Chris West Employee Says West Is Theologically Sound

Christopher West’s Work is “Completely Sound,” says Dr. Janet Smith

May 27th, 2009 by Dr. Janet E. Smith

Christopher West’s interview on ABC’s Nightline has sparked some terrific discussion on the Internet. An impressive amount of the interaction is intelligent and illuminating, even some of that which is seriously wrong. One of the better responses is that by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers and the follow-up comments to his blog.

Here, I want to offer a brief, partial, response to Prof. David Schindler’s assessment of West’s work. The fact that Nightline got a lot wrong about West’s work is not surprising. In fact, it is surprising how much it got right. Those of us who work with the media know that potential martyrdom awaits us at the hands of an editor. West has likely been suffering a kind of crucifixion over the past week. What is puzzling is that an influential scholar chose this moment to issue a sweeping, negative critique of West in such a public forum. I have great respect for the work and thought of Schindler and realize that it must be difficult to be on the receiving end of criticisms of the work of one of their most high profile graduates. I wish, however, he had found another occasion to express his reservations about West’s work. [So, a nationally televised news story in which West equates Hugh Hefner and Pope John Paul II doesn't qualify as a good occasion to question West's work? Hmmm... I wonder what would?]

I think we should be very careful in our evaluation of the work of someone who is on the front lines and who is doing pioneer work. Virtually every pioneering author and presenter has had severe detractors in his own time. Some of them have been disciplined by the Church and eventually exonerated. [And some of them haven't] I would like to give examples and mention names, but I don’t want to ignite a firestorm of “how can you compare Christopher West to X, Y or Z?”!

I want to add my voice to those who are enthusiastic about the West/Theology of the Body phenomenon. [is she speaking as an employee of Chris West's Theology of the Body Institute here?] I think it is important to keep in mind, as Akin does, who West’s audience is. It is largely the sexually wounded and confused who have been shaped by our promiscuous and licentious culture. People need to think long and hard about the appropriate pedagogy for that group. Yet, as West himself knows, his approach is not for everyone. An analogy that pushes the envelope may be “offensive” to one person and may be just the hook that draws another person in. [Corinth was legendary for it's licentiousness in Eastern Mediterranean society, but St. Paul didn't discuss the propriety of anal sex in either of his epistles to them.] West has adopted a style that appeals to a large segment of that population — and even to some who are “pure and innocent.” It is not hard to find hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals who will testify that they have come to love Christ and his Church, and better understand and live the Church’s teaching about sex because of the work of Christopher West.[Really? Catholic Faith? Or a culturally acceptable version?] Cohabiters separate, contracepters stop contracepting, and men cease looking at pornography — and that is the short list. [Statistics, please. From personal experience at the diocesan level, most marriage prep courses get about a 30% conversion (willingness to look at NFP). Chris West's material gets the same conversion rate. If Dr. Smith has a study that says his material works better, please bring it forward.] Countless young people are now taking up the study of the Theology of the Body because of West’s work. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Schindler objects to the language used in a list of comments made by West and dismisses them as “vulgar,” “in bad taste,” and “silly.” Was Schindler careful to verify those comments and take into account the context in which they were made? [Is Chris West Theology too difficult for Dr. Schindler to understand?] Let me defend two matters mentioned by Schindler, “praying over genitals” and anal sex, that might seem peculiar if not properly understood. I hesitate to draw further attention to these subjects because I do not want to give the impression that West’s work focuses on tangential and sensational issues of sexuality. It does not. West focuses on making John Paul II’s vision of our creation as male and female accessible to the common person in the pew. But people deserve answers to their honest questions, and West is charitable in his willingness to meet people where they are.

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. One has to ask why praying over throats is fine while praying over other parts of the body wrong or silly? It would be Manichean to suggest that some parts of the body are good (e.g., the throat) while others (e.g., the reproductive organs) are not. [Generally, the blessing of throats happens during a Mass, it is part of an approved rubric of prayer. Could Dr. Smith point to any rubric ever produced by the Church which has a blessing of genitals?]

