Theology of the body: is there such a thing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter misericordie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

misericordie

Guest
the Pope recently wrote a fairly good book entitled: “The Theology of the Body.” Though the book is good, it fails to recapture the long standing tradition of the church’ methods in the aspect of human sexuality. For example, the Church has almost always formulated Her teachings on Human sexuality(the Pope could have titled his book: Human Sexuality: in Moral Theology) based on what is naturally correct or unnatural and therefore incorrect, and it has done so using the methods of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and Meta-ethics. In many modern sectors, the simplistic arguments of not doing that (sins against the body) because it is against the Ten Commandments, or because it is Not God’s will, is what has been employed, and hence why so many disregard it. IF however, many were to use the Natural and Unnatural argument, for example, that sex is to be between a married man and his wife and this to procreate, and that this is the way God, THROUGH Natural Law intended it; then the argument against fornication, etc., would be stronger.
Secondly, to say (as a friend of mine has said) that there is a “Theology of the Body”, is to imply that there is a SEPERATE branch of theology dedicated solely to the body called: “Theology of the Body”, and this is NOT so. If by the “body” it is implied that the topic is: human sexuality, then the CATHOLIC branch which focuses on this is rightly called, MORAL THEOLOGY.
Now, can the Pope because he is pope “create” a new branch of theology? Maybe??? However, if what’s created deals with human sexuality, then why re-invent the wheel, and the wheel here is Moral Theology, which has explained the aspect of human sexuality already for hundrends of years.
Again, all being said, it is a good book, but it could have been excellent and totally and solely Catholic. However, some of Kant’s philosophical points were present, and I don’t see why when the church has Thomas Aquinas and Alphonsus Ligori (patron Saint of Moral theologians).
Lastly, a catholic must distinguish between what the Pope’s personal opinion’s are, contrary to Encyclicals, and what is pronounced EX-Cathedra.
 
The assumption that the Theology of the Body is only a moral theology is incorrect. Theology of the Body is much, much more. For a brief synapsis of what Theology of the Body is, please read the following:

The ‘Theology of the Body’ is Pope John Paul II’s integrated vision of the human person - body, soul, and spirit. As he explains, the physical human body has a specific meaning and is capable of revealing answers regarding fundamental questions about us and our lives:
  • Is there a real purpose to life and if so, what is it?
  • Why were we created male and female? Does it really matter if we are one sex or another?
  • Why were man and woman called to communion from the beginning? What does the marital union of a man and woman say to us about God and his plan for our lives?
  • What is the purpose of the married and celibate vocations?
  • What exactly is “Love”?
  • Is it truly possible to be pure of heart?
All of these questions and many more are answered in Pope John Paul II’s 129 Wednesday audiences, which were given between the years 1979 and 1984. His reflections are based on Scripture (especially the Gospels, St. Paul and the Book of Genesis), and contain a vision of the human person truly worthy of man. John Paul II discusses who man was in the beginning, who he is now (after original sin), and who he will be in the age to come.
 
I am sure that the Church gave the answers to the question of “why we were created male and female”, "why procreate’, etc., etc., etc., Catholicism did not just begin with John Paul II (with all love and respect to the Holy Father).
Well, if the book is not about the body only, then why is the title given? Also, MORAL THEOLOGY DOES attempt to answer questions on human sexuality(among many more things), and one can ALSO find that topic (among many other) in RELATION to the soul, mind, etc. In other words, the Holy Father's book was not the point of discovery of the answers of the Church regarding human sexuality and the relationship of that to the soul, etc.;) Actually, some of what the Holy Father writes, is already touched upon by Saint Thomas Aquinas (13th century) and is further elaborated upon by saint Alphonsus Ligori (18th Century). More recently, in the New Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
I am sure that the Church gave the answers to the question of “why we were created male and female”, "why procreate’, etc., etc., etc., Catholicism did not just begin with John Paul II (with all love and respect to the Holy Father).
Well, if the book is not about the body only, then why is the title given? Also, MORAL THEOLOGY DOES attempt to answer questions on human sexuality(among many more things), and one can ALSO find that topic (among many other) in RELATION to the soul, mind, etc. In other words, the Holy Father's book was not the point of discovery of the answers of the Church regarding human sexuality and the relationship of that to the soul, etc.;) Actually, some of what the Holy Father writes, is already touched upon by Saint Thomas Aquinas (13th century) and is further elaborated upon by Saint Alphonsus Ligori (18th Century). More recently: the New Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
JMJ

May I recommend “Marriage and the Eucharist” by Christopher West, available in cassette and cd format at http://www.catholicity.com . Either format is free of charge.

I’m qutie convinced a listen to this talk will be of great benefit to your your understanding.

His blessings and mercy to all !!!
 
40.png
misericordie:
I am sure that the Church gave the answers to the question of “why we were created male and female”, "why procreate’, etc., etc., etc., Catholicism did not just begin with John Paul II (with all love and respect to the Holy Father).
Code: 
Well, if the book is not about the body  only, then why is the title given?
Click to expand...
I am a little confused here, and I hope you can clarify it for me. Have you actually read JPII’s work and you are providing a critique? Or, have you just read about the work and disagreeing?

