Friday, September 17, 2010

Moving Back the Goalposts

I must say that I am a bit vexed lately in the debate surrounding Dawn Eden’s masters' thesis. The work itself is over 80 pages and contains a rather thorough critique of the interpretation Christopher West gives to John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. We’ve seen a few months go by, and there has not been much of a response.

While there certainly has been a lot of energy, it has mainly been sound and fury signifying nothing. The most popular charge has been that of jealousy or a personal vendetta against Christopher West. There is no place for this in a serious discussion, so it shall be dismissed without evidence. Sister Marianne Lorraine Trouve has written a seemingly imposing critique of Miss Eden in which she thinks a far too simplistic reading is given towards the work of Mr. West. When you actually dive into the work of Sr. Lorraine, you don’t find much directly challenging Eden’s thesis. She attempts to find fault with the “themes” used, but for the most part leaves out the actual evidence to justify those themes that comes later in the thesis. She was upfront about this, citing time constraints as the reason she did not give a full treatment. The question naturally arises from those like myself: When criticizing those for not giving sufficient time to an issue, shouldn’t you give sufficient time in responding to them?

At least there was an attempt to interact with the evidence. One Christina King has joined this foray, and she does so by completely ignoring the evidence and simply attacking the integrity of those she disagrees with. Before we dive in too deep, a little word about Miss King.

Those who have visited this blog remember a previous post where I challenged her assertion that those faithful sons of the Church attending the Extraordinary Form are essentially Manicheans. The promised “part two” Miss King had made never really materialized. Catholic Exchange yanked the work once people protested that the work was nothing but character assassination, double standards, and red herrings. Miss King placed the article on her blog. After reading it, you can see why the article didn’t make the cut. Indeed, it is full of nothing but red herrings, character assassinations, and double standards, with a healthy side of weak argumentation. To let it stand in a very public forum would’ve done nothing but damage the credibility of those she agrees with. It was an act of mercy.

She has followed this up with a very lengthy “point by point response” where it appears she has not learned her lesson previously. If this is the best that can be done, Miss Eden must feel fairly confident in her thesis.

1.) On the TOB Institute

In her thesis, Dawn Eden stated that the TOB was founded to help promote the views of Christopher West. Since those exact words do not appear in their mission statement, Miss King calls this “false.” This is simply not serious argumentation. We know that Christopher West is a research fellow at the Institute, and his works there are heavily promoted. Since Miss King likes to promote it and has attended the Institute, perhaps she would be gracious to tell us how much of the material at the TOB Institute is based off the writings of Alice VonHildebrand, Dr. David Schindler, Fr. Jose Granados, or Mary Shivanandran, all distinguished prominent critics of Mr. West’s take on Theology of the Body? I’m going to make a guess she is free to correct me on: not much if any. West is the champion of the school of thought that the TOB Institute Explains. At their 1st Annual Congress, they pronounced the Church was ignorant of human sexuality from Trent until John Paul II, an increase in sex education in schools, and advised us to start referring to God as a “pathological stalker.” Perhaps Miss King is right; The TOB Institute is far worse than Mr. West and should not be viewed as promoting his worldview. Their worldview is simply crazy!

2.) One must attend the TOB Institute to really make a critique

This is another curious claim. It is akin to a certain Gnostic mentality. There is this “hidden knowledge” at the Institute that makes understanding West so much easier! Allow me to ask the following query of those who make this claim: show us the coursework. Show the reading material, coursework, and videos which would demonstrate Miss Eden incorrect. These kinds of claims only have merit when you can prove through the evidence something is missing. West has been the golden boy of the TOB Institute. If they didn’t want to get dragged into the discussion, perhaps they shouldn’t have been such ardent promoters of his vision and work.