I never like to talk about anal sex (sorry, I don’t know a good euphemism). [How about sodomy?] As one of my friends has observed about my sensitivities regarding sexual matters, “You would censor Shakespeare!” (I would.) But the fact remains that Catholic couples in today’s world have questions about such issues. Many cannot understand why anal sex could possibly be appealing to anyone (include me and, indeed, West in that group), while others seem to find the act attractive. Certainly there isn’t any “Church teaching” about this action at a magisterial level, but few seem to know that there is a tradition of approval[!?!] of such behavior as foreplay to intercourse (not to be confused with the biblical condemnation of sodomy which replaces intercourse)by orthodox Catholic ethicists. [Cite a source please? Dr. Schindler did. Why doesn't Dr. Smith?]The principle generally invoked is that consensual actions that culminate in intercourse are morally permissible.[sadomasochism anyone?] People are free to challenge the “tradition” on this point, but it should be acknowledged that West is not a maverick concerning this issue. Indeed, his position is perhaps more “conservative” than that of the “tradition.” In his book Good News About Sex and Marriage, West clearly discourages the practice.[Which edition?] Perhaps it is time for ethicists to work on the question, but what Schindler failed to mention is that West’s position is precisely (or even stricter than) what priests have been trained to teach married couples for a very long time. [Would that be the seminary training that produced at least one recent bishop who failed to realize that anal sex between a priest and a boy was a criminal offense? THAT seminary training?]

In the second portion of his article, Schindler provides a list of his objections to West’s theology without citing one text to substantiate his charges. [Incorrect. He cited the first edition of West's Good News About Sex and Marriage, the Catholic news magazine Crisis and a Colorado newspaper. Did Smith even read Schindler's critique?] I would be very interested in seeing a more sustained presentation of Schindler’s critique. [So, again, Dr. Schindler lied? Or he just can't understand Chris West's prose? It has to be one or the other, right?] As it stands, I do not find that his concerns correspond with what I have read in West’s work or heard in his lectures.[Again, is she speaking as an employee of Chris West's Theology of the Body Institute here? Personally, I've listened to several Chris West lectures, both on tape and in person, and found Dr. Schindler's analysis exceedingly accurate.] I believe a thorough discussion of the issues Schindler raises would enrich our understanding of the Theology of the Body. But for those whose lives are not spent in the academic world, a world in which minutiae can take on epic proportions, let me note that disagreements of the sort that Schindler has with West are an everyday occurrence in the world of academia. That is, we scholars disagree not only with our archenemies but also with our closest and dearest allies. And not just about small matters; Thomists disagree with other Thomists about serious issues of interpretation of Thomistic texts; Thomists and phenomenologists who both are entirely faithful to the Magisterium can have fierce disputes on all sorts of issues. Prof. William May and I once debated on the best way to defend Humanae Vitae. [Bait and Switch. We aren't talking about academicians debating nuances here. We're talking about fallen away Catholics, badly damaged by the culture, as Dr. Smith notes above, being taught by a man who has said he found no serious problem with anal sex. In writing. He's called Mary "flat-chested." He referred to the "bloodied membrane" of the placenta as a tabernacle]

My point is this: The fact that the dean of the John Paul II Institute in Washington D.C. has issues with West’s approach should not discourage anyone from reading West’s work or attending his lectures. [Is she speaking as a paid employee of Chris West's Theology of the Body Institute here?] Schindler has serious disagreements with other reputable, orthodox theologians, including professors on staff at the John Paul II Institute. [All of whom are smart enough to keep their debates off ABC's Nightline] West’s extensive commentary on the Theology of the Body, Theology of the Body Explained, was reviewed for the imprimatur for the Archdiocese of Boston by Prof. May, a longtime colleague of Schindler at the John Paul II Institute, who gave it a glowing endorsement. (I also reviewed and strongly endorsed it.) [And that's apropos of WHAT exactly? A demonstration that he is capable of putting out one book that isn't egregiously wrong? This is a straw man.] Several times in his piece Schindler refers to West’s “intention” to be orthodox which could imply that he has not necessarily achieved orthodoxy. [Ya' think?] We should be clear that West’s works have been given an imprimatur, an ecclesiastical judgment that a work is completely theologically sound. [We should also be clear that imprimaturs are often given in error. The first edition of West's book is substantially different from the second. If it was free from error the first time around, why fix it? And the change is a reversal. What happened to the law of non-contradiction?]

Again, I would be very interested in reading a sustained critique of West’s work by Schindler because of his own tremendous knowledge of the Theology of the Body. Yet, until he substantiates them and we have a response from West and his supporters, we will not be able to evaluate the validity of Schindler’s evaluation. [Isn't this RICH?. Wouldn't one of West's employees be considered a supporter? Why does Dr. Smith refer to herself in the third person here? SHE LECTURES AT HIS INSTITUTE.] West has been giving his presentations for over a decade now; he has shown spectacular docility and humility in reworking them in response to criticisms. [If that were true, Dr. Schindler would not have written his critique. In my personal dealings with Chris West, he has shown no docility or humility at all.] I suspect that as a result of this recent dust-up West may want to adjust some of his approach (or he may not!), but I also am confident that onlookers will find that many of the criticisms against West are without foundation. Some are erroneous because the critics are not sufficiently acquainted with West’s work. Others are not sufficiently acquainted with John Paul II’s work. [Into which category would Dr. Schindler fall? Hmmm???] Sometimes differences are not about substance but about emphasis or semantics. [Fair enough. Cite the John Paul II passages which discuss (a) anal sex, (b) Hugh Hefner (c) Mary's flat chest. After all, if it's just a difference in "emphasis or semantics", we need to see what kind of emphasis JP II put on these things, or how he dealt with these issues semantically.] When dealing with a subject as fraught with distortions and sensitivities as sexuality there are surely going to be differences between people of good will.