It makes a difference in how I understand the points you are raising.
 
** “** However, some of Kant’s philosophical points were present”
  • misericordie
I have some reservations about Theology of the Body. Can you please tell me about the Kantian points you found and why you find it problematic. Maybe a brief background on Kant and why his philosophy is problematic. Thanks!
 
peace be with you! i strongly recommend that you take a look at the links the others have provided. most especially, i think you should get a few tapes or cd’s by Christopher West. get one of his introduction to the Theology of the Body tape sets. he does a great job of defending and teaching Theology of the Body. but in order to not leave you with a few links i will attempt a brief answer to the question of why it is called Theology of the Body.

according to Christopher West, the thesis statement of the whole Theology of the Body can be found in the audience of Feb. 20th, 1980 when JPII says, “The body, in fact, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible, the spiritual and the divine. It was created to transfer in the visible reality of the world, the invisible mystery hidden in God from time immemorial, and thus to be a sign of it.”

so it seems to me that it can be called “theology of the body” because theology is the study of God and the pope says that the mystery of God is revealed through the human body and who we are as men and women. in fact as JPII said, “the body and it alone is capable of making visible what is invisible”. theology of the body is an attempt to discover the mystery of God revealed through the body and JPII does this through his meditations of Scripture. it is all based on Scripture from beginning to end. i would recommend as good links:

www.theologyofthebody.net
www.christopherwest.com

hope that helps a little.
 
I didn’t see this said by any else explicitely, so thought I’d mention it. I think the fundamental misinterpretation here is that the Theology of the Body (TOB) = Human Sexaul Morality. While the pope has focused heavily on that aspect of the body, he has also stated that this is in his mind only the beginning. That any true theology of the body needs to encompass other aspects of the the body such as physical suffering (as only one example). I get the impression this is just the first ‘salvo’ of TOB which builds the foundation, and he’s expecting great minds later on to build on this in order to encompass those other areas of the ‘body’ that the pope lays out.
 
This must be a new CATHOLIC theory, namely that the body is what makes visible the invisible. I thought that as the catholic Church always taught, the invisible is made visible by faith and through the OFFICIAl teachings of the Magisterium of the Church. Again, please take note that the pope as any other person has PERSONAL opinions, and don’t have to be followed UNLESS he is proclaiming something EX-CATHEDRA, or in a Council in UNION with all the world’s bishops, or something with some weight such as an encyclical. With all due respect to all, and to the Holy Father, there actually were OTHER Popes in the church too, before him. Why is it many think that ONLY JPII finally OPENED our eyes to the TRUE Catholicism and anything before him is NOW Null. NOT!
 
So, should I take that response to mean you have not read JP II’s work?
 
40.png
misericordie:
This must be a new CATHOLIC theory, namely that the body is what makes visible the invisible. I thought that as the catholic Church always taught, the invisible is made visible by faith and through the OFFICIAl teachings of the Magisterium of the Church. Again, please take note that the pope as any other person has PERSONAL opinions, and don’t have to be followed UNLESS he is proclaiming something EX-CATHEDRA, or in a Council in UNION with all the world’s bishops, or something with some weight such as an encyclical. With all due respect to all, and to the Holy Father, there actually were OTHER Popes in the church too, before him. Why is it many think that ONLY JPII finally OPENED our eyes to the TRUE Catholicism and anything before him is NOW Null. NOT!
Click to expand...
peace be with you! i certainly agree with you about faith and official teachings of the Church making things visible and that we have had many other Popes with great contributions to the Church. i will try to explain what is meant that the body makes the invisible mystery of God visible. now i will not be quoting JPII or Christopher West here, but i will try to explain it how it makes sense to me. if i am wrong in my explanation, i ask that someone more knowledgable in the TB to help me out. i am really just learning it.

to paraphrase a verse from Gen Chap. 1 (maybe verse 27–sorry don’t my Bible with me this is from memory). “in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.” the idea is that man, by himself does image God in some ways but Scripture says in His image He created them male and female. it is in the union of male and female that man images God in a special way. why? because God is Trinity. God is a communion of persons, where the Father eternally gives Himself in love to the Son and the Son receives that love and gives it back to the Father. the bond between them is another Person, the Holy Spirit. the marriage between man and woman is supposed to image that love. but how did Adam know that he was called to love Eve as God loves (in total gift of self)…they saw eachother in their nakedness. the call to love as God loves was stamped in their beings. they could look at eachother in their nakedness without shame and see that they were meant for eachother. it was their bodies that revealed the call to love eachother. and it was in and through their bodies that they could make a total gift of self to another in order to fully image the love of God.

so when he says that the body makes the invisible, visible it is referring to the fact that God has stamped the call to love in our bodies. that is my very poor attempt to show the meaning of that statement. hope it helps.
 
