Steve B

Hi Katie,

Do you know which book/writing of Dr. DvH and/or Dr. AvH was this term “holy bashfulness” used?

In Dr. DvH’s book “The Devastated Vineyard”, on pages 28-29 (in reference to what he wrote previously in his book “In Defense of Purity”) he uses the term “noble shame.”  Is this the same concept as “holy bashfulness”?

It seems to me that you and Dr. AvH are trying to turn this term into one which sounds more “positive”.  That, IMO, is a consistent trend in the Church since Vatican II (which IMO isn’t by any means essential to successfully promoting the faith), aimed primarily to be more receptive to modern culture.

Perhaps another way to term this would be “holy modesty”?  But, then that term today is far too often deemed as “negative” also, which typifies the sad state of affairs in our modern era….

Best regards, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Lauretta,

Your closing comment,

“It [TOB] is so much more than just about sex, as we define the term, but who we are as persons made in the image and likeness of God.”

struck a resonant chord for me wrt the litany of problems that I see in how TOB seems to be “promoted” by Christopher West.

One fundamental question I have (and it is directly related to the foundational principal on which The Personalist Project was founded) is this:

Why isn’t this teaching instead called “Theology of the PERSON ”?

Sorry that what follows is a bit of a rant, but I just was unable to be any more succinct.

The focus upon the human body should be merely an aspect of what is the “true” theology of human personhood; but, in my opinion CW and others who promote TOB seem to focus FAR too much on the human body itself, and FAR too little on the myriad of the other marvelous dimensions of the human person - particularly, on the myriad of dimensions even in which our sexuality which goes WAY beyond even our own bodies.  Perhaps CW does this much better in his actual TOB talks (I haven’t listened to one in probably over 15 years), but for whatever reasons he doesn’t seem to promote it much in what I have heard/read lately, if at all….

Here’s a telling observation that I just made, which I think will shed some light on the “problem” with how TOB seems to be promoted, particularly by CW.  I just finished listening for the 3rd time to CW’s talk given to TPP in June of 2008, and you know what was COMPLETELY missing from his talk?  NOT EVEN ONE TIME in his nearly 1 hour talk to TPP did CW mention the word “prayer”.  Sure, he mentioned the 3 phases of the journey of faith (purgative/illuminative/unitive); but, to not mention prayer (even in passing) was in my view an utterly glaring deficiency of his talk.  For a listener who doesn’t/didn’t already have a good personal prayer life, how would they know HOW to progress in the spiritual life???

In my view, the focus upon promoting a personal prayer life amongst the faithful MUST be done first and foremost, as well as hand-in-hand, with properly promoting the “Theology of the Person”. 

In his recent “The Theology of the Body Debate: The Pivotal Question” commentary on his web site, CW seems to think that an improved prayer life will be the result of being exposed to the TOB (see 2nd paragraph under his section “Mature Purity”); I contend that what is more needed is to promote personal prayer first (many Catholics don’t really know what a personal prayer life is).  Then, for most “normal people”, the spiritual light bulb will truly turn on and they will finally grasp that the fulfillment of our personhood comes primarily through our prayerful & personal relationship with God - and how establishing that will ultimately lead us into more fruitful relationships with others.

Granted, CW and other TOB advocates are primarily addressing the over-indulgence in the sexual realm out there in the secular culture, and the horrific impact that it has had even upon Christian believers.  So, in a sense, TOB advocates are merely addressing the worst aspect of our culture’s erroneous focus upon personhood.  However, I honestly believe that CW (and probably many other TOB advocates/promoters as well) is capitalizing upon the fact that “sex sells” (I don’t know whether it is a conscious decision or not) - and that seems more than a little bit disingenuous to me…. 

But, for CW to assertively promote (before emphasizing the much more basic need for a personal prayer life) that we need to “come to an ever greater awareness of the gratuitous beauty of the human body, of masculinity and femininity” goes just TOO far.  The human body is essentially just a symbol of the beauty of the entire human person (except in the biological sense, wrt procreation); sometimes, CWs emphasis seems to be more than a little too focused upon the symbol and not nearly enough on the other much more important aspects of personhood - as CW himself cautioned the audience in his TBB talk (at the 28:20 mark), we must “beware of false summits.”  In my view, excessive focus & emphasis upon the human body is DEFINITELY a false summit of what should be a more holistic “Theology of the Person” emphasis.  That is definitely how Dr. DvH emphasized his teachings on personhood after all.

