Dr. Janet Smith: Back to the Drawing Board

http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2010/10/01/in-all-things-charity/#comment-1769459

Probably for the best that she re-write it.

However, a note to Catholic Exchange.  This is twice now that you've invited someone to engage Miss Eden's thesis, and twice it's wound you in hot water requiring later modifications (or in the case of the first one, you removed it from your site entirely.)

I think you guys need to hire another editor, or at least someone who can go over these works as a "hostile witness."  Will save you lots of embarrassment, because you can bet several of us are saving the original copies.  :)

Hopefully Dr. Smith also apologizes to Dawn Eden personally as well.  In the end, we are "all on the same team."  It would be good if our friends across the way remember that.  I promise we will here in this small Kingdom.

Why the Incarnation Matters: The Divine Kingmaker

Concluding the studies on the prophets Elijah and Elisha, let us accomplish two things. The first will be a very brief recap of the events in their lives, and how these events will shape the future for God’s people.


Elijah appeared during what could be called one of the darkest times in the entire region for God’s people. Paganism was wide-spread. Though the Kingdom of Judah during this time was undergoing something of a religious revival (under the good kings Asa and Jehoshaphat), they Kingdom of Judah soon become little better than vassals of Samaria. (Omri’s intermarriages with Judah gave his house brief control over Judah even.) Pagan worship flourished.


Elijah challenged the pagans boldly, and won at Mt. Carmel. During one of his (many) forced exiles from Samaria, he receives God in a cave atop Mt. Horeb. God tells him:

“Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria; and Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint as King over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat you shall anoint to be prophet in your place. And him who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay, and him who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Ba’al, and every mouth that has not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:15-18)

When people look at this text, they see God putting kings in place to execute his wrath upon the house of Ahab. I would like to take a step backwards. On what basis does God make these claims? While one can understand why Jehu would be interested in securing the support of Elijah (through his successor Elisha), of what good is an Israelite anointing a Syrian king?

God can make these proclamations through His universal kingship over the entire Earth. In his treatise on the Incarnation, St. Athanasius the Great likened God to a King, and the Earth to a city he founded. The areas of the Earth were ruled by the temporal rulers in his mind as regents. If their work was poor, God could choose to dismiss them at His will. Even in those areas which reject His authority, this does not change God’s dominion over these lands. If he wills a new ruler to be installed, such is His right.

In addition to the two Kingdoms, God reveals two more players in this “game.” Elisha will become the successor to Elijah. There can also be seen a prophecy in the final sentence from God. He states 7,000 would be left in Israel who has not been stained by the idolatry rampant around them. If they are left, implied is that the others wouldn’t be. Here we see the destruction of the Kingdom of Samaria foretold I believe. With the 7,000, we see the beginnings of the Church in a certain way.


This prophesy also has much to say for the Kingdom of Judah, though we may not realize it at first. Those 7,000 exist in Samaria, in the world. They are not part (at least by their original nature in birth) of the Davidic Kingdom. Yet we know that the Davidic Kingdom would reign forever once the Messiah became King. I believe the only way to explain this anomaly is through what is known as the Social Kingship of Christ.


When we say the Kingship of Christ, it is not meant in terms of an earthly theocracy, ruled by the Pope acting in the person of Christ. While at times this has been how it appeared, it really is much deeper than this. With Christ as King, He claims dominion over all of heaven and earth. Though there continue to be earthly princes and rulers, they are called to acknowledge Christ’s superior Kingship over them, just as a vassal may be left with full autonomy, yet he is still required to acknowledge who his lord is.

Those 7,000 are his heralds. They are the ones who call upon the people and rulers of nations to acknowledge the supremacy of this ruler. Is this not the Catholic Church? Are we not made up from the world? Yet do we not serve the eternal King of David’s house? Do we not make disciples of all nations to follow and serve this King?

Yet who is this ruler? What will he be? How will he rule? The prophet Isaiah provides the most exhaustive prophecy concerning the rule of the anointed King of Judah, as such he will be our next figure.

The Response to Dr. Smith

For easier navigation, the now 5 part response to Dr. Smith's article that critiques Dawn Eden's Master's Thesis

Part I:  On "Tone" and Poisoning the Well

Part II:  On "Substance", Anachronistic Interpretation, Misquoting the Pope, and "Repression"

Part III:  More on "Repression" (reader discretion is advised)

Part IV:  Addenda to Response

Part VI:  Where are we Now?  An Appeal to Restore Civility

The TOB Debate: Where are we Now?

In an attempt to be a bridge builder, Wade Michael St. Onge has written his latest.  He repeats his thesis from before in an attempt to find common ground on both sides of the aisle in the TOB debate that was sparked by Dr. Schlinder's critique of his former student, as well as escalated by Dawn Eden's Master's thesis on the issue.  He re-states part of his thesis as follows:

West's approach is good for the particular audience he is catering to. However, West's approach is not suited to the “spiritually mature” or those with a firm grasp of Catholic doctrine. These Catholics can get some good things out of it and enjoy it, but they can also be rightly bothered by some of the things he says and see them as problematic.

While this might have some merit, in the end I believe the objective reader is forced to reject this thesis.  The key to why this is so I will attempt to explain.  I fully concede I may be viewed as a biased observer, having worked on this issue with Dawn Eden, Steve Kellmeyer, and others.  I make no apologies for my work.  For the most part, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have noted my civil yet tenacious tone in this debate.

1.)  "Mature" Audiences

Wade's thesis ultimately falls short for one simple reason:  Mr. West and his defenders (outside of perhaps Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve) reject this characterization of Mr. West's work.  They would not hold that their work is of little value to the "spiritually mature."  Whenever we hear that Mr. West's work is not that of a theologian, but an evangelist, there is never a discussion of how his work can be harmonized with the more  allegedly "advanced" material for Catholics "eating out of the banquet" instead of the dumpster.  Instead, we are told that for the ones in the dumpster, there are the talks and lectures of Mr. West.  For the more spiritually "mature", there is Heaven's Song and Theology of the Body Explained, both books by Mr. West.  For the one "mature", there is the Theology of the Body Institute, an institute that if not the catholic equivalent of an intellectual shell company for Christopher West, is dominated by his influence and his school of thought nonetheless.

