Christopher West presents ‘profoundly troubling’ idea of Christian freedom, Catholic writer says

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 26

Christopher West

Washington D.C., Nov 20, 2009 / 07:12 am (CNA).- Adding another voice to the discussion over Christopher West’s presentation of the Theology of the Body, writer James Likoudis writes that West has ignored criticisms of his irreverent style and has advocated the “profoundly troubling” idea that Christian freedom rejects fears about the “dangers of sexuality.” Controversy over West came to the forefront after his appearance on ABC’s “Nightline.” West remarked that the segment, which showed him saying he loved Hugh Hefner, took some of his remarks out of context.

West responded to his critics in an October essay, saying he has read some “thoughtful” critiques but others simply repeated rumors. He acknowledged that he failed to emphasize man’s struggle with a tendency to sin. However, he said the pivotal question for him was what the grace of redemption offers “with regard to our disordered sexual tendencies.”

Likoudis, past president of Catholics United for the Faith, discussed West’s response via e-mail with CNA.

He said the response was “quite disappointing” because West ignored criticisms of “his irreverent style of vulgar and offensive sexually explicit ‘street language’” in his discussions of human sexuality. He has also failed to repudiate his approval of certain unnatural sexual practices, Likoudis charged.

West continues to distort the teachings of Pope John Paul II on sexual concupiscence and the “freedom of the redeemed person,” he added before noting that West’s ideas of “sexual liberation from concupiscence,” in Likoudis’ view, remains “profoundly troubling.” West’s praise for a kind of freedom in which one is “devoid of fear and sin,” Likoudis warned, ignores the “dangers of sexuality.”

“He has muddied the waters of ‘Christian freedom’,” Likoudis told CNA, arguing that West forgets that “mature purity” has not freed the Christian from carnal desires that prevent “the complete victory of the soul over the body.”

In support of his criticism of West, Likoudis quoted theologian Jean Mouroux.

“Even when redeemed, we are all too aware that the body remains profoundly sensible to pleasure, and shamefully weak in the face of sexual seduction. However, there can occur the progressive repossession of the body by the soul sanctified by the Eucharist and this can lead to a progressive spiritualization of the body,” Mouroux wrote.

“It is important to stress that the married are not liberated automatically from surrendering to carnal desires. If they are in the state of sanctifying grace, they are in union with God and their marital intimacy blessed if conducted according to God's Law. Even for them, it must be said that the body is redeemed in hope alone, that is to say, it remains unsubmissive, a trial, a temptation, and under one of its aspects the wound of a rebellious concupiscence inflicted by original sin is always open,” continued Mouroux.

Mouroux said that the “full subjection of flesh to spirit” is a Christian ideal to be pursued without end, but it is “not a state that is normally realized.”

“Even redeemed, the body resists the spirit; it subjects it to grievous temptations, it brings suffering and death. All the misery the person encounters in this life still hangs around it even when the body becomes Christian,” the theologian added.

While the sacraments deliver the Christian from the flesh, it is “the height of spiritual realism” to realize that the body is redeemed only “in germ” and will come to fruition “only when time is no more and there is the glorious resurrection of the body.”

Likoudis, summarizing his own opinion, said that the “fatal flaw” in West’s version of the Theology of the Body is a “dangerous illusion” for presenting Christians as so liberated from “the domination of concupiscence” that “they need no longer to seriously fear the ‘dangers of sexuality’ and can thus enjoy themselves in sexual indulgence.”

Comments: 26

Subscriber comments:

Published by: William E. May
Silver Spring, MD, USA 11/28/2009 08:22 PM EST

Christopher West is a devout Roman Catholic, loyal to the Magisterium. I acted as censor deputatus for the revised and expanded edition of justly praised work,Theology of the Body Explained, a book that Archbishop Charles Chaput has highly recommended. West's orthodoxy has also been defended by Cardinal Rigali and many others. Mr. Likoudis's attack on his is not justified, William E. May Emeritus Michael Mc Givney Professor of Moral Theology, Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.

