A Theological Debate Heats Up

What is the right relationship between sex and sanctity?

That’s what many Catholics in the US are asking as a simmering theological debate over the “Theology of the Body” threatens to boil over and further test the unity of the Church in the US. The debate touches on issues ranging from the doctrine of original sin to the legacy of Pope John Paul II. And the hierarchy itself seems divided… By Robert Moynihan

“It had never been their intention to set up a separate Church… To be a leaven within the lump, to be an enclave of holiness within the corrupt body of Christendom, was the aim… But the logic of facts was against them. The enthusiast always begins by trying to form a church within the Church, always ends by finding himself committed to sectarian opposition.” —Monsignor Ronald Knox, Enthusiasm

Love and Lust, Sin and Holiness Note: The subject matter of the letter below is human sexuality, a matter which traditional Catholic teaching advises should always be treated with great discretion. And, in essence, that is the tragedy, and the problem, with this growing debate — that matters which should be dealt with in privacy, and with discretion, are being dealt with in public, and without great discretion. So I hesitated before embarking on this letter. But in the end, I felt it important to write it and send it because the controversy does touch on all the issues and questions concerning sexuality in our lives — from love and courtship and marriage, to sexual relations and sexual pleasure, to contraception and homosexuality. Such matters are relevant to all of us who are born into this world — who have physical bodies — and, since our Western culture, increasingly, is offering (often imposing?) views on these matters not in keeping with traditional Christian faith and doctrine, these delicate matters are, in fact, particularly relevant today. But I still prefer to write little myself on this matter. Rather, I prefer to cite what others are saying, in order to give readers an insight into this important controversy. I particularly draw attention to the text by Alice von Hildebrand, at the end, which is an eloquent presentation of traditional Catholic teaching. Her text, as well, may be criticized, but it is written in a careful, respectful way and with a remarkable focus on the true end of human life, which is, in fact, not pleasure in this life and in this world, but eternal life in the world to come, and a joy which passes all understanding, but is not for that reason less real than any earthly joy.

Sex and Sanctity An unusual and intense debate over Catholic teaching on human sexuality and how sexuality relates to sanctity is continuing to unfold in the United States. The debate is complicated, and nuanced, and this newsflash cannot hope to deal with all the complications and nuances. But, it is important, I think, that Catholics, and others, be aware that this debate is occurring. The Man in the Crossfire The man in the crossfire at the moment is Christopher West (photo, right) a Catholic layman who has made a career out of preaching his version of John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” Here is a brief summary of his life’s work. West has a Masters in Theological Studies, Magna Cum Laude (1997) from the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage & Family; Washington, D.C. He is a Certified Catechist of the Archdiocese of Denver Catechetical School (1997) and a Certified Instructor of Marriage Preparation in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. (1996). He received his Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology (1992) from the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. He is a faculty member of The Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Marriage & Family, Melbourne, Australia and of the Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary, Denver, Colorado, where he has been an Instructor in the theology of the body for the Seminary Spirituality Year Program from 2000 to the present, and a Fellow of the Theology of the Body Institute (2005-present) in Denver. West writes on his web site: “The Theology of the Body Institute is a non-profit educational apostolate with the mission of spreading an understanding of the theology of the body throughout the world. As a fellow of the Institute, I serve as a chief researcher, writer, educator, lecturer, consultant, and spokesman for the organization.” Since 1997, West has given approximately 1,000 public lectures on four continents and in more than 150 cities throughout the United States. These include keynote addresses and full-length seminars and retreats on topics such as Christian anthropology (especially John Paul II’s theology of the body), the Creed, morality, sacraments, marriage, sexuality, and family life. From 1997 to 2001, he served as a full-time advisor to and educator for Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver on issues related to Church teaching on marriage, human sexuality, and family life. His books include: Theology of the Body for Beginners: A Basic Introduction to Pope John Paul II’s Sexual Revolution (West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2004); Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II’s “Gospel of the Body” (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 2003); The Wisdom of John Paul II (London: Catholic Truth Society, Publishers to the Holy See, 2001); and Chapter 6 on the Holy Father’s theology of the body, Good News About Sex & Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2000). Support from Leading Catholics Here’s what prominent Catholic voices have to say about Christopher’s work: “Christopher West is ‘a prophet of the sexual counter-revolution.'” —The National Catholic Register “Christopher West’s keen grasp of John Paul II’s theology of the body and his ability to make it accessible to others is changing lives, strengthening marriages, and renewing people’s faith in the Church across the country and internationally. He is on the front lines of the new evangelization and his message should be heard by all.” —Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. Archbishop of Denver “I am familiar with the excellent work Christopher West has done and continues to do promoting Catholic teaching on life and love, especially as given to us by Pope John Paul II in his ‘theology of the body.’ I am grateful to count him among the faithful of the Diocese of Harrisburg and to encourage one and all to listen with an open heart to the message of hope he brings.” —Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades, Diocese of Harrisburg, PA “The vibrancy of Christopher West, his infectious enthusiasm and penetrating understanding of the thought of Pope John Paul II is well-known to those who have heard his lectures and tapes. The public needs to hear what the Holy Father thinks on issues of sexuality, marriage, and celibacy and West has generously committed his considerable talents to making this a possibility.” —Dr. Janet Smith, Professor of Life Issues, Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit “With intellectual care, with the experience bred of long years of teaching this material in the classroom and the parish, and taking account of his own experiences as a husband and father, Christopher West has put us in his debt by making the ‘theology of the body’ available to a wide — and, I hope, appreciative — readership.” —George Weigel, Senior Fellow, Ethics & Public Policy Center So West is a highly regarded, prominent, world-famous Catholic lay theologian on the subject of Pope John Paul II’s “theology of the body.” What has sparked the controversy over his teaching? The May 7, 2009, Television Report which Sparked the Controversy In recent years, West has increasingly treated sexual pleasure in an ever more graphic and positive way. Traditional Catholic teaching holds there is an element in sensual pleasure which can easily lead to selfishness, to immoderate desire for that pleasure, which then draws us, sometimes unwittingly, away from the true end of our lives, which is the love of God and neighbor above all else. This has traditionally been called “concupiscense,” or “lust,” not love, and it is not compatible with true love, no matter how much we may wish it to be. West has for some time raised eyebrows as he has seemed — seemed — to downplay this traditional teaching. But the entire matter might have remained, more or less, a relatively minor one, had West not given an interview to a national television network, ABC News, which was then aired to millions. And in that interview, West paired Pope John Paul II (photo, left) with Hugh Hefner (photo, below), the founder of Playboy magazine, as two of the key inspirations for his work. Pope Hefner? In short, West went so far as to seem to “baptize” the father, or godfather, of modern pornography. Here is a link to the interview where West makes such statements: This ABC interview led first to some sparring between West’s critics and supporters. It then sparked the decision of Alice von Hildebrand to write a long essay, just released, critiquing West’s theology (complete text below).

