Steve B

Hi Katie & Lauretta,

It looks like I need to clarify some things about what I said wrt personal prayer in CW’s talks.

1st of all, I am quite certain I never said that CW needs to discuss prayer in every talk that he gives.  I’m also quite certain that I never even implied that he needed to do so in every talk.  If you can pin-point where you think I said or implied otherwise, I will fess up and admit my error.

2nd, I found online via Google books excerpts from CW’s book “Theology of the Body Explained”, and it does show 18 references in it when doing a Google book search for the word “prayer”.  Scanning the list of these 18 references, it appears very likely that CW does indeed elaborate upon personal prayer in his “official” TOB writings and teachings (at the least, this very book) as Lauretta expounded upon earlier today, which would make my complaints on this matter somewhat moot.

BTW, Lauretta, my local library doesn’t carry a copy of this book by CW, but I did apply to borrow it via Interlibrary Loan.  So, I should be able to read it myself within the next month or so…. 

Lauretta, could you do me a favor though?  While I am waiting to find out whether or not I can get CW’s book via Interlibrary Loan, would it be possible for you to get me the text from pages 182 & 183 of this book?  My Google books search for the word “prayer” shows one listing indicating that “prayer, importance in marriage” is covered on these two pages.  Unfortunately, however, those two pages are not included in the Google books excerpts of the book.  If you would be so kind to scan or type out the text on those two pages and send it to me via e-mail (just click on my Steve B link at the top of one of my posts), I would be immensely greatful to be able to read for myself what CW said on this vitally important subject.

Lastly, I want to convey that I still emphatically insist that personal prayer is a non-negotiable wrt enabling any teaching of the faith to bear good, consistent, and abundant fruit.  I don’t see this matter is as one of mere personal taste at all.  If, with all of the Catholic catechesis I had, it still took me 26 years to get the message, I am certain there are quite a few more out there - likely, even amongst those who take a keen interest in hearing CW speak.  Again, as I recently related, I believe that our “official” teachers of the faith should assume as little as possible about what their listeners may or may not already embrace/understand about the faith - IMO, that happens FAR too often as it is.

I see personal prayer as absolutely essential for everyone to have a sound and growing faith, as I am sure you’d both agree.  But, as you Lauretta said yourself in one of your prior posts, prayer in-and-of-itself is not always sufficient to ensure that we are headed in the right direction with how we live our life - i.e. good instruction/catechesis on matters of faith is vitally important for that too, which you have told me CW conveys so well in his “official” TOB teachings.  I will look forward to reading at length his teachings myself….

Sometimes we DO need “a hit over the head with the holy 2X4”, though, as some of my long-time friends from Chicago often say - only somewhat tongue-in-cheek.  Pointing out the need for personal prayer can never be a bad idea in just about any talk regarding the faith, even for those of us who do make it a regular part of our lives.

On the “comparative side-liners” concept - you and Dr. Healy are quite correct in many respects, Katie.  However, sometimes we non-professional folks can bring a fresh perspective to the discussion too.  Isn’t that also part of what you’re hoping occurs in discussions on The Linde?  I just hope that I have done that without getting to be too much of an irritant….

Well, anyway, I’ve done more than my fair share of beating this dead horse long and hard over the past several days.  My humblest apologies, if I ruffled anyone’s feathers with what I felt compelled to relate in these CW discussions.

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Hi Katie,

Thanks for the clarifications.

All of us who have expressed our criticisms of CW’s TOB content & style DO realize that he needs to submit only to those in direct authority over him - I can speak only for myself, but I don’t think I am demanding (and I fully realize that I am not in a position to demand) anything wrt his promotion of personal prayer in his TOB ministry.

However, let me build upon your most recent word picture of the drowning swimmer….

Let’s say that instead of me merely criticizing the lifeguard of his rescue methods after he just saved someone from drowning, instead I URGE him to tell each person this:

HOW the saved person can live in a radically changed way, which will not only allow them to avoid drowning the next time they are in the water, but to HELP them to become excellent swimmers too?  That is, to explicitly point them in the right direction for the future….

Why would it be unreasonable to EXPECT this (not demand, as you suggest I am doing)???

