to abort than gender selection. Not that we can judge between reasons, of course. Or even know what they are.
Christopher West needs to review 'basic aspects of his theology,' says dean of JP2 Institute
The Knights of Columbus's Headline Bistro Web site has published an op-ed by Dr. David Schindler, president of the John Paul II Institute in Washington, D.C., criticizing some of the teachings of the institute's most famous graduate, Theology of the Body speaker/author Christopher West.
Schindler notes that "West has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Church," but says he nonetheless "needs to subject basic aspects of his theology to renewed reflection."
Listing several examples of West's more outré teachings, Schindler says, " offer these examples not merely because they are vulgar and in bad taste, not to mention sometimes bordering on the just plain silly, but because they indicate a disordered approach to human sexuality."
Among his observations:
[A] style of preaching is not merely a matter of "style"–a difference in personality or taste. It is always-also a matter of theology itself. West often tends to treat resistance to the content of his lectures, for example during the question periods, as matters of resistance to the Holy Spirit (to the Spirit now speaking in and through West's “charism”), urging questioners to pray to overcome the fear induced in them by their bad theological-spiritual formation. Well-balanced persons have spoken of how West makes them feel a sense of guilt, of resistance to the Holy Spirit, if they experience uneasiness about what he is saying.
Pope Benedict XVI’s sacramental “style,” integrated within the objectivity of a larger truth that always first calls ourselves into question even as we preach to others, provides a helpful lesson here.
Note: Last week, I invited West, through his publisher, to respond to Father Angelo Mary Geiger's post about his approach to teaching the theology of the body, but did not receive a response.
As with most human matters, the problem here is ego. Pro-lifers need to ask themselves what's more important--that life be protected, or that we win our ego-contest against pro-choicers (and against people like Father Martin who are deemed "insufficiently pro-life")?
Look at the deeper meaning of the two polls that came out last week. One poll said that, for the first time, more Americans declare themselves pro-life than pro-choice. The other poll said that more Catholics approved of Obama at Notre Dame than disapproved.
The first poll was an important sign that we pro-lifers are making inroads toward eventually protecting all human life in law. It is important.
The second poll showed--surprise, surprise--that a majority of Catholics do not view the movement to ban abortion as the centrally important political issue. This poll is much less significant (I'll try to explain below).
Reagan used to quote the wise old maxim, "There's no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." Thanks to sonograms and many other factors, the American people are--over the long haul--turning against abortion. Meanwhile, the pro-choice Catholics are confusing the message about where Catholics stand on this issue. The result may be one of the great historic ironies: The American people in general may be ready to ban abortion before the majority of American Catholics are. An interesting irony, to be sure--but unimportant in historical terms, compared to the actual banning of abortion.
As someone who was for a long time a pro-choice Catholic (now a pro-life Protestant) I beg for your understanding of the pro-choice Catholics. You know what it is with them? Not ill-will, or (except in a very small number of cases) a "pro-abortion" agenda. All it is is a combination of poor catechesis with a laudable if misguided sense of politeness: They have come to believe that legal protection for the unborn is not a matter of human rights and justice, but a sectarian Catholic distinctive (like, e.g., the veneration of relics) that it would be churlish to force on non-Catholics.
But once the pro-choice Catholics see "pro-life" as the American mainstream, I think they, too, will come around. Their being late to the cause will strip away the grounds for any claim that it was "the Catholic vote" or "Catholics" as a whole that stopped abortion; but it cannot take away from the fact that it was the witness of individual Catholics that kept this issue alive--especially back in the early '70s, when even very conservative Protestants were letting themselves get stampeded into the acceptance of abortion-on-demand.
I understand that the Notre Dame event was deeply embarrassing to Catholics who were hoping to present a united pro-life front. I can't sugarcoat that: It was, indeed, a very bad week. But please remember that this problem of abortion was never going to be solved on our schedule, but on the Holy Spirit's--so all of us pro-lifers, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, should just suck it up and move on. Consider the following analogy: Let's say a young George Wallace had been invited to get an honorary degree at Princeton in 1959, and received a warm reception. Pro-civil-rights Princetonians would have been appalled, and heartbroken at the warm welcome. They would have exchanged hard words with the inviters. But all of it--the rage, the ovations, the hard words--would have been wiped away by the tidal wave of what happened with civil rights in the 1960s. Fifty years later--i.e., now--who would care (except someone trying to make a cheap debating point about "Princeton in the old days")?
I have a similar sense right now, deep in my gut: We're winning this thing, and Barack Obama speaks for yesterday. Let's focus on that.
Mike Potemra is literary editor of National Review.
"Why do we Catholics so often bayonet our own troops?"
That question posed last week by Mark Shea in the wake of the vitriol following Christopher West's "Nightline" appearance, applies even more to the treatment of Father James Martin S.J. following his CNN appearance last Sunday.
