Confused about 'Theology of the Body'

[muffinmojo]

Let me say first that I am merely a teenager and so I am at least 4-6 years away from considering marriage, so this is not a question that directly affects my life at the moment.

However, after hearing about the theology of the body as described by many here, and trying to find something in the catechism or other documents that supports it, I came up empty. I finally googled it and discovered that it is outlined in a series of speeches by John Paul II, on the interpretation of Humanae Vitae. My question is…why is this theology of the body considered binding when it seems to be nothing more than His Holiness’ personal opinion on what a marriage should be? I am not one to question the Church or simply do my own thing in defiance of Her, but this doesn’t make very much sense to me. I am also not downplaying the authority of the Pope to interpret doctrine, but it is my understanding that unless he speaks ex cathedra, his word is simply weighted by his knowledge and stature, and can be disagreed with legitimately. Why then could a married couple not simply refrain from contraception or other clearly immoral sexual actions, yet not follow the interpretation presented in the theology of the body(ie in oral sex and other acts)?

Thanks to anyone who responds. . . reading posts about how this is a set thing that is essentially law leaves me feeling like I missed something really big or am deeply misunderstanding something about the Church(admittedly I am a convert of a little more than a year and a half).

 

[saieditor]

You may be approaching this from a difficult angle, trying to fit your questions into a pre-existing body of material.

There are many “theologies of the body” perhaps starting from your own reading of the Book of Genesis. For you have faith, and you are seeking understanding; that is the classical definition of theology.

John Paul II was a philosopher-statesman and had a highly developed **philosophy **of the human person. He also had a watertight, powerful, strong, *theology *of the human person. He led the world with that.

To be fair, you could take two paths.

• You could undertake a study of John Paul II (something that would repay rich dividends to your faith, your self-understanding, and your understanding of what it means to be Christian, what it means to be Church in this modern era) (mind you, it would take years) (enjoy it)
• You could do some research into moral theology, which starts with a profound and well thought out platform of respect for that which God has given us - the human body, and enquire more along the paths of moral theology.

Hope this helps.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

**Note: I no next to nothing about TOB and am a convert as well.

First off, it is perfectly ok to question. People who have been Catholics their entire lives should still be questioning!!!

You are right that TOB is not an infallible teaching. But it IS wisdom. And in order to interpret wisdom we must also have knowledge. So learn as much as you can about TOB (Christopher West has a TOB for Teens book) and then figure out exactly what you disagree with. Then take each thing point by point and figure out why it may or may not go against what the Church teaches us…

you mention oral sex. oral sex is immoral if it leads to the marriage act being completed anywhere but where it is meant to be. But oral sex as foreplay is just fine (as long as both spouses are 100% ok with it). That is in Christopher West’s “the good news about sex and marriage” book.
**

 

[deb_in_MI]

MuffinMojo,

Pope John Paul II took 129 general Wednesday audiences to develop the Theology of the Body based on Scripture not Humanae Vitae.

Also the following link will give you many Catechism quotes that support and clarify the teachings that you will find in the Theology of the Body book.

TheologyoftheBody.net

It is a very beautiful teaching for us not only as married couples trying to live out our chastity but also for young people like yourself…Good luck with your studies

 

[embwt]

My question is…why is this theology of the body considered binding

It’s not binding . . . it’s liberating. I can’t speak for all, but for me, TOB is so enlightening because I used to disagree with the Church on a LOT of things. But this is primarily because I was disagreeing with what I did not know or understand. Take it from a man who spent about 13 years contracepting in my marriage before I realized I was hurting, not helping. :banghead: What I learned from TOB has made me a better man, a better husband, and has freed me from the slavery of sin. (Read Romans, I believe). Is it easy? NO!!! But it is liberating. And TOB has enlightened me to an understanding of what the Church has taught since Genesis. All TOB did for me was explain to me what I never thought I would understand or agree with.

You are blessed that you are looking into this now at an early age! Keep it up!

 

[muffinmojo]

Well just to clarify it’s not that I disagree with any of the teachings regarding this, it’s just that I don’t fully understand what about this teaching makes it so that we can say ‘such and such sex act is immoral because it contradicts the purpose of marriage as defined by the theology of the body’. As a poster above mentioned about oral sex, it’s not that i disagree, it’s that I’m having a hard time understand what about the theology of the body can be used to define it as a sinful(and I’m talking when it is taken all the way, not as foreplay such as that described by Christopher West). If this teaching is simply gleaned from the personal opinion of John Paul II, how can we argue it as defining something as sin? I haven’t seen the categorization of many of the things mentioned as sin in anything besides the theology of the body. The catechism mentions sexual sins as those involving unmarried people, those that use contraception, between people of the same gender, etc, but nothing says ‘acts not open to life’. Nothing defines what is ‘open to life’ except the theology of the body, so it is using itself to justify itself. This is fine, and again I do not disagree or have a problem with any of these teachings, I simply don’t understand why we can use this to justify classifying certain things as sins.