My perspective in strongly advocating (not demanding) at least a cursory introduction in TOB to personal prayer taps into the old adage - “Give a man a fish, and he is fed for a day.  Teach him HOW to fish, and he will be able to feed himself for a lifetime”.  Leaving out a brief presentation of the need for each person to have a personal prayer life might well prevent some TOB listeners from figuring out HOW to feed themselves spiritually. 

I went through 12 years of Catholic religious education in parochial schools, and I didn’t figure this out until I was 26 years old.  Surely, there are others out there who haven’t either!  Explicitly pointing out the basic need for personal prayer will go MILES toward correcting the utterly deficient catechesis that the vast majority of Catholics have had both before and after Vatican II….

I agree with you that CW is helping IMMENSELY to liberate those who are enslaved by eroticism. 

But, at the same time, I do also heartily agree with Fr. Angelo that CW makes a VERY strong impression in his TOB presentations that he is advocating a “baptism of sex-obsession”.

Maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree on many of these matters?  But, what we are disagreeing about is NOT merely “Monday morning quarterbacking” nor personal preferences, but rather fundamental and serious shortcomings & deficiencies in CW’s TOB presentation approach, at least as we critics see them. 

For assertions to be made that we are “accusing” CW personally is not at all our intent, as you seem to be so strongly suggesting.  We are focusing upon his TOB message, not his person.

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Hi Katie,

You said:

“His mission, as he understands it, is to ‘popularize’ TOB.  His way of doing it is bearing incredible fruit.  What right do we have to tell him he should be doing it another way—a way we would prefer?  What right does anyone other than his board of directors or his bishop or spiritual director have to do that?”

Are you saying that I, nor others who have been critical of CW’s TOB teaching content & methods (Fr. Angelo, Dr. AvH, Dr. David Schindler, etc.), have the “right” to do so?

I cannot convey emphatically enough that the myriad of objections we have posed wrt CW’s TOB teaching & promotional methods are NOT matters of mere personal preference nor taste.

What I think is at the core of these many objections we have raised is that we see that CW sometimes promotes heterodox ideas (e.g. the inappropriate “unveiling” of the human body, the “dispensation” of unnatural sex acts in foreplay, etc.), and at other times he uses inappropriate depictions and language which are completely unbecoming to the reverence that discussions of the human body rightfully deserve.

I believe CW’s “mistakes” fall into two general categories: ones of commission, and ones of omission.  CW’s promotion of heterodox ideas falls into the former; my assertions about his lack of explicitly promoting personal prayer (at the very least, at an introductory and cursory level) fall into the latter.

Far too many of us have forgotten that our “mission” as baptized Catholics and/or Christians is to work for the “salvation of souls”, and not merely to promote the methods of doing so.  Straying from clear, sound, and traditionally orthodox teaching, and omitting to convey HOW to go about following Christ, both run the serious risk of undermining that mission.

We, here on earth, the Catholic Church has traditionally called the Church Militant - i.e. “soldiers of Christ”.  As part of our baptism, we are called to be prophets - part of our mission as His “soldiers”.  All that I believe the critics of some of CW’s TOB methods and content are trying to do is to each exercise our own prophetic mission - by pointing out his fundamental mistakes and deficiencies in the spreading of the Gospel message via his TOB ministry.

Those of us who so strongly object to the litany of issues which we believe have either endangered or partially undermined the TOB message, or which shortchange its ultimate effectiveness, do so NOT AT ALL to be critical of CW the person, nor his mission.  It is in this that CW’s many advocates may fail to comprehend our true intentions….

We are being critical only in light of Proverbs 27:17 - “As iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens his fellow man.” - to challenge him to seriously consider making the kinds of changes to his TOB presentation style and content which we believe necessary, so as to make the his evangelization efforts all the MORE fruitful - instead of him acquiring 25 bushels/acre via his current TOB methods & content, we believe that these changes will help increase his “harvest” for Christ and His Church to 50 bushels/acre, or more!!!

Enough for now.  The grindstone awaits my day….

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Utterly insightful explanation, Jules!

Thanks SO much for making the extra effort to answer my question.

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Hi Katie,

OK.  What you say makes good sense.  Thanks very much for the clarification!

But, what I am scratching my head about is our CW TOB discussions - they seem to me to be almost entirely about theology, and very little about philosophy. 

