Catholic Exchange

Christopher West appeared on Nightline last May and fervid demarcation resulted. Somewhat contrary sides took turns criticizing and defending West’s popular efforts in interpreting John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Now that West himself speaks , we no longer have to extrapolate intentions from hearsay.

Graciously, he intends no more than to clarify the “pivotal point” of the conversation, rather than go on and defend his own reputation: “What does the grace of redemption offer us in this life with regard to our disordered sexual tendencies…? Is it possible to overcome the pull of lust within us? If not, what are we to do with our disordered desires? If so, to what degree can we be liberated from lust and how can we enter into this grace? Furthermore, what does it actually look like to live a life of ever deepening sexual redemption?”

Most of the debate centers on whether West sufficiently takes account of the traditional teaching on the fomes peccati [literally, the tinder of sin], that is, the inclination of our lower appetites toward evil—particularly strong in our desire for bodily pleasure—called concupiscence in reference to that sensible appetite. Allied with our natural inclination to procreate, and the ease with which the senses are pulled toward sexual affections, it is no mystery why early on the Church Fathers identified lust as the easiest vice to fall into—though by no means the worst. The antagonists in the debate this summer argued West stressed “purity of intention” out of proportion to a necessary appreciation concupiscence, as well as advocating the Theology of the Body as a kind of cure for the cautionary attitude an older tradition relied on in order to safeguard chastity.

West himself concedes the point: the battle against our disordered passions will remain as long as we live, and this battle can be fierce. However, he feels this reality has been emphasized to the detriment of the truth of redemption. As Pope John Paul states, redemption is “a reality, in the name of which man must feel himself called, and ‘called with effectiveness.’” For the man redeemed by Christ and living in grace, there is a new possibility of freedom from the domination of lust, and likewise freedom for authentic love uninhibited by a suspicion of the body for truly noble and pure activity.

Truly this is a powerful proclamation, as West reiterates. Can we imagine freedom from the domination of concupiscence? He points out that this still respects the already-not yet dimension of living within the grace of redemption prior to its fulfillment after death: be on guard against temptation, and confidant with hope in the power of the Spirit at work within us.

So far, so good. I agree with that some focus so much on the not yet that the possibility for virtue, self-control, and even more, the freedom of the children of God, are neglected. And if the Theology of the Body offers anything, it is certainly the confidant articulation of the ability of the body itself as means to speak the language of self-gift and fruition of the gift received, reflecting the very language of redemption that the Father speaks in his gift of the Son and the Spirit.

Yet despite West’s clarifications, I still share the same apprehension expressed by Schindler and others this summer: I wonder if he has sufficiently clarified the reality of this battle against concupiscence. Moreover, it seems that West has placed the acquisition of virtue more in intention than in habit. Against Plato, Aristotle famously asserted that getting virtue is more a matter of action—not just singular excellent actions, but continual and habitual actions—than knowledge. Certainly, in order to know where we are aiming, we must know what the end or goal is. The ability to love another as a person, to know and experience my body as gift meant for love and not the using of others as objects selfishly: no doubt West has admirably clarified this goal for many.

But the need for an important clarification still remains. Too often John Paul II’s Theology of Body is seen as a panacea, rendering superfluous or even obsolete more traditional accounts of the battle for chastity. West must show how this new teaching supports and takes place within the greater tradition of the Church. In his account, West can give an impression that we date sexual morality (and pastoral teaching on sexuality) pre and post Theology of the Body. But as others have ably noted, a hermeneutic of continuity instead of discontinuity is more faithful to the Spirit in ascertaining such questions of development.

