From the article,the details of the controvercy are not able to be known or understood. We practicing catholiclay persons would like to know more details.What are the points involving any difference of opinion or any distance from catholic traditional teachings.  Will somebody clarify ?

It is hard to comment about The Theology of the Body because it is such a disjointed collection of commentatries. I look askance at it frankly. Normally you investigate a subject and work toward a conclusion. It seems to me that the pope reached his conclusion before he started, that is, to develop a rational to support the very shaky theology behind Humanae Vitae.

I was there and it was the most magnificent event that I experienced in my entire life! I’m a lay person who happened to had this experience that I relate to The Theology of the Body:

June 9, 2009, 5:00 pm

Disharmony

Thirty years ago I ask God to lead my life for me.  And it has been a wonderful journey since. But it wasn’t a life that didn’t have obstacles and challenges that were in my way.  It was filled with much more of them than I could have imagined ever overcoming.  And I know for sure that I can not do anything today without taking the word of His promise to live the rest of my life in.

One of my heartfelt prayers was to be able to keep a family together.  And this one alone holds the most challenges and obstacles of all.  Keeping a family together is probably one of the hardest things in the world for some of us.  It was for me.  There are times when we think that someone else, or some other place, or something or other would bring us more joy.  When the majority of times it is only our thought that needs to be changed.  The disharmony is in us. 

Alcohol, drug addition, unfaithfulness, neglect, sickness, finances, etc. in our relationships or sadly, even through some parents are just some of the ways that can spoil the dream of family life for some of us.  But I have found that for most of those that stay in a marriage or union for the sake of keeping the family together, they have just as many obstacles and challenges in one way or another that they have learned to overcome.  They may have found some peace of mind that led to greener pastures somewhere else in their marriage through God.  Perhaps with their focus on the sake of the children, or a profession that gave them the sense of fulfillment of providing more of the good that is needed in the world.  While all along taking the pressure away from their partner and deepening their relationship with God that causes them to grow even more.  And for those who choose to leave the union or marriage through disharmony (those not being abused), it seems they eventually come to find other obstacles and challenges in another person or surroundings. It is truly a ‘gift’ when we begin to see the only bridegroom we can depend on.  Most of the time it is our greatest opportunity to begin anew right where we are.

My own marriage improved greatly, only when I silently vowed to take God in marriage (my silent husband). I could actually feel the joy coming from my husband, as though a weight was lifted from him. And the joy and contentment in me was lifted as well.  A vow of emotional independence with dependence on the true word of God is a marriage made in heaven, regardless if we stay single or not.

1 Corinthians 7:7-9

”I wish that all men were as I am.  But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another that.  Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

I often relate to this scripture because I feel it gives us a clearer understanding that God knows His children more than we know ourselves.  A knowing that no one is going to fill us with as much love as God.  And maybe this is the first vow in marriage (of the Sacred) we need to make before taking the vow in marriage with another person.  Which truly seems to be the only union that will keep us on the right path for the whole family through matrimony or not.  Maybe this Holy union is not meant just for Holy Order, but for all of us as well, is what scripture meant …? Certainly with the highest honor, respect, and appreciation for those who choose the religious vocation - The Holiest among us.  This seems to make a lot more sense as the years go by. A marriage made in heaven, a love and unity through the Holy Spirit that no one can ever separate us from.  “The wedding feast of the Lamb”  (Rv 19:9).

Thank you SO MUCH, Thomas, for your beautiful post!  And the blessed opportunity to put my post here, too!

If you search for “Christopher West” on this site, you’ll find several articles summarizing the dispute. A very thorough one can be found here:

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/theology_of_the_body_fight/

To Jim Collins:

Your perception that the Theology of the Body and Humanae Vitae are related is correct, but not in the way you seem to think. Archbishop Karol Wojtyla’s developing theology contributed to Humanae Vitae, and was not merely some ex post facto jiggering of theology to justify the encyclical.

Indeed, +Wojtyla’s “Love and Responsibility” was published 8 years prior to Humanae Vitae. +Wojtyla himself was originally summoned by Paul VI to be part of the commission that developed Humanae Vitae, and his philosophical positions were an important part of its development.