The author of My Life With the Saints,* interviewed on CNN after President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, made some comments that sparked outrage among pro-life bloggers such as Insight Scoop's Carl Olson. They were made more dramatic by the fact that Martin defended his points even as EWTN host Raymond Arroyo, interviewed alongside him, countered with an articulate defense of Magisterial teachings on life. The layman was correcting the priest, and, to many of those schooled in the breadth of Church teachings on the culture of life, the priest was closer to the views of the prevailing culture than those of the Magisterium.
Among Martin's statements that caused offense were his response to whether Obama deserved the honorary degree from Notre Dame:
I mean, I think first of all, if anyone deserves a degree in law, it’s this constitutional law scholar. I think that needs to be kept in mind. But also, I think the pro-life world is a lot broader than simply abortion. I don’t think you can just sweep the death penalty, torture -- things like that under the carpet. The pro-life world is really what Cardinal Bernardin called ‘a consistent ethic of life.’ I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people in the pro-life movement, life begins at conception, but seems to end there. I mean, it just cannot be about simply abortion, and I really lament the fact that -- that some of the bishops have turned the Gospel of Jesus Christ into simply abortion. And so, I think we need to look at a broader perspective here.
When Arroyo argued that Obama represented a "pro-abortion policy," Martin responded:
I don’t think you can call President Obama pro-abortion. I mean, someone who talked about convening a task force between pro-life and pro-choice people is certainly not someone who is pro-abortion. I don’t know anyone who’s pro-abortion, and I think that label is really very misleading.
I am among those who believe Father Martin is in the wrong on this issue, but that is not my purpose in calling attention to his words. The Jesuit had an opportunity to articulate Catholic teaching in the media spotlight and he blew it. His misstep, however, regardless of whether it reflects deep-seated dissent or simple ignorance, has since been overshadowed and, to my mind, eclipsed, by the unpardonable behavior of numerous people who should know better.
Since the controversy broke, Martin has engaged in dialogue with Olson and several other pro-life bloggers, and, while not offering a complete retraction, has accepted correction on some points. He has also made it clear that he is "unabashedly pro-life." Throughout, he has conducted himself with the utmost civility.
The same cannot be said of many blog commenters and others who have vilified Martin with visible glee, as though they had been saving all their vitriol against Catholic Obama supporters—and particularly against Jesuits—for this very occasion.
Having corresponded with Martin since he guested on this blog last year, I wrote to him to offer background on Obama's record—which is not just pro-abortion, but pro-infanticide—and to ask if he had anything to say about the response to his comments.
He wrote back:
Where, I wonder, does charity fit into all of this?
For me, I respect all of my Catholic brothers and sisters and assume that they are trying to live out their faith lives as best they can. And I know that they are following their consciences in making the best decisions that they can as Christians. So why are we tearing one another apart in the pro-life movement? I am unabashedly pro-life: that is, I believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. Yet I have a quite (and perhaps quietly) different way of working towards that goal.
That difference seems to have earned me enmity among some in the pro-life movement. Critiques about the prudence of a certain strategy call into question my reverence for life, my vocation as a priest, my commitment to my vows as a Jesuit, my fidelity to the church, my Christian beliefs, and led one email correspondent to call me a "murderer," another a "liar," another a "baby-killer," and another "deceitful."
For me, the most helpful way forward come from St. Ignatius Loyola's Spiritual Exercises. "[L]et it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor’s proposition than to condemn it." In other words to give people the benefit of the doubt. Or as Pope Benedict XVI said, "Encounters with others need to be marked by tolerance..." Even, it should be underlined, when those "others" are on the same side, in the church, Catholics all, united in the faith.
Calling for charity is not, as some have charged, "selling out" or "watering down" or "avoiding the issue." It is the foundation of the Christian message and one of the Christian virtues that we set aside at our peril--literally.
In other words, while we're being Catholic we shouldn't forget about being Christian.
While I agree with his warnings against forgetting charity, Father Martin neglects to say is what I believe is really the issue here: He is being used as a scapegoat for the failure of Catholic pro-lifers to convince 53 percent of U.S. Catholics to vote against Obama. In particular, as Archbishop Burke has admitted with regard to the the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' voting guide, there were massive missteps of catechesis in the last presidential election, all the way down from the highest levels of the American Church. Despite the efforts of many pro-lifers to make Obama's abortion extremism known—and, to their credit, they did get through to a slim majority of Mass-attending Catholics—the message did not reach the wider masses, let alone priests such as Father Martin.
Since his CNN interview, Father Martin has admitted to blogger Edward Mechmann that perhaps he is "just naive" in his belief that no one thinks it is "a good thing" for a woman to have an abortion. But then he adds,
In general, though, when Obama says that he wants to "reduce abortions" I think it's good for the church to take him at his word. At least this is a place of common ground--the desire to reduce abortions. It's a start for both sides to come together to work towards the reduction of abortions.
Naivete aside, Father Martin has a point here that is worth considering—if pro-lifers (and I include myself) can overcome their visceral reaction against the vagaries of the Obamaspeak he defends.
Based on his unyielding support of Planned Parenthood, I don't believe Obama wants to reduce abortions by pro-life means such as promoting marriage and aiding pregnant women. I believe that, when he says "reduce abortions," he means "promote contraception, sterilization, and 'comprehensive [e.g. pornographic] sex education.'" Certainly, that is what Planned Parenthood and their allies hear when he says that.
