Do you think Theology of the Body is flawed?

[edjlopez23]

Sure I’ll take a look, thanks.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That’s a great question.

Yes. There have been several theologians who have picked up the Theology of the Body and begun using it as the foundation of their work. I can’t remember the various authors that are out there, but I know of at least one author who has been using the TOB to respond to societies questions (and assertions) about homosexual relationships. I know of another who has used it to unfold the Church’s sacramental theology. I remember seeing a book out there where a Dominican priest dives into the Thomistic foundations of the Theology of the Body. There’s work out there on the theology of suffering that draws deeply from the Theology of the Body. And one could even point out that various Catholic authors are beginning to use the TOB as a foundation for an authentically Catholic ecology/stewardship of creation.

But bear in mind that JPII himself, in the TOB, said that the primary purpose of the TOB was to act as somewhat of an extended commentary on Humanae Vitae, providing the philosophical and theological framework for understanding that important document. So if the text itself feels heavily slanted towards marriage and the marital embrace, there’s a strong reason for that.

 

[tafan2]

If that is all one has access to, use it. But I believe the translation by Michael Waldstein is considered far superior.

https://www.amazon.com/Man-Woman-He...f+the+body&dpPl=1&dpID=21R3P665NSL&ref=plSrch

The Vatican translation was done by it’s translation office as the general audiences were given. Not always consistent terminology.

 

[Vico]

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.

Obligation may be exempted for the entire marriage, when justified. In the words of Pope Pius XII, Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951:

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the <bonum prolis>. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

 

[Vico]

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.

Some people whine when they see a local catechism used. However the Compendium is short form and has the same thing:

338. For what ends has God instituted Matrimony?
1659-1660
The marital union of man and woman, which is founded and endowed with its own proper laws by the Creator, is by its very nature ordered to the communion and good of the couple and to the generation and education of children. According to the original divine plan this conjugal union is indissoluble, as Jesus Christ affirmed: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” ( Mark 10:9).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[otjm]

You are correct; it was meant as a starting place to teach the faith. Sadly, many if not most Catholics who were pre-Vatican 2 were raised on it but never moved beyond that basic question-and-answer knowledge of their faith - and I can say that having provided and/or assisted in presenting adult ed over the last 25 years.

And matters are not any better for Catholics who are post-Vatican 2 born; we have at least two generations who often don’t even know what was contained in the BC, thanks to the progressives who threw out the BC and replaced it with a “we all have to love Jesus my friend and cut out outlines of sheep and paste cotton balls on them”. CARA indicates in the age range of 18 -29, weekly attendance of Mass is about 18%.

 

[otjm]

Interesting that the priest used Thomistic philosophy, as much of TOB is in phenomenology. It is not that TOB does not use Thomistic philosophy, but rather while it includes it, phenomenology plays a larger part. It is not for no reason that some neoscholastic philosophers had major problems with TOB.

An interesting article is found in Humanum, 2015 Issue 3: The Theology of the Body in the United States.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

You are correct; it was meant as a starting place to teach the faith. Sadly, many if not most Catholics who were pre-Vatican 2 were raised on it but never moved beyond that basic question-and-answer knowledge of their faith - and I can say that having provided and/or assisted in presenting adult ed over the last 25 years.

Yeah, I don’t mean to suggest it’s “bad” or anything. It just seems to encourage a mindset of rote memorization over critical thinking. Great for teaching children the basics; maybe less so for adults trying to wrestle with a more complex question.

 

[dochawk]

Are we supposed to be thankful for these priests that know so much better than Popes?

This was originally my caustic reaction, but it’s a serious challenge (albeit still caustic).

And, frankly, I have to wonder if the folks that dispute +JPII’s views on this have the same problem with St. Paul, no fan of sexual relations or marriage, who warned against marital abstention . . .

hawk, married with four children, and five, err, six, grandchildren and counting . . .

 

[tafan2]

You have never read the Baltimore Catechism past volume 1, have you?