The "mature" works are where the focus of a lot of criticism is.  I have noted that I find Mr. West's exegesis of Sirach which he used in Theology of the Body Explained troubling, amongst other issues.  In her thesis, Dawn Eden finds his treatment of continence and virtue in TOB explained problematic.  Many of us objected when the "mature" audience at the TOB Congress advocated calling God a stalker, and stating that before John Paul II, the Church was in darkness in regards to sexuality.  (As Fr. Loya famously said.)

2.)  What are we?

I believe the second problem is that of our critics assessment of us and our positions.  Speaking bluntly, they do not view us as "spiritually mature."  When Catholic luminary Alice Von Hildebrand spoke up against Christopher West, the general consensus of her critics was that she is an old out of touch prude.  Dawn Eden's thesis has been lampooned as the work of someone with a vendetta against Christopher West at best, a cynical marketing ploy to make herself rich by tearing down faithful Catholics and Bishops at worst.  (As Dr. Janet Smith recently said in her response to Miss Eden.)  Miss Eden is also viewed as obstinate, with a blatant refusal to acknowledge she is wrong.

On the other side for the most part, we have been willing to grant them much.  Dawn Eden spoke at length in the introduction to her thesis about the positive influence Christopher West was in her own life.  She talks about how he is to be applauded for bringing souls to the Church.  Fr. Angelo spoke about how the problem of prudery in the Church is real, and the difficulties in presenting something so philosophically rich to a popular audience.  (In short, one can be more forgiving in this arena.)  Now some of my friends across the aisle will point to the works of Steve Kellmeyer, who could be called highly polemical in his works against Christopher West.  Yet if one looks at his works, one finds in the comments section those on his side who have had a gentleman's disagreement with him in regards to tone.

For the record, I believe that Mr. Kellmeyer's tone is no worse than that of Christopher West.  In fact, I will say it is better, for reasons I will expound upon later.  Mr. Kellmeyer's role is the one who rallies the troops.  Most of his audience already agrees with him.  He is the provider of "red meat."  It certainly isn't for everyone.  Yet if anyone comes there from the opposite side in charity and attempts to have a dialogue with him (As Christina King has done), one sees a very civil discussion going on.  His last three posts on the issue have lacked a lot of the polemical tone that previous ones have.

Why do I say that his behavior is better than those of my opponents across the aisle?  In the eyes of Mr. West, those who disagree with him are part of the "religious right."  We are Manichean's.  We are prudes.    In the eyes of Dr. Janet Smith, we are those who seek to "repress" the truth about sexuality, and are guilty of hidden agendas, to say nothing of launching a campaign against Bishops "known for their fidelity to the Magesterium."  They are the Optimates, we are the Populares.  (1)

I for one have heard nobody across the aisle step up and condemn this kind of argumentation.  Even Sr. Lorraine, who has attempted to provide a civil forum for discussion of these manners (and has been a model of civility), has not issued (at least in public) any criticism of this approach.  How do these examples encourage a civil debate?

For what it is worth, I do not think my friends across the aisle are being deceptive.  I do not believe they are engaging in grandstanding to score points in some debate.  They really believe what they say.  They think their critics have Manichean tendencies, and are full of hidden agendas.  As long as this is the case, there is a wide chasm that I believe cannot be bridged.

I am not sure if the first issue can be resolved.  I am however certain the second issue can.  I believe my friends across the aisle are mistaken on certain things.  Yet I have never doubted their sincerity.  I believe at times their passions get the best of them.  Such happens to even the best of men.  When Dr. Smith found herself guilty of this, she had the integrity to admit it, and deserves the utmost of commendation for this.  (3)  They believe a good man is being unfairly criticized, and have rallied to his defense.  Such is understandable, even laudable.  I hope should I ever find myself in controversy in the future, I can have such zealous allies.

When commenting on this issue, Mr. Brian Killian stated the following:

My impression from following this debate is that everyone is partially right and partially wrong.


What everyone should do is stop the merry-go-round of criticizing the other person, and sit down and look for what is wrong in their own approach or their own content. Each person in this debate should find one thing that their critics are right about. That should move the discussion forward a bit!

Maybe we should set up a group blog where everyone involved in the debate can discuss matters in a civil and charitable manner.

I am skeptical that such a group project would have any fruit.  Yet I can get completely behind a call for civility.  I write this post with the hope that my friends across the aisle can see where their critics are coming from.  Small though my voice may be, I invite them to engage in charity.  Do not doubt our motives, our agendas.  As they are so fond of saying, we are all "on the same team."  Provided charity is upheld, we can then move onto the issues of substance.  I am not sure if they can be resolved as I said earlier.  However, I do think that if done in a civil and cordial manner, everyone can learn.


*Updated*

In the interest of fairness, Mrs. Christina King commented in the comboxes below, protesting some of the things that I had said.  One of the statements I did not have the full information on (I really could not have known), and the other, I believe while the case can be made, really distracts from the issues at hand, and has the potential to turn things into mud-slinging.  To try and keep the bridges built, I have removed these two specific charges from the article.  I regret and apologize for any misunderstanding that arose as a result of incomplete information, and I expect to be held accountable to keep the dialogue going with civility.  Anything that contributes to the opposite I hope to avoid.
Notes:

1.)  In the final days of the Roman Republic, the defenders of the Senate viewed themselves the Optimates, or "good men."  They viewed their opponents as populares, many times little better than an angry mob who, if given any authority, would ruin Rome.