3.) The “Two Bishops” and Occasions of Sin

It will be necessary to recap the story that Mr. West tells. Exhorting people to a “mature purity”, he asks:

Think about it: if the only thing that keeps a couple from having sex before marriage is the lack of opportunity, what does that say about the desire of their hearts? Are they free to choose the good? Are they free to love? ... As stated previously, if we chain our freedom to sin, with the same stroke we chain the freedom necessary to love.
Nobody doubts the accuracy of the quote Miss Eden made (which I am reproducing, which can be found in context and entirety in West’s book “Theology of the Body Explained”, page 274. This was in regards to a couple who agreed not to spend time all alone (at that particular point or until they were married, we do not know, West does not say) because they were finding it to be an occasion of sin. They might be acting “safe”, but they are not trusting Christ. He then gives us a story of what trusting in Christ really is:

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….. [I]t is generally reported that upon seeing the half-naked Pelagia parading through the streets of Antioch while his brother bishops turned away, Bishop Nonnus looked upon her with love and great delight. She noticed his look of love and was eventually converted through his counsel and preaching. She is known as St. Pelagia of Antioch.

Sounds like it perfectly upholds what Mr. West is teaching right? That rather than “turning his eyes”, his look of love led to the conversion of a saint. The bishop who viewed it an occasion of sin and turned his eyes was merely “continent” while Bishop Nonnus was practicing virtue. There’s only one problem with this narrative: it didn’t happen that way. As recounted by Miss Eden in her thesis:

In a footnote, West cites Helen Waddell’s account of Nonnus and Pelagia in The Desert Fathers. However, the story she relates, translated from Eustochius’s Latin version of James the Deacon’s Greek account, differs from his own on many key points. Nonnus’s tears are not because “such beauty is being sold to the lusts of men.” Rather, the bishop feels ashamed upon witnessing the effort that the harlot puts into preparing her appearance for men, for he believes he has not put nearly so much effort into his appearance before God. Returning to his chamber, he flings himself upon the floor and repents to Christ: “for a single day’s adorning of a harlot is far beyond the adorning of my soul….. Pelagia, in Waddell’s account, does not notice that Nonnus looks at her on the street; her conversion comes about afterwards, when she hears him preach. Most significantly, when Pelagia then writes to the bishop and asks to see him, he agrees only on the condition that there be other bishops present. “[S]eek not to tempt my weakness,” he writes. (Eden’s thesis, pages 56-57)
Being blunt, West got caught playing what I like to call “Google Scholar.” Like the person who thinks they know the truth because they looked something up on Google, West found a source for this, and most likely didn’t bother to check the original source. The fact that the Bishop refuses to meet her alone ruins the point West tried to make. In the opinion of West, this bishop was going to stay “on the boat” rather than risking it for Christ’s sake “on the waters.” The Bishop acted with continence, but not virtue.

Miss King ignores all of this. She simply asserts that it is a valid analogy for a proper understanding of TOB, and doesn’t harm West’s case in any way. I certainly believe it is a valid analogy. This does not prove however that “risking it” is virtuous as opposed to “playing it safe.” She states that West is only talking about “love”, not matters of purity. Yet the original hypothetical couple, in West’s own words, agreed not to be alone at that particular time because it could lead to occasions of sin. This was harming their purity. West calls them to “risk it”, boldly trusting that Christ will transform their desires and to develop a “mature purity” which is beyond “turning your eyes” (continence) and being able to look upon a scantily clad woman (the occasion of sin) with love to lead to their strengthening (an occasion of grace.) In the assessment of West, their temptations to lust were interfering with their ability to love, which is true enough. The remedy proposed however was to stop playing it “safe” and be willing to risk it. If someone has an inclination towards sin, you don’t encourage them to overcome that sin by surrounding them in it. West “commends” this couple only in the sense of a back-handed compliment. “Sure, they are doing right I suppose, but they are not fulfilling their call!”

Miss King attempts a rather clever response. When she rightly notes that the Bishop did not “look” at St. Pelegia, it really means “did not look with lust” because:

When West shares that Pelagia does not notice that Nonnus “looks” at her, we must understand that is because Nonnus did NOT “look” at her. To “look” means in this parable and in the writings of concupiscence by John Paul II , of an objectification. “Look” in this context, means to transfer a “look” from the eyes to the heart. Nonnus did not “look” lustfully and in not “looking” thus, he did not allow lust to transfer to his heart. This is the whole point of the story.
There’s only one problem with this interpretation. This isn’t what West said. Once again, the Bishop who “turned his eyes” acted not with virtue, but mere continence. The Bishop who was willing to “risk it” looked upon her with love, not lust, and hence practiced virtue. Yet that same bishop who “looked” rightly, refused to meet her in private, because it would serve as a temptation to his weakness, and be an occasion of sin. The “looking” here is precisely that, he “looked” with his eyes. The story, being in historical basis, is not an allegory. It actually happened. She simply tries to spin it away by saying “this is what West is teaching.” If this is indeed what West is promoting, why the need to omit (being charitable) or alter (being polemical) certain key facts of the story?