Schindler’s Critique First to criticize West was his former professor at the John Paul II Institute in Washington DC, David Schindler, editor of Communio magazine — the theological journal founded by Joseph Ratzinger and other 40 years ago shortly after the Second Vatican Council. On May 23, 2009 — more than a year ago — under the headline “Christopher West ‘significantly’ misrepresents JP II’s thought, leading theologian says,” Schindler said, essentially, that West had gone far beyond anything John Paul II actually said and taught. Here are excerpts from a Catholic News Agency story on the matter. (Catholic News Agency is based in Denver, Colorado, in the same archdiocese where West has worked under Archbishop Charles Chaput.) Washington D.C., May 23, 2009 / 07:21 am (CNA) — Continuing the reaction to Catholic speaker Christopher West’s ABC interview on the Theology of the Body, prominent theologian David L. Schindler has said that, despite West’s fidelity to the Church and his positive results for many Catholics, his approach significantly misrepresents Pope John Paul II’s thought and is “too much about sex and too romantic.” Schindler recommended West subject his theology to “renewed reflection.” On May 7, ABC News presented a story and a seven-minute interview segment with Christopher West on his interpretation of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. ABC claimed West declared both John Paul II and Hugh Hefner to be his “two big heroes.” It also showed him saying that Christians “must complete what the sexual revolution began” and must bring God and sex “back together.” In response to the story, West said that ABC tried to make his points understandable but “’sensationalized’ misrepresentations and distortions of his views and presentations.” Schindler, who is also an editor of the international Catholic review “Communio,” emphasized that he agreed West intends to be a faithful Catholic. In fact, Schindler said he believes the speaker “would throw himself in front of a bus for the Church.” Though remarking that West has had “positive results” in drawing many Catholics, Schindler said good will is not synonymous with sound thought. “West’s work seems to me to misrepresent in significant ways the thought of John Paul II,” he wrote. Schindler cited several instances where he said West was not only “vulgar and in bad taste” but also suggestive of “a disordered approach to human sexuality.” He claimed that West has suggested spouses bless their genitals before making love, has blessed the ovaries of women in his classes, and has advised young men in college and the seminary to look at their naked bodies in the mirror daily “in order to overcome shame.” (Note: This suggestion of West’s strangely echoes the poem by American poet William Carlos Williams in his poem Danse Russe: If I, when my wife is sleeping, and the baby and Kathleen are sleeping and the sun is a flame-white disc in silken mists above shining trees, — if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself: ‘I am lonely, lonely. I was born to be lonely, I am best so!” If I admire my arms, my face, my shoulders, flanks, buttocks, against the yellow drawn shades, — Who shall say I am not the happy genius of my household? West would have seminarians dance in such a way, it would appear. But can we imagine the apostles and saints so dancing?) Schindler also claimed that West has used “phallic symbolism” to describe the Easter candle, has criticized “flat-chested” images of Mary in art, and has claimed there is nothing wrong with an unnatural act as marital foreplay. An “objective distortion” in approaching sexuality is not eliminated simply because of theological overtones, Schindler wrote. He said West misconstrues the meaning of concupiscence and stresses “purity of intention” in a one-sided way when talking about lust. Schindler charged that West presents love in a “reductive bodily-sexual sense” and treats the Christian mysteries as “more perfect realizations” of sex. “But sex is not even the most important part of human love, let alone the key to the Christian mysteries–the Eucharist, for example,” he wrote, adding that West misses the “radical discontinuity” between divine love revealed by God and sexual love or intercourse. Schindler charged that West promotes a “pansexualist tendency” that ties all important human and supernatural activity back to sex without making necessary distinctions. “If we could just get over our prudishness and sin-induced guilt, he seems to think, we would be ready simply to dispense with clothes and look at others in their nakedness,” Schindler said. He added that West treats shame and reverence with “a too-male vision” that is “distorted.” This misses the differences between men and women’s different experiences of modesty and shame, he explained. The theologian also remarked that styles of preaching are not simply differences in personality or taste but have theological consequences. He argued that West tends to treat resistance to his lectures as if it was resistance to the Holy Spirit and urges questioners to overcome the “fear” generated by their poor formation. “Well-balanced persons have spoken of how West makes them feel a sense of guilt, of resistance to the Holy Spirit, if they experience uneasiness about what he is saying,” he continued. Schindler then charged that West’s interpretation of the Theology of the Body is “too much about sex and too romantic,” warning that his “unquestionably orthodox intensions” make his theology appear more credible than it is. “His work often deflects people from the beauty and depth of what is the authentic meaning of John Paul II’s anthropology of love, and thus of what was wrought in and through the Second Vatican Council.” “West has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Church,” Schindler’s essay concluded. “However, if his work is to bear the Catholic fruit he so ardently desires, he needs to subject basic aspects of his theology to renewed reflection.” To read Schindler’s full critique of West’s theology visit: https://www.catechism.cc/articles/David-Schindler-Christopher-West.htm

West’s Self-Defense West defended himself by publishing this text on his website: Christopher West on ABC’s Nightline Christopher West and the Theology of the Body Institute are pleased that a wider audience has been exposed to their work through the segment which aired Thursday, May 7, 2009 on ABC News Nightline. It is our hope that it will encourage people to take a deeper look at the Church’s teachings on the sacredness of human sexuality as God intends it. In an effort to correct any editorial comments which may appear misleading, the following few points will help clarify the actual teaching of The Theology of the Body: Regarding the connection between John Paul II and Hugh Hefner, Christopher often points out the interesting historical “coincidence” of the work of these two profoundly influential men. In the early 1950s, as Hefner was founding Playboy magazine, Karol Wojtyla began to lecture and write about the need for Christians to experience a redemption of their bodies and sexuality. In their respective work, both Hefner and John Paul II responded to a puritanical/Manichean approach to sexuality, but they offered completely different solutions to the problem. This is the historical “connection” of which Christopher spoke in the Nightline interview. ABC latched onto this point, but they failed to provide the larger context Christopher offered in his extended interview with Nightline’s correspondent. This lack of proper context has led some to misinterpret Christopher’s remarks as somehow endorsing Hefner’s views. The point Christopher made—but which wasn’t included in the Nightline piece—was that, as Catholics, we agree with Hugh Hefner’s diagnosis of the disease (i.e., a puritanical rejection of the body and sexuality is utterly contrary to Catholic faith), but we radically disagree with his cure. Christopher told the Nightline correspondent that the Theology of the Body is the true cure for the disease that Hefner diagnosed. These distinctions were lost in the seven-minute piece that ABC aired. Indeed, Nightline made it sound as if West considered Hefner a “hero” of his, which he certainly never said. West has dedicated his life to fighting the terrible distortions of pornography. West’s “love” for Hugh Hefner is a Christian love—a hope that Hefner would come to discover the riches of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the profound insights of the Theology of the Body. To see the full context of what Christopher said visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqRKvNX4IKU. Christopher West is not a sex therapist. He is a Catholic educator, author, lecturer, and faculty member of the Theology of the Body Institute. The TOB Institute is an educational organization and does not engage in sex therapy. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is intended for every human being, regardless of his or her state in life and regardless of what sexual tendencies one might experience in this fallen world. The TOB povides not only a vision of God’s glorious plan for human sexuality and married love, but a vision of what it means to be human and what it means to love in the image and likeness of God. From beginning to end, Sacred Scripture unfolds a glorious love story, a story about the “marriage” between God and humanity, Christ and the Church. By inviting men and women to particpate in this love, Scripture shows us the “path of love” — including the path for spouses in their sexual intimacy. However, in a cultural climate fixated on the mechanics of sex rather than on authentic marital love, to describe the Bible as the “ultimate sex guide” can be misleading. It is certainly a guide to love, and, indeed, to the “ultimate” love: the love revealed in Christ. The Song of Songs presents an unabashed biblical celebration of the chaste love of a husband and wife, including multiple references to the intimacies of “tasting” the goodness of the other. To construe this as an endorsement for “oral sex” (as the culture uses that term) can be more than misleading. Please see Christopher West’s book Good News About Sex and Marriage (chapter 5) for the full context of his answer to this question. ====================================== Bishops Still Support West Despite Schindler’s criticism, at least two bishops leaped to West’s defense. Here are excerpts from a September 19, 2009 story on their action: Philadelphia, Pa., Sep 19, 2009 / 10:52 am (CNA) — Cardinal Justin Rigali and Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg have issued a statement affirming their “strong support” for the “important work” of the Theology of the Body Institute, saying its founder Christopher West has a “charism” to popularize the work of Pope John Paul II. The cardinal, who is Archbishop of Philadelphia, is chairman of the institute’s episcopal advisory board. Bishop Rhoades heads the diocese that West lives in. Their August 10 statement, released on September 17, reported that West is in communication with them as his local ordinaries and has their blessing. “We are convinced that John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is a treasure for the Church, indeed a gift of the Holy Spirit for our time,” the two prelates wrote. “Yet, its scholarly language needs to be ‘translated’ into more accessible categories if the average person is to benefit from it,” they continued. “To do this is the specific mission of the Theology of the Body Institute, and we believe that Christopher West, the Institute’s popular lecturer and spokesman, has been given a particular charism to carry out this mission.” Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Rhoades said the Theology of the Body Institute’s programs, courses and materials show “strong fidelity” to the teaching of the Church and to the thought of Pope John Paul II. Referring to “recent discussions,” the two bishops said they were happy to express their “full confidence” in West, saying he continues to show “Great responsibility and openness” in listening to and considering observations and reflections on his work. ============================= But In Rome, A Theologian Still Sees Problems Nevertheless, the debate still seemed unfinished, especially considering that an important Roman theologian was arguing that there were srious problems with West’s teachings. Here are excerpts from an interview with Fr. Maurizio Faggioni, OFM, published on July 3, 2009. Rome, Italy, Jul 3, 2009 / 02:33 pm (CNA) — Fr. Maurizio Faggioni, OFM, a professor at the top pontifical institute for moral theology, the Pontifical Academy “Alphonsianum,” said in a recent interview with Catholic News Agency that the teachings of the Church suggest “far more prudence” in approaching some of the issues raised by Christopher West in his presentation of the Theology of the Body. Faggioni, a Franciscan who teaches at the Alphonsianum, an academy named upon the father of modern Moral theology, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, is one of the most consulted moral theologians and is an advisor to several Vatican dicasteries. In a conversation with CNA, Fr. Faggioni explained that some of the issues discussed publicly by West, such as the appropriateness of anal sex or other forms of sexual “foreplay” in married relationships, have to be dealt with using great care, since “the risk is of displacing the attention from marital love and the anthropologic meaning of lovely gestures to merely the genital aspects.” “Sexuality,” Fr. Faggioni said, launching into his analysis of West’s presentation of the Theology of the Body, “is the language of love and this language is authentic only when it is respectful of the meaning of human love.” According to the moral theologian, “the traditional moral theology certainly does not prohibit intimacy among spouses, but it never regards them as a substitute for the marital embrace and accepts intimacy only as a path toward a complete sexual union.” Moreover, Fr. Faggioni said that “it is simply not true that the traditional Catholic moral supports the use of acts that Thomas Aquinas call contra naturam — against nature — (such as anal sex) as something ordinary.” “Catholic moral theology calls us to be very discrete in discussing these issues, and encourages being particularly respectful to the sensibilities of persons and couples,” the Italian Franciscan explained. “Regarding this type of intercourse or others, no one can pretend to accept from another person something that offends that person’s sensibility on sexual issues or that does not respect the structure and natural complementarity of the bodies of man and woman.” The moral theologian warned that “today’s youth, in a special manner, have to be protected from unnecessary exposure to sexual-genital issues that can lead to a morbid curiosity.” “This is not prudishness, but the wisdom of the Church that has time and again demonstrated the importance of discretion and prudence when it comes to sexual issues,” he added. “When we make these types of assertions in an indiscriminate manner, we are actually getting into the beds of married couples, and that is something the moral teaching of the Church does not encourage at all.” Regarding the practice of blessing the genitals before a sexual relationship, Fr. Faggioni expressed “real perplexity.” “Without doubt, all the body in each one of its parts is God’s creation and deserves honor. We precisely respect our private parts by surrounding them with greater respect and modesty.” “In itself,” he continued, “nothing forbids thanking God for the sexual body of oneself or the spouse, but from the perspective of Christian anthropology, it is not right to emphasize the genitals as if our sexuality could be reduced to them. “Love is made with all the body, with the entire person’s humanity, not only with the genitals.” Fr. Faggioni also explained that Pope John Paul never intended to specifically address the sexual Puritanism of the United States. “Pope John Paul wanted to distance himself equally from the moral relativism that trivializes sex, as much as from the Puritanism that considers sex as taboo,” he explained. The late Pope, the moral theologian also said “exalted the beauty of the body and sexuality, but also taught that the body cannot be used as an instrument, as if it would not be the bearer of a meaning and values that man and woman are called to embrace and live with gratefulness and fidelity,” he said on ending. =================================== The Essay by Alice von Hildebrand And the debate did not end last year. On July 21 this summer, two weeks ago, Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand published a lengthy, eloquent essay on the entire affair. In her essay, she contrasts the approach of her late husband, noted philosopher Dietrich Von Hildebrand, with West’s methods. The essay was entitled “Dietrich Von Hildebrand, Catholic Philosopher, and Christopher West, Modern Enthusiast: Two Very Different Approaches to Love, Marriage and Sex.” The essay was nearly one year in preparation. “I started working on this article last September, at the request of several friends who were seriously concerned about some of the formulations of Christopher West and questioning whether he could truly be called a disciple of John Paul II, whose writings never evoked negative responses from Catholics,” Von Hildebrand said. Speaking on the effects her husband’s works have had in shaping her latest essay, Von Hildebrand said, “My late husband’s book, In Defense of Purity (which I read when I was nineteen, and had a profound influence on my life), is so deeply rooted in the sacred tradition of our beloved Holy Church, that it occurred to me that a parallel study of his thoughts and the presentation of Christopher West, might be enlightening.” Despite “the incontestable merits of West’s presentation” of the Theology of the Body, “for which we owe him gratitude,” she said that West “at times, loses sight of the ‘golden chain of tradition.’” In her essay, Dr. Von Hildebrand explains that there are two main concerns she has with West’s approach to presenting the teachings of Venerable John Paul II on human sexuality. The first is that West “erroneously” assumes “that John Paul II has initiated a ‘revolution’ in Catholic teaching” in the concept of the Theology of the Body. The second concern is that West uses “loose” and what could be viewed as crude and graphic language in describing what she calls the “intimate sphere” of human sexuality. “With his many talents, Christopher West has much to offer the Church,” Von Hildebrand affirmed in her concluding remarks. Yet, “I believe he will only fulfill his potential if he presents the Theology of the Body according to the traditions of the Church – reverently and with humility – and liberates himself from the wayward ‘enthusiasms’ of our time,” she said.

Addendum: The Complete Text of Alive von Hildebrand’s Essay Here is the complete text of Alice von Hildebrand’s essay: Dietrich von Hildebrand, Catholic Philosopher, and Christopher West, Modern Enthusiast:Two Very Different Approaches to Love, Marriage and Sex By Alice von Hildebrand Introduction It is a joy to praise a great book or author; it is a grief and duty to criticize a bad one. But it is especially difficult to criticize someone who has many talents, whose work has positive sides, but which also suffers from certain faults, calling for correction. Such is the case with Christopher West, with his popular presentation of John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” As gifted as he is—and as much as I appreciate all the good he has done for the Church—West’s work continues to fall short in many respects. He has sometimes misunderstood the authentic Catholic tradition; overlooked or disregarded essential aspects of it; and promoted a new form of religious “enthusiasm” which can best be described as wayward. Monsignor Ronald Knox, who critiqued this attitude so well in his book Enthusiasm, was a prophet, recognizing such outbursts as recurring phenomena in the history of the Church, characteristic of easily misguided movements for which we should always be on the watch. Key to my concerns is West’s hyper-sexualized approach to the Theology of the Body. The French have a wonderful word to capture the veiling of one’s intimate feelings, out of a proper sense of shame—pudeur, a “holy bashfulness,” so to speak. Seized as he is by what he regards as his calling to evangelize a new generation with this theology in “modern” ways they can supposedly better understand, West practically ignores the importance of pudeur, and, by his imprudence, winds up undermining his own message. In light of the controversy surrounding West’s work, which has affected millions via his books, DVDs, videos and conferences, I would like to contrast his views with those of my late husband, Dietrich von Hildebrand, whose work regarding Catholic teaching on human sexuality avoids the hazards and traps too often found in West’s work. My goal is to alert parents and educators alike to common philosophical errors that have gravely negative consequences in Christopher West’s lectures and publications. Part 1: The Nature of the Intimate Sphere 1. Dietrich von Hildebrand and the Intimate Sphere In 1927, thirteen years after his conversion to Catholicism, Dietrich von Hildebrand published a book of key importance, Reinheit und Jungfraulichkeit (In Defense of Purity). Through unmerited graces—coming, as he did, from a non-religious background—on a purely natural level, Dietrich had always “felt” that the intimate sphere was essentially linked to love, and so to approach it as “fun” was a desecration. But the moment he entered the Blessed Ark, the Holy Catholic Church, his approach to this sphere was “baptized:” He now viewed sex through the eyes of a believer, perceiving its profound relationship with God. Prior to his conversion, Dietrich did not “see” that artificial birth control was a matter of serious moral gravity. But once he became a Catholic, he gratefully perceived what he had always “felt”—namely, that sex within marriage had to be completed and perfected according to Heaven’s design, which meant being open to the creation of human life at all times. Dietrich, as a Catholic, now understood that in the marital embrace, when the husband gives his wife the precious semen that God has placed in his body, he starts a causal chain that can lead to pregnancy: the spouses are collaborating with their Creator, in order to bring a new life into existence. This is a privilege not even granted to the angels; the importance and beauty of which needed to be recognized. Between “procreation” and “copulation,” Dietrich saw an abyss separating persons incarnated into a body, and animals. The human body, as the utterly unique creation of God, was—and still is—called upon to have the “Heavenly seal” of personhood in every single bodily activity. This is why St. Paul writes, “whether you eat or drink, glorify God” (1 Corinthians 10: 31-32). The insights Dietrich garnered, prior to his conversion, were now elevated to a supernatural level, opening his eyes to the Church’s teachings on chastity –marital and non-marital– and the beauty of virginity. 2. The Intimate Sphere and Original Sin Because the intimate sphere differs radically from other bodily instincts, it was bound to be deeply affected by Original Sin. Corruptio optimi, pessima. The ugly harvest of sins committed in this sphere is large. We need not go into details, but no one can deny that it is a domain in which the Devil (the master of ceremonies) has had a field day since the onset of Original Sin, and still does. Dorothy Day, who admired my husband’s work, wrote about her own reaction to the work of Havelock Ellis, a popular “sexologist” of the day: “One might also say that an ugly tide rose in me, a poisonous tide, a blackness of evil, at reading there so many things that certainly do not need to be known by other than doctor or priest, by those who are schooled to bear it and trained to help in relation to it. Dr. von Hildebrand writes about the poisonous fascination of sex, its deadly allure in the abstract. I felt it then in its most hideous form, and there was no beauty in it, no love, but it was like the uncoiling of a dank and ugly serpent in my breast. These may be extreme ways of expressing myself, but I am sure that at times there has been this consciousness of evil in us all. Evil as a negation, as an absence of God, as a blackness, a glimpse of Hell ‘where everlasting horror dwelleth, and no order is.’” Day, a great convert, goes on to favorably quote a young mother who laments how so many “are easily betrayed by that ‘poisonous fascination’ of which Dr. von Hildebrand speaks. They begin the descent to the Dark Angel, through the mysticism of Evil, only half knowing what they are doing” (Dorothy Day, On Pilgrimage, Eerdman’s, 1999, pp. 129-134). When Christ through the Apostles and His holy Bride, the Church, slowly conquered the Western world, one crucial task was to make Christians aware of the unique character of this sphere: its dignity and its dangers. Plato had already warned us that pleasure is an enemy that is not easy to conquer: one of the main aims of education, he wrote, is to teach a child to achieve victory over pleasure. Pleasure in itself is not evil; it is the Creator himself who has linked pleasure to certain bodily activities. But the great task of a truly Christian education is to baptize pleasure, to receive it gratefully as a gift, and not to claim it as a right. There are legitimate pleasures, calling for gratitude, but also illegitimate ones: gluttony and drunkenness, and alas, inherently perverse ones. The Church, as a loving Mother, has the mission of reminding Her children, wounded by Original Sin, that the intimate sphere has to be approached with reverence. Dietrich von Hildebrand’s In Defense of Purity makes the point that God, and not a boundless search for “pleasure,” should always be king of the bedroom. As Day noted, Dietrich stressed that this private sphere, though blessed by God when properly entered, is fraught with dangers. It can be inebriating, befuddling, and totally anesthetize man’s spiritual and moral faculties. Man easily becomes prey to his feelings. The Bible is rich in such examples. Clearly, King David—a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14)—totally lost control of himself when he saw Bathsheba who was very beautiful. He was defeated by her attraction, and committed adultery, followed by murder. Because of an unchecked desire for “pleasure,” one of the greatest sons of Israel committed an abominable crime. Thanks to Nathan, however, he repented. King David’s sins underscore how sexual desire can degenerate into what Dietrich calls “diabolical” temptations. Some of the most atrocious perversions occur when the Devil takes over completely. And one should never downplay, or minimize, the gravity of these evils. It is plainly false to claim that such abuses are “tragic,” rather than “filthy.” 3. The Intimate Sphere and Reverence These are certain truths of which Dietrich von Hildebrand never lost sight of. Throughout all his Catholic writings, he insists upon humility and reverence: humility because nobody, except the Blessed One among women, Mary, is safe; and reverence because of the depth and mystery of this sacred domain—a domain Dietrich always believed called for veiling. Fed on great Catholic literature from the time of his conversion, he also knew that this sphere should be baptized. This is why the Catholic Church (with the Orthodox) makes marriage one of the seven sacraments. While distortions can be found in the history of Catholic understanding of sexuality, they should be recognized as just that—distortions, which are not representative of the core. It is simply false to claim that the Church has, until recently, been blind to the deep meaning and beauty of sex as God intended it: we need only turn to St. Francis de Sales to see how profoundly he understood the meaning that God gave to this sphere. He writes: “It is honorable to all, in all, and in everything, that is, in all its parts” (Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III, Chapter 38). It is simply not true to claim that, until recently, the beauty and meaning of this sphere had been totally obscured by Puritanism and Manichaeism. Many from my generation can testify—against those who misrepresent it today—that the education we received did not, on the whole (there are always exceptions) present sex as “dirty”. What was communicated, with delicacy, was a sense of “mystery” for something great, that had to be approached with deep reverence, and which, when abused, led to very serious offenses against God. My general criticism of Christopher West is that he does not seem to grasp the delicacy, reverence, privacy, and sacredness of the sexual sphere. He also underestimates the effects of Original Sin on the human condition. 4. Tua Culpa, or Mea Culpa? One of the many dangers threatening us today is the widespread tendency to put the blame on others. Christopher West resorts to this strategy in his book, Good News About Sex and Marriage, when he writes: “I myself am frustrated by the fact that I didn’t learn about the richness and sensibleness of the Church’s teaching when I was growing up, despite twelve years of Catholic education. For the most part, the message was simply, ‘Don’t do it.’ So what did I do? The exact opposite, of course. “Had I been taught how wonderful and beautiful the Catholic vision of sex and marriage actually is, perhaps I would have thought it something worth holding out for. Perhaps I would have been spared the pain I inflicted on myself and others.” (Good News About Sex and Marriage, revised edition, p. 69) Here, West falls into a contemporary trap. The tua culpa [you are at fault] has replaced the mea culpa [I am at fault]. To assume that those who fall into sexual sin necessarily would have led a pure life, had one’s parents or teachers been more “open” in their approach to the intimate sphere, is pure illusion. Another mistake West makes is to assume that pornography is an understandable—if sinful and misguided—effort to quench the sexual impulse: “God gave us that desire,” he told an interviewer. “When we go to pornography to satisfy that desire, its like eating junk food. It’s not going to satisfy the legitimate hunger and need of the human heart.” (Legatus Magazine, March 2010). But here, West ignores an obvious fact, all too prevalent throughout human history: many people like “junk food”—in this case, pornography and illicit sex (this is why brothels will never go out of business)—and often prefer it, even when a healthy alternative—in this case, authentic Catholic teaching—is presented to them. That is because Catholic orthodoxy — as enriching as it is, and even within the context of a loving, sacramental marriage—entails sacrifice and self-control, rather than the “hunger” of self-indulgence. The Old Testament has a great deal to teach us about this: the Israelites were constantly given gifts from Heaven—most famously, the “Manna,” for which they did not have to work, God having generously removed the burden of their sins (“thou shalt earn thy bread with the sweat of thy brow”). This divine gift enabled them to survive the Exodus—and yet, even though that Manna was more than enough to sustain them, it didn’t cater to their selfish “hunger”; so many abandoned God’s law and went back to the ‘”junk food” of their time—the flesh pots of Egypt. Thus, the Scripture teaches: God shows us the way, and offers us proper food, and yet people willfully reject the Lord’s gifts and laws, using the excuse that they are “hungry” for more. “Had I had the proper food, I would not have fed myself on junk food,” says the individual looking to avoid personal responsibility. Alas, junk food can be very attractive because it “flatters” our palate. But, in fact, pornography is not just unhealthy food. It is veritable poison, for it corrupts the mind and heart. 5. “Happy Talk” and Asceticism It must be recognized: “happy talk” about sex and sexuality, even if it is wrapped in religious language, cannot communicate the full truth about God’s plan for human sexuality unless it includes the difficulties of living out an elevated moral life. Sex enthusiasts in the Church like West often speak about the “raging hormones” many feel growing up, but the solution they propose to cure it—stimulate people even more, with a hyper-sexualized presentation of Catholic teaching—can easily aggravate the situation. Moreover, they consistently ignore the one successful remedy the Church has always called upon to address this malady: asceticism, the spirit of renunciation and sacrifice. It is crucial to a healthy moral and spiritual life; it is a way of collaborating with God’s grace, to “achieve victory over pleasure,” as the pre-Christian Plato wisely said. Why does St. Paul teach us, “And they that are Christ’s, have crucified the flesh with the passions and lusts” (Galatians 5: 24)? Why did St. Benedict throw himself into a thorny bush? Why did St. Francis engage in self-mortification? Because, following Scripture, they believed that disciplining their bodily desires, was indispensable to overcoming temptation. If such measures are considered unnecessary and too “extreme” today, other forms of asceticism—an intense prayer life, frequent confession, modesty in dress and language, and avoiding all possible occasions of sin– should not be considered so. One does not have to be a puritan or kill-joy to know that Christopher West’s infatuation with pop culture and rock and roll is a long way from the austere spirit of the New Testament. Grace is what is needed to be pure; the saints teach us the way. Asceticism, under proper guidance, which respects the integrity of the body, should never be dismissed as “masochistic,” psychologically damaging, or treated as a form of Freudian “repression,”– least of all by Catholics. For it is Catholics who are called to a higher state of life; and it is sheer illusion to believe that moral perfection can be pursued without this purifying discipline. Part 2: Speaking of the Intimate Sphere That the intimate sphere should be treated with reverence necessarily affects the way we speak about it, and this concerns educators, in a particular way, since they must adapt their speech to the needs of their hearers. How is one to address individuals who have been so influenced by the vulgarity of our age? How can one teach them to view love and sexuality in an exalted and reverent way? 1. The Risk of Vulgarizing the Holy We live in a thoroughly secularized and de-Christianized culture (what my husband would have described as an “anti-culture”). For this reason, “spiritual sensitivity” is deficient in most of us. A few examples come to mind: When a parish priest refers to God from the pulpit as “the nice guy upstairs,” many people consider this to be a fun way of referring to God: it is chummy; it makes them feel comfortable; it is a “democratic approach.” St. Teresa of Jesus would shed tears. She always refers to God as Su Majesdad, for indeed He is King. When another parish priest, preparing grammar school children for their first confession, referred to this awesome sacrament as a “fun experience,” I felt like crying. This awesome moment, when the soul turns to God for forgiveness, is stripped of its supernatural character and presented as “amusing.” It is a modern desecration. Yet, many people in the pews, who have no perception of these profound spiritual evils, would feel awed if they had the secular “honor” of being invited to the White House by President Obama. This is the reason, I believe, the sacredness of sex is so often addressed by using a vocabulary which makes it impossible to have the reverence called for. This is why people feel perfectly comfortable discussing personal and intimate matters in public– matters, which, by their very nature, call for tremendous discretion. An analogy comes to mind: Because of my deep love for classical music, I have been in contact with great musicians. What I discovered is that they have such an exquisite sensitivity to sounds that they perceive the slightest “disharmony” which escapes most of us. Am I wrong in fearing that “modern man,” deafened by sounds, poisoned by evil images and pictures, can no longer register cacophonic sounds which harm the sensitive enamel of their souls? This is why I often hear people say: “I do not see why this is shocking. I do not see why this is wrong. I do not see why others call this coarse.” As a veteran in the classroom, these are remarks that I heard ad nauseam. That a person does not “see” an object referred to does not mean that there is nothing to be seen. There are cases of hallucinations. But much more frequently people are morally and spiritually near-sighted and this explains why they can say “honestly” that they do not see. Years ago, Dietrich von Hildebrand gave a beautiful talk on the words of the blind man of Jericho saying to Christ: That I may see. The saints perceive. Most of us do not see, for we are more or less blind and desperately need correcting glasses. These glasses are provided by humility—an awareness that we need help. “Holy Sex”? Christopher West’s presentations consistently use language that lacks sensitivity, thereby obscuring the good inherent in marriage and the marital embrace A particular example of this vulgarization, and its relationship to the work of Christopher West, is West’s glowing review of Gregory Popcak’s book Holy Sex (a tempting title). I have read hundreds of book reviews in my life, and cannot ever recall having come across a recommendation quite like this one, with such overabundant, unrestrained praise. “Every engaged and married couple on the planet should have a copy,” writes West about Holy Sex. He continues: “Popcak goes right between the sheets, shall we say, providing a very frank, honest, and practical discussion of the sexual joys and challenges of the marital bed. I must admit, even I, on occasion, found myself taken aback by Popcak’s forthrightness. … Even if his boldness is occasionally jarring, that’s precisely what’s so refreshing about this book. It tells it like it is and, by doing so, gives couples permission to face and discuss delicate issues. More importantly, Holy Sex gives couples tools to overcome the many difficulties they inevitably face on the road to a truly holy sex life.” (From, West’s column, “Dr. Ruth Meets Thomas Aquinas,” posted on his website, ChristopherWest.com). Readers are left to wonder that they should feel sorry for married people who, because of their age, had no access to such a treasure when they were young. The question comes up: What about the holy and very happy marriages that have been among the blessings of the Catholic Church through the ages? What about the very happy marriage of St. Elizabeth of Hungary? How did all these Catholic couples experience such love, and achieve such content, deprived as they were of such modern “classics” as Popcak’s book on sex? I have no doubt what my husband would say about all this: he would not have “joined the party,” but rather, reserved glowing praise for genuine Catholic classics, like St. Augustine’s Confessions and St. Francis de Sales’ Introduction to the Devout Life. Having acquainted myself (reluctantly) with Popcak’s Holy Sex, I do not believe it merits the extravagant praise West grants it. I do know that my husband would never write such a review. For one thing, he would have strongly objected to the book’s graphic, explicit nature, which West mistakenly sees as “boldness” rather than vulgarity. For another, Dietrich would have vigorously opposed Popcak’s so-called ”one rule”–that married couples “may do whatever they wish,” as long as they don’t use contraception, “both feel loved and respected,” and the marital act culminates within the woman. (p. 193). As another reviewer commented , this reduces marital love to a lowest common denominator, where “everything else can be left to the judgment of each couple. A variety of sexual positions, oral sex, sexual toys, and role playing are all judged permissible as long as couples follow the ‘one rule.’” (Catholicbookreviews.org, 2008) These ideas would have struck Dietrich von Hildebrand as abhorrent. It is precisely because the marital bed is sacred that one should approach acts within it with enormous reverence. Degrading and perverse sexual behavior — even it is it done by a married couple, who do not practice contraception — should be condemned, as an assault on human dignity. The “pornification” of marriage should be resisted as vigorously as the pornification of our culture. I cannot describe what Dietrich thought of pornography: the very word triggered an expression of horror on his noble face. The same thing is true of sodomy. He had such a sense for the dignity of human persons that any posture, which sins against this dignity, was repulsive to him. It is in this context, that we should judge Popcak’s shocking suggestion (p. 248) that “as Christopher West has noted in his book, Good News About Sex and Marriage, there is nothing technically forbidding a couple from engaging” in sodomy (provided the husband culminates the normal sex act within his wife); and that, while he discourages the practice of marital sodomy, “nevertheless, following Augustine’s dictum and in the absence of greater clarification from the Church, couples are free to exercise prudential judgment” in this regard. That a Catholic author would cite “Augustine’s dictum” (presumably the much-misinterpreted “Love, and do what you will”) as a justification for sodomy would have broken my husband’s heart. Furthermore, the fact that an act is not formally condemned does not entitle us to believe that it is right or good. When Cain murdered his brother, he was not disobeying a formal order from God, but he knew he was committing a grave moral evil–against the Natural Law–already written on mankind’s heart. Similarly, petri dish “conception” is an abomination in and by itself, even though it is not in the Ten Commandments. It is against the dignity of a person to be “made” in a laboratory. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Mathew 11: 15) In this context, it is important for couples to avoid what Canon Jacques Leclerc calls “any corruption of love” in the marital bed. He writes: “There are many who believe that once they are married, they may do whatever they like.” But “they do not understand,” he continues, that “the search for every means of increasing pleasure can be a perversion.” He cautions: “Now, there are even among the most Christian young people many who know nothing of the moral aspect of the problem and have only the rudimentary idea that everything is forbidden outside marriage, but that within marriage everything is allowed. It is thus a good thing to remember that the morality of conjugal relations does not allow that pleasure should be sought by every means, but calls for a sexual life that is at the same time healthy, simple and normal.” (Marriage: A Great Sacrament, 1951, p. 88). These are sentiments which my husband, Dietrich von Hildebrand, would have thoroughly approved. The Use of Analogy This discussion of the vulgarization of the intimate sphere, by means of language, leads me to a topic of great importance, which I can only sketch briefly: analogy. Human language seeks ways of expressing those higher realities that are beyond the grasp of our senses. God has left signs of His unseen greatness in the earthly realities that we see, and this is a blessing. But there is also the danger of confusing the beauty of creatures with higher Heavenly realities. The other insight to remember is that analogy, in the AGE OF FAITH, was understood in a way that is completely different from our age of secularism, relativism, subjectivism and eroticism. Hence, a beautiful, sacred book like “the Song of Songs,” which draws parallels between God’s love and romantic love-, is bound to be misinterpreted by the modern, sex-obsessed mind. One of the many great contributions of Plato is to have perceived that the lower reality is a faint (and therefore imperfect) copy of the higher reality. The higher gives us a key to an understanding of the lower: absolute justice sheds light on the imperfect justice found in the world. This tradition was highlighted by St. Augustine, and developed by St. Bonaventure, Cardinal Newman, and Dietrich von Hildebrand, to mention some of Augustine’s disciples. Modern Reversal But our “modern” world, having cut its roots from the past, is constantly tempted to reverse this order, assuming it is the material reality which has the key to so-called spiritual things. This is why Moleschott writes that there is a perfect parallel between the kidneys producing the urine, and the brain producing thought. This is why Freud conquered many thinkers by telling him that sex is the key to what is called love. Unfortunately, West follows the Freudian thought, looking for understanding in the lower rather than the higher. Love is the form of sex, not vice versa. This false mentality of analogy was strongly opposed by Dietrich von Hildebrand, even though it was (and still is) countenanced by many contemporary writers. Chesterton, on the other hand, took my husband’s side. One day, Chesterton writes, he was taking a walk in the woods with a man whose ” . . . pointed beard gave him something of the look of Pan.” At one point this companion said to him: “’Do you know why the spire of that church goes up like that?’ I expressed a respectable agnosticism, and he answered in an off-hand way, ‘Oh, the same as the obelisks; the Phallic Worship of antiquity’. Then I looked across at him suddenly as he lay there leering above his goat-like beard; and for the moment I thought he was not Pan but the Devil. No mortal words can express the immense, the insane incongruity and unnatural perversion of thought involved in saying such a thing . . .” (Everlasting Man, p. 152). These words are a striking and prophetic rebuke to Christopher West’s efforts to employ “phallic symbolism to describe the Easter candle,” as Dr. David Schindler pointed out in his critique of West. Hugo Rahner has pointed out where these aberrant ideas about “phallic symbolism” came from: pagan mythology, not authentic Christianity. (See his book, Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, 1963) Chesterton’s passage should be read by anyone who believes that whatever is sexual gives us a spiritual message, when in fact the exact opposite is the case. Analogy and the Virgin Birth This defective attitude might explain why Christopher West also believes that after the Holy Virgin gave birth to our Savior, she ejected a bleeding placenta, just as his wife had done after delivering their son (“Born of a Woman,” syndicated column, December 8, 2006, ChristopherWest.com). He assumes that these details magnify the mystery of Bethlehem. Dietrich von Hildebrand would have absolutely opposed such ideas. I recall attending my husband’s talks in his apartment on Central Park West. He meditated on the Holy Mass, and on numerous passages of the New Testament. When talking about the Annunciation or the Nativity, he made his hearers realize that we were entering a “holy zone,” which called for silent adoration. The Archangel Gabriel’s visit to Mary is clothed in mystery. But in a way, Bethlehem is still more mysterious: St. Luke tells us absolutely nothing concrete: we know that Mary gave birth to a son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes. The moment calls for silent adoration. Angels are not mentioned . St. Joseph is not mentioned. We do know, however, and this is a dogma of our faith, that she was a Virgin, prius ac posterius. The conception was miraculous; the delivery was miraculous. Any intrusion into this mystery would have been a source of grief to Dietrich von Hildebrand who, because he recited Vespers and Compline every day, knew Psalm 130 well: “I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me.” For Christopher West to offer graphic, speculative details about the Virgin Birth—like the ejected bleeding placenta—underscores my point. The analogy of the Virgin Birth with the birth of West’s own son is mistaken. The latter, though obviously a great blessing, was not conceived, through God, by a Virgin; and it was not the product of a miraculous delivery. Further, to “tear the veil” away from Bethlehem, and to believe an imaginary, explicit description of it is a more powerful way of referring to the mystery of mysteries, is something that Dietrich von Hildebrand would, as I say, have fiercely contested. Between a normal birth, and the mystery of Bethlehem, lies an abyss which man – out of trembling reverence—should not traverse. Silent adoration is the only valid response to such a mystery. 2. Other Issues of Language Love and Pleasure The prevalence that certain words have in a text give us a key to the author’s approach to his topic. Those acquainted with Dietrich von Hildebrand’s books on purity, marriage, sex etc. will immediately notice that the key word he utilizes is “love.” He tells us, explicitly and repeatedly, that it is love which gives meaning to the intimate sphere, and that the beauty of the union between the spouses is proportionate to the tenderness of their love. It is love that “baptizes” pleasure, and brings it to a much higher level; for pleasure can be experienced by animals, but the sweetness of human pleasure, fortified by love, is altogether different: the word “pleasure” is then no longer adequate. We need a richer vocabulary to refer to it; there is joy, there is gratitude, there is happiness. Isolated pleasure (which by its very nature, does not last, and cannot last) is totally incapable of giving a faint idea of what this “baptized” pleasure is; and is something, of course, denied to animals. It is, alas, possible to experience intense pleasure, even while the heart is cold. This sheds light on the attraction of brothels: a dark den in which love is banished, and self-centered pleasure is sought for its own sake . . . and paid for. Since Original Sin, this possibility has always existed. Limitations of English One of the challenges of speaking about sex from a truly Catholic perspective has to do with something often overlooked: the limitations of the English language. English is a great language, perhaps the richest language on earth. (Relata refero.) But it is, philosophically, relatively poor; and this emerges in any discussions involving the human body. German, in contrast, distinguishes between the word Leib (the body of a person) and Koerper—the body of animals. It makes it clear that a human body should be personified, and that every single bodily activity of Man should be elevated to a degree of nobility not given to animals. This is a powerful incentive to oppose the “cult of the body” so prevalent in our decadent culture. Another difficulty: English does not distinguish between shame in the negative sense (response to what is ugly, disgusting, repulsive, filthy) and shame that is positive (in the sense of personal, private, intimate, mysterious). This lack of distinction certainly explains certain “simplifications” and “misunderstandings” about human sexuality which punctuate the work of Christopher West. After our first parents discovered they were naked, they were ashamed. This shame had a positive, instructive purpose, because it made them aware that they had stripped themselves of the beautiful “veil of innocence” God had given them, before they sinned. These profound truths should be embraced and highlighted by Christopher West, not minimized or ignored. Part 3: Particular Problems Related the Treatment of the Intimate Sphere 1. Dictatorial Relativism and Pornography Dietrich von Hildebrand and Post-Christian Society One of the gifts God gave to Dietrich von Hildebrand was to perceive the call of the hour. This gift opened his eyes to the poison of Nazism in the early 1920s, as well as the 1943 treason of Yalta, when