Published by: Carlos
Lockhart,Tx, USA 11/25/2009 04:39 PM EST

Peter, I too thank CNA for its work, but I see no reason to fault them for reporting what is already "out there". Mr. West already visited select churches in Austin, Tx. with his TOB some two months ago. I missed it. Since he has no imprimatur, then we are free to dispute it, are we not? So then, based on what I have read, I concluded that his theology will be found to be contrary to faith and morals. Why so?! It's part of the the larger issue that caused liberal Catholics to go astray. It's the Self. Rather than denying the self, the liberals have busied themselves with the care and feeding of the ego, or their self_ unwittingly, of course. This is Narcissism, and their efforts are directed toward further empowering their self. Narcissism is the polar opposite of self-denial. All Christians should recognize it and shun it. The same goes for writings with narcisstic content.

Published by: Peter
Milwaukee WI 11/24/2009 05:10 PM EST

I am writing in respect and charity, and I thank CNA for its work. (My homepage is CNA.) However, I am disappointed in CNA's sensationalistic and divisive coverage of the Christopher West "controversy", for it is, in a certain sense, forcing many Catholics to "take sides", which is harmful. This type of scholarly critiquing and dialogue is not yet mature enough to be publicized as "news", lest people, who are not fully formed, be led astray in one way or another. Jesus instructed his disciples to deal with matters privately before going public with them (Mt 18: 15ff). St. Paul, on numerous occasions, implored Christians to avoid dissentions, to build each other up, and to be of one mind and heart, and to be mindful of those who may not have the dispositions to handle certain lawful discussions and activities. Moreover the Code of Canon Law urges the faithful to remain within their competency when discussing such matters, and to do so only with discretion. I work for the Church, and so I see first-hand how this type of sensationalism rips apart Catholics who are striving for holiness, yet are confused over such reporting of dialogue that is not appropriate for the public to hear. Moreover, the bishops, including Mr. West's Ordinary, have not yet spoken out against his work, nor have they cautioned people about it. I am not taking sides; rather, this is a matter of propriety.

Published by: Carlos
Lockhart,TX,USA 11/24/2009 03:15 AM EST

I've never read West, but judging from the article and the comments, I'm agreeing with Mr. Likoudis and giving West a pass. The reasons are: West can't give you anything you don't already have. His reasoning is so abstract that there is no chance of connecting it to the concrete. There is no "sexual liberation from concupiscence" since the flesh and the spirit are always at war with each other. A "freedom devoid of fear and sin" is ill-advised since fear of God is part of faith. The words 'fear' and 'sin' don't even belong together, since fear is a bodily function, while sin is a blot on the spirit. For example, the body reacts with fear to danger but the spirit doesn't. Not the redeemed ones, that is. Finally, for you narcissistic liberals, I see you taking liberation to mean, not emancipation, but empowerment. I noticed two posters used liberation and power in the same sentence. I could add more criticisms, but I'm stopping here. You want to follow pied-piper West? Go ahead, I won't.

Published by: Bill
Schenectady NY 11/22/2009 02:09 AM EST

Unmarried persons know only sinful sex. There is a risk they PROJECT their own guilt on to the sacramental bonding in marriage. In making love, Husband and Wife enter the deepest communion, com-parable only to the Eucharist. So long as it culminates in the proper manner, the intermediate steps are the mutual decision of the couple. - Wed 45 years

Published by: Geoff
Houston, TX 11/22/2009 01:19 AM EST

"...'dangerous illusion' for presenting Christians as so liberated from 'the domination of concupiscence' that 'they need no longer to seriously fear the ‘dangers of sexuality’ and can thus enjoy themselves in sexual indulgence.' Dear God is this man even passingly familiar with West's work? When I read this, I feel like he's saying that West teaches sex outside of marriage, which is obviously false. And West is often criticized for saying that one can fall into lust inside of marriage so this man can't be attacking him from that direction. Criticize West all you want, but be PRINCIPLED! You're making yourselves the Pharisees and him Christ! What stupid, stupid people to slap down this groundswell of genuine desire to know the Church's teachings instead of seeking to CO-OPT it if it is errant. Some of West's detractors will say ANYTHING and their crazy shrillness only drives us more into his camp.