2.)  What comes of this of course is hard to say.  The charges are still up in her essay that she now admits were uncharitable.  She has however promised that she has an essay forthcoming analyzing Dr. Von Hildebrand's criticism of Mr. West, and promised a far more irenic tone.  I for one look forward to reading this.

To Part V, Addenda

Return to Response Index

Addenda to Response

Dr: Smith has stated the following in the comments section of a series of responses in regards to her original critique of Dawn Eden's thesis:

Dear Dr. Nadal,
I agree that the debate over CW’s work has become too polarized. I am afraid that I may have contributed to that. While I believe my criticisms of Eden’s thesis are justified, I also think they may be overdone. I needn’t have pointed out so many instances of objectionable tone, for instance. By doing so, I committed the very error that I found in her work. I set a tone of unrelenting opposition to Eden and defensiveness about West’s work. That is ironic and humbling!

I was puzzled about how to respond to Eden’s work; I wanted to make my response not too long but nonetheless effective. I generally find it takes on the average 5-10 sentences to correct one erroneous claim! All of us have limited time and critiquing a master’s thesis for which I am not a reader is not an item high on my agenda. But I know people who are using Eden’s thesis and Alice Von Hildebrand’s critique of West to pressure priests and organizations not to use West’s work. That is a real shame in my view and merited my involvement. I have been on the circuit for years and I don’t know if I have ever seen anyone who is as successful as West in converting people away from sexual immorality. Perhaps he has made missteps but they are not of the sort to seriously vitiate his work.

I do hope that those of us who are engaged in the debate about the merits of West’s work can find a more generous and civil way of conducting our arguments. I will soon be posting a critique of Alice von Hildebrand’s critique of West; I hope I get the tone right there.

Yours,
Janet Smith

For the record, that should be pointed out.  She has recognized that she was a bit out of line with some of her remarks.  That takes integrity to do so.  My small voice would simply request that the entire paper be re-worked.  The latter section of her essay contributes something to the debate (even if people might disagree with the conclusions) and deserves a fair hearing.  The first portion takes a tone of simply looking to bury Dawn Eden.  While you can't "unring the bell", one can stop further damage.  In my mind, there is no doubt Dr. Smith's contribution, far from providing an opportunity for spirited yet civil debate, has absolutely poisoned the well.  Left as is, I believe it will do far more harm to her "side" than good, though all sides would suffer as a result.

There is more to say about that, but I think everyone should wait and see how this plays out.

Return to Response Index

Return to TOB Index

Return to Common Sense Catholicism

Part III of Response to Dr. Smith: "Repression"

In her article on Dawn Eden's masters thesis, Dr. Janet Smith says the following:

She does not argue that it is false that there was at one time and may be even now in some places, a tendency to teach the Church’s teaching about sexuality in a repressive fashion. I believe it would be difficult to contest that claim and in fact Eden notes West’s characterization “no doubt resonates with certain members of his audience” (ET, 63).


Let me note that when some ancient texts and moral theology textbooks were translated into English the portions on sexual morality were left in Latin. (e.g., Chapter 10 of Book II of The Instructor by: Clement of Alexander: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm and Part VI, Chapt III of A Manual of Moral Theology by Rev. Thomas Slater, S.J.: http://www.archive.org/stream/MN5034ucmf_1/MN5034ucmf_1_djvu.txt). That suggests some “repression” to me.

Not all teaching about sexual morality has been marked by repression and certainly such instruction was a misrepresentation of the Church’s magisterial teaching.

I noted this before in my previous response, but I would like to return to it for a fuller treatment.  As Steve Kellmeyer noted in his excellent analysis on this issue, there is nothing "repressive" about the fact that the universal language of the Church is used.  I would like to only point out a few more things.

As I noted in my previous response, let me again cite the preface to Fr. Slater's "A Manual of Moral Theology":

Here, however, we must ask the reader to bear in mind that manuals of moral theology are technical works intended to help the confessor and the parish priest in the discharge of their duties. They are as technical as the textbooks of the lawyer and the doctor. They are not intended for edification, nor do they hold up a high ideal of Christian perfection for the imitation of the faithful. They deal with what is of obligation under pain of sin; they are books of moral pathology. They are necessary for the Catholic priest to enable him to administer the sacrament of Penance and to fulfil his other duties ; they are intended to serve this purpose, and they should not be censured for not being what they were never intended to be. Ascetical and mystical literature which treats of the higher spiritual life is very abundant in the Catholic Church, and it should be consulted by those who desire to know the lofty ideals of life which the Catholic Church places before her children and encourages them to practise. Moral theology proposes to itself the humbler but still necessary task of defining what is right and what wrong in all the practical relations of the Christian life. This all, but more especially priests, should know.

Dr. Smith finds in these sources "tendency to teach the Church’s teaching about sexuality in a repressive fashion."  The author states that teaching the Catholic truth on morality is not his intended goal.  His intended goal is simply to point out, in a clear and precise manner, what is "right" and "wrong", so that priests may be better assisted in the confessional in assigning penance and sound spiritual advice.  For one who wants the "lofty ideals" about Catholic morality (including the truth about Catholic teaching on sexuality) the author recommends they go elsewhere.

This work certainly wasn't "repressing" the truth from the average lay Catholic, since it was never intended for the average lay Catholic to begin with.  A simple "fact check' in the preface would bear this out.  The work was not concerned much with presenting the Magesterium's truth about sexuality to an accessible audience, the audience was the parish priest who had a robust seminary training, which included understanding very complex and very technical concepts.  If the average individual went through Westlaw, they would understand few if any of the legal cases cited, and would draw few inferences of importance.  (Those they might draw would get them laughed out of a courtroom.)  To the trained lawyer who is skilled in understanding precedent and courtroom procedure, Westlaw can provide an inestimable benefit.  The same principle applies here.

