Who's on defense, and who's on offense? Who's on first? First base? What? He's on second! Who's on second?! No, Who's on first. Why you asking me for?! I don't know! He's on third base. Who's on third base?! No, who is on first! I'm asking what's the guy's name on first base?! No, he's on second!
No, really, there seems to be a circular genius embedded in Christopher West's gnosis of "ever deepening sexual redemption" in that any criticisms (or even simple inquiries) leveled against it are somehow assimilated, made to look like the very negative propositions that Christopher West claims to be fighting against: Manichean angelistic spiritist prudishness (rearrange words to your fancy accordingly).
This is helped along by the fact that neither West nor his defenders answer questions from sincere and inquiring minds with specificity, but obfuscate in their answers. Go here and here and here for example. But the obfuscation is subtle; a sense that the one seeking specificity and clarification is one crawling up from the lower depths towards an unfathomable enlightenment and is asking such questions out of confusion - to be patted on the head with a "There, there, little confused one, don't worry; your little sexual hang-ups will all go away one day".
Perhaps that's exaggerating.
But I think the lines are blurred as to who is on offense and who is on defense. Some would say there is no "offense" or "defense" in this...but, well, there is. Make no mistake - it is Christopher West and his genitally-redeemed disciples who are on the offense; and they are not teaching a full theology; they are promulgating a narrow heresy.
West talks in apologetic terms spread a mile wide (and typically to me, an inch deep), but is saying something very specific that is ultimately unspoken. His critics talk in specific and theological terms, but are saying something that implies a much larger hierarchy of thought.
"West often tends to treat resistance to the content of his lectures, for example during the question periods, as matters of resistance to the Holy Spirit (to the Spirit now speaking in and through West's 'charism'), urging questioners to pray to overcome the fear induced in them by their bad theological-spiritual formation. Well-balanced persons have spoken of how West makes them feel a sense of guilt, of resistance to the Holy Spirit, if they experience uneasiness about what he is saying." --Prof. David Schindler, from his article, Christopher West's Theology of the Body
"...the great numbers of people who have experienced some uneasiness in their encounters with West’s work . . . need to know that this uneasiness has an objective foundation in the work of West itself: it is a consequence not only or always of unconscious “Puritanism” on their part, but often simply of their spontaneous and authentic human and Catholic instincts." --Prof. David Schindler, from his article, Response to Profs. Smith Waldstein Regarding Christopher West
Oh, by the way, what did the Westian say when he got to third base?
"I knew who was on first, though there were disordered sexual tendencies; but I stole second and what was on it - sexual redemption! and now that I've attained mature purity and behold the glory of God, I don't even wanna know who's on third!"
I just took five years from your time in Purgatory with that one, so you're most welcome.
Update: just a quote from Alice von Hildebrand from her wonderful article Dietrich von Hildebrand, Catholic Philosopher, and Christopher West, Modern Enthusiast:Two Very Different Approaches to Love, Marriage and Sex:
"One of the strange things happening today is that any hint that the intimate sphere should be marked by a caveat, tempts some people to accuse West’s critics of playing Cassandra, and of "being a dualist"....
The human mind, wounded by sin, has the uncanny tendency to go from one error to its (apparent) contradiction, while in fact errors are usually first cousins. A case in point is Nestorius, who claimed that there are two persons in Christ: the divine one, and the purely human one. Mary, therefore, is not “Theotokos” (Mother of God); she is only the mother of Christ, the man. This heresy, condemned by the Church, was soon followed by another one by Eutyches, who claimed that Christ had only one nature: the divine one-- the consequence being that Christ’s human nature had been totally absorbed by the divine one, and that it is only the latter that has suffered for the salvation of the world. “Anathema sit” was the prompt response of the Church."