both Roosevelt and Churchill practically “delivered” half of Europe to another political demon, Stalin (with the tragic consequences that we know). This gift enabled Dietrich to perceive, in the wake of Vatican II, that something had seriously derailed in our beloved Church. For this reason, he interrupted composing his lifelong work on love to write The Trojan Horse, and other publications (including many articles) to warn people of the danger. If Dietrich von Hildebrand were alive today, I have no doubt he would be waging war on the most insidious evils of our time: abortion, above all, but also the philosophical assumptions that underlie it, which produce other evils. He would devote all his talents to make people realize that dictatorial relativism, to quote Pope Benedict, and all its wicked offshoots–especially abortion and pornography– are manifestations of Satan’s attacks on our post-Christian society. They form a kind of trinity of evil, in fierce opposition to the Holy Trinity of Christianity. Puritanism, Yesterday and Today Dietrich would also have recognized the red herring of “modern puritanism.” Born and raised in the house of a great sculptor, puritanism was unknown to him. Granted that in Victorian society, to take one example, it was a deplorable tendency, characterized by the fact that the intimate sphere was dubbed “shocking.” But today, in our sex-saturated society, to concentrate all of one’s efforts on this deplorable deformation, is to beat a dead horse. Anyone who reads Christopher West’s books, or listens to his talks, cannot help but notice one thing: he is obsessed by puritanism. Indeed, one might believe, listening to him, that it is the one great danger of our time. But West is exaggerating, if not “crying wolf.” Puritanism was never the universal problem he imagines (in the Church or outside it); and today it is barely a speck on our cultural landscape. It would be interesting, for those who love statistics, to find out how many people today put coal in their bath water to “cover” the shame of their intimate organs (to refer to a comment of my friend, Professor Michael Waldstein). I grant that it has been done in the past, for grotesque ideas about the human body have always existed… and always will. God has set limits on man’s intelligence, none on his stupidity. It shows the wisdom of Spanish proverb: bicho malo, nunca muere (a nasty beast never dies). But puritanism, to the extent it was a problem in the past, no longer is; and it is farcical to rally an army to fight a tiny battalion, which is no longer a threat. In the sexual sphere, pornography, not puritanism, is the cancer destroying our society. It is so widespread that it is practically impossible to protect one’s children from its venom; it is on the internet, on television, at malls, in department stores, in book stores, at the A&P. Serial rapists often confess that they have been fed on Playboy since they were teenagers. This is where our main concern should be focused. This is why Christopher West’s praise of Hugh Hefner on ABC’s Nightline, linking him with John Paul II, was deplorable: “I actually see very profound historical connections between Hugh Hefner and John Paul II,” he said. (ABC News, May 7, 2009). West’s subsequent attempts to “clarify” his remarks, which he insisted were taken out of context, only underscored the imprudence of making them in the first place. Not only is any rapprochement between a successor of Peter (now called Venerable) and the founder of Playboy, to be condemned, but a distinction should be made between Hugh Hefner as a child of God, made to His image and likeness, and deserving our love of neighbor, and Hefner as the father of modern-day pornography (a multibillion-dollar business). West downplays, to the point of meaninglessness, these fundamental distinctions. To poison souls with pornography, especially the young, is a sin that cries out to Heaven. Let us not forget the fearful words of the Gospel about anyone who scandalizes “the little ones”: a stone should be put about his neck and he cast into the sea. These are words we should take very seriously. Hugh Hefner, Tarnished Gold? At a lecture on June 3, 2009, sponsored by the Personalist Project, Christopher West announced, “For those with the eyes to see, we can look at a person like Hugh Hefner and see gold”—a comment that defies description. Then, catching himself, he qualified it to “tarnished gold.” Granted, we are indeed “tarnished gold,” if by that we mean we are created in the image of God, but wounded by Original Sin (except the Blessed One among women); it is equally true, according to Catholic teaching, that there is a huge hierarchy of moral evils: starting with small imperfections, and venial sins, that we can find even among the saints, to quite serious offenses, mortal sins, which separate us from God. Left unrepented, those mortal sins would condemn souls to Hell at the moment of death. Once again, as developed in Dante’s Inferno, there is a huge scale. All sins can be forgiven, if confessed, and yet there are sins, which will not be forgiven either in this world or in the next: the sins against the Holy Spirit. In speaking about human beings flawed by Original Sin as being “tarnished gold,” it would have been desirable to make this elementary distinction. But there is another facet of the question, which should have been mentioned. A man who is the founder of Playboy definitely commits a mortal sin (if there is also full knowledge and full consent), but apart from the personal sin, comes the fearful responsibility of inducing millions of others to engage in the same sin. A thief can, in principle, restore the money stolen; but a murderer cannot bring his victim back to life. Let us suppose that at the moment of death, Hugh Hefner deeply repents his sinful life. God, the God of Mercy will forgive him. But Hefner cannot save the millions of souls, including children, that his activity as a pornographer has victimized. This is why West’s comments about Hugh Hefner were dangerous and misleading. Never, absolutely never, would Dietrich von Hildebrand have made such an error, even as he would have prayed for Hefner’s conversion. 2. Dualism Properly Defined One of the strange things happening today is that any hint that the intimate sphere should be marked by a caveat, tempts some people to accuse West’s critics of playing Cassandra, and of “being a dualist.” The problem is that “dualism” can have a number of meanings, and not all of them are contrary to Catholic belief. Today, many thinkers use the word as a condemnation to hurl at people who deny the essential union of man’s body with man’s soul. This is indeed a grievous metaphysical error: for it is clearly indicated in Genesis that man is made up of a physical body and an immaterial soul. To be made up of two essential parts that are metaphysically so different is the reason why I dub man “a divine invention” (the title of my latest book, from Sapientia Press). To quote Pascal, man is the most mysterious object in nature. From the very beginning, the Church—the “pillar of truth” has rejected Gnosticism and any form of Manichaeism. Nothing, however, is easier for man than to fall in his reason. The human mind, wounded by sin, has the uncanny tendency to go from one error to its (apparent) contradiction, while in fact errors are usually first cousins. A case in point is Nestorius, who claimed that there are two persons in Christ: the divine one, and the purely human one. Mary, therefore, is not “Theotokos” (Mother of God); she is only the mother of Christ, the man. This heresy, condemned by the Church, was soon followed by another one by Eutyches, who claimed that Christ had only one nature: the divine one– the consequence being that Christ’s human nature had been totally absorbed by the divine one, and that it is only the latter that has suffered for the salvation of the world. “Anathema sit” was the prompt response of the Church. Today, the condemned “dualism” just referred to, has become for some a kind of philosophical obsession. They detect “dualism” in the writings of thinkers who totally agree with them in rejecting a false dualism, but, in obsessing about this point, miss a larger one, and the necessary distinctions. Man is indeed made up of body and soul, but the mystery is that the body is physical, material, occupying space, visible, divisible . . . and mortal. None of these characteristics apply to the soul, which is spiritual, does not occupy space, has no sensible characteristics such as color, and is immortal. The union of body and soul in man is such a mystery that many thinkers would dub it the most complex of philosophical problems. Body and Soul It is tempting, like the materialists, to claim that man is just a body and that what is called soul, mind, and spirit are only epiphenomena of the body. It is also tempting to angelize him, and discard the body. It is easy to go from one extreme to the next, in this case, materialism to radical idealism. Hegel, guilty of the latter, claimed that “being and thought are identical”—triggering Kierkegaard’s witty retort about Hegel and marriage: “as impersonal as his thought.” In other words, if being and thought are identical, to get married is to marry a thought (Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, p. 268). Rather than face a difficult question, many thinkers choose an easy solution. This was the point made by Chesterton: the materialists keep the easy part (the body), deny the difficult part (the soul), and go home to their tea. Once again, we must marvel at the facility with which people go from one error, that of radical idealism, which says everything is mind (Hegel), to another, that of radical materialism, which says everything is matter (Marx). The philosophical difficulties involved here should never lead us to lose focus, much less faith. Following Cardinal Newman, we can say that ten thousand difficulties do not justify a single doubt. We cannot doubt that we have both a body and a soul. The words of Our Lord—“Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul” (Mathew 10: 28)–are abundantly clear. Some claim that the union of body and soul is for the benefit of the soul: without sense organs, man’s mind would be condemned to blindness. It should, however, also be said that the union of body and soul is very much to the benefit of the body: for the soul “personifies” the body, that is, it clearly separates us from animals. The organs of many animals are much sharper and better than ours: eagles have amazingly sharp eyesight; a dog’s sharpness of hearing is very many times better than ours; bears have a sense of smell that informs them that food is to be found miles and miles away. But eagles do not perceive the beauty of a sunset; dogs cannot appreciate the sublimity of a Beethoven quartet. It is thanks to our unique nature, and the union of body and soul, that God exalts the body of the human person, above other creatures. This has great importance for our topic. In truth, both the soul and body have full reality, and they are essentially