Other things which bother me about the way in which TOB is promoted by CW are:

1) He de-emphasizes FAR too much the dangers of concupiscence - in many respects, CW merely gives it “lip service” - just barely enough emphasis to be sure that the TOB message sounds “orthodox enough” to folks who are somewhat skeptical.  CW’s recent “response” on his web site falls far short of a “mea culpa” in this regard - his focus clearly remains on promoting the “positive” elements of TOB, and he seems to show little indication of intending to make any significant changes for the future in how he plans to promote TOB.

2) He de-emphasizes the impact of sin in our world, in our families, and in our personal lives (IMO, the same pitfall that the Church as a whole has unfortunately fallen into since Vatican II).  To his credit, CW in his TPP talk did quite appropriately and commendably state that we all need to get to the point in our spiritual lives where “sin becomes repulsive to us” (29:45 mark).  However, at other places in his talk, CW undermines this point to an appreciable degree by saying things like “good is everywhere we look!” (43:30 mark) and “we can find God in everything; we can commune in/through Him in all things; created things cease to be a danger for us as they once were” (52:15 mark). NEITHER of these statements are remotely close to being accurate where grossly sinful behavior exists, especially in those things & places where sin is actually promoted (e.g. a red-light district in Amsterdam)....

CW was also recently a guest on Catholic Answers (Nov. 2, 2009), and I highly recommend anyone to listen to that archived broadcast on catholic.com.  In it, he does promote that prayer is critical to developing a proper emphasis in promoting the TOB teaching (35:50 mark).  CW also did state that a holistic education/teaching on human personhood is truly necessary also (42:00 mark). 

However, in that same show CW also said that “the body is the revelation of the person.”  I can’t say with enough emphasis how STRONGLY I disagree with that statement.  The human body is NOT at the core of who we are as persons, nor how we truly reveal ourselves; the body is merely the most powerful and instrumental way in which we can intimately SHARE the depth of who we are as a person with another.

CW also said in his recent Catholic Answers visit that “A lot of us are raised with such an emphasis on the dangers of sexuality - the ‘not yet’ aspect of our redemption - that we haven’t yet balanced it out properly with ‘the already’ of our redemption” (10:13 mark).  I contend that he is promoting TOB in a way which shifts the focus on human sexuality FAR too much in the opposite direction from the “puritanical”, which itself results in a non-balanced and incomplete view of human sexuality.

CW stated in his TBB talk that in the illuminative stage “we begin to see reality more and more as God made it to be” (26:15 mark).  That is absolutely true.  However, we ALSO need to see reality AS IT REALLY IS - i.e. the fallen state of our world, with sin being so rampant in it.  CW’s promotion of TOB seems to me to do VERY little in that regard….

The beauty of the Catholic faith is that it is a “both/and” system of belief.  Explaining better the traditional Catholic teachings on the reasons WHY the Church has taught against the dangers and errors of sexual sin as She has (including the errors of participating in unnatural sexual acts as “foreplay”!), IN ADDITION TO the beauty of the recent TOB teachings of Pope John Paul II, plus a FULLER elucidation on the myriad of beautiful dimensions of human personhood, are the ONLY ways that a comprehensive, balanced, and fully correct presentation of human personhood can ultimately be made.

Enough of my rant today.  Thanks Katie and Jules for the forum to do so!  ;-)

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Hi Katie,

Whew!  I’m glad too that we agree.

As I mentioned to you privately, I believe there is a serious imbalance between mercy & justice, both in the Catholic Church itself, and in our western culture.

This is a HUGE issue which is seriously harmful, both individually & collectively. 

The Church doesn’t help the situation either, when it far too often “gives a pass on Sin” to prominent, dissident, Catholics who repeatedly scandalize our faith on non-negotiable matters of justice (e.g. the sacredness of human life in all its stages)....