Thanks for the responses btw

 

[PJM]

However, after hearing about the theology of the body as described by many here, and trying to find something in the catechism or other documents that supports it, I came up empty. I finally googled it and discovered that it is outlined in a series of speeches by John Paul II, on the interpretation of Humanae Vitae.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF (The Code of Canon Law)

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

My question is…why is this theology of the body considered binding when it seems to be nothing more than His Holiness’ personal opinion on what a marriage should be?

Reply: Awesome post and questions my young friend.

First the Supreme Pontiff is infallible when “speaking from the chair of Peter (That means having identified himself as our Pope),
Teaching on either “Faith and or Morals,” and intending the instruction to apply to all churches and all people.” Any teaching offically made by the Pope, on matters of Faith and Morals is binding on all Catholics.

The series of “Papal Audiences” entitled as “Theology of the Body” qualify as binding teaching as it 1. they were referencing “Humanae Vitae”, itself a fully binding Encyclical Letter, meeting all of the conditions, but JP II also presented this series of "Papal (World Wide) Audiences to courespond with JP II’s own Encyclical: “Evangelium Vitae,” The Gospel of Life.

Now when ever “Rome” repeats a teaching such as happened here, it is because, the orginal teaching is not being followed, or possibly not correctly understood and applied by our Bishops.

The reasons for “Evangelium Vitae,” were caused by both problems. To try to insure proper understanding and correct application, his Holiness backed up these two Encyclicals with Theology of the Body. Yes they are binding on all!

I suggest you Google and read “Evangelium Vitae,” and yes
disitents are also saying that it too is not binding because neither
Pious VI or JP II specifically stated “that this is an infallible prolamation.” What they don’t tell you is that this does not have to be speciffically stated, in order to be one.

Catholic Catechism:2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
**
2351** Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes

If you’d like to know the history and origin of Papal Infallibility, respond to this post or e-mail me on the “personal post” and I’ll fill you in.

God bless, PJM m.c

 

[jwashu]

PJM,

Not to derail this thread, but I believe you are misinterpreting the CCC. Our Pontiff is not always speaking ex cathedra. Case in point, Pope Benedict’s book “Jesus of Nazareth.” He made it quite clear that it was only his opinion or interpretation and NOT binding. Everything JPII, while usually morally accurate, is not binding.

If you think I’m wrong on this, pose the question to Fr. Serpa. I read 20 to 30+ apologetic books before my conversion a none of them state what you did above.

This is not to take away form ToB, it’s awesome but even JPII was a man. If you want to say that everything every Pope has said is binding I’m sure we can come up with many instances over the ages that won’t look to pretty…

What I have found interesting is the number of Cardinals who disagree with Humane Vital… I just didn’t realize we had Cardinals who believe that the Church is currently interpreting it incorrectly. Things you learn I guess… for instance the Canadian Bishops allow contraception correct?

Joe

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Catholic Church has traditionally defined a great number of sexual acts between a married couple as sinful, based largely on an inaccurate medieval understanding of physiology and a overall repressive attitude towards sexual pleasure in general. The conclusions as to which acts are sinful are still taken to be irreformable, even if the rationale that led to those conclusions is acknowledged as faulty.

Today, Catholic theologians are left with the problem of explaining why those acts must be considered sinful, that is, of coming up with a correct rationale for the aforementioned irreformable conclusions. The two main schools of thought in this regard are the “new natural law” paradigm of Germain Grisez and the “theology of the body” ideas of John Paul II.

 

[Catherine_W]

Well just to clarify it’s not that I disagree with any of the teachings regarding this, it’s just that I don’t fully understand what about this teaching makes it so that we can say ‘such and such sex act is immoral because it contradicts the purpose of marriage as defined by the theology of the body’. As a poster above mentioned about oral sex, it’s not that i disagree, it’s that I’m having a hard time understand what about the theology of the body can be used to define it as a sinful(and I’m talking when it is taken all the way, not as foreplay such as that described by Christopher West). If this teaching is simply gleaned from the personal opinion of John Paul II, how can we argue it as defining something as sin? I haven’t seen the categorization of many of the things mentioned as sin in anything besides the theology of the body. The catechism mentions sexual sins as those involving unmarried people, those that use contraception, between people of the same gender, etc, but nothing says ‘acts not open to life’. Nothing defines what is ‘open to life’ except the theology of the body, so it is using itself to justify itself. This is fine, and again I do not disagree or have a problem with any of these teachings, I simply don’t understand why we can use this to justify classifying certain things as sins.