So, I’m beginning to wonder if The Linde is the improper venue for me to be presenting my views, given what you just explained as the primary objective of TPP….

Gosh.  I wish I had had more interest in taking introductory courses in philosophy and theology during my college days.  Sadly, way back then I had no interest at all in the liberal arts, and was definitely an engineering “geek”!  ;-)  It just took me a while to discover how “philosophical” my Catholic faith was after all. 

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Hi Katie,

Certainly, TPP can (and I think you already are) promoting its philosophical principals based upon underlying Christian theological principals.

But if, in how you “officially” promote Personalism, there is little if no overlap between its philosophical and the theological dimensions, how effective can TPP ultimately be in working for the “salvation of souls”?

OK.  I’ll shut up now.  I’ve probably annoyed you and Lauretta more than I intended over the past several days.  My apologies, if I did….

Take care, God bless, and have a GREAT day,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Katie,

As with most analogies, they usually aren’t as effective or as comprehensive as we’d like.

But, I’ll work with your analogy as-is, and here’s what I would say….

While the doctor’s assistant is standing there watching the sailors munch down their fruit (how about if we go with oranges instead?), and while he has a captive audience right in front of him, why wouldn’t he want explain to them in at least a cursory manner the “bigger picture” of the need for good nutrition for the health of the human body?  Not a medical treatise - just merely pointing out how it is needed for living a long, enjoyable, and healthy life, so as to prompt the sailors to embrace a much deeper change in their lifestyles.

Perhaps I’m presuming too much to think that you agree with me wrt the pathetic state of affairs today in adult catechesis of the Catholic faithful?  Ultimately, I think that is what I have really been railing against for the past couple of days, rather than CW and the TOB teaching in particular….

If you do agree with me, then why is it SO unreasonable for me to insist that, when CW has a captive audience during his talks, and when the Church typically does SO LITTLE to catechize adults anymore, that he make just a LITTLE more effort to more clearly convey the greater grandeur of human personhood - which we all agree goes amazingly further than the dignity, beauty, and mystery of just the human body?

CW’s emphasis upon presenting titillating depictions - w/o a fundamental and merely introductory emphasis upon personal prayer - just dumbfounds me. 

Yes.  Christopher West is doing AMAZING and necessary work in his promotion of the TOB.  GOD BLESS HIM for his life commitment in serving the Church in that manner!!!

However, when I see what clearly appears to me to be GLARING deficiencies in CW’s approach to promoting the TOB, and when after what I’m sure in many respects was punishing scrutiny that he endured after his ABC/Nightline interview, in his latest web site “response” he still seems to be choosing in-large-measure to ignore his detractors’ “advice”.

“TOB is not the whole Church, not the whole of Truth.”

I never said that it was.  I never said that I thought CW was conveying that message either, although I do think his effort is much too emphatically focused upon the human body itself. 

All I have been saying is that CW needs to make more of a concerted effort to direct his listeners to the fundamental tenets of growing in their personal relationship with God via personal prayer, and to broaden the perspective of his message to deepen even further the impact upon his listeners of the Church’s teachings on the dignity of the human person.

Catholics in particular have been battling for pretty much the last 40 years to “figure out for ourselves” what our faith is really all about - with widespread disastrous results, as typified by the recent “scandals” at Notre Dame, Georgetown, etc. 

I just think it is about time that those in “official” teaching positions of the Church stop assuming so much about the spiritual state of the faithful (e.g. that people and families already have good habits of personal prayer), and that they try more diligently and at a very fundamental level to help the Holy Spirit to “turn on the light bulbs” of faith that so many Catholics lack today.

Is all of that really so unreasonable???

God help us all, and me in particular!!!

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Katie,

“unless TOB is COMPLEMENTED by a deepening grasp of JP II’s wider personalism, it will tend to go astray.”

BINGO!  You’re main point here is EXACTLY what I am after.

CW himself has said before - “more, there’s always more!” - and that applies SO much to what he is teaching.

What he has spoken about with TOB seems to me to fall SO far short of promoting human personhood than what is truly needed today. 

I’ve just been trying to reiterate that he needs to recognize that the world needs SO much more than merely a TOB - that it desperately needs a Theology of the Person.  Isn’t THAT the ultimate goal of The Personalist Project???