What the spiritual tradition of the Church in her Fathers, Doctors, and many saints of the spiritual life has stressed is the often mundane work of mortification and ascesis in acquiring chastity. Just as important as elevating our appreciation for the new life offered in the Spirit and the redemptive meaning of the body, this effort is one of practically avoiding the plain occasions of sin, recognizing the ease at which the flesh can overpower the mind, and seeking by all sorts of little efforts a caution and prudence in matters related to our sexual desires. “What the saints and mystics have been telling us for centuries” is that chastity just as much involves building a habit of chastisement toward the flesh, as it does considering the truth of sexuality in light of the redemption. In other words, it is a both-and , not an either-or .

In her defense of West, Janet Smith mentioned personally knowing many whose lives have been radically changed by West’s presentation of the Theology of the Body. Praise God! However, I have known many whose experience with West has been more like a flash in the pan. Brilliant, inspiring, and evocative—indeed, the mind and imagination often reels after listening to his lectures. Weeks and months later however, for many not much has changed. I believe this is partly due to the tendency (not West’s fault) by many today to take Christian preaching and teaching as time for momentary inspired feeling—or worse to confuse a vicarious elation in the matter of the teaching for real action—rather than to receive these opportunities as an impetus to change behavior. For the preacher and teacher as well though there may be some blame, in as much as rarified and pious affectations are no substitute for a concrete, practical plan of action. Perhaps this is where one notorious disagreement lies: rather than blessing one’s genitals, staring at one’s body in a mirror, looking at the opposite sex intently in order to see them as persons and not objects, the saints and mystics offer concrete advice expressing a sensibility of caution and restraint. This kind of advice will help any Catholic to realize the truth of the Theology of the Body in their life.

As Cardinal Newman put it in “The Duty of Self-Denial”:

[The Christian] denies himself in things lawful because he is aware of his own weakness and liability to sin; he dares not walk on the edge of a precipice; instead of going to the extreme of what is allowable, he keeps at a distance from evil, that he may be safe. He abstains lest he should not be temperate; he fasts lest he should eat and drink with the drunken.

There is a fundamental principle here recognized very early on the spiritual tradition of the Church: with particular regard to the way the flesh lusts against the Spirit, a practice of denial and restraint—not just with what is evil, but with what is neutral or even good—in the areas of the sense reaps exceeding benefits in the area of the spirit. This is not to say that one cannot fail with a kind of gluttony or indulgence in spiritual feeling too—St. John of the Cross writes famously of such spiritual vices in his Dark Night of the Spirit—but especially for beginners, little progress will be made until one begins to achieve a kind of detachment and mastery over the desires of the body. All the more in areas related to sexual desire, chastisement can be very helpful.

St. Thomas Aquinas in his On the Perfection of the Spiritual Life has a chapter titled “Helps on Preserving Chastity.” Admittedly, St. Thomas, as well as many others in the tradition before him, can reflect an underdeveloped sense of the beneficent context of marriage for growing in holiness. Certainly both Pius XI and in particular John Paul II this last century did much to develop that appreciation within the tradition. Nonetheless, St. Thomas does faithfully recapitulate much of the Patristic teaching on growing in chastity, and indeed as he does give a balanced treatment to many issues in the spiritual life.

He notes that sexual desires “are more impetuous, and are more oppressive on the reason than the pleasures of the palate: and therefore they are in greater need of chastisement and restraint, since if one consents to them this increases the force of concupiscence and weakens the strength of the mind.”

The first hindrance to preserving chastity comes from the body, the law in our members fighting against the law in our minds. St. Thomas cautions, the more the body is pampered with pleasure, the more the inclination to sin will increase. Like bending a bent reed back to center, more pressure most be exerted in light of the weakness of the flesh. Therefore, we must chastise the body, abstaining from immediate pleasures as much as is prudent and befits our state of life. St. Thomas reiterates the Patristic counsel that when it comes to lust, trying to stay and fight is to concede defeat—with this temptation, the remedy is to flee the occasion of sin.

St. Thomas begins with the hindrance of the body, and the remedies against it, because this area is the most fundamental for beginning growth in chastity. If one would not first chastise the body, even the best intentions will go astray, due to the power of the flesh. Rather than disdaining the body, St. Thomas seems to take the body’s role quite seriously.