Yet what of the fact that the teaching surrounding sexual morality is left in Latin?  This would be in a sense true, but incomplete.  The chapters Dr. Smith cites are dealing with something very specific:  sins against the 6th and 9th commandments.  Primarily, it deals with the sin of sexual impurity.  As noted before, this is not meant to give an in-depth teaching about sexual ethics, but rather simply pointing out what is wrong under pain of sin. 

One need not be an expert in Latin to figure out what the author is talking about.  The specific section Dr. Smith referenced is called "De Peccatis Consummatis contra Naturam."  In short, it is dealing with sins of sexual impurity that are contrary to nature.  Two of those sins are named as "De Sodomia" and "De Bestialitate."  Take one guess what those mean.  Does Dr. Smith really think Catholics need an in-depth presentation on why conjugal acts with animals are wrong?  Personally, I think that, in order to protect the modesty of pious ears, there should be as little talk about this as possible amongst faithful Catholics.  Speak about it as little as required, and no more.  About the only one who really needs to know how to handle these things when regards to the confessional is the priest.

Why is this?  I submit because we are dealing with something of the utmost sensitivity.   The manual also mentions that both bestiality and sodomy are punished severely under the Code of Canon Law. (The 1917 Code)  Whenever you cite the 1917 Code of Canon Law, expect there to be a healthy dose of Latin.  In the case Fr. Slater sites, canons 2357 and 2359 are mentioned, which outline specific penalties for individuals guilty of sins contrary to nature.

Ironically enough, for everything else that is not dealing with something contra naturam regarding purity, English is the language used.  The English talks about when a priest should or should not question a penitent regarding sins of impurity, mentions the intent of people engaging in these acts (as part of the measurement of the gravity of the sin)

Dr. Smith is an expert in classical languages.  One would have to think she at least read what she was citing.  This took but a few hours of fact checking.  As far as I'm aware, none of her supporters bothered to fact-check her on this.  Since Dr. Smith is an expert in classical languages, she should certainly know these circumstances.  In an essay over 6,000 words, one would think she would be able to spend a few hours fact-checking her work.  If a seminarian turned in something this shoddy, would Dr. Smith give him a passing grade?

What is the reader to make of this?  I do not think malicious intent is necessary.  Dr. Smith had a case of "Ready, Fire, Aim!"  So focused was she on refuting Miss Eden's thesis, she was looking for anything, anything, that might confirm her views. When doing this, people will frequently jettison discpline and fact-checking first, and to their peril.  So far, this is par for the course in those who have attempted to engage Miss Eden's thesis.  They have missed quotes, engaged in ad hominem, and engaged in anachronistic interpretation time and time again.  I repeat my call I made frequently at Sr. Lorraine's blog:  Let us focus on the evidence at hand in a calm and rational manner.  Let us reason together, and see who has the facts.


I think that's enough, and if my audience needs a shower after reading this, I completely understand.

To Part IV:  Where are we Now?

Return to Index

Dr. Janet Smith's "Response" Part II

After this lengthy tutorial in how to smear your opponent, Dr. Smith finally promises she will show how the evidence presented in Dawn Eden’s thesis is faulty.  It is good to know that in a near 6,000 word essay, it takes her around 2200 words to finally “engage” the thesis at hand.  Yet let us see where the evidence takes us.

 First we note that Dr. Smith again engages in poisoning the well.  She simply notes she will critique one, count it, one point Miss Eden made.  This will be representative of her whole thesis.  I offer a different alternative, the same one I offered to Sr. Lorraine.  The reason people are engaging the work only tangentially is because there are some things West says that cannot be explained away.  When the evidence is presented, West’s case collapses.

I begin to wonder however if Dr. Smith has actually even read the thesis, instead of just copying what those like Sr. Lorraine have said.  For example, Dr. Smith states:

Violating the “hermeneutic of continuity” is what Eden considers to be the most serious flaw in West’s work.  Oddly, she does not set aside any specific portion of her thesis to defend this charge. Her most direct engagement of the issue of “hermeneutic of continuity” is in her presentation of the first of ten “themes” she finds in West’s work, a section of only two pages at most.

Perhaps Dr. Smith missed the section Enabling an “Integral Vision of Man.”  This is the final section of her thesis before the conclusion, and it runs 10 pages.  After pointing out before where she thinks West went wrong, she then suggests how one can include other aspects, to give a more well-rounded analysis of Theology of the Body.  This includes:

1.)     Including greater talk about human suffering, something John Paul II himself admitted needs to be covered.  He himself simply lacked the time to do so.

2.)    In an attempt to present a balanced understanding of traditional Church teaching, reference statements where Catholics do not show prudery.  Acknowledge popular stereotypes only to show they are wrong.

3.)    Dawn Eden cites a Catholic apologist (Fr. Daniel Lord) from the pre-TOB times who wrote extensively about sexuality, and made statements quite in harmony with what John Paul II made in his general audiences.

4.)    Emphasize Church teaching about the avoidance of occasions of sin, even amongst the just (not just the one “bound by lust” as West argues in TOB Explained.  She cites with approval both Paul VI and John Paul II)

5.)    How to connect sexual desire within its rightful context of marriage, instead of making statements that are essentially identical to what secular liberals teach about sex.

6.)    That there are things more important to a marriage that grows in virtue than sex, and it would be good for West to mention them.

7.)    How the “Dark Night of the Body”, which at times involves a lack of sexual desire, can actually be one of the greatest opportunity of grace within marriage.

Other than that, she spent absolutely no time talking about the “hermeneutic of rupture” vs. the “hermeneutic of continuity.”

