JPII's "Theology of the Body." What's the big deal?

[Shiphrae]

He ought to be made a Doctor for his work reconciling phenomenology to the faith and Thomism–certainly not for Theology of the Body, which is good, but hardly groundbreaking.

I don’t know how anyone can say that. Dealing badly with sexuality is behind nearly all the main problems that exists in our society. If people would learn how to love as Christ loves, there would be no divorce, abortions, abuse, sexually transmitted diseases or all the other ills that exists in our world. Pope John Paul 2 has it all wrapped up in his book Theology of the Body. I think that the book is grondbreaking.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[Contarini]

Many on this board rave about it, but they never really say what’s so ground-breaking about it. On another thread, some have suggested that JPII be named a “Doctor of the Church” because of TOB. Really?

Admittedly, I have only a passing familiarity with TOB. I’ve only read certain, limited parts of it and–yawn–not meaning any disrespect, but JPII is just reiterating Catholic sexual morality. I suppose that’s why I’m not terribly compelled to read it all. Good stuff, certainly, but hardly ground-breaking.

So what’s the big deal with TOB?

It explains traditional sexual morality in terms of the mutual self-giving of human beings to each other, rather than simply in terms of the need for control of the passions and adherence to divine law. It doesn’t contradict traditional morality, but it adds a new dimension. Perhaps it’s not an entirely new dimension, but it had not been expressed as fully before.

It may not seem new to you because you read all of traditional Catholic teaching in the light of TOB. I find this to be a common problem with Catholics–because you have such a gradual and continuous development of doctrine, it’s easy for you to assume that previous generations saw things in exactly the same way.

That’s a nice “problem” to have, by the way. I wish we were similarly afflicted!

Edwin

 

[Shiphrae]

I found that Theology of the Body makes dealing with sexuality clear in a way that no one ever did before. I had read or heard talks about the subject many times but it always seemed vague and left me feeling as though there was no real answer. I think that many people felt the same way and this is the reason that secular psychologists and psychiatrists were able to convince even good Catholics to believe their ideas.

When people largely accepted that contraception was OK or even necessary is when the worse problems developed in our world.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[Colmcille]

Although Sigmund Freud and his new-fangled understanding of human nature never appealed to me particularly, it is easy to read between the lines of Arthur Wyatt’s “Accounting Professionalism–They Just Don’t Get It” speech and see how the almighty bottom line and other unGodly ideas, including inappropriate sexual expression, have led to accounting fiascoes such as the Enron and Wall Street scandals of recent years. Colmcille

 

[Hastrman]

I don’t know how anyone can say that. Dealing badly with sexuality is behind nearly all the main problems that exists in our society. If people would learn how to love as Christ loves, there would be no divorce, abortions, abuse, sexually transmitted diseases or all the other ills that exists in our world. Pope John Paul 2 has it all wrapped up in his book Theology of the Body. I think that the book is grondbreaking.

Yes, on further reflection I have to concede TotB could be considered groundbreaking as mystical theology.

I do however doubt that it could ever be a cure-all, since before mysticism is of any use, one must know philosophy–one cannot do the good until one knows what it is. For that, we need the philosophers, not just the mystics. Similarly, while as a philosopher I know what God is (the subsistent act of Being), in order to experience Him, the mystics are helpful (although no composite entity can ever fully experience His simplicity without his help, i.e. grace).

 

[Hastrman]

Although Sigmund Freud and his new-fangled understanding of human nature never appealed to me particularly, it is easy to read between the lines of Arthur Wyatt’s “Accounting Professionalism–They Just Don’t Get It” speech and see how the almighty bottom line and other unGodly ideas, including inappropriate sexual expression, have led to accounting fiascoes such as the Enron and Wall Street scandals of recent years. Colmcille

Reminds me of the book “Degenerate Moderns–Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior” by E. Michael Jones.

 

[Shiphrae]

Yes, on further reflection I have to concede TotB could be considered groundbreaking as mystical theology.

I do however doubt that it could ever be a cure-all, since before mysticism is of any use, one must know philosophy–one cannot do the good until one knows what it is. For that, we need the philosophers, not just the mystics. Similarly, while as a philosopher I know what God is (the subsistent act of Being), in order to experience Him, the mystics are helpful (although no composite entity can ever fully experience His simplicity without his help, i.e. grace).

As I understand Theology of the Body, it is about using God’s grace. With the grace of God we are given all the understanding that we need - we do become philosophers, theologists, etc. This is the reason that a little uneducated woman such as St. Therese de Lisieux could become a doctor of the Church.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae