Do you think Theology of the Body is flawed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edjlopez23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

edjlopez23

Guest
My priest doesn’t agree with it because it emphasis and gives too much importance on sexual relations to the married couples over having children as being the main purpose of marriage.
 
I think TOB is one of the most important theologies to come along in centuries. It is because of TOB that we have the intellectual ammunition to debate artificial contraception (ABC). Pope St. JP II felt that there was more to add to his TOB. He invited others to do so. I wrote The Science & Theology of Salt* in Scripture (*Water, Dust, Stone, and Light. Too) to do just that. I focus on a deeper appreciation of what is meant by the “language of the body.” I consider STOSS to be a branch of TOB. Through TOB, we can gain a deeper understanding of the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. By understanding The body, we understand the incarnation of Jesus better. By understanding Jesus’ incarnation, we can better know ourselves.
 
edjlopez23 said:
Here is the source:
"Theology of the Body must be seen against this background. Even if it does not explicitly deny that the procreation and education of children is the primary finality of marriage, it is almost exclusively concerned with spousal love, at best mentioning procreation simply as an adjunct, " - Father Peter Carota

…
Click to expand...
From the Catechism, similar to TOB, marriage include openness to children, which may be a possibility.

Catechism
1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility . In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."152
Click to expand...
 
If you are able to have children, then its more like a responsibility rather than a possibility.

Here is what the Baltimore Catechism says:
Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:
  1. To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
  2. To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
  3. To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.
 
Last edited:
I believe this is a flaw in Christen West’s book used as source for the article, more than a flaw in the Theology of the Body given by St JP II.

West seems to focus on sexual relations quite a bit. John Paul II:. not so much, actually very little.

Spousal love is a focus, but that does not make it flawed.
 
Last edited:
It’s been my experience that folks who hold this opinion about the Theology of the Body are typically folks who have never read it… or at best have only read bits and pieces.

Judging from the quote given, it sounds like this good priest’s primary “beef” with the TOB is not that it doesn’t talk about the procreation and education of children, but that it simply doesn’t talk about it enough to suit his tastes.

As someone who has read the actual text (in a couple of different English translations) at least six times cover-to-cover, not to mention multiple commentaries, I can agree that the TOB is focused largely on the unitive good of marriage. But it always maintains the balance that the goods of marriage are intertwined, and it recognizes that there’s more to the procreative good of marriage than the simple production of biological offspring (which is still important, of course). Plus, the unitive good of marriage serves the procreative good (psychological and social sciences have proven that children who’s parents are happily married [i.e. they work at the unitive good of marriage], grow up to be happier and healthier adults).

If you’re concerned about what Fr. Peter said, then just pick up the text of the Theology of the Body itself. Believe it or not, it’s not really about sex and marriage! The book is actually about what it means to be a human person created in the image and likeness of God, and the practical consequences of that belief that ought to play out in how we live our lives. For the normal person, this will play out in a vocation to marriage. For others, it will play out in a call to celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. But either way it plays out as a call to live our lives according to our dignity as creatures made in God’s image and likeness.
 
Remember, while the Baltimore Catechism is good, it’s not official Catholic teaching. It was a text that was put together by what was then basically the equivalent to the USCCB. I recommend picking up the Catechism of the Catholic Church to see how it breaks open further what is presented in the Baltimore Catechism (and just as an aside, I don’t mean to diss the Baltimore Catechism. I grew up on it. Have read it multiple times. And still refer to it when I need a quick answer for a question that’s been weighing on me).
 
I cannot agree more. There is a very good English translation of ToB available, reading it is not trivial, but it is doable for all. I have never thought the summary books put out by West did it justice.
 
Last edited:
I will add this thought, if a priest such as Fr Carota is going to publish a criticism against a major work if theology, especially one written by a canonized pope, he should be reading and referencing the original source, not a summary book for beginners.
 
This is a common misconception about Christopher West’s work as well.