 She protests against the phrase “re-contextualize” by stressing that West isn’t advocating a “development” in doctrine, but rather in thought.  I think she doth protest too much.  When a certain school of thought calls for:

1.)   Interpreting even the Mass as sexual, including the idea that the Paschal Candle is a phallic symbol simulating sex

2.)  That Catholics who have been redeemed in Christ’s blood no longer need follow commands about occasions of sin.  (Or as West himself states in Theology of the Body Explained, it is only to the one “bound by lust” that Sirach’s admonitions apply to.  Interested readers are encouraged to check out the “TOB” section on this blog where I devote several articles to this concept)

3.)  Stops referring to God as Father and instead refers to God as a pathological stalker, as Dr. Smith advocated at the TOB Congress

4.)  Counsels people to start viewing heaven as the ultimate orgasm (As West does in Heaven’s Song)

5.)  Tells Catholics we must deeply ponder the size of the Blessed Virgin’s breasts

6.)  Tells Catholics that the reason The Vagina Monologues exist is essentially traditional notions of sexuality were filled with prudery

Call me crazy, but I would say they are guilty of sexualizing anything they can get their hands on.  Ironically, they cite nobody other than modern sources and John Paul II for this assertion.  Could it be that they are misinterpreting the late Pontiff?  Could it be that the way to avoid these misrepresentations is to cite the entirety of Catholic teaching throughout the ages? 

Dr. Smith then goes on to critique Miss Eden’s critique of Christopher West when he references the, in his eyes, that TOB allows us to "rediscover human existence."  Dr. Smith states the following:

I did find some interesting material there, however.  West quotes John Paul II as saying that “Since our creation as male and female is the ‘fundamental fact of human existence’ (Feb. 13, 1980), the theology of the body affords ‘the rediscovery of the meaning of the whole of existence, the meaning of life’ (Oct. 29, 1980).”

           

There’s only one problem with this.  Dr. Smith does not provide an actual quote.  If she did, it would be obvious this was not what John Paul II was saying.  When you quote what he actually says, you find something quite different:

1.    For a long time now, our Wednesday reflections have been centered on the following enunciation of Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:27-28)....

6. Rereading it, this appeal contained in Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount cannot be an act detached from the context of concrete existence. It always means—though only in the dimension of the act to which it referred—the rediscovery of the meaning of the whole of existence, the meaning of life, which also contains that meaning of the body which here we call "nuptial.”

As is clear from the text, the “rediscovery of the meaning of the whole of existence” comes not from the entirety of the Theology of the Body.  Rather, it comes from understanding the words of the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the statements against “lust”.  Far from being all encompassing, the statement about having “lust in the heart” is limited “in the dimension of the act to which it is referred.” 

Why is this so?  When one looks at what lust really is, it goes directly contrary to everything we were called to be.  It runs contrary to everything contained in the Sermon on the Mount.  This is extremely deep stuff, but incredibly insightful.  It is clear that it is not saying that the Theology of the Body contains the rediscovery of the meaning of existence.  Mr. West may think the Pope said this.  Dr. Smith may think Mr. West is right.  Miss Eden was simply pointing out that Christopher West stated something John Paul II did not say.  Mr. West has a habit of doing this. (Except the time he stated that John Paul II flat out got it wrong in his exegesis on 1^st Corinthians!)  From a technical standpoint, Miss Eden's arrow hits the center of the target.  John Paul II might or might not be talking about this elsewhere.  He doesn't do so here.

Next, Dr. Smith goes on to say that since sometimes texts regarding sexuality are left not translated from the Latin, this shows a bit of a “repressive” attitude.  Unfortunately, Dr. Smith had just enough rope to hang herself.

If one remembers from the first section, she made a big deal about Dawn Eden criticizing the judgment of two bishops who spoke favorably about Christopher West.  She stated, for the record:

To assert that one has found serious errors (Eden’s Thesis, 63, hereafter “ET”) that have escaped the notice of bishops who have a legitimate claim to be judges of the fidelity of an author’s work suggests that one is lacking in docility and humility.

            When discussing the moral theology manuals of time past, she states:

Part VI, Let me note that when some ancient texts and moral theology textbooks were translated into English the portions on sexual morality were left in Latin. (e.g., Chapter 10 of Book II of The Instructor by: Clement of Alexander: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm and Chapt III of A Manual of Moral Theology by Rev. Thomas Slater, S.J.: http://www.archive.org/stream/MN5034ucmf_1/MN5034ucmf_1_djvu.txt). That suggests some “repression” to me.

I’m not here to comment on the accuracy or lack thereof of the statements in the Latin.  I am only here to note that Rev. Thomas Slater’s Theology Manual has a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur.  On what basis does Dr. Smith accuse Bishops Davis and Bodkin, men who have “legitimate claim to be judges of the fidelity of an authors work” of repression and general prudery?  Such an approach is “lacking in docility and humility” indeed.

Perhaps a more charitable interpretation is in order.  The audience of this work, as the preface states, is not the layman.  The work is not meant for edification.  As Father Slater states:

Here, however, we must ask the reader to bear in mind that manuals of moral theology are technical works intended to help the confessor and the parish priest in the discharge of their duties. They are as technical as the textbooks of the lawyer and the doctor.  They are not intended for edification, nor do they hold up a high ideal of Christian perfection for the imitation of the faithful. They deal with what is of obligation under pain of sin; they are books of moral pathology. They are necessary for the Catholic priest to enable him to administer the sacrament of Penance and to fulfil his other duties ; they are intended to serve this purpose, and they should not be censured for not being what they were never intended to be. Ascetical and mystical literature which treats of the higher spiritual life is very abundant in the Catholic Church, and it should be consulted by those who desire to know the lofty ideals of life which the Catholic Church places before her children and encourages them to practise. Moral theology proposes to itself the humbler but still necessary task of defining what is right and what wrong in all the practical relations of the Christian life. This all, but more especially priests, should know.