The characterization of it as a “disjointed collection of commentaries” is also incorrect, since it was written as a unified work. It was only broken into individual “addresses” when the Pope was advised that it would be inappropriate to publish the work as a single book. Anyone familiar with the entire work is able to see its unity despite the fragmentary nature of its initial publication.

“Speaking about the controversies, Blanchard said that anyone who has written on the theology was invited, including critics such as von Hildebrand. No restrictions were put on what they could discuss.”

Kate Blanchard seems to be telling little fibs.
I have written extensively on Theology of the Body. Indeed,  my book is in Waldstein’s bibliography.

However, despite numerous attempts by his supporters, my critiques of Christopher West’s work have never been adequately addressed by anyone who has attempted to defend his theological inadequacies.

Oddly enough, my “invitation to speak” at the conference seems never to have arrived in my mailbox. Hmmmmm…...

Why do those associated with Christopher West always seem to have some kind of trouble with the truth?

This morning I read the passage from the RSV about Laban’s search for his household gods in Jacob’s baggage, and how Rachel says, “I can’t stand up because the way of women is upon me.” I think this is the classic example of a cultural taboo causing misunderstanding of divinely revealed truth. How many readers at first glance know what she means? And this is a comparatively simple situation. If the theology of the body enables us to face our own physicality, which is a divine gift, without attaching negative connotations to it, all the better.

It is unfortunate Christopher West has been forced into a sabbatical, whether of his own choosing or not.  Most people I know learned Theology of the Body from Mr. West’s books, presentations and DVDs.  He has contributed so much to the understanding of John Paul II’s theology.  I hope he returns invigorated and ready to plunge headlong into his minstry.

Christopher West was FORCED into a sabbatical?

Certainly his episcopal advisory board would have had something to do with that? (You know, the advisory board that Archbishop Chaput quietly resigned from?)

So, do you mean the bishops who oversee his work helped convince him to take a sabbatical because they don’t fully support what he’s teaching?

Again, Hmmmmm….

Forced, as in required to take a step back and reassess his position in the matter. Whether from the immediate circumstances, his own decision or from someone else of authority I honestly don’t know.

Well, if it was his own decision, his timing was certainly peculiar, wasn’t it?

If I recall correctly, he was originally billed as being the speaker at this, the very first conference his own Institute had organized. But suddenly, he goes on six-month sabbatical, Chaput resigns from his board, and neither hide nor hair of him is seen at his own theological “coming out” party.

Then his Institute’s director makes that simply false statement that “anyone who has written on the theology was invited, including critics.”

In fact, at best, they appeared to only invite the critics who they knew wouldn’t show up.

As I say, it’s odd how often this kind of thing happens with West and his disciples.

Steve, Your diatribes against West & TOB aren’t hurting him as much as they are wounding the Body of Christ in this country & ruining any credibility you might have had.
  I attended the Congress. You did not. But the fact that you weren’t there hasn’t stopped you from putting the most negative ‘spin’ on the talks given there as possible. This reminds me of the ‘spin’ that Judas put on the inordinate amount of oil with which the woman anointed Jesus prior to his death. You protest too much.

What? No reference to Dawn Eden’s excellent Masters Thesis on Christopher West’s interpretation of JPII’s theology?

Apparently she was consulted by Alice von Hildebrand in the lead up to the latter’s most recent contribution to the debate.

This is not simply a matter for those in the lofty towers of the academy. To many of my friends, Chris West’s take on TOTB is Catholicism.

Due to the want of good, well-rounded priests and Catholic educational institutions, they have no opportunity to be instructed any other way.

Any teaching, therefore, which gets concupiscence wrong can have very damaging effects on an ordinary Catholic’s life.

The local adoption of West’s “so you disagree with me? try opening your heart to the Holy Spirit” response when encountering friendly criticism is toxic to the development of mature friendships and community. 