united, though nevertheless distinct. This is why the soul can survive the death of the body, even though it suffers from “widowhood” and longs for the moment when it will be reunited to its own body. The admirable dogma of the resurrection of the body is another divine invention. But in order to survive the death of the body, the soul clearly must possess a substantial reality of its own; if it were just an “aspect” of the body or an “accident ” of the body, it could not be immortal. When the body dies, the soul is a “widowed person.” To accuse of “dualism” (which, to the accusers, means Gnosticism) those who, like St. Augustine, endorse this position, under the pretext that they are denying the essential union of man’s body with man’s soul, is simply to make a serious philosophical confusion between two very different meanings of dualism. One is to be rejected; the second is deeply incorporated in Christian thought. Cartesian Dualism and Theology of the Body Some interpret the key message of Theology of the Body as a healing of the dreadful dualism for which Descartes is the great culprit. Whether Descartes deserves this radical condemnation is not our concern. All we wish in this context is to clarify that the word “dualism’” is ambiguous, and can refer to an un-healthy anti-Christian view, or one that is deeply Christian—and fully orthodox. Generative vs. Unitive Christopher West is convinced that prior to Theology of the Body—which he terms a “revolution”—Catholic teaching had presented “sex” as essentially dirty, betraying the true Christian understanding of sex. This is a thought Dietrich von Hildebrand would have strongly rejected. Accidental errors should never be identified with the Church’s essential teaching. Every epoch has its dangers, which need to be addressed, but always in a way which remains faithful to Catholic tradition. Dietrich understood this principle well, when he challenged certain excesses (not fundamental truths) of Catholic teaching regarding marriage. Early in his days as a Catholic, he noticed a weakness: the whole emphasis was on procreation; the unitive dimension of marriage was either not mentioned, or not properly highlighted. Procreation was often given too much prominence because, in paganism, sensual pleasure had absolute and complete priority. Dietrich’s work on marriage helped redress the balance, by acknowledging (and fully supporting) the traditional teaching on procreation, while rediscovering the importance of love between spouses. This is an example of what we might call the “pedagogical” mission of the Church. She must constantly “sense” what Catholic truth needs to be highlighted, at a given time, and adjust the emphasis on Her holy teaching accordingly, but never fall prey to the fashions of the times, and remain faithful to the sacred deposit of faith. 4. Contemplating the Body Fixated, as he is, on the supposed plague of “Puritanism,” West promotes defective ideas to fight it. He recommends, for example, that we should stand naked in front of a mirror until we truly liberate ourselves from any feelings of “shame.” This is a piece of advice at which Dietrich von Hildebrand would have recoiled. Let me mention some reasons. The Meaning of Shame First, is the contemplation of one’s body ever the “theme,” that God calls upon us to pursue at a particular moment? Because of the philosophical poverty of the English language, mentioned before, Christopher West confuses “shame” in a negative sense (ugly, disgusting, repulsive, morally repugnant) with pudeur—the aforementioned French word which refers to the reverence we should have toward what is personal, mysterious, private, or sacred. West is wrong in assuming that prior to Theology of the Body, Catholics were taught to be ashamed of their bodies. Belonging to the older generation, I am in a position to disclaim this. We were taught reverence in front of something “mysterious”—counsel which, if not followed, could lead to serious sin. We knew that, when God completed the creation of the world, He saw “that is was good.” But we were also reminded that since Original Sin, we should always be “alert” and awake to the dangers of this world. Reverence and humility were always regarded as keys to maintaining our purity. The idea of trying to be “naked without shame” was never contemplated, and for good reasons. Destructive Vanity Any psychologist will tell you that anyone contemplating his own body exposes himself to certain dangers: one being narcissism. If our bodies are artistically perfect, inevitably we will experience vanity. If, on the contrary– and this is mostly the case– we discover flaws, we shall be tempted to “remedy” the situation by cosmetic surgery. This explains why, according to Dr. Phil, 300,000 thousand American girls, between the age of 15 and l8, have undergone surgery to change the size of their breasts. Christopher West should know that we live in a society, which is radically materialistic, characterized by a cult of the body. Do we need encouragements to idolize what St Francis called “Brother Ass”? Christopher West puts too much emphasis on the body in a culture in which everything is body-centered. The Two Bishops And this brings me to Christopher West’s oft-told story of the “two bishops.” He writes: “The following story illustrates what mature Christian purity looks like. Two bishops walked out of a Cathedral just as a scantily clad prostitute passed by. One bishop immediately turned away. The other bishop looked at her intently. The bishop who turned away exclaimed, ‘Brother bishop, what are you doing? Turn your eyes!’ When the bishop turned around, he lamented with tears streaming down his face, ‘How tragic that such beauty is being sold to the lusts of men.’ Which one of those bishops was vivified with the ethos of redemption? Which one had passed over from merely meeting the demands of the law to a superabounding fulfillment of the law?” (From West’s Theology of the Body Explained, revised edition, p. 215). Apart from the fact that nobody, except God is in a position to judge, for He alone knows the motivation of the two men—and that West completely retools the historic account of Bishop St. Nonnus to suit his purposes—important remarks are called for. In In Defense of Purity, Dietrich von Hildebrand remarks that some men are “insensitive” to sex. Whether it is a temperamental disposition, or whether it is caused by hormonal problems, it is obvious that, if someone who happens to have this condition looks peacefully at a prostitute, without experiencing any sexual attraction, he is certainly not a pure one. He is not impure; he is not pure. Avoiding the Occasion of Sin On the other hand, a humble awareness of our fallen nature creates a strict moral obligation to fly from temptations. Never, absolutely never would a saint say, “I am beyond and above temptations of the flesh.” Never would a saint declare that, were he to see a naked woman, his acquaintance with the Theology of the Body would guarantee that he wouldn’t be subject to temptation. As Monsignor Knox points out, to believe a Christian, however faithful, can place himself in spiritual danger and never fall prey to it, is a common error among religious enthusiasts. The Beghards come to mind: Thus these enthusiasts “looked upon decency and modesty as marks of inward corruption, as the characters of a soul that was still under the dominion of the sensual, animal, and lascivious spirit, and that was not really united to the divine nature. This was the account they themselves gave of their promiscuous lodging, and the nudism practiced in their assemblies.” (Enthusiasm, 1950, p. 125) Such people, writes Msgr. Knox, believed that once “they yield their bodies to the Holy Ghost,” they ”would never sin again.” (p. 567) In the presence of a living woman, he continues, the enthusiast, is “ trained to feel as though he were standing by a wall of stone. His eye must be rendered cold, his pulse must be kept calm.” (p. 573). But this is to commit the sin of presumption. It must be remarked, however, that there are situations in which a priest can find himself in dangerous situation “without being endangered”: for example when a slightly clad prostitute is struck by a car, and calls for help. It is the duty of a priest to respond to this call: God will give him the grace to concentrate exclusively on his mission, bringing the dying person to God. Professional grace is also given to doctors: otherwise, no doctor should accept operating on a very beautiful female body because, instead of operating on a sick patient, he would be preoccupied with sexual fantasies. Asceticism Why is asceticism so stressed in religious orders and in authentic Catholic tradition, be it hair shirts, abstinence, the discipline, or the limiting of one’s sleep to a minimum? Is that ever mentioned by Christopher West? Does he not know that John Paul II himself engaged in acts of self-mortification? And yet, that fact might be of great importance to teach us how to love, and it is love, which is the key to sex. In one of his columns about a pornographic play by radical feminist Eve Ensler, often performed at college campuses (whose very name is too graphic to mention), West wrote that he saw it as “tragic,” not filthy. Does not West realize that “Satan revels in filth” and this is how he seduces unsuspecting people? Once again, the very serious difference of approach between him and Dietrich von Hildebrand comes to the fore. Let us recall that in In Defense of Purity, my husband reminds us that this sphere can be the kingdom of the evil one. It can be diabolical. Filthy is then the proper word to refer to the perversions in which men and women are so inventive. Moreover, the body is meant to be a gift to one’s spouse in the sacrament of marriage. One should never make the “gift” the object of self-contemplation. Part 4: The Work of Christopher West and Its Relation to that of Dietrich von Hildebrand Since Vatican II, the Church has undergone a severe, manifold crisis: a crisis of faith, a crisis of authority, an intellectual crisis (confusion is widespread), a moral crisis. We should be grateful for any “soldier” who enters the arena and is offering his services to the King. We should be grateful for any written or oral testimony that help people who find their way back to the fold. As St. Paul writes, we have different gifts, different talents, and use them for God’s glory (Romans 12:6-8). 