An excerpt from Symond's article:
For nearly seven years Sr. McKenna and Fr. Scallon promoted Kathryn around the world. Surprisingly, these two writers publicly pulled their support in August, 2011. Neither McKenna nor Scallon have fully explained why and they have not issued any further public comment. However, a look at public DFOT records and other documents might offer some insight.***
Someone also sends along some information about what sort of book A Breakable Vow is, which was written by Kathryn Ann Clarke, who is "Anne, a lay apostle".
This site answers some questions about Hasidism. Among the questions is this one:
Why don't Hasidic men shake hands with women?
Here's some of the answer to the question:
"In general, Orthodox Jewish men and women do not shake hands or touch each other unless they are married, and then only in private. It is not that women are considered dirty or unclean as some people -- even some Jews -- wrongly think. Quite the opposite. It is because both men and women consider our bodies to be sacred and not for everybody else's gaze or touch. ... Also related to this rule is the tendency for a Hasidic Jewish man to not look directly into the eyes of a woman who is not his wife, and vice versa. Again, this is not limited to Hasidim. Many American Indian tribes -- even matriarchal ones -- avoid eye contact between men and women in this way ... There is a tendency for both men and women to look down or off to the side during conversations".
The full answer is at the link.
Here's an article on the subject.
A summation of that article:
"The rule is that people of the opposite gender do not even touch each other, let alone shake hands, unless they are husband and wife, siblings, or children with parents and grandparents. What is the rationale for the Jewish prohibition on men and women touching, let alone shaking hands? ... It has nothing to do with impurity, or with the social or religious status of people who encounter other people ... Traditional Judaism, unlike some other faiths, regards touching as a highly sensual act. It takes the view that it is not only an important part of marital relations, but one that is only permitted in those relations. To shake hands as a casual courtesy and nothing more is the first step leading to the desensitization of sensuality between husband and wife. Rabbi Baruch Emmanuel Erdstein of Safed, who holds a degree in anthropology from the University of Michigan, states that "the casual touching of members of the opposite gender can only dull our sensitivity to the sexual power of touch." ... It has been recognized however, that there are many instances in which men and women can and perhaps even should, touch each other. This would apply to saving a person who is facing a life-threatening danger. Members of the health professions may obviously touch members of the opposite gender in the practice of their discipline, as may hairdressers or physical therapists as a necessary component in the practice of theirs ... Quite apart from the sexual analysis of some commentators, some commentators point out that an individual's body is personal, and at times to even touch is an intrusion into one's personal dignity. According to this approach, a man should not touch a woman, nor a woman touch a man, out of respect for the space of each other as individuals—especially individuals of the opposite gender who should reserve a certain level of privacy with respect to each other. ... Traditional Judaism translates the showing of respect for the personal space of members of the opposite gender into the social practice of not shaking hands. The key is not the shaking of hands. The key is respect. If we once again offered seats to ladies and opened doors for each other, we may have a more sensitive, kinder and respectful society. Far better than shaking hands".
The person sending the links applies an interesting slant:
Now, replace "touch" with "sight" and you have the traditional Catholic understanding of positive shame contra West's doctrine of "mature purity" and its corresponding practice of the "pure gaze of love".
Also replace, "touching as a highly sensual act" with "looking as a highly sensual act" - because it is. That is why when a man, who is "visually-wired", looks at a voluptuous woman, regardless of his level of purity, there is a physiological response in the man - it's called "arousal". Without it, a man would not be able to have sex with his wife - which is another reason why West's doctrine of mature purity is untenable.
And replace the last sentence, "far better than shaking hands" with "far better than staring at her with the 'pure gaze of love'".
A kind person sends along this link to an article entitled, The Church of Sex.
Pastor Mark Driscoll is a disgusting misogynist and false prophet and false mystic whose phoniness is blatant. Maybe that's how he hides it. And his falsity aside, no pastor, no one, has any business talking in the graphic way he does about the subjects he does.
Kevin O'Brien has two posts on this subject, The Christopher West of the Protestants, and, The Witty Atheist and his Lessons on Idolatry.