Confused about 'Theology of the Body'

[deb_in_MI]

This needs to STOP!! The person who started this post identified themselves as a TEENAGER. I am a parent and very offended by what I am reading here in response to a teenager’s questions.

Would you want a stranger online having this conversation with your teenager? Please people, prayerfully consider this situation before you respond…

I have asked a moderator to review the posts here but in the meantime, this forum has become very inappropriate…

 

[Corki]

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.

That’s the point I was trying to make. CW’s authority is not as part of the magestirium. The OP asked:

What I am questioning is on what authority Christopher West speaks, as I said in my first post.

My response is that he writes with permission of the Pope, not as a representive of the Pope or any other member of the teaching heirarchy. Sorry if I didn’t make that clearer.

Now, to the extent that CW’s work includes large portions of the Pope’s own words, that’s authoritative but not necessarily the interpretive comments. (though I have never found anything in CW’s work that seemed contrary to any Church teaching).

 

[Other_Eric]

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

I think it may help to know exactly what the Theology of the Body is. It is not necessarily an instance of the Pope engaging infallibility, it seeks to justify teachings about the sexual faculty which are infallible by virtue of being part of the Deposit of Faith. Conceivably, its arguments could be erroneous, nevertheless, the conclusions they are meant to support can’t be.

 

[Other_Eric]

This needs to STOP!! The person who started this post identified themselves as a TEENAGER. I am a parent and very offended by what I am reading here in response to a teenager’s questions.

Would you want a stranger online having this conversation with your teenager? Please people, prayerfully consider this situation before you respond…

I have asked a moderator to review the posts here but in the meantime, this forum has become very inappropriate…

Forgive me, but I have to ask: are you kidding? By what right does any Catholic, charged to spread the Good News by Christ Himself, deny such knowledge to anyone who should ask? There is no shame to be had in clearly defending the teaching of the Church on matters of sexuality. Graphic though some of those discussions may be, to be silent on these matters in this culture is to abandon a teenager who asks to the values of Hollywood and Playboy, the evangelists of the Culture of Death who have no such prurient compunction about discussing such matters with the youth of today.

 

[agapewolf]

Theology of the body is not contained in “sexual behavior rules”.

The idea behind theology of the body is that it is an explanation of what our ancient saints already understood…that the primary marriage is that of Christ to His Church, and that humans are NOT simply souls trapped in a body, but we have a human nature.

When studying these things in TOB, the more its understood, the more you can see how the icon of that marriage is human marriage…pointing us toward the heavenly marriage. We see how the principles transfer to the humanly marriage. When these principles are understood, then one can understand how our church has these “sexual rules”…that without the understanding of TOB, may seem burdensome, but with the understanding of TOB… are actually freedom-giving.

Christopher has a board of advisory bishops that advise on his teachings/books/lectures. At his in depth classes he says “test everything”…meaning that he never wants to teach anything that is contrary to the church.

 

[PJM]

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.

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

Reply: My dear friend in Christ Joe,

I do not believe that I said “every proclaimation” of the our Supreme Pontiff is defacto, "Infakkible, What I was trying to share is that every Papal Proclamation that meets the conditions I stated, “must be give full assent of our minds and wills.”

That my friend is a TRUR and factual statement.

That opinion is based on the following Offical Church Teaching’s:

Can. 749 §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

**Now as for the Candian Bishops “approval of conterceptive sex.”

It is absolutely impossible, can not be, as it directly apposes the
Teaching of the Universal Roman Catholic Magistrium.**

Matters of “Faith and Morals” are not covered by “Indults.” They are Dogma and Doctrines of the RCC, binding All Catholics, without exception, throughout the world." PERIOD!

I do not pretend to be unaware that MANY bishops, including some in America, desent (May God have mercy on them) from
Official Papal teachings on the matter.

The topic is not open for discussion and the teachings are not an option for any Catholic.

Sorry, about giving you the wrong impression about what I was sharring,

God bless you Joe,
PJM m.c.