Behind his rose-colored glasses, however, Father Martin's point is that pro-lifers should take Obama at his word and hold him to his promise, putting pressure on him to reduce abortions in ways that don't contradict the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person. That is in fact a point with which some major pro-life organizations agree—otherwise they would not have taken opportunities to meet with White House staff to discuss the issue. The Church likewise, from the Pope with his congratulatory telegram, to Cardinal George with his meeting with the President, has demonstrated her desire to work with Obama through whatever doors he opens to dialogue. He is, after all, the only President we have, and it is, to my mind, utterly foolish to think that the next 44 months will be any better if we stay in our own pro-life echo chamber and adopt a barricade mentality.
Father Martin writes to me that the e-mails he received to his CNN appearance were "overwhelmingly, almost embarrassingly positive." Again, what does that say about the impact the pro-life movement has on the average Catholic? Remember, the priest did not speak in favor of abortion. Rather, he mistakenly characterized Obama as not being pro-abortion. His argument was from the position not of an abortion supporter, but rather of a pro-lifer unwilling to see wrongdoing or base motives on the parts of the President and Notre Dame.
There are millions of Catholics like him, who consider themselves pro-life (as does the majority of the American populace in recent polls), but are charmed by President Obama and believe him when he claims to seek to reduce abortion. They are the ones we should be targeting—not with vitriol and abuse, but with love and truth. It's time to get out of the comboxes, get into the pews and out at the water coolers, and leave the echo chamber behind.
*All commissions on Amazon purchases made through this blog go toward helping pregnant women who suffer from hyperemesis gravidarum. For details, click here.
My friend Alexander Buder has written and directed a remarkable short film aptly titled "Grace."
The last image before the fade-to-white at the end is truly stunning. I will never look at the Mary chapel in my parish (and that is my parish) the same way again.
This fall, Alex (who does not appear in the film) will be a seminarian of the Archdiocese of Washington. Please pray for him and for all seminarians.
Ashli McCall is scheduled to have her biopsy today. Please continue to pray for her.
Earlier this month Ashli received a gracious e-mail from Amy Maughan, a young mother of four. Amy had suffered from hyperemesis gravidarum during a pregnancy in 2007, at which time Ashli sent her a copy of her book on the disease, Beyond Morning Sickness, and offered some advice. Amy now writes:
Well it's been over a year since [our] last email exchange, but my baby just turned one, and the whole pregnancy experience is fresh on my mind as I think back through his life and all it took to get him here. I thought you might enjoy checking my [blog] to see pictures of him, because although we have never met, you and your book played an important part in encouraging me through the darkest days for which I will always be grateful. I mentioned you and your book on the blog which I hope is OK. I hope all is well with you and your family. Thank you for helping a stranger through what seemed so insurmountable. IT WAS ALL WORTH IT!
This e-mail was sent a few days before even Ashli knew of the tumor on her pancreas. Amy was thus not aware of Ashli's health crisis when she wrote. Nevertheless, in the above-referenced blog entry, Amy analogizes the suffering of hyperemesis to the suffering of cancer:
I don't like to bring it up too often, at the risk of sounding 'woe is me.' (Or 'woe was me.') But yesterday marked [my son] Cayman's first year of life, and I feel I pay tribute to the hallowed time spent creating that life when I reflect on the experience. The feeling may be akin to a cancer survivor who values life just a little more for having faced the real possibility of losing it. The battle with HG is different because you are not facing death literally, rather the mental battle of relentless suffering. And this battle does not always end well.
Ashli Foshee McCall suffered hyperemesis gravidarum so horribly that she terminated a pregnancy over it, a decision that haunted her from the moment she was rid of the suffering, and one she will always regret. She has spent all of her years since engaged in helping mothers who suffer the same illness to endure it well, to know their medical options, and never to give up. I admire her so much for turning her own heartache into positive energy that can change the course for others.
Her book was my lifeline during this time: Beyond Morning Sickness. And Ashli herself sent several personal emails to encourage me through the darkest days. She will never know the difference she made for me in my little corner of the world.
We do not know yet whether Ashli does, in fact, have cancer. We pray that she does not. But whatever she faces, Amy's post offers a reminder to remember in our pain the promise of Christ: out of great suffering, great joy; and out of death, life.
Catholic Seattle U. to host Planned Parenthood chaplain on Ascension feast day
Sent to me by a university insider, here is an e-mail that shows how Seattle University, a Jesuit-run institution, plans to mark the Solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord:
From: CampusNews Sent: Wed 5/20/2009 8:05 AM To: Faculty-Staff Subject: Faith and Reproductive Justice
The Institute of Public Service invites you to join a thoughtful conversation about how people of different faiths and backgrounds perceive reproductive justice. The discussion will take place from 6 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, May 21, in Bannan Auditorium (room 102).