See here for one person’s critique:

http://dawneden.blogspot.com/

Therese,

I am very touched by your concern for my reputation. I’ve noticed that every time I comment on Westian TOB in ANY way whatsoever, people come out of the woodwork to express concern about my reputation. The love shown me in these circumstances is overwhelming.

As to my “diatribes” against the recent Congress - I haven’t made any.
I’ve done exactly three things:
1) observed that Chris West wasn’t at his own Congress
2) observed that one of his archbishops has quietly disappeared
3) linked to a selection of the Congress’ very own tweets of their very own Congress.

If statements of fact and links to their own advertising is an “attack” on West’s TOB, then West shares some of the same problems suffered by Muslims and Communists.

And thanks again for your concern about my reputation, but I have always been under the impression that we are supposed to be willing to sacrifice everything for the Gospel.

Oh, and Therese, one more thing.
I would have been at the TOB Congress right there with you.
Except I wasn’t invited.

I wasn’t invited.

You might consider that it is your obnoxious and self-promoting attitude, which has included even hijacking the comment section here, as being the reason they did not invite you (if they even consider you important enough to give consideration to).

Yes, Bender.
Self-promotion.
That’s my problem.
I wish I was more like Chris West in that regard.
A less self-promoting guy I couldn’t imagine.
I’m sure that’s why Archbishop Chaput resigned - he wanted West to push himself out in front more, and West couldn’t agree to it.
I’m sure that’s why none of West’s detractors (and we are legion) made it to the TOB Congress - we were all out promoting ourselves and couldn’t spare the time.
Obviously, West’s theological problems, his promotion of nudism, his denial of Catholic virtues like continence, his inability to reconcile what he teaches with Aquinas, JP II or the Magisterium, his discussion of the Blessed Virgin’s cup size, his cult background, his cult following, all of these things should be ignored because .... well… because.
And I’m a Manichean prude for daring to question him.
And self-promoting to boot.
It’s MY fault, my fault, my most grievous fault.
You’re right, Bender.
Absolutely.

“Obviously, West’s theological problems, his promotion of nudism, his denial of Catholic virtues like continence, his inability to reconcile what he teaches with Aquinas, JP II or the Magisterium, his discussion of the Blessed Virgin’s cup size, his cult background, his cult following, all of these things should be ignored because .... well… because.”
Wow…those are some pretty big accusations.  Do you have solid proof of that?  You shouldn’t make those kinds of accusations unless you can back it up.
I have studied the topic of Theology of the Body for several years.  I have read many authors on the subject, including West.  I have never seen him or heard him do any of the things that you are accusing him of.
I read Alice Von Hildebrand’s critique of West.  While I respect her very much and her work, she too was accusing him of these things without solid proof.  It seems to me that this is really coming down to a difference of teaching style.  If West was teaching heresy, then I would understand the uproar.  But over teaching style?  Not so much.
West has done a lot of good spreading the teachings of JP2 to others.  His Bishop, Cardinal Rigali supports him.  Don’ t you think that it would be more beneficial for the Body of Christ if all would work together to continue to spread the teachings of JP2 rather than fighting?

Jimmy Akin has written a very balanced and perceptive commentary on Christopher West, which can be found here:

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2009/05/christopher-west.html

Yes, Steve I would like to see the specific references cited for those quotes Angela mentioned, too.  Please?

Sure - go to my blog at skellmeyer.blogspot.com and search on “Chris West.” I’ve been writing about this man for nearly a decade. Between what Schindler documented in his original critique (and he DID document his allegations in his original essay) and what I’ve got on my blog, you’ll find everything you need.

Angela,

The problem is NOT a difference in teaching styles.
Dr. Schindler and the other professors at the JP II Institute would not have publicly repudiated West over a simple difference in teaching style.

Most people do not realize that a few months before West appeared on Nightline, Dr. Schindler wrote an in-depth critique of Westian theology, comparing the relative importance of filiation versus nuptiality in Catholic theology. He demonstrates conclusively that an emphasis on nuptiality over filiation is a distortion of the Christian message.

The essay is so definitive that no one dares to mention it in public. Even Waldstein refuses to engage Schindler on it directly. Waldstein made a passing reference to it when he accused Schindler of “going in for the kill” in his response to Schindler’s public repudiation of West.

