- Article Tools
A Call for Fair Treatment of West
by Janet E. Smith
Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics
Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, Michigan
Christopher West was one of the first to see the phenomenal possibilities of the Theology of the Body for helping people of our times understand the truth about man and his relationship with God, about the meaning of masculinity and femininity and of the true meaning of sexuality. And what an insight, for this is a very dense book, not easy for most to pick up and read and understand. West had virtually no secondary material to help him work through the Theology of the Body. His study at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family prepared him to some extent to be sure, but in many ways West is a pioneer and the fact that he got so much right is remarkable.
Not only has the public learned a great deal from West, but West’s commentary on the Theology of the Body is an excellent tool for scholars as well. This man has poured over the text of the Theology of the Body; he has had his ideas tested in many arenas; he has read extensively in the growing scholarship on the Theology of the Body. He is no amateur; he is no mere popularizer. He has deepened his understanding of the Theology of the Body over the years and he has adjusted his presentation in many ways and certainly will continue to do so. Criticism of his work is to be welcomed but it must be delivered in a way as to be useful. I know that Prof. Schindler intends to assist West in developing a better understanding of the Theology of the Body, but I continue to have serious misgivings regarding the manner in which the conversation about Christopher West’s work has unfolded.
It surprises me that Prof. Schindler defends his use of unsubstantiated examples taken out of context in his critique of the work of West. As he notes, West has published books and has many CDs and DVDs. Those should be more than sufficient to find missteps if there are such. I once served on a Special Commission of the Holy See. We used only published works as evidence for positions of those we investigated. We believed it would have been irresponsible to have relied upon anything else. There was a great deal at stake: jobs, apostolates and reputations. Schindler is raising the possibility not only that there are elements of bad taste in West’s work but that there may be serious theological errors as well. I continue to think he has not made a sufficient case for either and I continue to question his choice of an Internet blog to raise his questions.
Schindler challenges West’s defenders to drop our demands for evidence and context and just respond to his criticisms. Again, without context it is difficult to know whether any of the examples of bad taste noted by Schindler in his first critique were in fact inappropriate and so inappropriate as to merit a public chastisement. Yet, for the record, I have dealt with two of Schindler’s “methodological” critiques in my original response (praying over reproductive organs and a certain difficult-to-talk about sexual “act”) and here I will take up another – the Easter Candle. For those who would like a defense of West’s reference to Hugh Hefner see West’s own (given on his webpage) and Michael Healy’s response. I wouldn’t use the example myself, but I don’t think it worthy of a wholesale attack or a wholesale defense; the issue is very overblown. Again, neither Waldstein nor I can defend West against all of Schindler’s charges of bad methodology because we don’t know the context of West’s statements. The burden of proof is on those who make the charges. But those who haven’t heard West and his delightfully engaging style should go to his website and read some of the articles with titles like “Brad Pitt and the Meaning of Marriage” and “Dr. Ruth meets Thomas Aquinas.” Some might find those titles silly and in bad taste; others might find them amusing and even brilliant.
I know that West’s talks have elements that challenge the sensitivities of many. When I heard West in his first series of talks claim that the submersion of the Easter Candle into the holy water font was sexual imagery used by the Church to show that, through baptism, spiritual children are born, I was appalled. Actually any reference to phallic symbols appalls me – I think mine may be a prudish response – and, in this context, I thought it was vulgar and irreverent. Imagine my surprise to learn that liturgists and theologians from the early days of the Church have understood the Easter Candle just as West does. Recently a priest – one who is a great public apologist for orthodoxy – told me that he thinks many priests are acutely aware of the sexual symbolism of the Easter candle/holy water font imagery during the Easter liturgy. I was humbled when I realized my judgment had been based upon ignorance and prudery. I think giving a list of phrases that will shock without context invites people to make judgments based on ignorance and prudery. I don’t in fact know why Schindler objects to West’s claim about the tradition of the Easter candle.
As a good Aristotelian would know the mean can often be difficult to find and not everyone will acknowledge it when it is found. As Aristotle said: “For the brave man appears rash relatively to the coward, and cowardly relatively to the rash man; and similarly the temperate man appears self-indulgent relatively to the insensible man…” Thus some of West’s examples will seem racy to the prudish and prudish to the licentious. We must realize that we cannot expect West to be able to find a mode of presentation on such difficult issues that offends no one and we need to separate discussions of possible “objective distortions” of a theological nature from questions of the appropriateness of this or that illustrative example or analogy.
