So far it seems to me that West's defenders defend his orthodoxy quite admirably, but it seems as well that they defend what I think is the germ of heterodoxy which is sometimes implicit and sometimes explicit in West's writings.
This heterodoxy takes two forms:
1. It ignores the proper context for the redemption of lust and
2. It encourages saying yes to temptation in the hope that the disordered appetite will be redeemed and the good toward which the sin tends will be honored.
In other words, West begins with a basic truth - that a married man and a woman must learn to channel their sexual desire for one another into an expression of love that's open to the possibility of procreation, as opposed to what their sexual desire might become if left unsanctified - mere lust and objectification of the other. This is quite a solid Catholic teaching. But in West it gets blurry. West is never clear that Marriage is the framework in which the redemption of lust must take place.
For example, in West's interview which I quoted here, he says, "There is something good behind it [pornography]. What is good behind it? The human body in its nakedness. Behold, it is very good!"
One of my friends suggested that West is simply trying to show that the porn user is seeking a good in a disordered way. But to say of a naked body abused and trashed by porn "Behold it is very good!" is appallingly wrong. West is echoing both Genesis and the Mass in this exclamation, and such a juxtaposition and misplaced emphasis makes one wonder.
At any rate, these seem to be the two major problems in West's theology, 1. ignoring the proper context in which lust is to be redeemed, and 2. encouraging sin for the purpose of redeeming that sin.
Hidden under these two mistakes are a host of Gnostic errors, which I go into here.