Published by: Nemo sum
Dayton, OH 45415 11/21/2009 06:21 PM EST

Mr. West is a reasonable facsimile of Kinsey; Moreover,though he used vulgar terms about his own Mother (The Blessed Virgin Mary) he praised the unrepentant billionaire pimp. Incredible!

Published by: Phyllis Stanton
Greenville, SC USA 11/20/2009 11:43 PM EST

Wow! I think that this has to be one of the worst articles I've ever read.There are quotes strown throughout the entire article but only the quotes of Jean Mouroux are clearly attributed. Which of the other quotes belong to Likoudas's email response to CNA and which quotes belong to Christopher West? And are some of these quotes from John Paul II? It is not at all clear and this is unforgivable in a "news" article. In fact, except for Mouroux's quotes, no other complete sentence (ie. complete thought) is quoted. What are the sources and the contexts for each of these phrases? Reading West's October response and CNA's article regarding the response (which I just finished in an effort to try and understand this article and the accusations made in it) I found very little that even vaguely resembled the "troubling" ideas presented by the writer or by Likouda. And, just for the record, how familiar is Likouda with the work of Christopher West? That was not made clear in the article either. Is CNA journalism always this poorly produced and edited. I surely hope not because my family and I looked to this source for much of our news. Sincerely, Phyllis Stanton

Published by: pete
sunnyvale CA USA 11/20/2009 07:25 PM EST

And then there is the penitential need to mortify the body at least minimally. It is one thing to be without fear or neurosis, it is quite another to be completely submissive to the Holy Spirit in one's body, eg. the sins of the tongue!

Published by: J.
USA 11/20/2009 05:08 PM EST

See the Epistle of St. Jude, and the writings of St. Paul: Likoudis is correct, West is wrong. "For there have been some intruders, who long ago were designated for this condemnation, godless persons, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." See for yourself what else St. Jude has to say.

Published by: Norma Ann
robstown,tx 11/20/2009 04:53 PM EST

Personally, he was turn off from the very first time I heard him. He comes across as a male, chauvinistic pig...sorry, he does not have what is takes to teach JPII's TOB Likoudis is right on target. Praise God!!! There is some hope. I was glad to hear his opinion. Many people feel the same way. Sad, but true. Divine mercy now...

Published by: Ingrid Hansen
detroit MI 11/20/2009 04:07 PM EST

I am really disappointed in Mr Likoudis and many of those who continue to criticize Mr West. I have read a few of his books and listened to some of his talks and many of his critics seem to not have read or heard him at all. I am grateful at the majority of the comments posted because they are from people who have seen and heard West. God bless him and help him persevere in the midst of this continued and unnecessary onslaught. Thank you.

Published by: JLS
Riverside, CA, USA 11/20/2009 03:42 PM EST

West presents constructs which are easily manipulable. It is the same seed that spawned the free sex of the sixties, which btw has continued to bloom and shows no signs of reducing its acceleration. I read the late Pope's books ... West is doing his own thing and calling it what that Pope taught, which act is called "replacement theology". Sex is meant by God to be between man and wife, and not among groups. Sex is not a new thing, although some people think they're the first ones in history to discover it. God, through His Church and through His Law, has provided us with what we need to know. Very simple: keep it between man and wife, and always open to procreation. Liberals such as West are always looking for loopholes, and this brings in big money. There are no loopholes according to God, the Magisterium, and the late Pope. Assistance with sex, such as West is providing, is nothing but group sex.