That’s really all that can be said. Miss King returns to character assasination stating that those like Miss Eden defend the view that “marriage legitimizes a man's desire to use his wife for pleasure.” Of course, there is no citation for this. This is so because Miss Eden does not believe a husband may use his wife as a vehicle for his own gratification. Nowhere is this even implied. As a matter of fact, I have never, I repeat, never heard any critic of West say this or imply this. Such an attitude is deeply misogynistic and exploitative. Just like before, there is no evidence that backs up these assertions. She’s just flinging mud at the wall, hoping something sticks.

24 comments:

  1. That’s really all that can be said. Miss King returns to character assasination stating that those like Miss Eden defend the view that “marriage legitimizes a man's desire to use his wife for pleasure.” Of course, there is no citation for this. This is so because Miss Eden does not believe a husband may use his wife as a vehicle for his own gratification.

    I once had a conversation on-line with a West TOB aficionado who didn't agree with the teaching of the moral theologians on the marriage debt. Her reasoning was that men will want sex more than their wives, therefore the marriage debt is just an excuse for men to use their wives for pleasure. So my guess is that at least some of West's defenders view the traditional teaching on the marriage debt (that both spouses are obligated to fulfill a reasonable request for the debt) as men "using" their wives for gratification (as opposed to, say, the wife giving her body away in love!! LOL). I wish I could find the conversation -- it happened in the wake of West's appearance on "Nightline" (so, more than a year ago now).

    It is unfortunate if people actually believe this, since part of the marriage contract is the giving of the marriage rights to one's spouse. So it could be that some West TOB followers don't have a good formation in marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really think part of the problem is a lack of understanding of how the Church views marriage, with terms such as "contract", "debt", etc.

    Part of it is a cultural aspect of viewing anything with those terms as mere legalistic arrangements, the rest is just cultural ignorance. (West speaks with dismay that the term "contract" is still used in canon law referring to marriage in TOB Explained.)

    In the Catholic Church, there are covenants. There is obviously the New Covenant of Christ, but arrangements between individuals throughout Scripture and viewed by the Early Church happened in a covenant system.

    While covenants are made in love and friendship, there is also "legal" aspects of the covenant. As a marriage, husbands and wives have the right, within reason, to engage in the marital embrace. (i.e. nobody would say a sexual deviant should partake in his perversity, even with his wife.)

    What makes a covenant different than a simple law agreement is the disposition and intent of the people partaking as well. While a spouse may have "rights" under the marriage "debt", he should never claim those rights for the selfish gratification for his "needs", even if he be entitled to them. The other "party" to the arrangement should also take care to do their best to make sure their obligations are also fulfilled within reason.

    There's a very easy way for West to present it within this framework. It comes from one who would be a sort of "ally" in the schools of thought he travels in, and that comes from Dr. Scott Hahn's extensive research on a "covenant" theology within the Catholic Church. (Understanding the major covenants of salvation history, and also how Catholics partake in covenants through the sacraments.)

    Hahn is easily a "populares" when it comes to presenting Catholic theology in an easily understandable concept, so they can't use the excuse it won't reach the masses. Rather, it's just the standard animus to any traditional concept that pervades West's thought.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But I think there are issues with Dr. Hahn's theories as well (that may or may not be relevant to how West might utilize his work). For example, his theory about what the original sin might have been (Adam's refusal to fight the dragon to protect Eve) is unusual, to say the least, and could have implications in how one views the marriage covenant (although, admittedly it might help West TOB'ers to understand that giving away one's body in love as Christ did does not necessarily refer to the marital act but is perhaps better understood as laying down one's life for one's family). Furthermore, Hahn's feminization of the Holy Ghost is just icky.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the "feminization" of the Holy Spirit, we'll disagree. While I agree "feminizing" the Holy Spirit is bad, that's not even remotely what Hahn did. My old colleague Jacob Michael pretty thoroughly debunked a lot of the criticisms leveled in regards to the issue.

