Theology of the Body as a Cover for Sexual Abuse

Could discussions on "theology of the body" be used to groom victims for sexual assault?

Before I say anything else I’d like to make one thing explicitly clear: I have no problem with Theology of the Body as a theological and philosophical framework, and am in fact very thankful for it. It has immensely benefitted me, and continues to frame much of how I practice my faith. The idea that I worship God through what I do through my body and by how I interact with people on a day to day basis, especially my husband and children, is one that has given my life immense meaning. In a culture that largely doesn’t respect my choice to forgo an intensive career in favor of focusing on being a wife and mother, having this to refer to is especially important.

Because of the gift that this theology has been in my life, it is with significant sorrow that I find myself writing critically about how it is often discussed and explained in popular Catholic culture. I’ve come to realize that the current popular framework is dangerous and helps cover up abusive dynamics and behavior.

Much of the current popular approach to chastity education is presented as “positive chastity” that takes near occasions of sin as opportunities to grow in love. While this is true in a certain sense, there’s often a sense in presentations of this type of “chastity” that you almost have to dive into those situations and analyze them. You have to be healed of your disordered reaction, though not without work and suffering, to them so that you can ultimately be free of lust altogether. It should ultimately be possible for a Christian man to look at a strange beautiful naked woman with no fear of lusting after her. Chastity is not ultimately about guarding the eyes, but about redeeming the human heart¹.

I’ve written before about the types of behavior that people in religious contexts use to groom victims for sexual assault: talking freely and often about sexually charged topics, or particulars of those topics, is high on the list.² In the typical college campus or Newman center “study group” for “TOB” (and I imagine in some parish run programs as well), clergy or lay ministers sit down with groups of people, many of whom have had no previous instruction in Church teaching on chastity or intimacy, and do exactly that. That is inherently a vulnerable set of circumstances, and paired with the current popular method of “frank and honest” conversation about ‘Catholic sex’, it becomes a dangerous one.

Ten or fifteen years ago, it was more popular to critique this sort of approach to discussing the Church’s teaching on sex and intimacy than it is now. Christopher West, one of the more prolific speakers and authors on this topic, came under a lot of criticism for his methods around this time. Alice Von Hildebrand, a well respected theologian and writer, said of West in 2009 that his work, “totally lacks reverence”-

“It seems to me that his presentation, his vocabulary, the vulgarity of things that he uses are things that simply indicate that even though he might have good intentions he has derailed and is doing a lot of harm.” ³

Dawn Eden, also an accomplished writer about chastity, also critiqued West’s approach, making it the focus of her 2010 master’s thesis. She acknowledged that there was much truth to his work but that it has an undue emphasis on sexuality, “He believes that the true message of John Paul II's theology of the body is that sexual desire necessarily mediates desire for God”(emphasis added). She cautioned against what she saw as dangerous excesses in his approach.⁴

That cautious attitude about his work filtered down. I remember my high school senior year theology teacher nervously waffling with a co-worker about whether to use a certain Theology of the Body curriculum⁵ in her classroom because Christopher West might have had some involvement with it.

Fast forward to the 2020s, and critique on this approach from prominent popular theologians has all but disappeared. West’s work and method has become more or less the default approach for Theology of the Body in the popular orthodox Catholic culture of the United States (which is to say those works associated with Ascension Press and the Franciscan University of Steubenville). He enjoys frequent guest spots on the popular podcast Pints with Aquinas, has collaborated with other ‘big name’ Catholic speakers such as Scott Hahn, and is frequently mentioned as an influence by newer and up-and-coming popular Catholic writers and speakers such as Sr. Miriam James Heidland.

It is only fair to give West credit for introducing Theology of the Body to a hard-to-reach audience. I have heard stories from people in my life and come across testimony from strangers that credit West’s work for bringing them in line with Church teaching on sexuality (there was even a conversion testimony on CD I picked up at random that mentioned West’s work as a catalyst for their conversion), and he has a gift for charismatic and engaging speaking and writing.

That said, I think that there are serious trade-offs to his approach that theologians such as Hildebrand were right to point out. West himself seems to be operating with some serious naivete as to how quickly and easily proper boundaries between persons, especially in situations involving those who are in a position of religious authority, can be blurred and distorted.

West and his wife run a podcast together where they answer questions sent in by listeners. One anonymous listener wrote in asking,⁶

To what extent can a priest grow in his relationship with a female friend if they both understand that they have been given a deeper connection and a deep friendship that bears fruit while working together in the apostolate? Are they allowed to live that love and express it through deep emotional and spiritual friendship or do they have to repress and transform it? What exactly is included or excluded in a vow of purity?