Published by: steve abril
TAMARAC 11/20/2009 02:41 PM EST

What's this!!! I liberal-progressive Catholic that thinks WEST is TOO SEXUALLY progressive!!! James Likoudis lost ALL credibility when he became a past president of that "the smoke of satan unity" called Catholics United for the Faith..Hey james, did Obama put you up to this ???

Published by: Warren Anderson
Victoria, BC, Canada 11/20/2009 02:11 PM EST

Anyone who has ever struggled against temptation or any kind of habitual sin understands that caution, especially in the arena of sexuality, is required. It is far too easy to be duped by pride into believing we have conquered sin in ourselves. One would do well to go to Confession on a regular basis and examine one's conscience daily in order to gain a healthy perspective on one's walk with Christ. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Saint Paul acknowledged that he had a thorn with which to contend. I respectfully suggest that we should all assume humility and be entirely docile to the Holy Spirit as we strive to be holy, chaste and selfless in our service to God and neighbour. Lastly, and the rancourous debate aside, isn't it a good and timely thing that we are rediscovering a Catholic view of the person and sexuality? Mr. West has done much good. Mr. West claims to represent John Paul II's teaching. Mr. West's message demands the highest and deepest critique if he expects to speak as a voice of authority in the Church.

Published by: Andy
PA 11/20/2009 01:16 PM EST

<i>West is doing nothing but rehashing the "free sex" mantra of the sexties ... uh, that is, the sixties.</i> Speaking of sin, it's a sin to lie. If you have actually heard or read anything by West, you would know your statement is nothing of what he teaches. If you've never read or heard him, it's even worse to pretend you have. So there's an author that finds his work profoundly troubling. Guess what? His bishops haven't.

Published by: Deanna
Canada 11/20/2009 12:57 PM EST

To JLS.....you have no idea what you're talking about. Christopher West speaks totally against 'free sex'. He speaks against homosexuality. He promotes ONLY pure love within and ONLY within marriage between a man and a woman. Have you ever read or heard any of his books or CD's or DVD's? Study, listen before you speak.....and Catholic girls in the 60's? So, they were the only ones promoting 'free sex', free love, etc.? Give me a break....the whole world was on that bandwagon.....and if you ran into Catholic girls (and boys/men), do you think their words were in line with or in complete contradiction to the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Published by: diaperman
Olathe, KS 11/20/2009 12:42 PM EST

Jim Likoudis has been a heroic leader in the field of sex education over the past 40 years, and has borne gracefully the rebukes and ungodly hostility of sex educators because of his relentless support of the Church's theological and pedagogical tradition in the area of chastity formation. Needless to say, in recent decades much garbage has been presented to Catholic children in the name of "chastity education," and I'm personally grateful that great men like Jim have had the courage to speak out on the subject. I do think that he approaches Christopher West with a "hermeneutic of suspicion," which is fueled by CW's sometimes inappropriate attempts to communicate with young adult audiences on their level. Also, CW has taken to heart the legitimate concerns regarding the effects of concupiscence in the area of sexuality. Also, it should be noted that CW's response was not to Jim Likoudis, but to criticisms surrounding the Nightline program, so it was beyond the scope of CW's essay to address some of Jim's other concerns. One last point: I've heard CW present to both Catholic and Protestant men, and I've never seen anyone more effective in communicating the truth about contraception in a more convincing way.

Published by: Raquel
San Diego 11/20/2009 12:01 PM EST

CORRECTION to previous statement West stresses that we must NOT strip the cross of its power to help us live from a place of redemption.

Published by: Raquel
San Diego 11/20/2009 11:57 AM EST

Having gone through the TOB Immersion course, I can attest that Mr. West is not proposing that we are completely liberated from comcupiscence. He enphasizes that we must recognize our fallen state (historical man). What he does say is that we can begin living out our redemption now. West stresses that we must strip the cross of its power to help us live from a place of redemption. He often cites the tale of the two bishops to illustrate this point. They both react to a prostitute being exhibited in the town's plaza in two different ways. One gains custody of the eyes and the other stares at her intently. He asks: which one did the right thing? Both, the former recognizes the temptation to lust and the latter sees her in an integrated, spiritually mature way. West does not claim that we can reach perfection this side of heaven but he does stress that we can begin, with the grace of God, to live from a place of redemption.