Schindler thinks that some things ought never to be discussed in public. I suppose one of them would be a mode of preparation for intercourse that many don’t like to think or talk about (forgive my vagary; see my earlier piece for more specifics). Let me note that Schindler brought it up in his critique of West. Perhaps he would justify doing so because West deals with the question in various venues. Of course, West addresses the issue only because it comes up in Question and Answer periods. I suppose West could say “I will answer that question only in private. Those who would like an answer can meet me in Room X after this talk is done.” I daresay nearly the whole assembly would reassemble to hear the answer. (And I hope they would listen more closely to his answer than some have read my mention of this “act” in my original response: I did not and do not defend it. I merely note that the writers of moral manuals used to train seminarians for about 150 years have defended it. These books received nihil obstats and imprimaturs.)
As noted, Schindler raises the possibility that there may be serious theological errors in West’s work and, of course, he is free to do so, but must do so responsibly. If there are theological errors they are not of such an egregious nature that they caught the attention of such a capable theologian as William E. May who gave a nihil obstat to West’s work. Since it is not yet sufficiently established that West has made serious theological errors, Schindler should be very careful about airing his concerns on an Internet blog; he should make them known through proper channels.
Schindler acknowledges that “in normal circumstances” he should have made his arguments against West in a slower, scholarly fashion but that because West is a popular public figure he was willing to use the media and create a firestorm. I would argue the opposite. I would argue that precisely because West is such a public figure, for an influential scholar to raise very serious objections in a public forum is unjust. Those who are not in a position to judge the merit of the objections will use Schindler’s authority to oppose the work of West. As Schindler so rightly states, it takes time to assess the validly of arguments. The objections he makes should be made in a scholarly forum where their merit can be carefully assessed – over a long period of time.
Schindler invites West to make a defense of himself in the scholarly journal Communio but he has not yet made a case against which West can respond. Schindler’s interpretive objections are still largely unsubstantiated. Yes, he does give a reference to one portion West’s recorded talks where he believes he finds three errors. Just what we need, for it allows us to assess the merit of Schindler’s critique. But again that is not a quick and easy process. In Schindler’s critique, after he repeatedly asks whether West gives “sufficient weight” to this point or that, he acknowledges that West gets the “essential truth” right and acknowledges that he (Schindler) is mainly concerned about subtleties – crucial subtleties to be sure. (How very academic that sounds to me!) Anyone who would set out to determine the legitimacy of Schindler’s concerns, would have to listen to the rest of the series to determine how West set up his presentation; Given West’s project, would we expect him to treat the concerns Schindler raises? And: Does West in later talks in the same series take up points not addressed in the portion cited? Genuine assessment requires such careful examination of claims.
One reason Schindler fails to provide citations from West’s works to illustrate his charges may be that in some instances Schindler is trying to prove a negative: West isn’t doing what or enough of what Schindler thinks he should do. Schindler says that West’s presentation of the Theology of the Body is not Marian enough. (Is John Paul II’s Theology of the Body Marian enough?) If so, can Schindler show that West has missed the Marian elements of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? Can Schindler justifiably say, "You should have said X about passage A but you failed to do so?" If he can’t do that, what is West supposed to do?
Even when he claims to detect positive "distortions" in West, Schindler still refuses to substantiate his charges. How can West respond to the charge: “You give too much emphasis to sexuality in your interpretation of the Theology of the Body”? West could ask, “How much emphasis is too much? Where do I do that?” In one of my job reviews a “concern” was raised: “There is a perception that you spend too much time on pro-life work.” I asked “How much time do I spend?” No answer. I asked “How much time would be too much time?” No answer. I asked, “Do I spend more time on pro-life work than other professors spend on their children’s soccer matches, birthday parties, etc.?” No answer. West should ask of Schindler, “What in my work makes you have the concerns that you do?” Again, until Schindler substantiates his charges, West can only shadow-box.
Schindler critiques West for promoting a Theology of Sex rather than a Theology of the Body. Yes the Theology of the Body is about much more than sex, but surely it is about sex (it was written to defend Humanae Vitae ). Scholars and presenters regularly take one theme from a work and give it concentrated attention while ignoring many other prevalent themes. Such need not mean that one is giving a distorted or inaccurate reading of a work. Let me throw at least one text into the debate (oh, how we need texts in this debate!). In the Theology of the Body, John Paul II says: “The theology of the body, which is linked from the beginning with the creation of man in the image of God, becomes in some way also a theology of sex, or rather a theology of masculinity and femininity,” (9:5, Waldstein’s translation). Schindler may respond that West speaks of sexual intercourse, when John Paul II speaks of gender, but I think that charge will not be borne out. West is very clear to acknowledge that John Paul II focuses on masculinity and femininity and not on the sexual act. With that kind of comment, Schindler seems to me to risk sliding into sound bites as criticism rather than textual citation as criticism. It is time for more citation of texts; not sound bites, not implication, but substantiated criticism.