Panelists:
Vincent Lachina- state chaplain, Planned Parenthood
Amy Johnson- professional life and parent coach, UCC
Yohanna Kinberg- rabbi, Temple B’nai Torah
Dan Dombrowski- professor of philosophy, College of Arts and Sciences
Jodi O’Brien- professor and chair of sociology, College of Arts and Sciences
"…The decisions we make about our reproductive and sexual lives, but most especially, the decision to have a child, are among the most important decisions that we, as human beings, can make. Having a child is a precious responsibility that changes our lives forever. The privileged in this world, for the most part, have unfettered access to the reproductive health and education services to decide for themselves when and whether to bear or raise a child. The poor and disadvantaged do not. Thus, the struggle for reproductive justice is inextricably bound up with the effort to secure a more just society. Accordingly, those who would labor to achieve economic and social justice are called upon to join in the effort to achieve reproductive justice and, thereby, help realize the sacred vision of a truly just society for all."
- Clergymen for Reproductive Justice
"Reproductive justice is the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, and economic well-being of women and girls, based on the full achievement and protection of women’s human rights."
This campus announcement was issued by the University Communications office. For a complete listing of campus events, visit the campus calendar at http://www.seattleu.edu/go/calendar on the SU website.
For questions concerning campus announcements or the campus calendar, contact Mike Thee, 296-6135.
As The Curt Jester noted after I forwarded him the announcment, the "thoughtful conversation" on "reproductive justice" at the Jesuit-run university consists solely of pro-abortion speakers.
If you would like to know whether other student events at Seattle University are worthy of a Catholic institution of higher learning, have a look at the calendar linked in the above e-mail.
Nina, my neighbor, passes on her Reader's Digests when she's done with them. We always read them cover to cover, with a mixture of interest and annoyance.
RD's approach to medicine, for instance, can be summarized as: "Doctors can work miracles! Never, ever trust your doctor!" They also like featuring Obscure Medical Scares: this issue's is that artificial light can encourage certain forms of cancer -- so every time you go to the bathroom at night, and turn on the light, you're at risk! Use nightlights! Eat breakfast beside a window! Get natural light! (However, if you DO go outside, for heaven's sake don't forget sunscreen.)
But, anyway, on to what annoyed me. There was a long article on a trend among teenagers: texting nude photos of themselves to friends, without realizing that the photos could easily be sent out for universal viewing. Parents are informed and warned about what their teens (as young as 12) could be doing with their phones. Parents need to explain what is appropriate, and emphasize that once a picture is texted, there's no getting it back. Parents need to point out that years from now, those same pictures could jepoardize job options or even lead to criminal charges.
What parents are never advised to do, however, is tell their 15-year-old girl, "You absolutely shouldn't be showing pictures of your body to anybody. Your body is yours to protect, not send out for others' enjoyment." Parents aren't told that their teen boys should know that pornography, even self-created, is detrimental to themselves and to those they send it to. In short, teens are never told that it's actually a wrong thing to do -- only that it could bring them embarrassment and trouble later.
"Teens are sexual beings," the article quoted someone as saying. Thanks for that enlightenment. Teenagers are humans, after all -- and darn immature ones at that. They need things explained to them. To girls in particular, showing off your body is an easy way to get lots of attention. They need a responsible adult to tell them that pornography is a corrosive influence, reducing people to objects of selfish gratification. It's a bad start in life to give your friends and acquaintances the opportunity to whet that selfish appetite on your own body.
Why is it that today's culture thinks that 16-year-olds are old enough to understand and deal with sexual relationships on their own? Teenagers can't even handle friendships in a rational manner. But if the only caution you can give your child is, "Don't do that because it might get you in trouble later," then you're waving the white flag and the battle is over.
I care enough about my children, and my friends' children, and the beautiful, alienated teenagers I pass in town, to say, "You shouldn't do this. It's wrong." To do less is to hand our children over to those who want them only for their bodies.
Sara Jones is a freelance writer, homeschooler, blogger, and mother of three (with the fourth due in a few weeks). The above is reprinted from her blog with permission.
Speaking at Notre Dame, President Obama called for us to find common ground on abortion in a fair-minded, civil debate. But you will search in vain for the man's own scholarship on the issue. The question of when life begins is by his own admission above his pay grade, and his contribution to the dialogue has consisted of nothing but the usual shrill and simplistic abortion-lobby cliches. The last thing Planned Parenthood wants Americans to do is think about the nature of abortion—whether aided by arguments or ultrasounds— and its talk about "common ground" amounts to little more than this.
If you are not a conservative, try Vasu Murti's The Liberal Case Against Abortion. Bernard Nathanson's Aborting America, in addition to providing a fascinating history of the abortion movement in the United States, will give you valuable insights into the pro-choice mindset and strategy.
After reading any one of these books you will discover that your pro-choice opponents are not merely outgunned, but, in fact, completely unarmed.
*When you purchase from Amazon through a link on The Dawn Patrol, the commission on your purchase goes to help pregnant women who suffer from hyperemesis gravidarum. For details, click here.