In short, is work was not something meant for the average lay faithful.  This was a very technical document meant to deal in a very specific context:  assisting priests in the confessional to deal with matters of moral theology.  That there is a lot still in Latin is not surprising when these are technical documents meant for people who are well-versed in Latin, as any priest during this time would be.  Include these facts, and it suddenly becomes a little bit different.

In the very limited sense she even attempts to critique Miss Eden’s thesis, Dr. Smith falls woefully short.  Perhaps she should get around to the Paschal Candle, West praising Hugh Heffner, West praising the Vagina Monologues, his faulty understanding of the "Two Bishops" (the story of the conversion of St. Pelagia), the problem of presenting Church teaching with modesty (as Paul VI commands), etc.  All of this was mentioned in the thesis, and nobody has even tried tackling these issues.  (Except Sr. Lorraine who seemed to imply that we should take the two bishops story as an allegory, when Christopher West certainly wasn't doing so!)

So far the main critiques of Miss Eden’s thesis have involved an author whose character assassinations were so wild Catholic Exchange removed them (Christina King), someone who says that West’s interpretations of things require absolutely no evidence (Fr. Loya), someone who admitted they didn’t have time to really critique the work (Sr. Lorraine) and now someone who spends 2200 words engaging in the most uncharitable of mud-slinging, and then spends the rest of her essay misquoting the Pope, and accusing two Bishop’s of engaging in prudery and repression, lacking the same docility and humility Dr. Smith lambastes Miss Eden about.  I will repeat my call:  Can we get some of our friends on the other side of the aisle to actually deal with the evidence presented?

To Part III  (Due to the sensitive nature of this post, reader discretion is advised.)

Return to Response Index

The Dawn Eden Thesis: On Dr. Janet Smith's "Response"

It appears that in the debate surrounding Dawn Eden’s Master’s thesis, the defenders of Christopher West have decided to call in the heavy artillery.  Dr. Janet Smith has issued a lengthy attack upon Dawn Eden (Dr. Smith admits the essay she wrote has absolutely nothing to do with fraternal correction!) as a person, and her thesis as a work.  Sadly, when the work is actually weighed and considered, it comes up woefully short.  Like most of the attacks so far, it is disjointed, full of ad hominem arguments, anachronistic interpretation, and the like.  The only difference now is there’s a PhD after the name.  Some may think I am departing from my relatively congenial tone I’ve had in this debate, and they are right.  Sometimes it just has to be called out for the shoddy work that it is.  Following Dr. Smith’s outline, I will divide the work as well.

             On Tone

            We see right off the bat that which is known as poisoning the well.  At least half the essay deals with no evidence Miss Eden cited, but simply “the tone” and how it is off putting.  It’s character assassination 101.  Before you move to the evidence (or in absence of evidence!) smear your opponent in the worst light possible.

            She starts off by painting Miss Eden as somebody who refuses to admit she got something wrong.  Prideful, close-minded!  Yet is this really the case?  Dr. Smith argues that of course Mr. West has taken his critic’s words to heart, as he has substantially revised his previous work.  The good doctor believes that Miss Eden should’ve been mentioning this in-depth in her thesis.

            Dr. Smith does not realize she is simply begging the question.  She failed to demonstrate where these supposed changes impact the points Miss Eden is critiquing.  Dr. Smith mentions one thing Mr. West changed his views on:  in previous works, Mr. West came awfully close to saying there was nothing wrong with sodomy if practiced in marriage, provided the “climax occurs the normal way.”  (As far as I’m aware, people like Dr. Gregory Popcak still hold this view.)  Now if Dawn Eden were to write in her thesis that West still believes this, Dr. Smith would have a perfect counter.  Yet if one wants to do a search on “sodomy” in Miss Eden’s thesis, it’s nowhere to be found.

            Some will counter “Dr. Smith never said it was” and they would be right.  Yet this little thought exercise was meant to prove a point.  The fact that West has revised his views in the past is irrelevant to the points raised in the thesis, which were based on the current edition of his books, his current articles, etc.  If anything, including the past revisions would speak ever stronger for Miss Eden's case.  In responding to her critics, Miss Eden could say something along the lines of:

While the reader may believe I am being overly harsh and sweeping in my criticisms of Christopher West, they should note that this is not without precedent.  According to Dr. Janet Smith at Sacred Heart Major Seminary (who is also one of West’s biggest defenders), “…he [Mr. West] substantially rewrote portions” of his opus Theology of the Body Explained.   If his work was flawed enough as it needed to be “substantially rewrote” before, who is to say that now is any different?

That places defenders of West already one step in the hole. They have to defend someone who is serially revising his published works.  While we all make mistakes shouldn’t this say perhaps we should be a little more careful before spouting off opinions in public as Catholic teaching?  In short, if Dr. Smith wants to mention where Mr. West has “corrected” himself in relation to Dawn Eden’s thesis, she is certainly welcome to.  Otherwise, she is arguing something that is irrelevant, and arguing it from silence at that.

            On Appeals to Authority

The next fallacy inherent in Dr. Smith’s work is that of the appeal to authority.  She is certainly correct that one must be careful when questioning those in authority, especially if they are Bishops.  Perhaps Dr. Smith does not realize this, but she implicitly does the same thing she claims Miss Eden is guilty of!  When discussing the rather rotten state of catechesis in the American Church, Dr. Smith states:

Does all criticism of “yesterday’s Church” foster resentment and is it thus wrong to criticize yesterday’s Church?  Who would deny that across the board, catechetical teaching in the US for several decades was seriously inadequate if not erroneous?

            Tell me dear reader, who was responsible for the “inadequate if not erroneous” catechesis if not ultimately the Bishops?  Did Dr. Smith write any of them in private before making this claim?  Elsewhere she states that a bishop has the “legitimate claim to be judges of the fidelity of an author’s work.”  Since last time I checked, she is no Bishop; she has essentially disqualified herself from this debate.  She cannot say whether or not West has gotten it right or not, as she is not a Bishop.