Schindler defends his refusal to cite texts by saying: “Given the nature of what is at stake, and the vast and varied forms of West’s work, these issues have no hope of being resolved through an endless to-and-fro of citation/example and counter-citation/example. The issues will be resolved not by a call to arms, but only by inviting all involved to patient reflection.” I am sorry but I find that statement to be a huge dodge. He seems to be saying, “If you just think long and hard enough about what I say, you will see that I am right about West. I don’t need to cite texts to support my charges.” This leaves West virtually no avenue for defense. Yes, patient reflection is needed, but patient reflection on evidence, not on unsubstantiated charges.
For my part, I found Schindler’s rendition of what embodiment introduces into the meaning of love to be profound, beautiful, and accurate and a great supplement to the theology of the body, but I don’t recall John Paul II expressing such views in the Theology of the Body. Here Schindler is making his own very valuable contribution to the reflections John Paul II instigated. But for Schindler to criticize West for not acknowledging his supplementary insights hardly seems fair.
Schindler and West have very different agendas in their approach to the Theology of the Body. Aquinas’ distinction between a per se ordering of explanations (the order in accord with being or logic) and a quoad nos explanation (or the order in accord with what is most understandable to the student) may be helpful here. That is, often it is proper to teach subjects in the logical order; in a per se ordering, metaphysics would precede anthropology and anthropology would precede ethics. But in philosophy departments with core curriculums, often students are taught these subjects in the reverse order; they study ethics first and then anthropology and then metaphysics. Schindler is presenting certain truths in a per se order and even articulating some of the truths about the human person that John Paul II does not articulate. That is a wonderful contribution to our understanding of the Theology of the Body. John Paul II and West have not undertaken the same project that Schindler undertakes. Their approach to topics is chosen for pedagogical reasons and thus they may not go into some of what Schindler considers essential for understanding the relation of the person to God and the body to love. Those underpinnings may be metaphysically and logically necessary to the Theology of the Body but it may not be necessary for all of those studying the TOB to grasp these underpinnings and in fact may be an obstacle to understanding by some. West has even a more difficult task than John Paul II had: West is trying to transmit the truths about sexuality found in the Theology of the Body to those who have virtually no theological background and whose understanding of sexuality and even God have been shaped by a very corrupt culture. Walk a mile in his shoes…
I apologize if the above is too academic, but from my perspective this is an academic dispute.
Schindler has posited that West’s interpretation of the Theology of the Body may be dangerous. That is a serious charge and I know he doesn’t make it lightly. Again, I respect Schindler’s scholarship and his intellect. I believe here that he is stepping outside of the arena where the kinds of concerns he raises are best and appropriately addressed – the academic arena where issues can receive patient reflection and prolonged and careful assessment; not the arena of the Internet blog which invites hasty and unreflective judgment.
Schindler disputes my claim that some of his objections are academic. To say that they are academic in this case does not mean they are unimportant. What I mean is that they belong in the academy. Certainly they are important and to get wrong some of the issues Schindler addresses would have serious implications. But, as I noted in my first response, academics and scholars disagree ferociously about issues. For instance, some phenomenologists argue that evil has being, whereas Thomists insist that evil is an absence of being. The true definition of evil has enormous implications for the nature of God and his universe but this is a dispute that is rarely appropriate to engage in the public sphere. Thomists think the view of phenomenologists is “dangerous” and phenomenologists think the view of Thomists is “dangerous.” When the public hears us say that the position the opposition holds is dangerous and may involve a slide into unorthodoxy, they understandably become very concerned. If they understood how we academics operate they may not be so concerned.
I know some people say that Prof. Schindler has articulated what they have felt to be troublesome about West’s work but when I press them for substantiation they refer to impressions they have about West’s work. Most of them were exposed to his work some ten years ago and have not listened to or read any more recent presentations, so it is difficult to know if what they first perceived remains true. I mean neither to suggest that West’s work is above criticism nor that those who do a close study of West’s work would find it unproblematic. But when so much is at stake, great care must be taken to ensure that criticisms made are based on reality, not perceptions. No one doubts that West sincerely wants his presentation of the Theology of the Body to be free from serious theological error. He must be given very clear guidance in what ways his works might fail in that regard; to do any less is not to serve him or his audience well.
Schindler notes that his intention is not to see West’s projects fail. The problem, of course, is that some people will attempt to use Schindler’s authority to try to make West’s projects fail; they believe they are protecting others from someone who may be spreading serious theological errors. I have already heard from a bishop and a conference organizer that Schindler’s critique was sent to them to dissuade them from sponsoring West. And of course we have the scurrilous piece on Slate. I believe some good things are coming out of this conversation and hope that in the end West will just keep getting better and better, will continue to convert many souls and will take the current criticisms as graciously as he has taken criticisms in the past. I also hope West’s critics, after patient and prolonged reflection AND a close look at the evidence, will be very open to the possibility that they are not being altogether fair to him.
Please note that all comments are moderated.