If you disagree with me in my assertion that at least part of what CW intends is to “pack the crowds”, then why did he revert to using a completely unnecessary & titillating depiction of his Hawaiian tour guide in his talk to TPP last year? 

To use depictions like that, and to make a concerted effort to do so, while completely ignoring to mention at all the utter need for personal prayer, to me it shows the glaring shortfalls in his TOB approach….

When you say “He’s addressing them in the area of their greatest need.” - you are absolutely right.  However, as I said before, he is addressing merely the SYMPTOM of their diseased understanding of Personhood, and is not getting to the core of the problem.  He’s immediately addressing the sickness and wounds of the “patients” who have been infected by the perversions of our culture - TOB is a spiritual “triage” I guess I would say. 

But, with CW’s particular way of presenting TOB, he’s not necessarily giving his audience quite enough spiritual “food” to set them on the right course to a truly healthy spiritual lifestyle. 

I am asserting that only by promoting personal prayer, and by delving more MUCH more into the more profound aspects of human personhood, can the needed “food” for the spiritual journey be conveyed as effectively as possible.

Sometime later today, I’ll post further comments to Lauretta below….

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Lauretta,

Thanks SO much for your concerted effort in making what I am sure was a heart-felt reply, especially given your roofing time constraints there in Idaho!  I really do appreciate your desire to truly dialogue on this issue. 

Know that I am not challenging the TOB teaching in particular - what I am challenging, instead, is what I consider to be the somewhat distorted way in which Christopher West promotes it….

“I would like to encourage you to read CW’s ‘Theology of the Body Explained’ because the prologue has a beautiful in depth answer to your question about why a theology of the body.”

 

I will look into reading CW’s book, especially since it has been such a VERY long time since I have actually read any “official” TOB teaching of his.  Thank you for the book recommendation.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you quoted from Pope JPII that:

“The body, in fact, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible:  the spiritual and divine.”

Since we humans can’t communicate telepathically yet (well, at least us men can’t - LOL!), we have no other means of sharing who we are as persons except via our bodies.

However, what I am railing against wrt to how CW promotes the TOB teaching is not WHAT he promotes per se, but HOW he promotes it.  My challenge is that as he PROMOTES the TOB (i.e. outside of his actual or “official” teachings of it), to me he seems to be:

1)  over-emphasizing the human body, especially the sexual dimension of it,

2)  under-emphasizing the beauty and the mystery of femininity & masculinity,

3)  de-emphasizing the utterly serious impact of concupiscence on the human person,

4)  de-emphasizes the horrific negative impact that ALL sin (even venial sin) has for us personally and collectively (both in the Church, and for all of humanity).

“I think that your comment about TOB promoters using the fact that “sex sells” is totally off base.”

 

Well, here we may just have to agree to disagree….

However, what I would contend is a clear-cut example of “sex sells” and (1) above comes directly from the talk that CW gave to TPP back in June 2008 - namely, when toward the end of his talk when he devotes SO much time and emphasis (and sometimes, in nearly-graphic ways) upon the sexual innuendo of the Hawaiian tour guide and “the coconut” story.  I mean, c’mon, I could even HEAR people gigling at the some of CW’s excessively-sexual innuendo & commentary.  CW could have EASILY conveyed the “beauty” of his Hawaiian tour guide without all the details of the crude and juvenile sexual innuendo.  CW needs to much more carefully promote the dignity of persons w/o succumbing to such crass and juvenile language and depictions….

Have you ever read any of Dr. DvH’s books on sexuality?  I have yet to read his “In Defense of Purity” book yet (it’s on my list of his books to add to my library), but in his other books he ALWAYS speaks of the sexual realm with utter dignity and the utmost reverence .  That reveals to me that there is a HUGE chasm between how CW promotes the TOB and how Dr. DvH would have promoted it if he were given the opportunity (and probably why his widow Dr. AvH objects to those kinds of CW’s promotional methods for the TOB).  CW, on the contrary, portrays human sexuality FAR too readily with crude and seemingly juvenile depictions.  And for what reason?  I think because he knows that “sex sells” and because he’s also trying to make it “entertaining”.  Both are VERY poor promotional methods in my estimation, which do not truly help the TOB cause.