    For what it's worth, I found "First Comes Love" to be the "weakest" of Dr. Hahn's books, which I normally enjoy. Yet I wouldn't rely on the theological acumen (or lack thereof) of Dale Vree or Christopher Ferrara to provide the views.

    As far as the Genesis thing, I'm not really sure if it was a dragon or what not. Hahn always pointed out the "first sin" was disobedience to God. It's really not that unusual, in that several fathers (amongst them St. John Chrysostom) spoke about a "second aspect" of original sin in that Adam should never have let the serpent reach Eve had he been "doing his job."

    Though yes I would agree with you that there is more (and in many cases a far deeper) aspect of "giving of self" then simply the marital embrace. It ties in strongly with the self-sacrificial love that Christ gave for His flock, and as told pretty strikingly in the Old Testament book of Hosea. (Which as I noted to Wade, I find it ironic that with all of the talk of "spousal meaning" the TOB crowd focuses entirely on Songs of Solomon, and not on Hosea, whose entire premise is based around the marriage of God and Israel!)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yet I wouldn't rely on the theological acumen (or lack thereof) of Dale Vree or Christopher Ferrara to provide the views.

    Of course not. I was thinking more of Monica Migliorino Miller's or Edward O'Neill's criticisms (both published in the New Oxford Review) of Dr. Hahn's work.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In her thesis, Dawn Eden stated that the TOB was founded to help promote the views of Christopher West. Since those exact words do not appear in their mission statement, Miss King calls this “false.” This is simply not serious argumentation. We know that Christopher West is a research fellow at the Institute, and his works there are heavily promoted.

    Mrs. King would have done well to read the Board of Directors page on the TOB Institute's web site:

    "David [Savage, Chairman of the Board] became passionate about Theology of the Body after listening to tapes of Christopher West presentations.

    "In 2004, he approached Matthew Pinto [Christopher West's publisher and also a Member of the Board] and Christopher West about forming a non-profit apostolate that would help spread the word about Theology of the Body."

    "Bob Blaisse admits to becoming a big fan of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body from the moment he first heard a tape series by Christopher West in the late 1990’s. So much so, that Bob immediately bought many copies of the tape series to give to all his priest friends in Archdiocese of Philadelphia, many of whom continue to incorporate the Theology of the Body in their daily ministries."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah, that was basically where I got my evidence from.

    It would be like saying someone in the Democratic party in chicago objecting to calling the Daley machine a "democaritc outfit."

    Without it being specifically said, everyone knows the Daley machine exists, and that they elect Democrats. (Or occasionally support republicans who will not stand in the way of their graft.)

    The TOB Institute is a wing of the "Westian" school of thought when it comes to TOB. If it were a for-profit company, it would be a "shell company" of West's.

    They are basically trying to find something that sticks with these arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not to mention the fact that the TOB Institute's web site hosts the letter of Card. Rigali and Bp. Rhoades in which they state that:

    "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. Yet, its scholarly language needs to be 'translated' into more accessible categories if the average person is to benefit from it. 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."

    If the TOB Institute promoted an interpretation of TOB other than West's, they would certainly repudiate the idea that West had a "particular charism" to carry out their mission!

    On a side note, I don't mean to dominate your combox, but I did find the online conversation I had with a West TOB'er on the marriage debt:

    http://js-kit.com/api/static/pop_comments?ref=http%3A%2F%2Famericanpapist.com%2F2009%2F05%2Fchristopher-wests-ideas-on-sexuality.html&title=American%20Papist%3A%20Not%20Your%20Average%20Catholic!%3A%20Alice%20von%20Hildebrand%20takes%20Christopher%20West%20to%20task&path=%2F5683537120818029051&standalone=no&scoring=yes&backwards=no&sort=date&thread=yes&permalink=http%3A%2F%2Fjs-kit.com%2Fapi%2Fstatic%2Fpop_comments%3Fref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Famericanpapist.com%252F2009%252F05%252Fchristopher-wests-ideas-on-sexuality.html%26path%3D%252F5683537120818029051&skin=echo&smiles=no&editable=yes&thread-title=Echo&popup-title=Echo&page-title=American%20Papist%3A%20Not%20Your%20Average%20Catholic!%3A%20Alice%20von%20Hildebrand%20takes%20Christopher%20West%20to%20task