            This is of course absurd.  In the end, Rome has not (and almost certainly will not) pronounce with any definitive certainty on the writings of Christopher West.  As a result, Catholic thought can take a variety of opinions regarding the claims he makes.  They can be evaluated, accepted, or rejected.  Since nobody is calling anybody a heretic, it is really rather pointless to mention that Bishop’s have stated the work isn’t heretical.  Nobody said it was!  Or does Dr. Smith think an imprimatur and nihil obstat means complete agreement and perfect orthodoxy of a work?

            Furthermore, is it the assertion of Dr. Smith that Bishops are always right?  As she herself noted, some of them allowed things that were “erroneous” to be perpetuated throughout their dioceses, and did little if anything to stop it.  Church history teaches us that many times, Bishops have simply gotten it wrong, even some of those who were very good Bishops.  Pope Zozimus was an overall good Pope.  Yet he was wrong in his assessment of the sincerity of Pelagius.  When St. Augustine denounced Pelagius, Pelagius would say “even the Bishop of Rome accepts what I am saying!  I am no heretic!”  This did not deter the greatest of the Church Fathers.  Not only did he intensify his attacks on Pelagius, he wrote to the current pope, reminding him of Pope Innocent’s assessment, and why he believes that situation has not changed.  If a Bishop came forth and gave the same arguments against Mr. West that Dawn Eden gave, would that make any difference to Dr. Smith?  We all know the answer to that question.  Of course it wouldn’t, and Dr. Smith would be no less of a Catholic for writing in public that she thought the Bishop’s reasoning was flawed.  The argument from authority in this case means:  Ignore all evidence folks.  Chutzpah indeed Dr. Smith!

            After stating that Dawn Eden is close-minded, lacking in pride and humility, and someone who has made her remarks just so she could make a quick buck, Dr. Smith demonstrates to Dawn Eden what chutzpah really is:

Of course, substance is more important than tone, but if one takes an aggressive or ad hominem tone, one is less likely to earn a receptive hearing.  A bad tone can convey to the reader that the critic has a personal agenda against a particular author; that the critic has produced a polemic rather than a sober scholarly analysis.

            Let me get this straight, for the record.  Dr. Janet Smith believes that Dawn Eden has betrayed a negative bias in her work, and a personal agenda.  Failure to do this, in Dr. Smith’s own words, tells the reader that the critic is just interested in “firewood for burning.”  Let us recap.  Before any substance is dealt with, Dr: Smith says Miss Eden:

           

1.)   Lacks shame in admitting she is wrong.  (In the paragraph “Refusal to admit error)

2.)   Lacking in docility and humility, in essence, arrogant.  (“Teaching Authority”)

3.)  Full of Chutzpah

4.)  Orchestrated a marketing ploy to get rich by timing the release of her thesis with the holding of the TOB Congress, turning her from an obscure graduate student to someone flying around the country to give talks.

5.)  Whiny

6.)  Disrespects the intelligence of her readers (in other words, engages in intellectual dishonesty)

And then she cautions the reader about how it would seem as if Dawn Eden had an agenda, and we should recognize her axe to grind.  Subsequently, this should limit if not outright cancel anything Miss Eden says.  Physician, heal thyself!

Go to Part II

Return to Response Index

Why the Incarnation Matters: Extra Elisha Nulla Salus

One of the things I have always found curious about the prophet Elijah is how much “unfinished business” he leaves. He destroyed all the priests of pagan worship in Samaria, encountered the presence of God on Mt. Horeb, worked miracles left and right, and yet there is more to do. Future Kings must be anointed. (Of which we will speak more of later.) In addition to these secular matters, God commands Elijah to anoint a successor, to finish the job he started. One can see a very interesting shadow of Christ here I believe. Even the greatest prophet in Israel (until that time) still had things to do. A successor would come who was even greater than Elijah! In the meantime, he chooses Elisha as his successor.

The choice of Elisha is again demonstrative of God’s supremacy. He is a herdsman, still under the authority of his father when God makes known to Elijah his successor. We know from our earlier study that it can be inferred that Elijah was a man of at least moderate nobility. (Being able to secure an audience with King Ahab to announce the drought.) God calls him because it is His will, not for any reason according to the standards of the world. When he is adopted by Elijah, Elisha becomes essentially his apprentice, traveling with Elijah for 8 years.

When Elijah is assumed into heaven, Elisha formally takes over, receiving a “double inheritance” from Elijah. While the terms might be confusing to us, it simply means that he received the fullness of Elijah’s ministry. He proves this by doing precisely what Elijah did in demonstrating power over the Jordan River, invoking God’s name to force the river to part. If we remember, the Israelites of this time worshipped the nature gods of the Phoenicians. By subjecting the water to his will, God demonstrates to Elisha that he will continue in his masters calling.

Like his predecessor, he continues the missionary nature of the prophetic ministry. When he meets several of “the prophets” (essentially minstrels of the time) he learns that their rivers are polluted. He does so by the most curious means; he pours salt into the waters.

In this instance and when Elisha commands rain to fall on the earth during before a battle to quench the thirst of soldiers, (2 Kings 3) the supremacy of Yahweh over the elemental forces of nature was demonstrated. With the salt, God takes simple matter from the earth and uses it to purify everything. One is reminded of the sacraments here, how a small wafer, a few drops of water, a smidgen of oil, how these are able to cleanse the souls of the faithful. We are that polluted water.

He continues working other miracles (in saving the estate of a woman, and then later raising her son) just as Elijah did, outside of Israel. When he finally returns to Samaria, he continues the prophetic ministry. He then displays the missionary character in a different way.