West responds by saying that priests and seminarians are often not given the tools to avoid repression and an “explosion” of unfulfilled sexual desire, and that is probably very much linked to the current “crisis” in the priesthood.

This is all good and true so far as it goes, but what follows is a baffling abandonment of common sense in favor of pursuing an ideal as he turns to addressing the specific question about “emotional and spiritual friendship”. He mentions St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila and St. Jane de Chantal and St. Francis de Sales as examples of a,

“deep, profound, intimate personal relationship that was an expression of genuine purity of heart […] purity of heart does not exclude intimacy […] intimacy is not to be equated with genital intimacy or sexual intimacy in the physical sense but intimacy as a real sharing of hearts, a real spiritual bond. uh…purity does not stifle that intimacy, it enables that intimacy”

He goes on to recognize that there’s “human frailty” and a need for “boundaries” and “cautions” but neglects to give any real concrete examples of what those boundaries might be. He says,

“purity is real, it’s possible: in our climate today there’s so much suspicion even about a priest talking with a woman or what have you and we can go from one extreme to the next. There is a peaceful, beautiful place in the middle.”

but gives no clear directions on discerning it. His wife chimes in and mentions that the relationship ought to be known by “those who ought to know” and mentions a spouse or spiritual director as examples that fit that criteria but also says it’s possible there’s those who shouldn’t know because they “won’t understand.”⁷

As someone who has had both first hand experience with and has researched how sexually abusive priests groom their victims⁸ into becoming vulnerable to their advances, this advice is a steaming pile of hot mess. While I don’t doubt that West had good intentions when he gave this advice, he managed to echo many of the exact same talking points that predators use to lull their victims into a false sense of security— emotional intimacy and exclusive relationships in particular between a priest and a lay person are a big flashing neon sign that SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT.

Even a cursory glance at the majority of sexual assault cases between priests and women will show that most, if not all, of these cases begin with the priest and woman being drawn into some sort of exclusive relationship utilizing spiritual language or “spiritual kinship,” often with a spouse or other close persons to the victim knowing that the relationship existed and had some degree of intimacy, though obviously not knowing the abuser’s true motives.⁹ A priest seeking or finding himself in a position “emotional intimacy” with a woman is, at the absolute least, a near occasion of sin.

If the man who is all but the face of Theology of the Body and chastity education in the Catholic Church in America is this ignorant of the harms that have resulted from weak or poorly defined boundaries between two people using sexually charged spiritual language, I shudder to think of what the many less educated people referring to and relying on his work have brought about.

I believe that Mr. West has good intentions and even that his work has done a fair amount of good. While his mistakes do not nullify the good that his work has brought about, the good does not absolve him of his mistakes. We live in a broken world, and in a Church that still very much struggles to take sexual abuse by its clergy seriously.¹⁰ While West’s vision of a Church that is able to operate without being hampered by lust is a beautiful ideal, we cannot sacrifice common sense precautions around things to do with something as powerful as the sexual act. Like any great force that God has created, it demands a certain amount of careful respect to keep those approaching it from being harmed.

In the words of Alice Von Hildebrand, ”Reverence is the key to purity.” This reverence should be there not only to guard our spiritual wellbeing, but our physical safety as well.

1. https://youtu.be/QNyKxGpoixI

2. For more on this topic, see “Recognizing the Red Flags of Clerical Abuse”

3. "Christopher West's Ideas on Sexuality Ignore Tremendous Dangers, Alice Von Hildebrand Says."

4. https://dawneden.blogspot.com/2010/06/papists-pick.html

5. You can see it here.

6. https://askchristopherwest.com/57

7. Both Mr. and Mrs. West also neglect to mention that the reason that we know so much about the relationships between Sts. John and Theresa and Sts. Francis and Jane is because many, if not most, of their conversations took place via letter. They weren’t spending a bunch of time sitting around building “emotional intimacy” (or sexual tension), they were sharing insights they’d gained into their relationships with God with a considerable geographical distance in between them for most of the time. It wasn’t about their relationship, it was two people discussing things they were both passionate about and had in common. They cared about each other, but they never focused on ‘their’ relationship.

8. Here’s a pretty good sampler of what I’ve researched and written on this topic.

9. See this case, this case, this case, this case, and this case for examples of how this type of grooming dynamic plays out.

10. https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2023/10/survivors-advocates-voice-skepticism-over-popes-about-face-in-rupnik-case