    (sorry for the preposterously long link!). Anyway, if you're interested, go to page 15 and search for "dcs". It is the comments box on one of three posts American Papist had on Christopher West last May.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay, I'll bite.
    #1. I attend the Latin Mass so you would be saying I call myself a Manichean? Never said those who attend Latin Mass are Manichean or even puritanical. I said that this particular group that of people with whom I was befriended by and one of the priests even had told me I could not wear pants. I also said that some of them felt churches could not have statues or Gold chalices that were ornate and did not want to have the Cathedral renovated, because it would take away from Jesus. To be so against physical beauty is suspect of puritanicalism and was definately present in these individuals. That being said, we can find that in orvus nordo mass goers. I certainly never said Latin Massers are manichean, it is wrong of you to say that I do.
    2. My article was not yanked because people protested. A person protested. My editor decided to print anyway and this person threw a tantrum and went to his senior editor to complain. If you know details I do not, for instance that they pulled it because they felt it was work of character assassinations, double standards and red herrings then prove it? Where is your evidence to this? Otherwise you are slandering me by putting my work into question and I deeply resent it. Prove it or retract it. Just like I can prove Dawn never attended the Institute and she knows it, that is why I don't need to retract it.
    3. The TOB Institute was not founded by West under the direction of West to Promote West and I went farther than the mission statement. I did something called research and called them and interviewed about 4 people including founding board members. Notice this is plural. So you are stating that Dr. Waldstein, Dr. Smith are teaching West's Views and not Pope John Paul ll's?
    4. As for Material taught at TOB Institute, yes I can recall specific conversation in which Dietrich Von Hildebrand (whom you failed to mention) as well as Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand's beautiful works were discussed. Specifically I recall talking about Dietrich's work on emotion being a vehicle in love motivating persons to action. This was to counter the claim that many make that love is NOT an emotion.
    5.The pathological stalker comment was not a prudent one however if one was charitable they would think, what did she mean by that? If she were a lunatic, then I would be worried, but it was Dr. Janet Smith, I am guessing she was referring to God always seeking us and never giving up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 6.Your comment: "The TOB Institute is far worse than Mr. West and should not be viewed as promoting his worldview. Their worldview is simply crazy! " Slander, Character assassination, red herring, double standard-
    7. The TOB Institute having Hidden knowledge....I have said that Dawn cannot speculate on what the Institute teaches or does not teach, NOT what West teaches or does not Teach, they are separate entities...let's keep it that way.
    8.Sorry to ignore the Bishop story. I am still reading through all the comments on this. I actually try and read and research things before I make a speculation on them. So far this is what I got, based on your last post at Sr. Lorrianes site. Your number 3 has validity as does number 4.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 9. As for West saying Engaged couples should "risk it" being alone together in occasions that they know would be sinful..simply is slander. West has NEVER taught that anyone should deliberately place themselves in harms way or places of KNOWN temptation for sake to "risk it". You are definitely taking it out of context or deliberately trying to convince others of something you know is a stretch. Which is it?
    10. Those that try to validate that the marital embrace allows for relief of concupiscence (defined only as fulfillment of marital debt as if it is owed to them because better to marry than burn so therefore if you cannot abstain from sex, then marry) are not understanding what is meant by "remedy of concupiscence" as well as the forms of concupiscence that JP2 talks about. There is Carnal Concupiscence as well as Concupiscence of the eyes and Concupiscence of the heart. The marital embrace does offer a healing of the concupiscence of the eyes and heart. But to believe the latter is to say that marriage legitimizes a man's desire to use his wife for pleasure, cause hey, your body is my body....pay your debt babe...this is the wrong interpretation of the marital debt.

    ReplyDelete
  12. But to believe the latter is to say that marriage legitimizes a man's desire to use his wife for pleasure, cause hey, your body is my body....pay your debt babe...this is the wrong interpretation of the marital debt.

    The reason it is called the marriage debt is because it is something that is owed. Hence St. Paul's strong words in 1 Cor 7:3-5, in which he likens the refusal of the debt to fraud.