During this time, the rising power of Syria is in a state of constant war with the nations surrounding Israel. Even in times of peace, all parties involved are simply replenishing their forces, preparing for another war. One of the Syrian generals is a man by the name of Naaman. Known as a brave and valiant man, he is also diseased as a leper. (Not the leprosy we know of, but a debilitating skin disease nonetheless.) When he learns of a prophet in Samaria who could certainly cure him, he obtains permission to head there. Eventually, he meets with Elisha, and the prophet tells him “wash seven times in the Jordan.”

Namaan leaves angrily, and one can hardly blame him. In his tradition (and the traditions of various pagan peoples), prophets normally had their ministry followed by much extravagance. (Remember the minstrels in Israel, “prophets” known for the ecstasies, the prophets of Hadad who confronted Elijah with their elaborate dancing and cutting of themselves, etc.) Elisha doesn’t even offer to do anything. He simply tells him to wash in the waters, and not just any water, but the Jordan River. Why did Namaan waste all of this time, just to take a bath in what seems to him as some dirty backwater? (He displays his contempt in the Scriptures by mentioning several other waters which were obviously better.)

As he is leaving, his servants finally convince him to just do what the prophet says. He would have offered a thousand sacrifices had the prophet commanded him. Why not just take a dip in the river? As he does this, he is cured! Running back to Elisha, he gives one of the greatest statements of monotheism and faith in Yahweh to be found anywhere in the Scriptures. He immediately renounces his faith in Rimmon, the pagan god of Damascus.

What does this say about the nature of the Church and Jesus Christ, whose Incarnation we celebrate as Christians? Here you could see the roots of that ever controversial doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus: Outside the Church There is no Salvation. The sinner is called to God’s land, which is the Church. We are Namaan. The Church gives the waters of baptism, which clean. Left implied in the story is that any other water would not have cleansed Lamaan of his sickness, it would have made him feel good. Likewise, how many people in the world today accept false remedies to their problems? Whether it be promiscuity, drugs, alcohol, greed, pride, these may give the individual a certain euphoria, but they cannot heal the soul.

The Church asks instead for the simplest of things: Have a few drops of water poured on your head.

Why The Incarnation Matters: Elijah the Evangelist

When we consider the nature of Israel during Biblical times, we must remember that first and foremost, they were intended to possess a missionary character. Their purpose was to be God’s chosen people for several reasons. First, their personal example in holiness was meant to draw the nations back to God, as it had been in the beginning. Second, they were meant, as priests, to instruct the nations in the ways of God. We see this missionary character at its peak during the reign of King Solomon, when rulers from all around the world traveled to learn his wisdom, which was ultimately a gift from God.


With a few exceptions, the exact opposite of their calling happened. Rather than leading the world to God, they were led by the nations to serve false idols. Rather than instructing in wisdom, they were instructed in foolishness, as the very notion of serving dead pieces of wood was the height of absurdity.

If man was faithless however, God was still faithful. His people would serve their purpose one way or another.  We begin to see the recapturing of this missionary spirit during the times of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. They establish the path that is expounded upon by later prophets. In their own individual way, they begin paving the landscape for not only Jesus Christ, but the very missionary nature of His Church thousands of years later.


With Elijah, we note his missionary character during his exile by King Ahab when he is sent to Zarephath. The Book of Kings tells us Elijah is sent there, and “I have commanded a widow there to feed you.” When the Kingdom of Israel rejects Elijah’s message, God sends him to the nations represented by this Phoenician woman.


As a Phoenician, she worshipped the elements of nature like her people. As was noted in the last posting, Elijah causes a drought to fall upon the entire region as a way of showing God’s supremacy over the elements of nature. In addition to the drought, there is a massive famine throughout the land. When Elijah meets the widow, the famine has become so intense that she and her son are preparing one last meal before their death. They have essentially given up all hope.


If the drought showed God’s supremacy, Elijah would show God’s clemency. By taking care of God’s servant Elijah, he promises the woman that what little she has will not run out. Sure enough, that small bit of food and oil feeds them for years.


There is much to be said within this little story about the missionary character of the Church. Like the pagans of the story, the people of the nations today are losing hope. They have worshipped at the altar of sex, power, the passing things of this world, and they have provided no happiness. In the certain sense of the word, they are “widows.” They were called and made for union with God, and they have deserted Him. The widowhood of mankind is stranger though, for the widow is a widow by choice, choosing to treat the one they were called for union with as dead. They are truly alone in the world.


Like Elijah, the Church is sent to the widow, the man of today without God. The Church points out the intellectual and spiritual famine of this world and says “join us, bring us to your home, and you will survive this.” Yet the individual must provide their life towards God’s service. By giving up the last bit of food she had, the widow was taking a great risk, and yet still had nothing to lose. If she gives up the last bit of food and nothing happens, her death is certain. If she turns the man away, she dies anyway, except maybe with a little bit of the pain dulled out.


Is this not what the world does today? They take things that were originally given by God, and use them for their own selfish purposes. They don’t really bring healing; they just make it easier to cope. The sexually promiscuous person is never happy. I had a friend in this state, who told me she had to drink herself into a massive stupor to be able to sleep with anyone anymore. She knew it didn’t help or maker her happier, what it did was kill the pain for a brief amount of time, making the road to death easier.


Elijah challenges the woman to do different. Picking up on the previous column, he offers a second wager to the world. Don’t use what you have simply for the gratification of yourself; use it as a gift to others. Use your food to help save the lives of others. Everyone dies anyways; we might as well spend that time trying to enrich the lives of others. This act of selflessness ends up being her salvation. Through this one act, God provides her an endless supply of food and happiness. When the widow’s son dies, Elijah restores him. At this point, the widow recognizes the truth of God Elijah brings to her, and she begins to worship God.


The Church today tells the modern world: Following falsehood will lead you to death. There is no happiness in the religion of self. Only in serving others will you find life. Only in being a gift to others will you find true prosperity and happiness.


May we always have this zeal with the world, and everyday bring souls the source of true happiness and life.