Oral sex can be a form of contraception… and regardless it is a form of sodomy when the act is completed as oral sex. Contraception does not only involve birth control and condoms (things that you can buy). Contraception can be “primitive” forms as well such as oral sex, sodomy, and withdrawal. It is very clear from scripture that God finds these acts to be offensive.

see Genesis 38:8-10 “And Judah said unto Onan: ‘Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.’ And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of the LORD; and He slew him also.”

 

[muffinmojo]

PJM- thank you. I’m not sure I entirely agree with your interpretation of Papal Infallibility, but your CCC quotes are exactly what I was looking for. I seem to have overlooked or missed those.

Not to start a debate on Papal Infallibility, because I agree, however I’m pretty sure that if your interpretation were true then several Popes are antipopes because they contradict each other.

Now, another claim I have heard is that every time a married couple has sex, they must finish in the woman(so to speak). . . and yet I have heard the argument that this is not necessary every time, only once during a particular marital encounter (ie if you have sex 3 times a night, only one need finish is such a manner to be ‘open to life’). Again, I am not saying I believe this, I only want to know if there is a definite argument against this, or if it is a case of legitimate difference of opinion. It seems to be a rather common one either way, and it does have a sort of logic to it. One is not necessarily being closed to life if this is done, especially if it is not done as a ‘oh well i guess we have to do it once this way so we can get points with God’.

 

[Catherine_W]

Now, another claim I have heard is that every time a married couple has sex, they must finish in the woman(so to speak). . . and yet I have heard the argument that this is not necessary every time, only once during a particular marital encounter (ie if you have sex 3 times a night, only one need finish is such a manner to be ‘open to life’). Again, I am not saying I believe this, I only want to know if there is a definite argument against this, or if it is a case of legitimate difference of opinion. It seems to be a rather common one either way, and it does have a sort of logic to it. One is not necessarily being closed to life if this is done, especially if it is not done as a ‘oh well i guess we have to do it once this way so we can get points with God’.

Every time the husband orgasms it must be in a manner that is open to life – inside his wife–. Any other method would be a form of contraception. Please read Christopher West - “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” to better understand these issues.

Also, this idea of “getting good points with God”, is completely the wrong idea. Sex in marriage is a holy act; it is an action of renewing your wedding vows. In the wedding vows, the couple vowed many things --one was to be open to children. Every time a married couple makes love, they are saying their wedding vows with their body. To not complete the act inside the woman would be to leave out a part of the vows. They would be saying that this act of love is not giving live and not inviting God into the act. They actually would be committing sacrilege. I cannot say it very eloquently, so I would recommend you read Christopher West to understand it better.

 

[muffinmojo]

Every time the husband orgasms it must be in a manner that is open to life – inside his wife–. Any other method would be a form of contraception. Please read Christopher West - “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” to better understand these issues.

Also, this idea of “getting good points with God”, is completely the wrong idea. Sex in marriage is a holy act; it is an action of renewing your wedding vows. In the wedding vows, the couple vowed many things --one was to be open to children. Every time a married couple makes love, they are saying their wedding vows with their body. To not complete the act inside the woman would be to leave out a part of the vows. They would be saying that this act of love is not giving live and not inviting God into the act. They actually would be committing sacrilege. I cannot say it very eloquently, so I would recommend you read Christopher West to understand it better.

Please understand, I do get these issues. What I am questioning is on what authority Christopher West speaks, as I said in my first post. I am asking what official Church document can be used to prove his arguments, or if it is simply a matter of opinion.

And the ‘getting points with God’ argument was an example of what I considered sinful in any circumstance, in case that was unclear from my post.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Please understand, I do get these issues. What I am questioning is on what authority Christopher West speaks, as I said in my first post. I am asking what official Church document can be used to prove his arguments, or if it is simply a matter of opinion.

**
Christopher West is taking Catholic Teachings and explaining them…he is not making up new stuff. Just like any of the posters here…we can tell you what is right and what is wrong, then you can go back to the source (the Church) and validate it. Same with authors who write about our beautiful faith.**

 

[Corki]

Things you learn I guess… for instance the Canadian Bishops allow contraception correct?