West’s teaching distorts Catholic theology.
West is not teaching what John Paul II taught.
That’s why so many theologians have come out against West, and virtually no accredited theologian apart from Waldstein will publicly defend West. But, what West teaches fits very well with the modernist meme about the Catholic Church, so it is hugely popular with the Catholic in the pew.

West isn’t teaching straight Catholic theology, he’s teaching a Hugh Hefner strain of Catholic-lite.
He’s teaching Catholic theology strained through the sieve of secular-Protestant American culture.
Chris West is the Dan Brown, the Dr. Ruth Westheimer, the Barack Obama of the American Catholic Church, preaching “Hope and Change” against the “Church of No.”
Compare them together - do you begin to see how he just uses popular memes to promote himself?

BTW, if you want to read Schindler’s essay yourself, you can find it at
http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/schindler35-3.pdf

Mr. Kellmeyer’

I have just finished perusing your website.  I must say I am impressed.  You have an uncanny ability to twist the intent of meaning of Mr. Wests words, create analytical text in other writings that have no context to West whatsoever (Mark Shea) and the propensity to engage in conversations as a form of criticism that left me feeling really creeped out(too many on your website to mention).  It’s bad enough you are all over the place with your arguments, as you seem to jump from topic to topic, but the worst thing is you seem to lose them quite handily(MR. Shea again). I’m leaving this post.  God bless you, sir.

Thanks, ToddC!

As West supporters like to say, you really can’t judge me just on what I’ve written.

I imitate West in this regard. You really have to attend several of my live seminars, which I’m happy to live-stream to you at a nominal cost - only a couple of hundred dollars an hour. This is cheaper than the thousands of dollars for a weekend that you pay to fly in, of course, so you can see that I accommodate all income levels. Or get ALL the talks on CD for a very nominal price, $35 off this weekend.

That’s the price of the Gospel, right?

You see, my teaching on West has been evolving over the years as I take criticisms like yours deeply to heart. I meditate and pray over them. I pray for you, and you pray for me, etc. I want to point out that I once took a long sabbatical in order to make sure that I was doing the right thing.
Fortunately, I was.
So, while I take all criticism very seriously, especially yours, and I’m very willing to adapt to what critics say, and my message continually evolves so that you really can’t critique it adequately unless you live inside my head, I also never bother to actually change any of what I’m saying.
That way, we all get the best of both worlds.
Hmmmm… have I packed all the Westian arguments together in one place?
Am I missing any?

Now try not to be divisive and attack me.
We need to be in unity here - we’re all on the same side, and we don’t want to allow your jealousy to harm Christ’s body.

Mr. Kellmeyer,

I read some of your blog (admittedly not all as I don’t have the time at this moment).  I believe the examples you cited were taken out of context. 
However, I must say that you are coming across very rude. Rather than just stating your criticisms and letting others decide if they agree with you or not, you are being snarky and mocking others.  By doing so you are hurting your own credibility.

ToddC,

When I put forward those kinds of critiques of West, the selections below are typically what I get for a reply. Let’s put your name to your critique of me and see how they hold up:
“Well, ToddC, you can’t just judge Kellmeyer on what he’s written, you have to attend his seminars to really get the full flavor.”
“His message is constantly evolving, so what you’re responding to doesn’t really apply anymore. It’s out of date.”
“You haven’t read everything he’s written, so you can’t really judge.”
“You haven’t listened to every talk he’s given, so you can’t really judge.”
“By looking only at his writings (or talks or any selection of his writings/talks), you are taking him out of context.”
“He is very open to criticism and accepts it all prayerfully.”
“You’re just jealous.”
“That’s an ad hominem attack.”
“ToddC, this constant sniping is dividing the Body of Christ.”
“ToddC, by engaging in this kind of rhetoric, you are only hurting your own reputation and making yourself look ridiculous.”
Now, do any of these responses adequately address your concerns about me?
If so, great.
If not, why should any of these responses adequately address the concerns of a West critic?