Brother Joseph Carignano (1853-1919), an Italian Jesuit who was the cook at the mission for many years, painted 58 frescoes on the walls and ceiling of the church, despite no formal art training and only being able to work on the murals in between his regular jobs. The frescoes depict scenes from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, as well as portraits of several saints. Behind the main altar is a triptych of the three visions of St. Ignatius Loyola, and above that a mural of the Last Judgement. Pictures of Mary and Joseph adorn the side altars. These vibrant paintings throughout the church are awe-inspiring, appearing as fresh as if they had been painted yesterday.
'No, Mr. President' John Piper pierces Obama's pro-abort arguments
John Piper's sermon on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade should be required listening for preachers of every stripe, an object lesson in how to speak the truth on abortion politics.
Piper is an interesting character—a strict Calvinist who recommends his flock read G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy even though he realizes it may cause a few of them to be "swept away into the folly of Roman Catholic sacramentalism." (I can vouch that he's right about the risk, though not the "folly.")
*Clicking on the title of Kevin's book will take you to its Amazon purchase page. All commissions on Amazon purchases made via this blog go toward helping pregnant women who suffer from hyperemesis gravidarum. For details, click here.
Priestly society recommended as new home for ex-Legionaries
In the wake of recent revelations about the sins of the founder of the Legion of Christ, which has prompted the Holy See to initiate an Apostolic Visitation to investigate the order, the question arises of what will become of those Legionaries who wish to leave.
The initial members of this missionary society went through something very similar to what the LC's are going through. They belonged to the Sons of Mary, a Canadian group which basically "went mad" and is now in schism with the Church because of false mysticism and other warped attitudes too long to describe here. Having also known the Sons of Mary, this ex-LC also knows that there were some healthy spiritual characteristics in the Sons of Mary that were identical to the LC's. Indeed in the mid 80s, the Sons of Mary were the only religious with which the members of the LC's could mingle freely. Their devotion to the Eucharist, to the Blessed Mother and their faithfulness to the Pope were akin to that of the LC's. [Read the full post.]
Comments closed; leave your comments at Exlcblog. Please pray for the current and former members of the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi, and for the Apostolic Visitators.
I finished my first year of graduate school in theology last Thursday and, after God's grace, the prayers of my friends and the saints, and the contributions of my professors and classmates, the people I have to thank the most for my making it through are the Trouble Dolls.
They are a band I used to see when I lived near New York City who put out a solitary album* in 2002. From the beginning of my first semester at Dominican House of Studies last fall, one of their songs got stuck in my head—this one.
Every morning as I got onto the Metro to go to school, the "E" note of the door chimes would restart the song in my head—the same note, in the same key, as the beginning of the Trouble Dolls' tune. (You can hear the chimes in this short video.)
The song would still be with me as I arrived at school, its Socratic spirit forming a mental undercurrent to my studies. The effect was like having the Litany of Humility on a tape loop.
It is strangely comforting to realize that you do not know everything, and even more so to realize that you do not know anything. I cannot claim to be a holy fool, but, to whatever extent I am teachable, it is thanks at least in part to the Trouble Dolls' reminder.
*If you listen to the entire album, be aware that one song, "Invitation," begins with a profanity.
I have been thinking about suffering and its meaning, and planning to write a long post on the subject, inspired in part by Spe Salvi and Salvifici Doloris.
For now, I would like to share a thought that I hope will be of some comfort to friends of mine who are suffering, some of whom I have mentioned on this blog, and some of whom I have not.
In Eden, when man consented for sin to enter him, it opened up a wound that he could not heal himself. The evil of the sin poured in, like a poison, while man's God-given graces drained out, like the blood drained from animals in the ancient Jewish temple sacrifices.
Since his sin severed his integral bond with his Lord, man was left with no principle of return within himself, no route through which he could offer the graces he was losing back to his Maker so that he might be restored and re-created.
In the the time of His Passion, when Jesus consented for sin to pierce Him, it opened up a wound that He chose not to heal. The evil of the sin could not enter His soul as it did man's, but He allowed it to physically cut through His Sacred Heart. As it did, because Jesus is both human and divine, giving His flesh "for the life of the world," out of His wounds flowed not only His human blood, but His healing graces, even His very own divine life. He chose to receive His wounds as the means by which He would diffuse His goodness to the world.
So our wounds, which our sins created, become through Jesus' grace the means by which He would enter into us, healing us and making us part of His Mystical Body. This is what it means to be healed by His stripes.
Suffering, then, has a purpose, has meaning.
Everybody suffers from separation from God, but not everyone is blessed with awareness of the true nature of their suffering, because we are likely to attribute our pain simply to our not getting what we want—our lack of good health, lack of a job, lack of a friend or spouse.
Because Christ allowed Himself to be wounded for our sake, we who suffer—regardless of whether our suffering originates in our own sin, those of others, or the effects of a fallen world—can unite ourselves to Him more deeply by recognizing our own wounds and inviting Him to enter them.
So, there are wounds that lead to death, and wounds that leads to life.
That is why it is so sad when people do anything they can to distract themselves from any awareness of suffering.
Certainly, pain is bad; it is a result of the Fall. But building one's life around avoiding it, numbing oneself mentally or physically to the point of invulnerabillity, shuts out not only pain, but Love.