The second hindrance is the mind. This primarily has to do with dwelling on unchaste thoughts. Again the counsel is flee don’t fight. Try to keep the mind attentive upon God, thinking of him as much as one can. In general, always prefer to think of good and noble things, ignoring what is base and carnal. Especially shun idleness, and spend time in physical labor.

The third hindrance is external circumstance. Here St. Thomas mentions the danger of frequently associating with women. It is natural for us to desire to be with the opposite sex. Therefore we must use caution, for frequent association will inflame those instinctual desires within us. Quoting the book of Sirach, St. Thomas advises, do not gaze on everyone’s beauty; do not tarry among women. When association is unavoidable, modesty of the eyes will help prevent lustful desires.

Can these counsels be applied beyond religious life or priesthood? The proper changes having been made, definitely. Without a just chastisement of the body, cannot the married run the risk of seeking a bodily pleasure in the marriage bed out of proportion to the good of friendship it provides? Is it possible to have sex in such a way as to make technique so as to achieve maximum pleasure more important than the goods of tenderness, gratitude, and generosity? Particularly when spouses are apart from each other, and in this world of advertising and provocative media, is it possible to dwell too much on the delights of the flesh in ways that are unhelpful? Finally, does not the prudent thing to do seem to be, when in mixed company or away from the home, not to let the eyes dwell too much on members of the opposite sex, nor to indulge in associating with the opposite sex beyond what is necessary, even in seemingly professional contexts? On the contrary, such advice properly specified to the realities of married or single life seems very practical and smart.

A more modern source for the traditional teaching on chastity is St. Francis de Sales. In his Introduction to the Devout Life , he applies his teachings on the spiritual life to the married in a particular way:

As for the married, it is true that chastity is very necessary for them too, although many cannot conceive how this is. In their case chastity does not consist in complete abstinence from carnal pleasure but in self-restraint in them…. It is true that the holy liberty of marriage has a special power to extinguish the flames of concupiscence, but the frailty of those who enjoy this liberty easily passes from permission to license and from use to abuse…. Many married people go to excesses by mere intemperance and lewdness, notwithstanding the lawful object to which they must and can confine themselves.

As for the marriage bed itself:

The marriage bed should be undefiled, as the Apostle tells us, i.e. pure, as it was when it was first instituted in the earthly Paradise, wherein no unruly desires or impure thought might enter. All that is merely earthly must be treated as means to fulfill the end God sets before His creatures. Thus we eat in order to preserve life, moderately, voluntarily, and without seeking an undue, unworthy satisfaction there….

Let everyone, then, use this world according to his vocation, but so as not to entangle himself with its love, that he may be as free and ready to serve God as though he used it not. Saint Augustine says that it is the great fault of men to want to enjoy things which they are only meant to use, and to use those which they are only meant to enjoy. We ought to enjoy spiritual things, and only use those which are material; but when we turn the use of these latter into enjoyment, the reasonable soul becomes degraded to a mere brutish level.

One can see sexuality as holy, good, and sacramental, and still appreciate the weakness of the flesh, and the ease at which lust can creep into our lives. Certainly St. Thomas and St. Francis, who accurately reflect the consensus of the tradition on this point, seem to judge chastity just as much a matter of fighting concupiscence and vigilantly seeking detachment and ascesis in order to avoid the pull that the lust of the flesh can have. In order to satisfy his critics, this is the theological work West needs to do: unite Pope John Paul’s emphasis on the intentional understanding of the gift of self signified and actualized by the body, and the tradition’s emphasis on the reality of concupiscence and the need to exercise caution and ascesis against the flesh. A realistic appreciation of the reality of concupiscence might find the traditional counsels of the saints and mystics on chastity not only congruent with recent developments, but also practically helpful to those seeking advice on how to conquer lust in their daily lives.