    It is truly sad to see this teaching caricatured as the "man's desire to use his wife for pleasure".

    ReplyDelete
  13. I tell ya, I have a night of light sleep, and I wake up to this. :)

    1.) You claim you are only referring to a small portion, and not intending to take it as a representative sample. Maybe that is what you are intending. The only problem is, we have to go off of what you actually said. In your article on CE, you said:

    "Not all, but many were so puritanical"

    "the knee jerk reaction of many conservative Catholics"

    Why on earth would I get the feeling that you are issuing a blanket condemnation of traditionalists when you make these quotes? So I suggest the problem comes with your words, not my interpretation of them.

    2.) With Dawn Eden, I really don't know who else commented to the editor. And neither do you. I know Fr. Angelo commented on your line of attack, and I emailed Miss Eden herself saying "Good to know that character assassination and insults pass for solid scholarship at Catholic Exchange!" While my ego would love to take claim for this entire set of events, I doubt it. In short, I'm sure more people were disgusted by what was written, and how it did nothing but poison the well.

    3. )"So you are stating that Dr. Waldstein, Dr. Smith are teaching West's Views and not Pope John Paul ll's?"

    To the extent they push West's views which are not in line with JP II, TOB, or Catholic tradition, YES, that is exactly what I am saying. I three people with doctorates who oppose his work. Yet their having a doctorate doesn't mean anything as to the veracity of their critique. Your appeals to authority will not work here.

    4.) As far as "stalker" I myself noted, on this blog, what they could be referring to. Yet I also stated the comment was so impious and offensive that it disqualifies anyone who makes it and defends it. I stand by that assertion. Dr. Smith still owes Catholics an apology for her offensive comments, even more so because she is a professional. (The standards are a lot higher for those who cannot claim ignorance.)

    5.) My statements on the TOB institute aren't slandering them. I back up my assertion. Nor is it a red herring. I was specifically answering your charge about the TOB institute. In a discussion about the TOB institute, to mention the views of the organization that hires speakers at their Congress who call God a "stalker" is quite relevant info indeed. A real red herring would be you questioning the truth of a masters thesis because of the authors private life several years before she wrote the thesis. You've never done that, have you?

    ReplyDelete
  14. 6.) On "Separate Entities." When West is a senior research fellow, and was basically approached for his blessing to have the Institute Founded, I would say that the TOB Institute is essentially a think tank meant to promote his work.

    7.) On "Risking it" I would refer you to my own post on putting "faith to the test" from August 9th, 2010 on this blog. Look at the evidence, and you are free to show where I misquote West, or try to convince people of something I know as a stretch. I would also reference "Sirach and Turning your Eyes" also done in August on this blog.

    8.) As Dcs says, you are deliberately distorting the traditional concept of "marriage debt." You've yet to show where anyone actually looks at this in a strict contractual way. The Church has never taught the wife essentially has to given into the urges of her husband, no matter how questionable or base, simply on the matter of "marriage debt." Nor have I actually ever heard anyone actually make this statement. You sound like you are getting your work from feminists, not actual people.

    If you want to look above in the comments, dcs and myself had an interesting discussion on what "marriage debt" means in tradition, and how it can ultimately be harmonized with much more "modern" understandings.

    So actually show where people say this. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you simply heard a few second-hand sources (West being one of them) claiming people actually try and put this forth, and I'm going to reject what you say as simply not serious. The greater blame of course relies on those Catholics who gave you the information as they danced and stomped on the graves of their Catholic forefathers.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have said that Dawn cannot speculate on what the Institute teaches or does not teach

    Even if we grant that Miss Eden has never attended a course at the TOB Institute, it does not follow that she is speculating about the content of those courses. For example, the course descriptions state that they use West's Theology of the Body Explained as a supplemental reading. Furthermore, Miss Eden could have spoken with others who have taken courses at the TOB institute.

    The pathological stalker comment was not a prudent one however if one was charitable they would think, what did she mean by that? If she were a lunatic, then I would be worried, but it was Dr. Janet Smith, I am guessing she was referring to God always seeking us and never giving up.