40.png
misericordie:
the Pope recently wrote a fairly good book entitled: “The Theology of the Body.” Though the book is good, it fails to recapture the long standing tradition of the church’ methods in the aspect of human sexuality. For example, the Church has almost always formulated Her teachings on Human sexuality(the Pope could have titled his book: Human Sexuality: in Moral Theology) based on what is naturally correct or unnatural and therefore incorrect, and it has done so using the methods of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and Meta-ethics. In many modern sectors, the simplistic arguments of not doing that (sins against the body) because it is against the Ten Commandments, or because it is Not God’s will, is what has been employed, and hence why so many disregard it. IF however, many were to use the Natural and Unnatural argument, for example, that sex is to be between a married man and his wife and this to procreate, and that this is the way God, THROUGH Natural Law intended it; then the argument against fornication, etc., would be stronger.
Secondly, to say (as a friend of mine has said) that there is a “Theology of the Body”, is to imply that there is a SEPERATE branch of theology dedicated solely to the body called: “Theology of the Body”, and this is NOT so. If by the “body” it is implied that the topic is: human sexuality, then the CATHOLIC branch which focuses on this is rightly called, MORAL THEOLOGY.
Now, can the Pope because he is pope “create” a new branch of theology? Maybe??? However, if what’s created deals with human sexuality, then why re-invent the wheel, and the wheel here is Moral Theology, which has explained the aspect of human sexuality already for hundrends of years.
Again, all being said, it is a good book, but it could have been excellent and totally and solely Catholic. However, some of Kant’s philosophical points were present, and I don’t see why when the church has Thomas Aquinas and Alphonsus Ligori (patron Saint of Moral theologians).
Lastly, a catholic must distinguish between what the Pope’s personal opinion’s are, contrary to Encyclicals, and what is pronounced EX-Cathedra.
Click to expand...
YUP. i repeat.
 
Additionally, there is a branch of systematic theology called theological anthropology, which seeks to understand what it means to be made in the image of God.

Paul and Augustine took this to mean that since God is spirit, it is our spirit that is made in God’s image and our bodies are corruptible and to be reviled.

Theological anthropology seeks to reclaim the body as part of God’s image and understand how our bodies contribute to our relationship to God, to the Church, and to other people. It raises complex issues like the role of suffering in salvation, racism, sexism, and other forms of oppresions, what it means that Christ was embodied, the role of human sexuality in our relationships, and many others.
 
Misericordie,

Pope JPII’s ToB is comprised of the speeches he gave during the Wednesday general audiences.

No one is saying that they are anything new, per se. What I would say is that cultures everywhere are viewing human sexuality thru such a distorted lens that our Holy Father was/is responding to a serious need (a crisis IMO) to address it specifically and thoroughly. In other words, he is doing his job, and doing it very well.

I think the “newness” comes from the fact that it is our Catholic Faith more specifically applied to questions of our sexuality and how it manifests itself in terms of our relationship with God. It is also very rooted in scripture.

Of course it contains philosophy. Although I guess I am referring to his book Love and Responsibility, also. Just because a topic has been written about before doesn’t mean that it can’t be revisited with a fresh and keen eye.

The Pope knows that writing something from a viewpoint of faith sometimes will only appeal to those who share that faith. But our faith doesn’t come out of the air. Our faith-- the Truth-- can always be backed up by sound Reason. This is where the philosophy comes in. The Pope is no fool. Folks without faith can poo-poo anything that just relates to faith. But only fools will deny reason. It makes it accessible to everyone.

I think you misunderstood any reference to Kant, unless the Pope was saying why a Kantian view stops short of meeting the mark.

Personal Prudentialism is a sound ethical base by which we can judge whether something is right or wrong. Some of my wording and/or labels might not be quite on the mark here, but this is it in a nutshell:

Do those actions and only those actions which are the right means to the right ends of true knowledge and Love of God, self, and neighbor-- in time and in eternity.

The personalistic norm is based upon that. We ought to judge our behavior against that standard.

Here is a part of one of the Wednesday general audiences that I assume (I didn’t actually double check) is part of the ToB range:I originally got it from the Zenit site.
Genesis 2:23-25 enables us to deduce that woman, who in the mystery of creation “is given” to man by the Creator, is “received,” thanks to original innocence. That is, she is accepted by man as a gift. The Bible text is quite clear and limpid at this point. At the same time, the acceptance of the woman by the man and the very way of accepting her, become, as it were, a first donation. In giving herself (from the very first moment in which, in the mystery of creation, she was “given” to the man by the Creator), the woman “rediscovers herself” at the same time. This is because she has been accepted and welcomed, and because of the way in which she has been received by the man.
Click to expand...
So she finds herself again in the very fact of giving herself “through a sincere gift of herself,” (cf. GS 24), when she is accepted in the way in which the Creator wished her to be, that is, “for her own sake,” through her humanity and femininity. When the whole dignity of the gift is ensured in this acceptance, through the offer of what she is in the whole truth of her humanity and in the whole reality of her body and sex, of her femininity, she reaches the inner depth of her person and full possession of herself.

General Audience, 6 February 1980 - Man and Woman: A Gift for Each Other General Audience of john paul ii, 6 February 1980
Sorry my post is so long.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top