 

[Other_Eric]

Reply: My dear friend in Christ Joe,

I do not believe that I said “every proclaimation” of the our Supreme Pontiff is defacto, "Infakkible, What I was trying to share is that every Papal Proclamation that meets the conditions I stated, “must be give full assent of our minds and wills.”

That my friend is a TRUR and factual statement.

That opinion is based on the following Offical Church Teaching’s:

Can. 749 §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Now as for the Candian Bishops "approval of conterceptive sex."

It is absolutely impossible, can not be, as it directly apposes the
Teaching of the Universal Roman Catholic Magistrium.

Matters of “Faith and Morals” are not covered by “Indults.” They are Dogma and Doctrines of the RCC, binding All Catholics, without exception, throughout the world." PERIOD!

I do not pretend to be unaware that MANY bishops, including some in America, desent (May God have mercy on them) from
Official Papal teachings on the matter.

The topic is not open for discussion and the teachings are not an option for any Catholic.

Sorry, about giving you the wrong impression about what I was sharring,

God bless you Joe,
PJM m.c.

Cannon 749, §3, which you include in your citation, requires that for any teaching to be held to be infallibly defined, such must be “manifestly evident”. Having failed to demonstrate such, and given that the nature of the talks are so far-reaching and broad, it is certainly unlikely that the Pope intended to use the Extraordinary Magisterium. Indeed, the Church has been historically reluctant to so define any part of Sacred Scripture. Given that the Pope’s audiences consist of a collection of Scriptural meditations, this introduces further doubt against the possibility of the audiences being an exercise of Papal infallibility.

The tenets that the Pope seeks to defend are infallible by being part of Sacred Tradition. No infallible definition from the Pope is required.

 

[deb_in_MI]

Forgive me, but I have to ask: are you kidding? By what right does any Catholic, charged to spread the Good News by Christ Himself, deny such knowledge to anyone who should ask? There is no shame to be had in clearly defending the teaching of the Church on matters of sexuality. Graphic though some of those discussions may be, to be silent on these matters in this culture is to abandon a teenager who asks to the values of Hollywood and Playboy, the evangelists of the Culture of Death who have no such prurient compunction about discussing such matters with the youth of today.

Nope, not kidding…

1. I noticed you didn’t feel it necessary to include graphic details to defend the teaching of the Church.
2. Her original question could easily be answered without graphically describing elements of the ‘marital act’.
3. Are you saying that we ought to undermine the chastity and purity of our young people by engaging in the same tactics as the Culture of Death and the secular world? Shouldn’t we rise above their use of debasement when it comes to discussing and defending a very beautiful Church teaching?

Sorry, this is very off-topic here. I probably should leave well-enough alone but feel compelled to defend myself. Mother bear and all…

 

[muffinmojo]

Again, I want to remind people I am not disagreeing or questioning anything involving the theology of the body. Nor am I asking for what Christopher West says, or what the theology of the body means. I am asking what Church teaching, official and binding teaching, can be used to back it up.

As in, when we say ‘abortion is wrong’ we can say ‘according to CCC [bunch of numbers]’ and someone can go look it up.

Much like what PJM(or…something like that sorry I forgot what your name was) posted on the first page. Perhaps I should have named my posted ‘confused about justification’ or ‘documentation’ of the theology of the body.

Now, let me make it more clear what I am asking. There are official Church documents that say all life is valuable and each person is made in the image of God from conception to death. His Holiness John Paul II used this to form his own opinion that the death penalty was part of the ‘culture of death’. Most Catholics agree with this, yet it is not a sin to disagree or support the death penalty.

Like this, I am asking if there is specific support for the claims presented in Christopher West’s books as well as the speeches of John Paul II, or if it is merely a commonly theological/moral perspective that is not necessarily set in stone.

PJM had given many that supported the overall message, and I asked a specific question relating to documentation of one element of it. Does anyone know where/if this can be found, or if they can clarify the authority/support for the theology of the body?

 

[Corki]

The specific support for Christopher West’s work is the Pope’s Theology of the Body.

The specific support for the Pope to teach TOtB is the Bible (bind and loose).