“Today we are in desperate need to understand the sacredness of the body and its importance in our lives as Christians.”

I have NO argument whatsoever with you on that!

One of my own “soapbox issues” with the Catholic Church in particular is that She has utterly absconded Her duty to teach this very thing (and much of our faith) since Vatican II.  How often do most Catholics hear anything close to solid teaching of the faith, like TOB, from the pulpit?  Almost never!!!  We shouldn’t HAVE to search out this kind of catechesis all of our own effort!!!

“We are created in the image and likeness of God.  Who is God?  God is love.  What is love?  Love is making a total gift of self to another.  That is what masculinity and femininity reveal, the giving and receiving of love. Because of that, the human body is beautiful since it is revealing, in a sense, God.”

 

Again, you are preaching to the choir - I completely agree with you here.  But, what I don’t agree with is the “unveiling” of the beauty and mystery of femininity and masculinity, which I believe CW much-too-frequently does as he promotes the TOB teaching - e.g. the “coconut story”, the Pascal candle as a phallic image, the literal unveiling of the Blessed Mother, etc.

“Your statement that CW de-emphasizes the effect of sin in the world I find very interesting.  I have heard many of his taped talks and in most of them he apologizes to women for the sins committed against them by men.”

Again, perhaps in his “official” capacity of teaching the TOB, CW does this.  But, he certainly doesn’t when he promotes TOB. 

Why would he feel compelled in his TPP talk to emphasize Hawaiian coconut sexual innuendo, instead of maintaining a more focused perspective on how sexual sins have DEEPLY hurt women and humanity as a whole, as he does in his TOB talks?  Either he’s doing that out of extremely poor judgment, or else he’s at least subconsciously tapping into the fact that “sex sells”.

Perhaps CW feels “compelled” to use more crass and juvenile methods of promoting the TOB to the general public?  If we do ALL have such “longings of the heart” to find our inherent goodness as God created each of us (as the Catholic Church teaches we DO, via the natural law), then CW’s resorting to such crass methods seem to me to be instead a rather de-personalizing way to do so….

The complete lack of CW’s focus upon personal prayer is a show-stopper for me on embracing TOB, at least as he promotes it.  Yes, I agree with you that we do need to know WHAT to pray for (wake up Catholic Bishops!!!) , but that doesn’t detract from my point at all that CW and other TOB advocates MUST make BOTH of those things more explicitly clear in their TOB teachings….

Again, I do appreciate virtually all of what you advocate above wrt the TOB, and I will make the effort to read CW’s book that you recommend, so as to address some of the finer points I may not yet fully comprehend.  I do agree with both you, CW, and Pope JPII that the dignity of EACH person ALWAYS needs to be promoted and protected.

Lastly, however, I DON’T agree with you, JP II, nor CW that “good is everywhere we look!”  Cancer, natural disasters, and sexual decadence explicitly emphasize the opposite - that REAL evils ABOUND in our fallen world.  A serious shot of REALITY emphasis is desperately needed both by CW’s promotion of TOB, and by the Catholic Church too since Vatican II (btw, I am STILL a devoted Catholic).  This gross imbalance of pointing out the evil vs. the good in our world desperately needs to be corrected ASAP by TOB advocates and also by the Catholic Church.

However, I still stand by my assertion that what CW emphasizes in his promotion of the TOB definitely needs some re-vamping and/or the rectifying of some seriously misguided promotional methods. 

But, in conclusion, I still say that CW’s recent web site commentary “The Theology of the Body Debate: The Pivotal Question” gives me no indication whatsoever that he has ANY serious plans to do so.  THAT is my skeptical conclusion from his web site “response”.

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Just a brief follow-up….

In a nutshell, what I was trying to convey in my “rant” above is that TOB is far too much focusing merely on the SYMPTOM of the underlying diseased understanding of human PERSONHOOD that the culture as a whole has (and FAR too many Catholics and Christians have as well).

Getting to the root of that erroneous understanding of personhood, rather than dealing with the horrible symptoms and consequences of it, is what I think is more desperately needed today.

I don’t have a problem with CW and others using the emphasis on the human body as a way to “pack in the crowds”. 

However, once the audience has been garnered, the message REALLY needs to be more extensively about the “Theology of the PERSON ” rather than of the human body per se….

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX