Augustine and theology of the body

  • Thread starter Thread starter seekingsynthesis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

seekingsynthesis

Guest
Looking for anyone who is well read in both Augustine and Theology of the body: do you see the two as contradictory?
If you see them as contradictory, do you either think ToB is more “complete” or do you think it’s wrong?
If you do not see them as contradictory, how do you frame the relationship between the two?

I love the sound of ToB… But I can’t reconcile it with the ideas in Augustine (mainly confessions and On the Good of Marriage)… It seems that he sees marital sex as a purely human, sinful, worldly thing that God has permitted, but ToB seems to go beyond “permission” into it being actively good, praiseworthy, a reflection of heaven, etc.

Also, give Augustine’s teachings on sex, I am suspicious of ToB’s “anything goes as long as the man finishes inside the woman”.

Am I reading one or the other wrong?
 
I am preparing a topic regarding theology of the body and how it contradicts Saint Thomas’ Realism.

I never compared it with St. Augustine views but since Saint Thomas agrees with him a lot, I guess there could be contradictions in this case as well.
 
seekingsynthesis said:
I love the sound of ToB… But I can’t reconcile it with the ideas in Augustine (mainly confessions and On the Good of Marriage)… It seems that he sees marital sex as a purely human, sinful, worldly thing that God has permitted , but ToB seems to go beyond “permission” into it being actively good, praiseworthy, a reflection of heaven, etc.
Click to expand...
Well one is published by a Saint who, although holy and worthy of a listen, was never given the papacy. The other was published by a Saint and Pope. I know which one I’ll listen to.

Not a fan of this idea that Augustine and Aquinas are infallible and everything else that conflicts with them is called into question, rather than Popes being prime and others being questioned.
 
This is a fair point…does the fact that Augustine is a Doctor of the Church, and JPII isn’t, balance it though?
Doctor means your specific teachings are approved, whereas you can be a Saint because of your virtue and your actions, it doesn’t necessarily have to do with one’s writings.
 
seekingsynthesis said:
Doctor means your specific teachings are approved,
Click to expand...
Wrong. It means that one made significant contributions to Church theology and doctrine through writing and teaching. It is not a blanket acceptance of all one’s ideas and thoughts.

As such, no, I still believe Augustine to be wrong on this matter, along with everyone else who spoke of marital relations in a similar way, including saints.
 
Last edited:
St. Augustine certainly did not view marriage as a necessary evil permitted by God. He saw marriage as a whole good in itself, lesser than continence, but still a positive good.
 
If I may add, thoughts like the ones OP interpreted as Augustine’s make absolutely no sense to me. God very clearly designed human bodies to utilize sex for reproduction. It was not an accident; that’s not how God works. If it were truly a bad thing, why would God not have made us to reproduce in some other manner? Perhaps by mitosis, as odd an idea as that might be, or any of the infinite other possibilities that God very obviously is capable of allowing humans to reproduce through.

I cannot accept that God saw it best to force those called to marriage to tow the line of sin constantly. God does not cause us to sin or even come close to it. If sex were sinful or a temptation to sin, then it would not be from God. Period.
 
I’m not well read in Augustine, so I can’t really comment on him other than to say he is widely known for his rather low/skeptical view on the inherent goodness of the human person and of sexuality.

What I do know is that when God created Adam and Eve, and before they sinned, he commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth…” I don’t know how else Adam and Eve were to do that unless they engaged in sexual relations. And God doesn’t command sin. So if Augustine taught that sex is inherently sinful, then he’d be flat out contracting Scripture.

I think (and I’m open to correction on this), that what Augustine taught was that sexual relations after man’s fall are now tainted by the concupiscence of original sin. In other words, men and women - even within marriage - have to fight with the lusts that lurk in their hearts to ensure they’re not engaging in sexual relations in a sinful way (most especially in a way that reduces the other person to an object to be used for one’s sexual gratification).

If this is what Augustine taught, then he is perfectly in line with what Pope St. John Paul II taught, particularly in the section of the ToB on the “heart”.

As far as ToB teaching “anything goes as long as the man finishes inside the woman,” ToB teaches nothing of the sort. ToB isn’t a manual of sexual ethics. It’s a theological anthropology - a theology of the human person, what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God, and what we can learn of God by looking at the relationship between man and woman in marriage.

I hope that’s helpful.
 
Reproducing human life by mitosis – now THAT would be weird …!

ICXC NIKA
 
seekingsynthesis said:
Looking for anyone who is well read in both Augustine and Theology of the body: do you see the two as contradictory?
If you see them as contradictory, do you either think ToB is more “complete” or do you think it’s wrong?
If you do not see them as contradictory, how do you frame the relationship between the two?