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the role of the CCC. It is not a set of laws or rules separate from other teaching documents. It is a collection of the contents of those same teaching documents presented in an organized and searchable format.

The specific support for the teaching in TOtB can be found in such documents as Casti Connubi, Familiaris Consortio, Pope Pius XII’s Address to Midwifes and other documents. The CCC is not more authoritative than other teaching of the Church. It is equally as authoritative.

Catholics owe assent to **all **authentic teaching of the Church. This includes the CCC but also other authoritative teaching from the Pope and the magisterium.

 

[Rach620]

Like this, I am asking if there is specific support for the claims presented in Christopher West’s books as well as the speeches of John Paul II, or if it is merely a commonly theological/moral perspective that is not necessarily set in stone.

PJM had given many that supported the overall message, and I asked a specific question relating to documentation of one element of it. Does anyone know where/if this can be found, or if they can clarify the authority/support for the theology of the body?

Christopher West is just the most well-known “explainer” of the TOB. Why not read JP2’s own writings–all those Wednesday audiences? Check it out here: Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body

In response to your general question: I would say that the TOB is not on the same level as, say, the CCC, when it comes to the hierarchy of dogma. But then again, that wasn’t JP2’s intent. He didn’t introduce anything new by way of objective moral principles in his TOB, but instead gave a rationale and explanation for all of the Church’s teachings on contraception (in Humanae Vitae especially), human sexuality, and vocations. John Paul’s goal in delivering the Wednesday audiences dealing with human sexuality was to speak to the human heart on these issues, to give deep and moving reasons for why it is so good for us to live the age-old teachings of the Church in our lives.

If you are questioning JP2’s sources for the TOB, then read it. His sources are the relevant encyclicals on the matter (Humanae Vitae, Mulieris Dignitatem, Casti Conubii, and others), the Bible, and other theological and philosophical writings.

If you are questioning the basic principles set forth in the TOB, especially those regarding contraception and/or contraceptive acts–then don’t. JP2 said nothing new on the matter. He taught what the Church did and still does teach, authoritatively.

I have found no alternative explanation so all-encompassing and personally compelling when it comes to issues of sexual morality as I have in the TOB. Studying it with my husband while we were engaged has proven to be so enriching for our marriage.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I see TOB as being about the good news about sex and more importantly who we are meant to be as men and women of God. don’t see it as a book of dos and don’ts.

You asked,

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’.

I would answer that it isn’t TOB that defines that it is immoral (the Church didn’t just discover or reveal this stuff) but it’s there in scripture, in the CCC, or encyclicals. JPII nor West have defined the morality but have unpacked the Church’s teaching and instead of focusing on the “don’ts” of sexuality, focused on the “dos” or the good news of sex.

 

[PJM]

Cannon 749, §3, which you include in your citation, requires that for any teaching to be held to be infallibly defined, such must be “manifestly evident”. Having failed to demonstrate such, and given that the nature of the talks are so far-reaching and broad, it is certainly unlikely that the Pope intended to use the Extraordinary Magisterium. Indeed, the Church has been historically reluctant to so define any part of Sacred Scripture. Given that the Pope’s audiences consist of a collection of Scriptural meditations, this introduces further doubt against the possibility of the audiences being an exercise of Papal infallibility.

The tenets that the Pope seeks to defend are infallible by being part of Sacred Tradition. No infallible definition from the Pope is required.

My dear friend in Christ,

I fear that you have not clearly understood the OP to which you replied.

The Binding On All Catholics… PERIOD… clearly states that a Papal proclamation does NOT, NEED NOT BE, “infallible” **in order to be fully and completely binding on all, all, Catholics.**It only has to be made by the Pope, on a matter of Faith and or Morals, as a Teaching intended for all. Period!

Please reread my previous post and this is quite evident. Do not get hung up on the issue of “infallibility.” That is not the issue,
knowledge of the teaching must be accepted as The Truth and must be obeyed. Amen!

God bless, PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

My dear fried Eric,

Let me try a different approach to your specific question of TOB, and its authority.