Angela, ToddC,
Thanks for living the stereotype.
For those of you who haven’t yet learned the knee-jerk responses:
Westians, unite (on your talking points)!
And for the sake of the Church, DON’T get into any discussion of the theological points!
Chris can’t hold his own on that and neither can you.

Mr. Kellmeyer,

You don’t know me so I don’t think it’s fair for you to say that I can’t hold my own when discussing theology.  How do you know that?
And why do you have to be so rude to those who disagree with you?

If you want to know why I’m rude, it’s because Chris West and company have evangelized me. You can read about some of my experiences with him and his handlers at

http://tinyurl.com/27plurq

That, and I suffer from an irascible nature.
It’s not a virtue, and I don’t recommend you emulate me.
Evelyn Waugh was known for his irascible nature. Shortly after he converted to Catholicism, he interacted with a good Catholic woman in such a way that she wailed, “Mr. Waugh, I thought you were a Christian!” He replied with a grin and a leer, “Madam, I am. If it were not for the Catholic Faith, I would barely be human.”

We all have our crosses.
Now you know mine.

Steve,

I now realize just how wrong I have been.  I never should have attempted to discuss anything with someone as obviously great and powerful as you.  I never should have bothered someone, me with my tiny little brain, with a mind as truly magnificent as yours. I am humbled at your prowess.  Please have mercy on me as I bow down to your greatness.  All hail the great Steve Kellmeyer!  Who evefr he is.

Hey, ToddC, I thought you had left the conversation?

But I’m glad you responded as you did - that’s exactly how Chris has been wanting ME to respond all these years.
Sadly, I’m not a very good student.
Glad to see you ARE!
Obviously, you’re time studying West has paid off for you.

Hey Kellmeyer, don’t have other TOB authors to help correct thier evil ways?  Oh wait, I forget you prefer to squawk at them instead and prefer to show how much smarter you are to even believe in TOB anymore.  (even though you still promote your own TOB book on your web site)

Steve,

You lost your job as Director of Adult Faith Formation at St. Francis Church in Grapevine, TX in February. Why?

and here:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5774317&postID=3201107394051380651

You wrote this about TOB anyway:

“I no longer make TOB recommendations because its a shibboleth, and most of the stuff out there isn’t worth the time. TOB is a lot more useless than people think.

JP II bloviated a lot in those TOB audiences. George Weigel, the man who made such a big deal about TOB, was and is a sycophant who used the access he was given to JP II to become “respected.” The more of Weigel I read and hear, the less I respect.

You’re much better off just studying the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Read the writings of the saints. JP II was a nice man and all, but when it comes to TOB, there isn’t really much “there” there.”

so just be honest, Steve - your quibble isn’t so much with West anymore,but with John Paul II and the Theology of the body, period.

Sam,
I wrote a TOB book that was designed to be used in RCIA. As such, it is not restrict itself to just TOB. For instance, it opens with a chapter discussing the Trinity (TOB doesn’t discuss the Trinity at all), it has a chapter devoted to suffering (TOB doesn’t discuss suffering at all), and it has a chapter devoted to the importance of children (TOB barely mentions children). So it has some meat.
John Paul II’s TOB discussions of sex have enormous lacunae (which he himself admits in the famous last audience that no one ever quotes because it’s a money loser), not the least of which being this: it may be the first time in the history of the Church that a discussion of human sexuality is almost completely divorced from a discussion of children.
Humanae Vitae – 7000 words,
TOB – 129 audiences; ~280,000 words (~40x bigger)
“Family” appears 15x in HV,
It appears in exactly ONE audience in TOB (Aug 4, 1982)
“Parents” or “parenthood”: 10x in HV, 3 TOB audiences, and 2 of those TOB references are actually to HV.
All of this according to the index in St. Paul edition.

Those TOB audiences are not only massively incomplete, as you can see from the indicators above, they are incomplete in disturbing ways. That’s why virtually no Magisterial writing in the last 30 years have referenced them in any way (there’s one footnote to them in one encyclical in the last thirty years).