Until the Catholic Clergy “get tough on Sin”, and promote/preach with a MUCH more balanced emphasis upon mercy/justice, how can they honestly think that this situation will appreciably improve???

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Hi Katie,

I must not have clearly made my earlier comment - I certainly would not disagree with anything in either of your two posts on this topic.

However, in your “stolen car” example, the question I would ask is this:

How would his (we all know that only MEN would ever steal a car!) holding onto of YOUR car that was stolen possibly be an act of dying to self? 

I’m sure we’d agree that unjustly holding onto someone else’s property could never be deemed a selfless act.  Denying someone justice is NEVER a selfless act.

Thus, I believe you, I, & the Holy Father are all really on the same page - namely, that there can be no real charity w/o justice.

Sorry that I didn’t make that clear in my earlier post.

Take care, and God bless,

Steve B
Plano, TX

Hi Katie,

I’m with you 100%.  Excellent quote from our Holy Father, btw.

You alluded to it in your initial post, but the key issue is something that you could very well have also highlighted in your quote from Pope Benedict in his latest encyclical:

“I cannot ‘give’ what is mine to the other, without first giving him what pertains to him in justice. If we love others with charity, then first of all we are just towards them.

By “first”, I think that the Holy Father is promoting the principal message of Christianity - i.e. dying to self, and being willing to make sacrifices for the good of others. 

Clearly, Fr. Corcuera hasn’t yet done that, since he is placing the future of the Legion before the justice due to its victims. 

I also think that he is exhibiting a lack of courage and his lack of faith in God’s Providence, by putting the “interests” of the Legion before the justice due to those who were victimized.

Certainly flies in the face of Personalism, eh?

Steve B
Plano, TX

Fr. Angelo,

Thanks so very much for your TOB commentary; it was incredibly more thorough and articulate than mine ever could be.

Know that you, as well as so many other devotedly orthodox Catholic Priests, will have MANY prayer and Mass intentions offered daily on your behalf!

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B

Katie,

I’m confused by what you said in the above post:

“... a person is an end in himself, never to be used as a mere means.”

 

I understand the latter clause, but not the former.

The reason for my confusion stems from two quotes I have read by St. Augustine and by Dr. DvH:

St. Augustine: “You have made us, O God, for yourself, and our hearts shall have no rest, until they rest with you.”

 

Dr. DvH (from “The Devastated Vineyard” - page 122 - Chapter 14, The Sacred Humanity of Jesus):

“Human nature is ontologically characterized by being the image of God, inasmuch as it is a conscious being, a person.”

“But the ontological structure of man is not characterized solely by his being a person.”

 

These quotes seem to me (despite my woeful lack of education in Personalism, and Philosophy in general) to indicate that Personalism itself MUST fall short of being capable of providing an adequate answer in-and-of-itself to the meaning of our human existence - i.e. that I am NOT truly an end in myself, but that my true end or purpose is in God.

Can you (or Jules, or anyone else who is highly educated in Philosophy) comment on my confusion, and how The Personalist Project “officially” aims to overcome this seemingly inherent inadequacy of Personalistic Philosophy?

Thanks!

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B

I also wanted to post something directly quoting the view that Dr. DvH had on “prudishness.” 

These quotes are taken from pages 28-29 (Chapter 4 - The Great Illusion) of his classic “The Devastated Vineyard” - note that the bolded texts below are my own emphases.

Pg. 28:

“... We should experience shame when someone praises our virtue and brings it out into the open, or when we ourselves make public things which are by their very nature intimate.  All kinds of being ashamed are deeply human, classical attitudes, especially the shame which encourages us to keep intimate things out of the public eye.

It is a stupid mistake to interpret this latter kind of shame, which is especially related to the sexual sphere, as prudery, as contempt of this sphere, as a sign that one views it as tabu.”

Pg. 29:

“True and noble shame towards the sexual sphere, with which even the pagans were acquainted (just think of the gestures of the hands of many of the Venus figures, which covered the breasts and the pubic region), is a classical human characteristic, an adequate response to the mysterious intimacy of this sphere.”

