Waldstein Attacks Schindler

John Paul II Translator Attacks Head of Pontifical Institute
by Michael Waldstein 5/29/09

I know that David Schindler is a careful scholar, but I was surprised and taken aback by his recent blanket negative statement about Christopher West in reaction to West's Nightline interview. He cites a few anecdotes, quotes some snippets of texts, recalls some discussions he had with West in the past, and then makes a number of sweeping, massive accusations against West's work as a whole.[Actually, Schindler documents several instances of West's incorrect theology. He provides the references in his piece. Of course, he recalls conversations he had in the past - he could hardly recall future conversations, could he?]

His West is not the Christopher West I know from studying West's commentary on the Theology of the Body.
Because of my close work with West during the writing of the new translation of John Paul II's original work, I know he has a deep and faithful understanding of the late pope. West's work is uncompromisingly in line with the Church's faith. Perhaps most striking is his humility in approaching the Theology of the Body and the great desire he has to reach broken humanity with this liberating message. [Both Dr. Waldstein and Dr. Janet Smith stress two things: West is humble and he has great desire to help people. My personal experience with West is that he is NOT humble, he's quite arrogant. Dr. Schindler, his old instructor, apparently has similar experiences. Indeed, so does another instructor, Dr. Mary Shivanandan. No one disputes his desire to help. But desire to help does not equal good theology.]

To answer all of Schindler's objections would require a response too lengthy for the moment; the fact that he cites no texts from West's work on which to base his four main objections also makes a response difficult. [Both Dr. Smith and Dr. Waldstein claim Schindler cites no sources when he obviously DOES. It's almost like they're writing out of the same playbook.] Let me take a single example of Schindler's critique to show how it misses its target: Schindler claims, "West misconstrues the meaning of concupiscence" by denying the permanence of "objective" concupiscence. In fact, West does not contradict the Catholic teaching that concupiscence and the fomes peccati (the tendency to sin) are objective consequences of the Fall that remain in every human being until death. [Dr. Waldstein, could you provide a cite to back that up please? West has long been notorious in his public speeches for insisting that concupiscence could be obliterated through study of TOB. If he's changed his views, that is wonderful!] He is correct in diagnosing strong Jansenist influences in the American Catholicism of the early Twentieth Century, which have historical roots similar to those of Puritanism. Jesuit seminarians, when they took a bath, had to scatter charcoal dust on the surface of the water so that they would not see their own genitals and become sexually aroused. [Cite please?] The appropriate dress for attractive women according to the same spirit would be a black cardboard box. This Jansenist negativity, which is still deeply rooted in some conservative Catholic quarters of the United States (much less in Europe), is profoundly opposed to the pedagogy of the body proposed by John Paul II. [isn't that a lovely swipe? Waldstein not only implies that Schindler is a crypto-Protestant, he then holds out atheistic Europe as a better example of Catholic faith than the United States. I like that. That's the kind of audacity that Barack Obama is always talking about.]

John Paul II considers true growth in virtue not only possible, but necessary for every man and woman. [Straw Man. Who DOESN'T agree?] This is the authentic teaching of the orthodox Catholic tradition in contrast to Jansenism: Also in the sexual sphere, true growth in virtue is possible; virtue can overcome the tendency to sin, though objective concupiscence and the consequent danger of sin remain real. The path to virtue leads through deep awareness of the spousal meaning of the body and through authentic growth in love. "Love, and then do what you want!" says St. Augustine, who is (wrongly) invoked as the father of both Puritanism and Jansenism. These are the truths West highlights in his writings and presentations. I doubt that Schindler denies these truths, but his critique of West sounds almost as if he does. [Oh, isn't that nice? Not only does Waldstein now openly accuse Schindler of crypto-Protestantism, he also provides no cites and essentially admits he has no evidence apart from his own (dark drum roll) "suspicions"!]

There are circumstances that make the vehemence of Schindler's condemnation of West somewhat understandable. As the Provost/Dean of the John Paul II Institute in Washington, Schindler has the responsibility of protecting the name and reputation of this Institute -- a great common good. [That's right, Dr. Waldstein. Dr. SCHINDLER has the responsibility. Not you. So could you explain how your public anti-Schindler diatribe does NOT violate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity? ] Although getting the Theology of the Body message out to the very large audience on Nightline was potentially an important moment in Catholic evangelization, the distortions have the potential of harming not only West's reputation, but the Institute's as well. If Nightline is right, one would expect the main textbook at the John Paul II Institute to be The Joy of Sex According to John Paul II, edited by David Schindler and Hugh Hefner (centerfold included). [Would that centerfold be the Song of Songs? West called a book of Scripture that. Crass, wouldn't you say, Dr. Waldstein? Apparently he wouldn't.] Yet, it is exactly at the point when the defense of a great common good becomes pressing that care needs to be taken so that one does not trample on particular persons, especially when doing so seems to be an effective means of achieving one's end. [Tell me, Doctor, does that mean trampling on Dr. Schindler is a bonum? Or not? Applying one's standard to one's self can be SO confusing.]