Jerry, in case you hadn’t noticed, the economy kind of tanked. Parishes across the country have made massive cut-backs in staff. I know of one parish in my neighborhood (not the one where I was employed) that had to cut back nearly 50% of their staff - and this is in Texas, which hasn’t been very hard hit by the economy.

Steve, you really believe any one church document or group of lectures are in of themselves complete to the point that they can stand alone?  You don’t think we know that?  You’re not the only brilliant guy out there.  Folks who are interested in TOB are not “TOB ONLY” catholics.  We don’t deny the teachings on the Trinity or suffering just because it was not included in the teachings of TOB.  Does that mean that TOB has no worth because it does not include other Truths within the lectures themselves?  Like any letter, encyclical , or magisterial teaching, TOB does harmonize with other Truths proclaimed by the Church. 

I find it pretty hypocritical that you dilute TOB as not having nothing “there” there to take from and from the other side of your mouth shout from the mountain tops to promote your own TOB book just to say it’s different because you added other proclaimed teachings with it, (which by the way other TOB authors do also, including West).

Sam,
No single teaching is complete, but TOB promoters act as if TOB is the central mystery of the Faith, or that nuptiality is the central interpretive principle of the Faith.
Neither is true.
Not even close.
As for what TOB’rs believe, I’ve heard, with my own ears, Chris West deny the Catholic understanding of the mystery of suffering.
He spent hours discussing suffering, and started the talk by saying “Pain is good” - taking the popular heretical meme directly from the Da Vinci Code’s first chapter, when DVC was at the height of its popularity. He then went on to say that the self-mortifications of the saints (self-flagellation, throwing themselves into thorn bushes, etc.), showed the saints had a DISTORTED understanding of the body. Diocesan officials with me at the time heard it, and couldn’t believe he had said it. He denigrated the example of the saints, including St. Francis of Assisi. He apparently didn’t realize that even as he spoke, John Paul II practiced extreme self-mortification.
So, no, I don’t expect Westians to properly understand it, because West doesn’t properly understand it.

But the DVC riff is just one example. Consider West’s warning concerning his own writings: “This work supposes the reader has a high degree of purity.”?
What Catholic talks like that? Can you name ANY Catholic in the last 2000 years who says, “Don’t study my work unless you have a high degree of purity”?
And what kind of warning is this?
By saying this, Chris invites you to consider him an unusually pure Catholic, and he invites you to consider yourself, the reader, unusually pure.
That’s not how the greatest Catholics ever thought of themselves.
This is “self-canonization”.
Protestants talk like that, secular humanists talk like that.
It’s a GREAT way to sell self-help books. “I’m OK, You’re OK.”
But no Catholic teacher talks like that.
And Sam, your own words betray you. Adding in the necessary contextual teachings is not “dilution” of TOB. TOB is nonsensical unless bedrock understanding is already present. But most Catholics don’t have that necessary bedrock. Chris West is one of them.

Let me interpret Kellmeyer for everyone:

My name is Pot - have you seen the Kettle over there? It is black.

Thanks.

Steve - Your intentions are very questionable.

You call West a self-promoter but whine about not being “invited” - you could have bought a ticket dude. Then you tout your book.

You question his authority - then cite yourself as a source.

Give it a break. You are tearing down with the intent of making yourself an icon of greatness.

You talk about the uselessness of the TOB (as Shea pointed out) yet you pimp your book.

Dude - time to swallow your bloated pride and look in the mirror.
Geez. This isn’t about you.

Steve how do my own words betray me?  As I mentioned in the beginning we need to take into account everything as a whole; something you seem to think you are the only one that knows.  The more I read your comments the more I get the sense that your pride has blinded your ability to tell the difference between those who take interest in TOB as a subject and those who support West as a person.  So much so that now with West out of the picture you seem lost without him and continue to go down your imaginary list of his supporters and see if you can continue to bash and discredit TOB; as if West and TOB teachings are synonymous.  All the while you continue to promote your own TOB book on your website.  Your bitterness has turned to bash like Luther instead of reforming like St. Francis, how very sad.