Inside every hurt is an opening for Christ. Don't miss the opportunity to let Him in.
Finished my first year of graduate school on Thursday with my last two finals. Thanks so much to everyone who's been praying for me.
I do still need to find work for the summer—editing, copyediting, writing, or doing PR. A few freelance opportunities have come up, but I do not yet have enough to carry me until school resumes in the fall. I would be grateful if you would ask St. Joseph and St. Anthony to pray for me as I continue my search. If you hear of any leads, please e-mail me. Also, do e-mail me if you would like to let me know of your prayer needs so I may pray for you as well. Thanks so much again and God bless you.
Here is something special for my friend Jeff Hendrix, who, as he undergoes treatment for cancer, is thinking about heaven a lot these days (prayers, please). It's a Eucharistic Procession at the Angelicum in Rome on the feast of Our Lady of Fatima this past Wednesday, with faculty, staff, and students chanting in Latin the Litany of the Sacred Heart and that of the Most Precious Blood.
If you offered your support in the comments section of the prayer request I posted for Ashli, listen for your name:
Raving Theist has the latest on Ashli's health crisis. She is not out of the woods yet, but there is reason to hope. As she says in the video above, she is grateful for your continued prayers—please keep them up.
Christopher West's blind spot TOB has to be seen through Church's historical teachings A guest post by FR. ANGELO GEIGER F.I.
I would like to thank Dawn Eden for the opportunity to guest post. It's a real privilege.
These blog critiques of popular ideas almost inevitably get derailed by the irritation caused on both sides. I see that Mark Shea has seen it necessary to end the courtroom proceedings being conducted on his blog. It is likely to turn into something like a Harry Potter debate: the Chris West Haters vs. the Chris West Groupies. Eventually we won't even remember the real issues at hand.
I can't speak for everyone, but I have never questioned the orthodoxy or the intellectual honesty of Christopher West or any of the popularizers of the theology of the body (TOB), but since when does a person's uprightness and good intentions put their ideas beyond critique? He is a well known writer and speaker, whose subject matter is sensitive, and as one who speaks to the masses, he is looking for the easiest and most effective way to communicate difficult and sensitive ideas. Some of the things he says about sex, regardless of what he actually means, are inherently controversial.
The problem is that sometimes the combox is too easy a place to lock and load, fire and reload. But the sword cuts both ways: I am not out to sentence and execute Chris West, so don't suggest that a critique of his thought, even if you disagree with that critique, is an effort to, in Shea's words, "bayonet our own troops."
When I read the Nightline interview online and saw West making a comparison between the pope and the playboy, it just confirmed for me the existence of a problem I had addressed in several otherposts on my own blog not long before. In summary the problem consists in West's interpretation of the past and the future and the way in which the present age of TOB is the hermeneutical key for both.
West agrees explicitly with the diagnosis of Hugh Hefner as to the disease that afflicts us with respect to sexuality, namely "our puritan heritage." He disagrees with Hefner's proposed cure, namely, pornography and lust. He proposes, with George Weigel, TOB as a "theological time bomb" that addresses both the disease and the false cure. But this implies that before TOB the Church's position was puritanical. I know West's position is actually more nuanced than this, and that his method is apologetical, aimed at those who have never heard the Church's teaching, but the fact is that puritanism is not the real disease afflicting our sexuality. The real disease is original sin. Both puritanism and pornographic lust are a function of fallen nature.
West is easily interpreted as suggesting that without TOB Catholics have never had any clear vision of what God's intention for human sexuality was from the beginning. Otherwise, would he not make a greater effort to teach chastity with a hermeneutic of continuity instead of concentrating almost exclusively on a very narrow part of magisterial teaching on human sexuality? It seems he is suggesting that our past has been clouded by puritanism because we did not have TOB, and our future will be the age of the love banquet because we do.
Is my interpretation of West a bit facile? But this is the problem with trying to popularize a work of deep theology and philosophy. It is not even clear to me whether West is engaged in apologetics or catechesis. The two are not the same thing. Apologetics is a kind of preamble to catechesis that elicits the assent of faith in respect to difficult truths by way of arguments that are easily understood and appealing to someone who has no basic understanding of revelation. Catechesis is sacramental preparation or ongoing education, based on faith already elicited.
Granted, the two overlap: Catechumens will often have to come to terms with issues they have a hard time with before their initial catechesis is completed, but apologetical explanations are not sufficient to complete a catechesis. If a new vision of human sexuality gets them in the door, only the tradition of the ages will get them to the sanctuary. In either case, TOB is not easily distilled to those who are relatively uninitiated.
The fact is the fundamental problem with human sexuality, even in the Victorian age and that of the sexual revolution is original sin. West acknowledges the fact of original sin when he says:
Of course, on this side of heaven, we will always be able to recognize a battle in our hearts between love and lust. Only in eternity will the battle cease, as will marriage as we know it.