West does talk about spousal love, and focuses on that quite a bit. But when he does, he focuses on it in the same way as mystics like St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, or St. Teresa of Avila. It is something that points us to the love that Christ has for the Church, and God has for the individual soul. We focus on that because spousal love (which includes fruitfulness) is the closest analogy that we have in human experience to describe the love of God for us.

One of Christopher’s favorite phrases to repeat is that spousal love is “free, total, faithful, and fruitful.” All the goods of marriage are expressed right there. These words can be equally applied to the love of God for the soul, and Christ for the Church.

Again, read the actual texts. Christopher’s work is solid and has been praised by many theologians (including Michael Waldstein - who translated the TOB from the original Polish text) as being the most faithful interpretation of JPII’s work available.
 
Yeah, need to look at John Paul’s version of theology of the body for myself. But I don’t think I will be able to get the book anytime soon, so that’s why I’m asking.
 
Last edited:
Your question doesn’t show a depth or completeness of a point, to answer in any way. Therefore your question is flawed and does not deserve a comment. Theology on the Body is extremely important. We are only beginning to discuss it. Your pastor probably rightly responded to some of the theological comments being put out there now. Most of these I find to be formulated by ignorant writers, with only some leading speakers beginning to get to the deeper understanding of this doctrine. The ignorance I find is in a trend to want to return to a nostalgic and “flawed” view of the pre-Vatican II days when no one had birth control pills and many of the horrific trends today had developed yet. Those days were no more blessed than ours now, and that encyclical needed to be written. Marriages then had (as for eons) taken on the worldly culture where men dominated women not in the love of Christ, and where women died regularly from child bearing in unloving situations, in poverty (as now), and where Christ was falsely claimed as justification for it all. This is a very loving Theology, but the application and teaching of it hasn’t even begun to scratch the surface of the problem. It just happens that birth control, antibiotics and other changes have allowed (in some horrible irrresponsibility of men and women to each other) people to apparently totally forsake the care and welcoming of children being born and raised. The blessing of children used to be a focus of Christians and many other cultures. But, instead of learning how to love each other more joyfully and deeply in marriage, those who call themselves Christians have walked away from the Church because of this letter. This letter’s understanding of what the married life can be is lost to them. Instead, these persons think the Church in some unimaginable way wanted couples to live in the fear and oppression of what the world has made and now calls marriage. If anything, your priest may have been trying to help you understand this theology: that there is way too much emphasis on sex in marriage. St. Ignatius several hundred years ago grappled with this question too. He basically said there is way too too much matrimony. And THAT, I agree should be the subject of another letter. But not likely soon. Please share this answer with your priest and see if I may have come closer to what he was trying to say. It would help me to know.
 
Let me be clear, I am simply saying that West’s (and others) summaries on ToB seem tilted to sex, which is not a large part of ToB. I am not taking exception to anything in specific about West’s writing with respect to it’s orthodoxy.
 
Hahahahahahahaha!!! I just realized that Father’s primary source for commenting on the TOB is Christopher West Theology of the Body for Beginners book. That book is to the TOB what Algebra 1 is to doctoral level calculus - and I think Christopher would say the same thing. It’s an introductory book, meant to introduce readers to the major themes at the most basic level possible in order to whet their appetite and get them to read the actual TOB. I’d have more respect for this article if it were even based just on Christopher’s longer more academic commentary on the TOB. Since it’s not, I’d dismiss the article as a rant by one who’s never read the TOB and, therefore, doesn’t understand what it’s about.
 
edjlopez23 said:
Here is what the Baltimore Catechism says:
Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?
Click to expand...
Stick to the actual Catechism, not the Baltimore Catechism. Trying to explain complex topics in a question and answer format is not the best approach in my mind. I’m not sure why people seem to reach for it as a first choice. It’s been replaced and it was meant for children originally anyway.
 
@Phillip_Rolfes , you seem to be one of the few people who have read the original. I have a question. At the end, JP II states that this Theology of the Body is incomplete, that he hopes other theologians will consider other aspects of it. He gives one topic that he believes should be explored further, the meaning of work. To your knowledge, has any theologians picked up the mantle and moved forward with this?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top