Published by: Michael Austen
Pembroke, ON, Canada 11/20/2009 11:46 AM EST

Thank you James, I got the same dualistic vibe when I read "Even redeemed, the body resists the spirit." This is utterly contradictory to what Pope John Paul II taught. Our redemption lies in Christ reintegrating our body and soul according to the beatific vision to the extent that it can be acheived in this life. Yes, we are still subject to concupisence, but living in the Spirit does not mean parts of us are pulling in opposite directions.

Published by: Keith Michael Esshaki
El Cajon 11/20/2009 11:16 AM EST

I have listened to Christopher West both in person and on tape and read his books. I have never felt any deviation from traditional Christian doctrine. I truly believe those who criticize West are not fully familiar with his teaching. Christopher West has never advocated sexual promiscuity or sex outside the context of a holy marriage. It is very sad that other Catholic writers and theologians are not giving West a fair appraisal. Deacon Keith Esshaki

Published by: Nicholas Davidson
Duluth, MN, USA 11/20/2009 10:50 AM EST

Without the adequate time and writing space to fully comment, I must say that the criticisms of Mr. West convey a very real lack of understanding in regards to his actual teaching. References to “his irreverent style of vulgar and offensive sexually explicit ‘street language'” show that the writer has never actually attended and listened to Mr. West's teaching. Mr. West never says Christians can "enjoy themselves in sexual indulgence". Please, please take more time before criticizing a message that has literally transformed thousands.

Published by: JLS
Riverside, CA, USA 11/20/2009 10:28 AM EST

Likoudis is correct and wisely so. West is doing nothing but rehashing the "free sex" mantra of the sexties ... uh, that is, the sixties. When I hit college in '66, I ran into something new: Catholics. Many many of these parochial girls chanted the free sex mantra, "Sex is ok, regardless of marriage. Shacking up is ok. If it feels good, then it's ok. There is no need to put conditions on sexual activity, other than if it feels good", and on and on with one seductive pitch after another. So, where did that delusion come from, and who in authority was promulgating it? St Paul informs us that homosexuality is the "consequence of sin": so, if we bother to look at the moral history from that era of the sixties until today, what do we find? We find homosexuality enshrined along with its bedmate, boy-binging. What, then, would West's religion initiate if it were to spring up in as much force as the free sex of two generations ago? Anyone wonder what happens to a society which destroys its manhood?

Published by: James
Chicago, IL 11/20/2009 09:57 AM EST

I understand the paradigm from where Likoudas approaches the topic. However, I feel his criticism is dangerously dualistic. He states here: "Likoudis [argued] that West forgets that “mature purity” has not freed the Christian from carnal desires that prevent “the complete victory of the soul over the body.”" This implies a separation of soul and body in which one must conquer the other. This is a dualistic statement which has some very heterodox implications. Soul and Body are meant to be one, in that one is not meant to exist without the other. The problem with sexuality in the fallen state is that tend to be separate, which has the effect of damaging both. The goal is not the conquering of one over the other, but both being fully integrated with the other for the benefit of both, and the human person as a whole. If Likoudis wants to attack West, he needs to try something else. Personally, I don't think it is good to attack West at all. There is a greater enemy out there, which we need to unite to defeat.

Published by: Allan Edwards
Ypsi 11/20/2009 09:19 AM EST

If he means freedom for the fear of falling into mortal sin, that really should be kind of a basic thing. If that isn't someone's experience I suggest they may be trying to live on their own strength. That isn't to say people will be immune to temptation, but it does mean that for virtue to be virtue (a habit of doing the good) it is also easy. If it isn't easy it isn't virtue yet.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com