But he says this only in passing. His real point is the following:
There will be no renewal of the Church and the world without a renewal of marriage and the family. And there will be no renewal of marriage and the family without a return to the full truth of the Christian sexual ethic. This will not happen, however, unless we can find a compelling way to demonstrate to the modern world that the biblical vision of sexuality is not the prudish list of prohibitions it is so often assumed to be, but rather it is the banquet of love for which we so desperately yearn.
West is right that many do assume that the Church's "vision of sexuality" is a "prudish list of prohibitions," but the vast majority of people today assume that the prohibition of fornication, contraception and soft-core pornography is prudish. Is Hefner really a pornographer because of prudery, or is perhaps the "Playboy Philosophy" just a obsessive rationalization for lust? I am not saying that prudery was not a factor in Hefner's life, but it simply does not account for the extent of his monumentally prurient behavior. So is prudery the real problem? I think our real work is not to show how TOB rescued the biblical vision of sexuality, but to show how the teaching of the Church in general has been misinterpreted.
I said that my problem with West's presentation is his interpretation of the past and the future and the way in which the present age of TOB is the hermeneutical key for both. What I mean is that his fundamental interpretation of the past is prudery and his fundamental interpretation of the future is something akin to original innocence. Original sin gets lost in the shuffle. The message is that we've got to be positive. "Think good thoughts via TOB," we are told, "and everything will settle down."
It's not going to happen. It's not.
West often uses a story that illustrates his point in an excellent manner. It also illustrates mine. It is the story of the two bishops and the prostitute. The bishops both see a scantily clad prostitute who is displaying her wares for all to see. One bishop mortifies his eyes, the other, West says, "looks at her intently." When the first rebukes the second, the offending bishop replies: "How tragic that such beauty is being sold to the lusts of men." West says that both bishops behaved appropriately. The first turned away, because he was at a level of spiritual development where concupiscence still had a hold on him. The other looked at the half naked seductress and rejoiced in her beauty because he had moved beyond concupiscence. It's a two-step procedure, you see.
West is careful to qualify his meaning:
I am not suggesting that the average man should look for opportunities to test his purity by gazing upon scantily clad women. Indeed the large majority of men must heed the Old Testament admonition to "turn away your eyes."
Even so, West clearly suggests that those who are more advanced will find a kind of state of original innocence, and one based on knowledge of TOB. But as West knows shame is not fundamentally a function of prudery, but of the effect of original sin. And prudery is not primarily a function of theoretical Manicheanism, but of internal conflicts borne of original sin. Very few Catholics, in my experience, who have an excessive morbid focus on sexual sin believe that either the body or sex are evil. The problem is not fundamentally theoretical or related, as Hefner claims, to the fact that people don't get hugged often enough. The problem is complex and related to a fallen nature, a nature that, though redeemed, will never achieve original innocence without an extraordinary grace.
These problems are not going to be cured by some presumed new vision revealed or restored by a single pope. "Mature Christian purity" does not look like the example of the second bishop and not that of the first. Dr. Alice von Hildebrand is right when she says that West's line of thinking is dangerous and he is dealing with something more difficult than he seems to realize.
In the end, perhaps Christopher West is propounding apologetics more than catechesis and theology. He is a brilliant apologist and his work to get sex-saturated men of the world through the door is impressive, but one should not discount von Hildebrand's horror with the edgy talk. This method has its liabilities.
Does the average man really benefit by more talk about sex? He probably thinks he does. "Yes, more of it. How could it ever be enough when it is so holy?"
Come on. Do we really need to think about all the alleged sexual imagery in the liturgy, like the phallic symbolism of the paschal candle that West touts? Is this really the level on which the transformation is going to take place? Apologetics is not enough. A singular focus on one narrow corpus of magisterial teaching is not going to do the trick, as TOB expert and author Father José Granados notes:
"Moreover, one of the results of the sexual revolution is precisely the pansexualism that surrounds our society. We cannot respond with a different kind of pansexualism, with a sort of 'Catholic sexual revolution,' which in the end promotes a similar obsession with sex, even if 'holy.'"
I don't expect Christopher West and his most fervent disciples to agree with me on this, but I certainly hope they recognize that the liabilities of their approach are real and need to be dealt with, not simply by refutationof the position represented here, but by means of greater care in their presentation. There should be less sex talk and broader catechetical, sacramental and spiritual formation. All of this should be done with a hermeneutic of continuity, not with a hermeneutic of TOB.
Father Angelo Geiger, a Franciscan Friar of the Immaculate, blogs at maryvictrix.com.
"It was a soldier of Christ that I became at Confirmation; but, with terrifying stupidity, after Confirmation I seemed to act as if the struggle was mine alone, which I must fight single-handed and unaided. I was like a half-witted soldier who wandered off on to the battlefield to carry on his own particular guerilla warfare, sniping and then running, taking a quick blow at some unsuspecting or weak foe and then retreating like mad before the assault of an organized enemy. I fought with almost no reference to the Strong Spirit in my heart.