Joe

No, it is not correct. It’s a good thing you added the question mark or it would have been a slanderous statement against the Bishops.

What is true:

40 years ago, when Humanae Vitae came out, there were a number of Canadian Bishops who signed a letter of dissent from the teaching. I doubt any of those Bishops are still active so making your statement in the present tense makes it doubly wrong. They were corrected for their error but even then, no Bishop that I know of and certainly no whole nation of Bishops has taught that contraception is allowable.

Many American priests signed a similar statement. It was a sad time for the Church. Some individual’s, for reasons only God truly knows, “leaked” information that the Pope was going to allow contraception by married couples. Although this was untrue, it would have made many confessors’ lives easier. When HV was actually released the misled clerics were understandably unhappy.

The only current dissenting “official” voices of the Church have been those discussing the use of condoms when one spouse has AIDS. There is a theological/philosophical debate as to whether such use would fall under the principle of double effect. Some of those who take the “yes” position have been Bishops. But even under this discussion, it is the use of condoms for protection against a disease and not contraception that is thought to be possbly allowable.

 

[Corki]

Please understand, I do get these issues. What I am questioning is on what authority Christopher West speaks, as I said in my first post. I am asking what official Church document can be used to prove his arguments, or if it is simply a matter of opinion.

And the ‘getting points with God’ argument was an example of what I considered sinful in any circumstance, in case that was unclear from my post.

Christopher West was given personal permission from the late Pope to write about the Theology of the Body - that’s his authority.

Letters and talks by Popes that are given as part of their teaching ministry are part of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church and are to be considered authoritative and even “official” but not necessarity infallible.

If you have an issue with how Theology of the Body explains things, you might want to read Casti Cannubi. It was the most official teaching of the Church regarding marriage prior to Humanae Vitae. HV itself, which many believe to be infallible also is important reading to truly understand the role of sex within the Sacrament of marriage.

 

[Just_Lurking]

They were corrected for their error

What are you referring to here?

 

[Just_Lurking]

and yet I have heard the argument that this is not necessary every time, only once during a particular marital encounter (ie if you have sex 3 times a night, only one need finish is such a manner to be ‘open to life’).

Humanae Vitae says, “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”

If Paul IV had meant once per night, I think he would have said so.

The traditional Catholic teaching prohibits any form of “pollution”, that is, the spilling/wasting of the male seed. This was based on the medieval belief that the male sperm was a complete but immature human life, and that all the female contributed to the process of procreation was the place where the pre-born baby grew.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What I have found interesting is the number of Cardinals who disagree with Humane Vital… I just didn’t realize we had Cardinals who believe that the Church is currently interpreting it incorrectly. Things you learn I guess… for instance the Canadian Bishops allow contraception correct?

You can read about the Winnipeg Statement here.

 

[chevalier]

Now, another claim I have heard is that every time a married couple has sex, they must finish in the woman(so to speak). . . and yet I have heard the argument that this is not necessary every time, only once during a particular marital encounter (ie if you have sex 3 times a night, only one need finish is such a manner to be ‘open to life’). Again, I am not saying I believe this, I only want to know if there is a definite argument against this, or if it is a case of legitimate difference of opinion. It seems to be a rather common one either way, and it does have a sort of logic to it. One is not necessarily being closed to life if this is done, especially if it is not done as a ‘oh well i guess we have to do it once this way so we can get points with God’.

Depends what you consider by “finishing”. Point is, there is not to be ejaculation elsewhere than it should be.

A problem I see here, though, is that marital relations shouldn’t be about going as far as one can go without committing a sin and pushing the boundaries as far as they can be pushed without being crossed. The key point is the love with which the spouses should approach each other. It is not only the technicals but also the attitude. That means love and respect. If a particular sexual act is incompatible with respect for the other spouse, it shouldn’t be done. Consent does not remove lack of respect. So the focus is not how far one can go but how to do it right.

Christopher West was given personal permission from the late Pope to write about the Theology of the Body - that’s his authority.

That’s authority in an academic sense. Not authority in any sense able to define the teaching. Private theologians are not magisterium and are not binding. If they say what the Magisterium says, then it’s binding but it’s binding because of the Magisterium and not because of a private theologian.

Letters and talks by Popes that are given as part of their teaching ministry are part of the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church and are to be considered authoritative and even “official” but not necessarity infallible.

Yes and it’s all the more true about private theologians. This is not to say I disagree with a particular one, but I’m sometimes troubled by the way they are quoted nearly as if they were infallible themselves.