 

Hopefully, these remarks by Dr. DvH himself will finally convince Christopher West and his supporters that they need to refrain from their “prudishness” assertions and confrontations. 

These remarks also show that we (TOB advocates who strongly feel that more reverence and modesty is needed in its promotion) have very strong advocates in both Drs. DvH and AvH for our “prudish” position.

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B

I can hardly believe some of what I am reading here….

First of all, this is my very 1st post on The Linde, so please be kind to my Personhood by not coming down on me like a ton of bricks if you disagree.  ;-)

My comments:

1) I can’t comprehend how looking at the Liturgical traditions of the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox traditions is really pertinent for those of us from the Latin Rite tradition. 

For CW’s “coital” symbolism assertions to have legitimate merit from our Latin Rite tradition (I’m assuming that the vast majority of us are Roman Catholic), I would consider it necessary for him and others supporting him to find this kind of symbolism explicitly and historically derived (e.g. prior to Vatican II) from the writings of “official” Latin Rite theologians/liturgists, and not by “borrowing” it from those of the Eastern traditions.

2) I also see the St. Joan of Arc reference in Katie’s June 20th post wrt “expanding tradition” to be another non-sequitur.  Sorry, Katie.  Why?  Because we are talking about Liturgical tradition specifically here, and not about Catholic tradition in general.

3) I’m nothing more than an “amateur” philosopher (having read only several of the great Dr. DvH’s books - and being a HUGE fan of his nonetheless).  However, the insistence and pompousness exhibited by CW and others who support him in his challenging others in public of their “prudishness” in the sexual realm seems utterly unbelievable - who of you, deep down in your heart of hearts, TRULY believes that Dr. DvH would support CW’s “prudishness” challenges towards others?  Do you think that he would even DREAM of subjecting someone to that kind of public challenge and humiliation?  I cannot….

CW is completely off his rocker, IMHO, to challenge ANYONE in public with that “prudish” tag/label/challenge, if for no other reason than it is in-and-of-itself demeaning to the Personhood of the individuals he confronts in that public venue.  In essence, he is “dressing them down” in public.  How utterly horrible!!!

4) Taking CW’s “prudishness” mantra to its ultimate extent (as Fr. Angelo Geiger in his commentary has done) - would CW advocate that we start stripping the images of Our Lord on the Crucifix of His loin covering, so that we finally “get over our prudishness”?  PUHLEEEZE!

IMHO, CW has come dangerously close to completely losing his bearings with the metaphysical reality of humanity and our Catholic tradition - he either does not realize (or else horrifically under-emphasizes) that ALL human Persons are FALLEN creatures; unlike the realities in the Garden of Eden, the sexual sphere since then has ALWAYS been taught by the Catholic Church to be one which SHOULD be reserved to private moments between spouses, and in Truth MUST ALWAYS be governed in public with proper modesty, respect, and reverence - and the traditions of the Catholic Church have ALWAYS treated it in this fashion.  Keep in mind also that Dr. DvH was VEHEMENTLY opposed to sex education outside of the home (see The Devastated Vineyard - Ch. 4 - “The Great Illusion” - page 27).  Theology of the Body taught at home - certainly YES; taught in a public forum - NO WAY! 

I think I can also safely say that Dr. DvH would champion, as his wife Dr. Alice von Hildebrand has already done, that the sexual sphere is one which should ALWAYS be treated with the utmost reverence, and with the most incredible modesty/chastity/purity.  I would suspect that many honorable champions of Personalism are utterly ABHORRED (as I am) at how CW has in several critical respects essentially derailed (or perhaps even hijacked) this incredibly beautiful philosophy, especially as it relates to the incredible delicateness, preciousness, and beauty of the gift the Marital Embrace. 

This is what those of us whom CW deems “prudish” are most offended by - although the ridiculousness of his apparent elevation of the human sexual sphere to being even above that of the human mind & will comes in a VERY, VERY close second.

I hope that there is further commentary.  Sorry that I “jumped on” this blog topic so late….

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B