"It would be surprising, indeed, in view of our dumbfounding neglect of the Spirit of God, if we did not often feel and often play the paltroon, the ignoramus, and the coward. With cocky self-assurance we draw upon our own wisdom and fall back upon our own strength. We are annoyed and often frightfully discouraged; we feel put out with ourselves and at odds with God when we fail Him because we have failed ourselves. We have failed ourselves because blindly, stupidly, and with more than a brush of egoism, we have failed to call upon the God within us.
"What is frightfully needed is a society for the Proper Understanding of Confirmation.
"What is pressingly wanted by the vast majority of the Catholic world is an apostle to cry out: 'Turn to the God within your hearts.'
"Perhaps the prayer we most need when we are beset by the doubters who hate our faith and the rebels who have declared war upon the Kingdom of Christ is 'Come, Holy Ghost.'"
In the "Nightline" interview, West, while presenting himself as a teacher of the theology of the body (TOB) that was articulated by John Paul II, talked about what he said were the "profound historical connections" between the late Holy Father and Hugh Hefner.
Renowned Catholic thinker Dr. Alice von Hildebrand has criticized Theology of the Body speaker Christopher West, saying his approach has become too self-assured. She criticized his presentations as irreverent and insensitive to the "tremendous dangers" of concupiscence.
Also cautious of West’s remarks on his recent interview with ABC television were Mary Shivanandan and Fr. José Granados, both Catholic authors and theologians.
The news segment showed him calling for Catholics to complete "what the sexual revolution began." He also described "very profound" historical connections between Hugh Hefner and Pope John Paul II.
West spoke to CNA on Friday, claiming the report somewhat sensationalized his views. He also denied several characterizations conveyed by the news story, explaining that he believed Hefner to be right in rejecting "the disease of Puritanism" but radically wrong in beginning the "pornographic revolution."
He had told ABC that Hefner had a "yearning," an "ache" and a "longing" for love, union and intimacy.
In a Monday interview CNA spoke about West with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, a Catholic philosopher and theologian who is professor emerita of Hunter College of the City University of New York. ...
She said there is obviously an “abysmal difference” between the views shared by her husband and John Paul II and those presented by Christopher West.
Reporting that she had seen CNA’s follow-up interview with West, Dr. Von Hildebrand was very critical of the speaker.
"My feeling is that Christopher West has become famous because he started discussing the Theology of the Body, which is extremely appealing topic. The difficulty is that, in the meantime, he became so famous that I do believe he has become much too self-assured and has lost sight of the extreme sensitivity of the topic."
This is "very troubling" because what she calls the "intimate sphere" is something "very mysterious, very profound, something that has a direct relationship with God."
"My feeling is that his vocabulary and his way of approaching it totally lacks reverence."
"Reverence is the key to purity," she told CNA.” The intimate sphere "is not a topic of public discussion" but is "extremely serious."
"It seems to me that his presentation, his vocabulary, the vulgarity of things that he uses are things that simply indicate that even though he might have good intentions he has derailed and is doing a lot of harm."
She said people should not forget that we have been "profoundly affected" by original sin.
"In paradise there was perfect harmony between Adam and Eve. There was no concupiscence."
"After original sin, not only were we separated from God and condemned to losing eternity. On top of it, every single human faculty was affected. Our intelligence was darkened. Our will was weakened. And all of a sudden, we had the dreadful experience of something called concupiscence."
Before the Fall, there was no inner temptation to impurity between Adam and Eve even though they were naked, she explained. After they sinned, the two started to look at one another with concupiscence.
The Fall had consequences that are "so serious" that it was only the Redemption and the grace of God could remedy.
The fight against concupiscence is "not an easy process," Dr. von Hildebrand continued. "It is something that calls for holiness, which very few of us achieve. It is a sheer illusion to believe that by some sort of new technique we can find the solution to the problem." ...
"To my mind the conflict between man and woman can only be healed by striving for holiness," she said. "There are many things Christopher West does not mention."
After more comments from von Hildebrand, the article quotes another author:
Mary Shivanandan, a theologian who authored the book "Crossing the Threshold of Love: A New Vision of Marriage in the Light of John Paul II’s Anthropology," was also critical of West’s remarks.
"The sublime teaching of John Paul II's theology of sexuality is not well served by West’s comparison to Hugh Hefner and his playboy bunnies," she told CNA in a Monday e-mail. "The late pope had a profound reverence for God's plan for human love, which such a comparison, no matter how well intentioned, can only diminish and degrade."
Also providing comment for CNA was Fr. José Granados, a theologian who co-authored with Supreme Knight of Columbus Carl Andersen a book on John Paul II's Theology of the Body titled "Called to Love.”
Fr. Granados said West's suggestion that John Paul II took the sexual revolution a step further was "highly inadequate and open to serious misunderstanding." ...
"The Pope’s proposal is not just about sexuality, but about the truth of love as the foundation of the person’s dignity and the meaning of reality; and about the family as the place where the person finds himself and his way towards happiness.
"Moreover, one of the results of the sexual revolution is precisely the pansexualism that surrounds our society. We cannot respond with a different kind of pansexualism, with a sort of 'Catholic sexual revolution,' which in the end promotes a similar obsession with sex, even if 'holy'."[Read the full article.]
m.jpg)
