Friday, September 24, 2010

For Those who Thought West Would Learn.....

So much for that idea!

At the end of the interview, he states his critics are "usually of the religious right."

It is really nice to know that Christopher West has now adopted the language of Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and a host of other organizations that are enclaves of Catholic thought.

This is what Christopher West has learned in his "sabbatical", which apparently wasn't a sabbatical at all.  If one is "taking a break" and fails to learn even the fundamental rules of charity, then one needs to take a longer break.

Does he mean "religious right" as in traditionalists?  Not sure if he's noticed, but this isn't 20 years ago anymore.  Not only are traditionalists no longer marginalized, but we are on the rise.  Good luck trying to tar us this time.

With every moment passing, he further discredits himself.  Maybe he forgets that John Paul II was one of the most prominent members of "the religious right" for decades.  Is it the assertion of Mr. West that his critics aren't a bunch of ignorant rubes who are really just a bunch of nutjobs?  As I said before, good luck.  You'll need it.


  1. Kevin, personally I did not have a huge problem with this statement.

    He was giving an interview to a "secular" paper and thus he was trying to speak in terms a "secular audience" understands. I did not find it offensive when he spoke of "the religious right".

    I also do not think it indicates he has not changed at all. On the contrary, the statement he released upon his return made it clear that he had been humbled and came to realize he was, to some degree and in some sense at least, in error.

  2. Wade,

    Perhaps you can tell me what the standard view is in American secular papers of the "religious right."

    I'll tell you. The religious right is frequently painted as racist, misogynist, prudes, and most importantly, frauds. In addition to being hostile to reason, the list really goes on and on.

    Oh I think West knew exactly what he was saying, and that's why I think this letter shows he really hasn't taken anything to heart. If he didn't, shouldn't he be a little more careful about describing his fellow faithful brethren in Christ to the secular media?

    As far as him being "humbled" and recognizing he is in error, I've seen enough of those who claim such, but change nothing. For him to make such assertions about those who disagree with him tells me pretty much he's just like before: those disagreeing with him are not just wrong, but nefarious. (i.e. Victorian prudes, Manichean, deep spiritual/sexual issues, etc.) Which, ironically enough, is how the "religious right" is defined by the media here in America. I'll need to see a bit more evidence that is concrete.

  3. Good points, Kevin. I think time will tell whether or not you are correct ...

  4. Call it a sick sense, and a healthy skepticism of bigwigs lol.

  5. He was giving an interview to a "secular" paper and thus he was trying to speak in terms a "secular audience" understands.

    He ought to know better after the way he was burned by the "Nightline" piece.

  6. Touche, dcs. maybe you are right after all, Kevin.

  7. Wade,

    I actually hope I'm not. West might deserve his career being buried for those kind of remarks, proving that he really is beyond the pale.

    Obviously I would not do it (I have no stature, and I prefer clemency.) I fear eventually his more influential critics are going to have to "step it up" and his episcopal backers will turn against him as well. (I think this statement formally kisses Chaput's previous endorsement goodbye, considering His Excellency is routinely lampooned by the secular media as one of the bigwigs on "the religious right.") West does a lot of good, and I fear his reluctance to accept correction will drown out that good he does.

  8. Hi Wade, I wasn't trying to parry your remarks, honest! :) What I find interesting about West's remarks in this article is that the article's author seems sympathetic to West's views, or at least neutral. (I'm sure that ABC was sympathetic, too, when filming, but the end result was anything but.) So in this case West does not have the "deniability" that the "Nightline" interview afforded him, that his remarks were taken out of context.


At this current time due to time constraints comments are moderated. Avoid flaming, chest-thumping and stick on topic and your comments will be quickly approved. Do the opposite and they stay in never never land.