The salacious spin Nightline put on West's work (suggesting West is a fan of Hefner's Playboy Magazine) did not come from West, but from ABC, which knows that "sex sells." [Funny, but I thought I heard Chris West make the favorable comparison between Hefner and JP II. ABC just ran what they recorded. Or did ABC dub that in?] I see a great irony in these circumstances. Schindler has a remarkably clear and profound perception of the defects of our dominant liberal culture. He also has a correspondingly keen x-ray vision for the regular distortion of Catholic life and theology in the dominant media. Yet in this instance, he is ready to accept ABC's spin [Who do you believe? Me? Or your Lying Eyes?]at face value, regardless of West's protestations to the contrary [West: "I didn't say it! Alright, I said it, but I didn't mean it! Alright, I said it and meant it, but not THAT way!"] and, more importantly, regardless of West's published works. [Don't listen to what I say! Read what I write!] To use ABC's spin against West is an act of injustice. It does violence to one of the most eloquent and effective messengers of the Theology of the Body. ["And it cuts into my book sales!" Waldstein could have added]

Since he is a careful scholar, Schindler should offer an analysis of West's position as documented in his most recent published works in an appropriate journal, rather than using this media firestorm to go in for a quick kill. [Note: Only Chris West can go on ABC. Dr. Schindler isn't even allowed to issue a press release to Catholic news agencies. Both Dr. Janet Smith and Dr. Waldstein insist that Dr. Schindler should limit his critique of West to scholarly journals, yet neither one limits their critiques of Dr. Schindler to scholarly journals. How is this NOT a double-standard?] He should allow the scholarly process of close reading and judicious interpretation, argument and counterargument to take place, in which West has the opportunity to respond to criticisms in a deliberate fashion. [Translation: "West should get a chance at a deliberate, thoughtful response in a scholarly journal, the kind of response I HAVE NO INTENTION of giving Dr. Schindler. West can say what he wants publicly, but legitimate criticisms of West's work should not be permitted to harm book or CD sales."]

West's main strength lies in his effective communication of John Paul II's teaching on a popular level. [Let West go for the big audience. Dr. Schindler, you go for the "handful of scholars" audience. That's only fair.] An academic might look down at such "popularizing" and disdain serious intellectual engagement with West. [So isn't Schindler's essay "serious intellectual engagement"? Or do you disdain it because he "popularized" it by putting it out in the public press? Waldstein is virtually incoherent here.] In fact, West's theological penetration of John Paul II's work and the expression of his insight in his published materials have high academic quality. They are worthy of serious scholarly engagement. In writing my own book about the Theology of the Body (which is almost completed), I turn to West's commentary often and with profit. [He presents "serious scholarly work" to a large public audience, and the popularity of my work depends on his, so you, Dr. Schindler are invited to shut the hell up.]

Both ABC's spin on West and Schindler's condemnation of him in agreement with that spin do harm to the cause of the Theology of the Body. I appeal to all who work for the promotion of the Theology of the Body to do their utmost to counteract this harm. [I expect a thank you letter from Dr. Waldstein any day now!

But seriously, what Waldstein asks for here is just wrong. To date, three different scholars at JP II Institute have very negatively critiqued Chris West's teaching. In response, Dr. Waldstein not only claims Dr. Schindler is in league with ABC Nightline to harm the Church, he has declared war by appealing to all TOB advocates to rise up against Dr. Schindler and the JP II Institute.

For better or worse, Dr. David Schindler has been given the headship of a pontifically established learning institution. Neither Dr. Waldstein nor Dr. Smith have the right to make such a public appeal. Dr. Smith was wise enough not to do this. Dr. Waldstein, not so much.]

Michael Waldstein, Ph.D. is the Max Seckler Professor of Theology at Ave Maria University. He previously served as founding president of the International Theological Institute in Gaming, Austria, and was the St. Francis of Assisi Professor of New Testament there. He is a member of the Pontifical Council for the Family and is a Distinguished Fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. He holds the degrees of B.A. from Thomas Aquinas College in California, Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Dallas, S.S.L. from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, and a Th.D. in New Testament from Harvard Divinity School. His published works include his definitive translation of John Paul II's Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, The Common Good in St. Thomas and John Paul II (Nova et Vetera), and Dietrich von Hildebrand and St. Thomas Aquinas on Goodness and Happiness (Nova et Vetera).

Comments:
Notice how no one is going after Alice von Hildebrand's critique of West? Or Dr. Shivanandan? It's all been an attack on Dr. David Schindler.

This is not about substance, it is about politics.

If it were about substance, there would be essays against the others as well. But when the head of the JP II Institute says a former student is a problem - which is, as Dr. Waldstein points out, precisely the responsibility Dr. Schindler has - that director is attacked for exercising his legitimate responsibility.

The fact is, Dr. Schindler knew he, as Chris West's "educational father," had the responsibility and the duty to warn about a problem he knew existed with West's teachings. Neither Dr. Janet Smith nor Dr. Michael Waldstein bear Dr. Schindler's level of responsibility, nor does Christopher West.

All three know his critique is damning, so they'll ignore the facts, twist the evidence, (and I wish there were a nicer way to put this, but...) lie about what millions of people saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears (West linking JP II and Hefner), in order to protect their colleague.

If people follow Waldstein's call, a pontifical institute, it's director and its faculty in the United States will be subordinated to a blow-hard with an MA in theology. It will be denigrated by his cult of followers.

How is this not an attack on the institutions of the Church?

As Dr. Janet Smith pointed out, by their fruits you shall know them.