Scholars and graduate students will be studying and arguing over the proper interpretation of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body for centuries to come. I think West has already made a very worthy contribution to that discussion. Others are free to differ with him, but I am sure that, in the end, West’s influence will not be found to be a pernicious one. [Well, THERE's a ringing endorsement. After hundreds of words of defense, we don't get "West's influence will be enormous, wonderful" or even "positive". Instead, all we get is "not pernicious." After all this, that is all she can muster? Damning with faint praise? ] Rather, I expect we will all have an immense debt of gratitude to him.[The phrase is generally "owe an immense debt of gratitude." Why would West's employee avoid a money-colored word like "owe"? Oh.]

Janet E. Smith, Ph.D., professor of moral theology, holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. She is the author of Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later and editor of Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader. With Christopher Kaczor, she authored Life Issue, Medical Choices, Questions and Answers for Catholics. Dr. Smith has a new book Right to Privacy. She has also published many articles on ethical and bioethical issues. Over a million copies of her talk, "Contraception: Why Not" have been distributed. [But her work for the Theology of the Body Institute is strangely omitted]

Closing Remarks
The number of logical fallacies that Dr. Smith trots forward here are staggering. This is one of the weakest pieces I've ever seen Dr. Janet Smith produce. But leave all of that aside: something else should be noted, which helps put this whole debate in context.

This is a list of the Board of Directors for Christopher West's Theology of the Body Institute:

His Eminence George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
Most Reverend Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop of Fargo
Most Reverend Robert Baker, Bishop of Birmingham
Most Reverend John M. Dougherty, D.D., V.G. Auxiliary Bishop of Scranton
Most Reverend Victor Galeone, Bishop of Saint Augustine
Most Reverend Alfred C. Hughes, Archbishop of New Orleans
Most Reverend William E. Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport
Most Reverend John Myers, Archbishop of Newark
Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City
Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades, Bishop of Harrisburg
Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Denver (Archbishop Chaput's imprimatur was on West's 1st edition, "Good News" - West had just left employment as his director of Family Life)

Questions for Discussion
Now, take a guess at how many of these bishops would like to see Chris West exposed as theologically unsound?

If West were exposed as theologically unsound, what would that say about the judgment of these bishops?

While the debate rages, at least a dozen bishops of various rank, all of whom have some part of their reputation riding on the outcome, are watching closely, and taking notes.

So, why do you think Dr. Schindler waited so long before he wrote a public critique of West's work - waited until the errors were broadcast on national television in front of millions and he couldn't stand it anymore?

Put another way, given these names, what does Dr. Schindler gain by making his critique?

On the other hand, in addition to being employed by Chris West, why might Dr. Janet Smith find it worthwhile to write a defense of West?

Consider it another way: At least three staff members of the JP II Institute, Dr. David Schindler, Dr. Mary Shivanandan, and Fr. José Granados, have come out against Chris West, as has Alice von Hildebrand. None of these four have financial ties to West, none of them gain any traction with a bishop by making public their positions. West came out of JP II, and JPII Institute has gotten quite a lot of students, quite a lot of federal grant money, by riding West's coattails. Financially speaking, Schindler, Shivanandan and Granados have absolutely nothing to gain from their critique of West and one heck of a lot to lose. This is the kind of thing that can get you forced out of a job.

Worse, Dr. Schindler was West's teacher. Chris West got passing grades from him... and now THIS? If Dr. Schindler is right, isn't he accusing himself of failure to at least some degree? There's absolutely no plus to making these statements from Dr. Schindler's point of view. The whole thing is pure embarrassment, dross, and loss. It is insane for him to say anything aloud, insane to allow other professors to say anything, pure malfeasance to even start this mess... unless.... unless... unless Chris West is a real problem that really needs to be dealt with.

On the other hand, who has so far publicly supported West?
Dr. Janet Smith, who earns money by working at West's institute.
Mark Shea, who works closely with Matt Pinto and Ascension Press, Chris West's publisher.
Dr. Waldstein, who has acknowledged that his own book builds on West's work.

Pay close attention to who is questioning West's theology, who is defending West, and who is keeping their mouths firmly shut. It is quite informative.