    I don't think the "pathological stalker" comment is even theologically correct. If God chases us down like a lover, like a pathological stalker, then everyone would be saved.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I also said that some of them felt churches could not have statues or Gold chalices that were ornate and did not want to have the Cathedral renovated, because it would take away from Jesus.

    The curious thing here is that this is totally contrary to how most traditionalists think. They want to give the best to God. Most traditionalists like ornate gold chalices and ciboria, beautiful vestments, statues, etc. That said, it is not surprising that some would oppose Cathedral renovations given how some cathedrals (like St. John the Evangelist in Milwaukee) have been renovated in recent years.

    ReplyDelete
  17. After reading to number 5 and seeing you just don't care about anything but your position, I stopped reading and will continue to do so.

    I asked Sr. to remove the comments. I have not checked to see if she has yet, but I am sure she will.

    I am done here. While the world is dying, you all just continue to nit pick and frankly, I was called to do more with my life. Have at it...

    As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Such is your choice Mrs. King. You can stop the "me against the world" meme anytime though. To say defending Christopher West is somehow a badge of courage in this current environment, I don't buy it. One has a massive Institute which is essentially his think tank. One side travels the glove raking in millions of dollars, and has most of the intellectual class of Catholic pundits behind him.

    The other side has someone with a masters thesis, a priest running a blog, an author who sells a few books here and there, and a few little known scholars. You don't belong to the "underdogs." That doesn't make you wrong, but it certainly does disqualify you from touting the me against the world mentality you do.

    You are right, I am highly concerned with my position. Not to the exclusion of other views, but when somebody comes to my blog and tosses a few salvos at my position, I examine if any of them are valid hits or not, and then defend my position.

    I really don't see why this is so shocking.

    If you ask me, there's a reason your offer nothing back. However, I'll let people who read this exchange decide who has the evidence, and who does not. I don't need to attack the inner motivations of those I disagree with to get my point across.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "The curious thing here is that this is totally contrary to how most traditionalists think. "

    Yeah I noted this in my article on the whole thing. I've known and fought a thousand traditionalists from all sides of the aisle, some in the Church, some out of it. I attend the Extraordinary Form in one of Detroit's oldest and most extravagant Churches. I've never heard one traditionalist, no matter his persuasion say "You know, what we need to do is stop making everything so ornate in our parishes!"

    ReplyDelete
  20. We go to a rather humble mission chapel but I don't think anyone there regards it as the ideal place, physically, for Catholic worship. But we have some very beautiful vestments and other things for Holy Mass. I hope that we can say that we give the best to God from what we have.

    Now, there are traditionalists who prefer Low Mass to High Mass, who despise the dialogue Mass and congregational singing, etc., but I think that is a separate issue.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm one of those who prefers a High Mass, at least for Sundays. :) You are right, seperate issue though. I really don't buy her statement that someone from the Institute of Christ the King(or even parishoners of their parishes) would say that these things would "distract from Jesus." Auxillary Bishop Perry of Chicago came and celebrated a solemn Pontifical High Mass at our parish a few months ago. He is a large patron of St. John Cantius in Chicago, which is dominated by the Institute. If anything, I would say they have all the right ideas, without some of the excesses that people in the FSSP have (since some of them come from the Society, not surprising they still have some baggage, but I'm really getting off topic here.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. On Second thought, I'm Willy Wonka and Common Sense Catholicism is my Chocolate Factory! How can I go off-topic on my own project?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Re: Distracting from Jesus

    I think it is important to put this into context. Since Mrs. King has decided not to participate in this thread any more, it's hard to know for certain the cathedral renovations to which she is be referring. But if my guess is correct, that she is referring to the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist in Milwaukee, then one can see how "traditionalists" and "conservatives" alike would oppose those renovations for "taking away from Jesus." Heck, Rome itself intervened twice to try and stop Abp. Weakland from making those particular renovations. Is one to be derided as a "Manichaean" because he takes issue with a bronze relief picturing Abp. Weakland, the Cathedral rector, and St. John ministering to the faithful? So it would not be surprising that traditionalists would view the money spent on those renovations as distracting from Our Lord; in my opinion, the money was truly wasted since the cathedral is worse than it was before it was renovated, and I would gladly donate money to see it gutted and filled with beautiful and Catholic things.

    ReplyDelete

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.