1. Is the teaching on a matters of 'Faith and or Morals?" YES
2. Is the Teaching from the Supreme Pontiff of the RCC? Yes it is.
3. Is this Teaching intended for everyone? Yes it is.
4. Does this then mean that it MUST, MUST be obeyed? Yes it does.

I have already provided the Code of Canon Law, which is a “level One” authority document, in support of this specific teaching.

God’s continued blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[Other_Eric]

My dear fried Eric,

Let me try a different approach to your specific question of TOB, and its authority.

1. Is the teaching on a matters of 'Faith and or Morals?" YES
2. Is the Teaching from the Supreme Pontiff of the RCC? Yes it is.
3. Is this Teaching intended for everyone? Yes it is.
4. Does this then mean that it MUST, MUST be obeyed? Yes it does.

I have already provided the Code of Canon Law, which is a “level One” authority document, in support of this specific teaching.

God’s continued blessings,
PJM m.c.

In order to assess the level of respect due the Theology of the Body, one must assess exactly what the teaching is that must be definitively held by the faithful. One discovers, in this instance, that the teaching one is concerned with is on contraception. These teachings, already having been a part of Sacred Tradition were made explicit by Popes Pius XI in his response to the 1930 Lambeth Conference and Paul VI in his landmark encyclical Humanae Vitae.

In the Theology of the Body, we have no new teaching, merely a robust defense of a teaching already promulgated. The argument itself is one of philosophy and scriptural interpretation. Since these arguments do not, in themselves, consist of faith and morals and since they are not necessary to support the teaching against contraception, such arguments need not be definitively held by faithful Catholics.

Catholics are free to reject John Paul II’s Trinitarian description of human interaction, free to doubt any and all biblically-based arguments made by the pope and freer still to be suspicious of the experience-dependent phenomenological approach to the issue. That which must be definitively held is the teaching made, not by John Paul II, but by his predecessors, that contraception is an evil.

Therefore, to revisit your questions, strictly construing them against the Theology of the Body and it alone, we arrive at the following answers:

1. 
   *]Is the teaching on a matter of “Faith and or Morals”? No. There is no new teaching in the Theology of the Body, merely a defense of a teaching already made. Issues of faith and morals contained in the teaching are entirely the product of John Paul II’s predecessors.
   *]Is the Teaching from the Supreme Pontiff of the RCC? The Supreme Pontiff has not made a teaching, he has made an argument in support of a teaching already made.
   *]Is this Teaching intended for everyone? Given the manner of its promulgation and the pope’s desire to defend Humanae Vitae, it is logical that the work would have been intended for everyone. Since the Theology of the Body is not itself a teaching but a series of meditations, the question is irrelevant.
   *]Does this then mean that it MUST, MUST be obeyed? Since there exists nothing in the Theology of the Body but defense, there is nothing to be obeyed. Catholics are not required to adopt only John Paul II’s arguments to the exclusion of any others. Obedience is required of Humanae Vitae, not John Paul II’s arguments in its favor. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find anything in all 129 addresses which could be construed as a new directive over and above the directives already given.
   Though I appreciate your citations to Cannon Law, you still have to demonstrate that there is contained within the Theology of the Body any new teaching. Therefore, unless you are to argue that even any offhand comment made by a pope to, say, a reporter, necessarily must be definitively held by the faithful, you would have to show in which of the 129 addresses a clear and unambiguous teaching was made.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Now, let me make it more clear what I am asking. There are official Church documents that say all life is valuable and each person is made in the image of God from conception to death. His Holiness John Paul II used this to form his own opinion that the death penalty was part of the ‘culture of death’. Most Catholics agree with this, yet it is not a sin to disagree or support the death penalty.

Like this, I am asking if there is specific support for the claims presented in Christopher West’s books as well as the speeches of John Paul II, or if it is merely a commonly theological/moral perspective that is not necessarily set in stone.

PJM had given many that supported the overall message, and I asked a specific question relating to documentation of one element of it. Does anyone know where/if this can be found, or if they can clarify the authority/support for the theology of the body?