Mr. West did have his issues in the language he was using when speaking about TOB as well as how it was presented, but I am grateful that he saw that and has expressed it in his writings and interviews and has now taken time to reflect on what critics have said.  He has become very humble in his response and will do him good once he comes back on the scene and continues educating others on John Paul’s message.  Now with that behind us let us be grateful that we have other excellent teachers and presenters to help and revive the message of the Church and continue teaching elements of TOB.

Kellmeyer has, as usual, managed to hijack what was originally a great post & turn it into a three ring circus which revolves around one theme: “me,me,me”. Does NCR have a moderator?

I used to be a catholic. 16 years of catholic schools. I stopped going to church and believing the week I graduated from a catholic college. Now almost 40 years later, I know the church is full of fruit cakes who believe in books written thousands of years ago. If you cant see religion as the satin, your eyes are looking in the wrong spots.

how perverse indeed that a group of people who rely on the state to protect their freedom of expression have declared they should enlist the state in denying freedom of expression to others.

Your delusional hypocrisy will meet you in due time.

We once thought it perfectly legal - and quite popular - to keep people from marrying if their skin color did not match.

Better not remind Clarence Thomas of that when this case goes to the supreme court

You fools are pushing this country backwards, and you had better hope (pray?) it doesn’t roll you over

I think you are right Therese.  Even in his own blog he seems to ignore comments and return to a self indulgence type of attitude where he is right and the rest of the world is wrong.  Perhaps a sabbatical might do him some good.

Count the number of theological points raised in this thread (in no particular order):
1) whether self-canonization is appropriate,
2) whether or not continence as a virtue,
3) whether the mortification of the saints is a sign of holiness or a sign of distorted Catholic understanding,
4) whether the mortifications of the Pope is a sign of holiness or a sign of distorted Catholic understanding,
5) the disconnect in the papal TOB audiences between sexuality and procreation,
6) the difference in importance between nuptiality and filiation in Catholic theology.

Who raised all those theological points for discussion?
Who referenced theological articles on any of these points?
Who tried to discuss theology here?
Or raised any other theological points?
It takes two to have a conversation.

As for the ad hominem - it ends as it began.
Thanks for living the stereotype guys.
I think my point is demonstrated, and I have no further comments to make.
Please feel free to discuss my personal shortcomings at length.
I’m done.

Wow, I just read all these posts. Incredible. Sin. Attacks on all sides. Not exactly Christ-like. There is nothing new in TOB. It has been the teaching of the church for centuries. JPII used today’s language in a deeper sort of way. The problem that I have with Christopher West and others goes to the talk of sex. TOB is much deeper than sex. It goes down to the basic tenets of our existence. We are made in the image and likeness of God and we were made to be as Adam and Eve were like in the beginning. JPII uses the base relationship - male and female as his example. But, it goes much deeper. It isn’t about sex. Sex is several layers up in the foundation.

I think Steve just digs himself deeper in this hole he has made for himself.  What’s funny from his last comment is that when someone does try to have a civil conversation with him, he clams up and automatically calls the other person a “westian” just to avoid talking to them.  Just recently he turned off the option for other to leave anonymous comments on his blog, all because someone had posted an anonymous comment simply asking if he would pray for West and others within the TOB movement.

Kellmeyer moans with self-pity:
That, and I suffer from an irascible nature.
It’s not a virtue, and I don’t recommend you emulate me.
We all have our crosses.
Now you know mine

You have an absolute genius for bullying everybody in sight with maximum venom and then turning it into an occasion of for heaping more self-pity on your precious self.

John Paul II was one of the greatest personalist philosophers and theologians of the Twentieth Century.  His unique contribution toward understanding the totality of the human person as body and spirit along with integrating human sexuality and marriage was his crowning achievement.  I would say that his books, Love and Responsibility, and Man and Woman He Created Them, explain the sublime nature of chastity in a way heretofore unexplored in its depth. John Paul the Great, pray for us.

Oh my goodness, we have to pray for Kellmeyer. There is something seriously wrong with this obsession with West. Leave the poor man alone. West is doing great work for the Church.