1. “Revolution” or Development of Doctrine? However, no “soldier” in the service of the Church is ever called to be a “revolutionary.” As previously mentioned, Dietrich von Hildebrand was conscious that he had shed light on one very important truth that had often been obscured, not in Catholic doctrine, but in Catholic practice. He would call it—referring to his revered Cardinal Newman—a possible development of doctrine, but never a “revolution.” There is no revolution in the Catholic Church. Divine revelation ended with the death of the Apostles. The mission of the Church is to spread the Divine Message, and to clarify and re-clarify it over the years. Christopher West is fond of quoting George Weigel’s provocative statement that John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is a “theological time bomb.” But what does that mean? Does it mean that “Christians must complete what the sexual revolution began,” as West told Nightline? Even the highly influential Weigel himself, to his credit, wrote in a foreword to one of Christopher West’s books: “A sex-saturated culture imagines that the sexual revolution has been liberating. The opposite is the truth.” (Theology of the Body Explained, 2003, p. XVI). Words such as “revolution” and similar bombastic expressions are appealing—but irresponsible. Inflated words and phrases are like a psychological massage—used throughout the ages by people who know the power of words. Most people live in such a state of spiritual and intellectual somnolence that such expressions might be useful to shake them out of their lethargy. But they are misleading. As stated, there is no revolution in the Church: the one great tsunami was the Incarnation. 2. The Calamity of Discipleship The purpose of this paper was to compare Dietrich von Hildebrand’s approach to the “intimate sphere,” and that of Christopher West. Let me be clear and state that West—to my knowledge– has never explicitly claimed to be a disciple of Dietrich von Hildebrand; nevertheless, I know from his personal testimony that West has a deep appreciation for the work of my husband, and I know he has publicly praised it. The question is whether West can therefore, in any real sense, at least by implication, be considered my husband’s disciple. For the many reasons outlined in this essay, I don’t believe he can. Let us leave aside the incontestable fact that Christopher West has great oratorical talent, and does much good. I am sure that he wants to work for God’s glory. God can use any “tool” that He pleases to bring souls back to him. The point I would like to emphasize is that Dietrich von Hildebrand’s approach is widely different from the one of Christopher West, and that therefore it would be misleading to call West a disciple of my husband. To be a disciple is not an easy task: a superficial knowledge of the history of philosophy teaches us that innumerable thinkers consider themselves to be disciples of Aristotle, but whether “the master of those who know” (to quote Dante) would give the prize to any of them (that is, whether Averroes, Avicenna, St. Thomas Aquinas or Siger of Brabant deserve this honor) is something we shall find out in another world, when the question will have lost all interest. Kant repudiated Fichte who claimed to be his disciple. The latter in turn refused to recognize Schelling as a valid interpreter of his message. Kierkegaard wrote “to have a disciple is the worst of calamities.” It does happen that people call themselves (or act as if they are) “disciples” of a great thinker when in fact they can, on some issues, seriously deviate from their mentor’s views. Whether Christopher West, however well-intentioned, is a true disciple of John Paul II is at least questionable– as are many aspects of his presentations. The question must be asked: Why is it that John Paul II’s presentation of the Theology of the Body was never seriously challenged, whereas Christopher West’s interpretation of it has unleashed enormous controversy? Could it be that West has misrepresented it in fundamental respects, and worse, employed his own offensive language and “pop culture” ideas to vulgarize it? Noli Me Tangere Here, I would like to reflect on an incident in the life of the Little Flower, St Therese of Lisieux. When a student grabbed her as she was stepping out of the train, she responded as a proper female should. She recommended herself to the Holy Virgin, and looked at him so severely that he immediately let her loose (Deposition of her sister Genevieve). Would West ridicule this great saint for being a “prude”? If he did, he would be wrong, for St. Therese’s response was thoroughly Catholic, and the only right one: she was responding with noli me tangere [Don’t touch me]. This attitude has nothing to do with an unhealthy fear of the body, or bodily contact, but a very healthy modesty and self-respect. This “noli me tangere” is a key expression regarding the mystery of the supernatural. This is why, Dietrich von Hildebrand, who came from a privileged cultural and artistic background, and had been acquainted with holy paintings since his earliest youth, would never have made remarks about the size of the Holy Virgin’s bosom, as West has, repeating with praise an exhortation for Catholics to “rediscover” Mary’s “abundant breasts” (Crisis magazine, March , 2002) To Dietrich’s mind, this would be an act of irreverence. Her breasts were sacred and the response to the sacred is awe and not a critical approach to the size of “the blessed breasts that sucked thee”. True religious art has always understood this. Blessed by an exceptional artistic background, Dietrich was, from his earliest youth, trained to appreciate works of art according to their artistic perfection. One of the requirements of sacred art is that the artist succeeds in creating, through visible means, an atmosphere of sacredness. When Mary is represented, the crucial element is that the image inspires in the viewer a feeling of reverence; whether she is painted with “abundant breasts” is totally irrelevant—otherwise, most other icons would have to be discarded. It suffices for the faithful believer to be inspired by a work of art; he or she should never be titillated by it. 2. Differences of Christopher West From Dietrich von Hildebrand As Dietrich von Hildebrand’s wife, I can state the following, as a matter of summary, regarding the differences between my husband and Christopher West: 1. My husband would not refer to the Theology of the Body as “a revolution”: Dietrich knew that revolutions aim at destroying the past, and starting anew. An authentic development of doctrine, however, is something completely different: it takes from our sacred deposit of faith, and helps it blossom into a flower, but it does not invent, or contradict it. When the Theology of the Body is presented as a radical revolution, and twisted into something John Paul II never intended, Catholics should immediately stop, and pull back, and ask themselves: “What am I being fed?” One cannot be too cautious about protecting one’s soul. But, to the extent the Theology of the Body might be “a development of doctrine,” Dietrich would have welcomed it—provided such a claim remained faithful to John Paul’s original intent, and was made in a reverent and orthodox way. Each age in the Church sheds particular light on some facets of the divine message, and the Theology of the Body, properly interpreted, and consistent with historic Catholic teaching, can be seen as an example of that. But Dietrich would never have regarded it as a radical “innovation.” 2. In contrast to the loose language used by Christopher West, Dietrich von Hildebrand carefully chose the words he used when referring to the mysteries of our faith, or to things that are intimate and sacred. Words such as “crap” and “crapola” would jar his spiritual hearing. He knew, as did Kierkegaard, that “vulgarity is always popular,” but nonetheless never resorted to it, for, as St. Francis de Sales wrote: “Our words are a faithful index to the state of our souls.” (Introduction to the Devout Life, part III, chapter 26). When referring to mysteries (such as the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Eucharist) Dietrich’s choice of words invited his listeners to a trembling reverence and adoration. Christopher West’s aforementioned remarks, in contrast — however well intended — about the “bloodied membrane” that the Holy Virgin ejected after Christ’s birth would strike Dietrich as close to blasphemy. Were he with us today, Dietrich would have surely quoted the Holy Office’s warning to West: “Theological works are being published in which the delicate question of Mary’s virginity ‘in partu’ is treated with a deplorable crudeness of expression and, what is more serious, in flagrant contradiction to the doctrinal tradition of the Church and to the sense of respect the faithful have.” (From the Holy Office monitum, July , 1960, reprinted in A Short Treatise on the Virgin Mary by Rene Laurentin, AMI Press, 1991, , pp. 318-329) In closing, let me repeat that I do not wish to take away any good Christopher West has accomplished, only caution him and his followers about errors I believe he has committed, and which my husband, whom Pope Pius XII called a “twentieth century Doctor of the Church,” would, I am certain, have been the first to point out. With his many talents, Christopher West has much to offer the Church; but I believe he will only fulfill his potential if he presents the Theology of the Body according to the traditions of our Church — reverently, with humility—and liberate himself from the wayward “enthusiasms” of our time. Postscript: Earlier this year, and after this paper was begun, Christopher West announced that he would be taking a six-month sabbatical from his usual work. It is my sincere and prayerful hope that he will use this valuable time, of “personal and professional renewal,” to consider the many concerns that have been raised about his work– and thereby “renew” his approach as well. I submit this reflection on the philosophy of Dietrich von Hildebrand in the hopes that it redirects Christopher West’s thinking. I further remind the reader that the West website continues to offer West’s programs, including courses for youth in public settings. My husband has written extensively on sex education in the schools, standing firmly behind the great encyclical, Christian Education for Youth, by Pope Pius XI, 1929. There, His Holiness roundly condemns sex education classes. Dietrich von Hildebrand’s booklet, Sex Education: The Basic Issues, can be read and ordered at the Veil of Innocence website, www.veilofinnocence.org. Acknowledgements: This article (for which mistakes, inaccuracies and imperfections I carry full responsibility for) is in fact a work of collaboration with several thinkers I admire and respect. Let me mention, among others, Father Brian Mullady, OP; Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger, F.I., Fr. Anthony Mastroeni and James Likoudis. They have read the manuscript. Their comments and criticisms have been highly appreciated and most helpful. Dawn Eden also deserves notable mention: her in-depth knowledge of the work of Christopher West has been crucial to me. Through her scholarship, I made the acquaintance of several texts I had not read. I owe her a special thanks. Last, but not least, this article was truly done in collaboration with my friend, William Doino. His knowledge of history , his intelligence, and endless patience with the changes I kept introducing, was of such value to me, that I do not hesitate to say that without him, this manuscript never would have been published. Thank you to all these dear friends. May it all be ad majorem Dei gloriam. —Alice von Hildebrand