Please refer to the Catechism…
Here’s a link to the index…
And another link to the section of the Catechism that you’ll want to read. Read the entire page.

Here are some relevant quotes… I have highlighted some relevant areas…

The fecundity of marriage

2366
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. **So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”**152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2369
"By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

Hope this helps!

 

[Consecrated]

I am asking what Church teaching, official and binding teaching, can be used to back it up.

try Casti Cannubii

may be part of what you’re looking for? it’s an encyclical, so it’s definitive…

maybe you’ve already read it, and it doesn’t support TOB as much as you’re looking for?
also em_in_fl’s quotes are good too!

 

[PJM]

In order to assess the level of respect due the Theology of the Body, one must assess exactly what the teaching is that must be definitively held by the faithful. One discovers, in this instance, that the teaching one is concerned with is on contraception. These teachings, already having been a part of Sacred Tradition were made explicit by Popes Pius XI in his response to the 1930 Lambeth Conference and Paul VI in his landmark encyclical Humanae Vitae.

In the Theology of the Body, we have no new teaching, merely a robust defense of a teaching already promulgated. The argument itself is one of philosophy and scriptural interpretation. Since these arguments do not, in themselves, consist of faith and morals and since they are not necessary to support the teaching against contraception, such arguments need not be definitively held by faithful Catholics.

Catholics are free to reject John Paul II’s Trinitarian description of human interaction, free to doubt any and all biblically-based arguments made by the pope and freer still to be suspicious of the experience-dependent phenomenological approach to the issue. That which must be definitively held is the teaching made, not by John Paul II, but by his predecessors, that contraception is an evil.

Therefore, to revisit your questions, strictly construing them against the Theology of the Body and it alone, we arrive at the following answers:

1. 
   
   *]Is the teaching on a matter of “Faith and or Morals”? No. There is no new teaching in the Theology of the Body, merely a defense of a teaching already made. Issues of faith and morals contained in the teaching are entirely the product of John Paul II’s predecessors.
   
   *]Is the Teaching from the Supreme Pontiff of the RCC? The Supreme Pontiff has not made a teaching, he has made an argument in support of a teaching already made.
   *]Is this Teaching intended for everyone? Given the manner of its promulgation and the pope’s desire to defend Humanae Vitae, it is logical that the work would have been intended for everyone. Since the Theology of the Body is not itself a teaching but a series of meditations, the question is irrelevant.
   
   *]Does this then mean that it MUST, MUST be obeyed? Since there exists nothing in the Theology of the Body but defense, there is nothing to be obeyed. Catholics are not required to adopt only John Paul II’s arguments to the exclusion of any others. Obedience is required of Humanae Vitae, not John Paul II’s arguments in its favor. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find anything in all 129 addresses which could be construed as a new directive over and above the directives already given.
   Though I appreciate your citations to Cannon Law, you still have to demonstrate that there is contained within the Theology of the Body any new teaching.
   
   Therefore, unless you are to argue that even any offhand comment made by a pope to, say, a reporter, necessarily must be definitively held by the faithful, you would have to show in which of the 129 addresses a clear and unambiguous teaching was made.

1. 
   My dear friend in Christ: I agree with you, (except for tha last section) and NO I’m not saying 'any" I am saying any official teaching. OK? and your post agrees with mine, so what is the question?
   
   Awesome post. Thank you so very much
   
   PJM m.c.

 

[muffinmojo]

Right then next question: Would then be incorrect to say that one can believe the death penalty is acceptable while remaining in union with Rome?

And if not, then what is the difference between this and the TOB? I have read in an official Catholic voter’s guide that one doesn’t need to agree with the Church opinion on the death penalty, and unless I am missing something there is no difference between the John Paul II’s teaching (or re-statement I suppose, since there seems to be much disagreement above on this point) of the TOB and his teaching/statement on the death penalty.

 

[Catherine_W]

muffinmojo,

Does not the quote from the Catechism answer your question with the authority of the church?

The fecundity of marriage

2366
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153