I love the sound of ToB… But I can’t reconcile it with the ideas in Augustine (mainly confessions and On the Good of Marriage)… It seems that he sees marital sex as a purely human, sinful, worldly thing that God has permitted , but ToB seems to go beyond “permission” into it being actively good, praiseworthy, a reflection of heaven, etc.

Also, give Augustine’s teachings on sex, I am suspicious of ToB’s “anything goes as long as the man finishes inside the woman”.

Am I reading one or the other wrong?
Click to expand...
Please quote the passages from both authors.
I think you are mis-characterizing the positions of both.
 
Last edited:
I’m not a ToB expert but I have an idea about your question.

St. John Paul II gave us a glimpse of human love before the fall. His teaching on marriage includes that glimpse. So marital love strives to meet the ideals of love before sin. Total gift of self to other, disinretested love and the internal gaze are characteristic of love before sin and should be the love m.arried couples strive for.
This doesn’t conflict with Augustine’s view because the reason for that view is made obvious in ToB as well. A body that dies needs to survive and according to ToB moves involuntarily. That’s the source of shame and the unfortunate environment that human reproduction happens.
St. JPII crossed over the threshold of shame and that is reflected in his teaching about marriage.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Well one is published by a Saint who, although holy and worthy of a listen, was never given the papacy. The other was published by a Saint and Pope. I know which one I’ll listen to.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty weird. Just because someone was made the pope does not mean he is a better theologian than St. Augustine, even if canonized.
seekingsynthesis said:
Also, give Augustine’s teachings on sex, I am suspicious of ToB’s “anything goes as long as the man finishes inside the woman”.
Click to expand...
Are you getting this from the actual texts of the Wednesday audiences, or some “synthesizer” of ToB? (It would certainly be an aberration from classical sexual ethics.)
 
Last edited:
There’s no need to reconcile the two. Augustine doesn’t have some kind of universal hold on all truth, which is why the Church has never accepted everything he taught. Aquinas apparently didn’t agree with him on all things either, the means of propagation or transmission of Original Sin being one such point as I recall.
 
Last edited:
kapp19 said:
That’s pretty weird. Just because someone was made the pope does not mean he is a better theologian than St. Augustine, even if canonized.
Click to expand...
True. Although I think it’s worth considering that JPII wasn’t writing in a vacuum. He was certainly aware of St. Augustine’s ideas and had, presumably, studied them in depth. If the Pope, having read and studied St. Augustine’s views, chose to put a different spin on sexuality, I think that’s at least worth considering.
 
I wouldn’t trust how modern media depicts sex. The underlying philosophy behind it paints how it is portrayed: that anything goes so long as it doesn’t “hurt” anyone, and that can taint how we may interpret it, both in its sinful excesses and proper use.

We have appetites for food and sex and are asked to satisfy them according to how those appetites are ordered. This might not be a perfect example, but I’ll use my favorite ice cream flavor as an example: sweet cream ice cream. I love a nice cup of that. Do I eat it all the time? Do I buy gallons of it? Do I skate the line of sin by focusing on its taste instead of focusing on how it takes up space in my stomach?

That last question is how I hear some (not all) concerns regarding sex. We may be a bit hypersensitive because of how sexualized our society is today, but we must be careful to not let how society views sex taint the good that is in it.
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
That last question is how I hear some (not all) concerns regarding sex. We may be a bit hypersensitive because of how sexualized our society is today, but we must be careful to not let how society views sex taint the good that is in it.
Click to expand...
Well said. It’s just an overcorrection. There’s so much overemphasis and misuse of sexual desire and pleasure in our society that sometimes we go overboard and start believing them to be bad in and of themselves.

Sex, sexual desire, sexual pleasure are all good things. They’re just things that are meant to take place in the appropriate context.
 
The major difference between food and sex as physical drives, is that once we are fed, our own bodies turn the food drive off (although for some people that set point may be past the point of gluttony.) And the general society strongly encourages moderation in food and drink.

Conversely, everybody is expected to be boiling with sexual desire at all times, and the society itself stokes the fires. In fact, while individuals are body-shamed for being overweight (which can often come from gluttony,) being “not sexual enough” is often ridiculed.

It seems curious to me that, as for health and appearance reasons, social effects have been in the direction of moderation in matters of food, they have acted as an accelerant in matters of sex. Yet at a social level, moderation is more important in sex than in food.

ICXC NIKA
 
Last edited:
This is good to know- I appreciate all the clarifications!
I have been told that that was something he said, so maybe I do need to dive into ToB directly. Just a daunting text!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top