Theology of the Body

  • Thread starter Thread starter st_felicity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

st_felicity

Guest
I’ve been listening to a CD set by Christopher West called “A Crash Course in the Theology of the Body~Naked Without Shame”. I find it VERY thought provoking and enlightening–is there anyone out there interested in discussing John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? It starts with an analysis of creation (Original Man), then moves to how sin corrupted God’s good creation and how all sin is our twisted attempt to achieve that lost union with God (Historical Man), then proceeds to what we will be at the Resurrection of the Body (Eschatological Man). It also goes into celebacy for the Kingdom, and the Sacramentality of Marriage, but Maybe that’s too much–Maybe we should stick to How man was, is, and will be…JPII’s insight is just sooo awesome!

Peace!
st_felicity
 
40.png
st_felicity:
I’ve been listening to a CD set by Christopher West called “A Crash Course in the Theology of the Body~Naked Without Shame”. I find it VERY thought provoking and enlightening–is there anyone out there interested in discussing John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? It starts with an analysis of creation (Original Man), then moves to how sin corrupted God’s good creation and how all sin is our twisted attempt to achieve that lost union with God (Historical Man), then proceeds to what we will be at the Resurrection of the Body (Eschatological Man). It also goes into celebacy for the Kingdom, and the Sacramentality of Marriage, but Maybe that’s too much–Maybe we should stick to How man was, is, and will be…JPII’s insight is just sooo awesome!

Peace!
st_felicity
Click to expand...
I am not fond of the book: no I am not a senior citizen, I am a 33 year old male. West has been interpreted by many to be what, the guy who invented MORAL Theology’s study of human sexuality, NOT. Human sexuality has always been a branch of moral theology. Not only that, but even in HIS book too Pope John Paul II though he uses Aquinas (as he ought to) he does not focus on Aquinas’ view on the human person, but rather and oddly uses some existentialist philosopher’s view on the dignity of the human person which is a PERSONALIST view: hence we see here much is taken from Emmanual KANT!!! This is a strict departure from what the Catholic theology of human sexuality ALWAYS was: based on Aquinas.
Nope, not my cup of tea.
 
40.png
misericordie:
I am not fond of the book: .
Click to expand...
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing. I’m referring to a lecture series given by Christopher West on John Paul’s general audiences (I believe given in the 80’s). I do think he (West) wrote a book on it too–Anyway, I must admit, I am not well read in Aquinas, but from what I do know, I don’t see West as going against anything Aquinas said, though he may focus less on the procreative aspect of marital love in the lectures and more on the unitive aspect, but then, wasn’t JPII trying to open our eyes to a deeper understanding of the sexual act in his addresses?

To be honest, I’m not really interested in debating philosophers or defending West–I’m not smart enough for that–I just would like to discuss the issues brought forth and maybe gain a deeper insight into what we’re all put here on earth for in the first place. As a mother of 5, I just don’t have the time to study up on Aquinas, Kant, and Personalism–but I can sqeeze in a little time for thought provoking chat!😃

Peace!
 
40.png
misericordie:
This is a strict departure from what the Catholic theology of human sexuality ALWAYS was: based on Aquinas…
Click to expand...
Just curious, what was the Catholic theology on human sexuality for 1200 years prior to Aquinas if it ‘ALWAYS was based on Aquinas’?

:hmmm:
 
40.png
JGC:
Just curious, what was the Catholic theology on human sexuality for 1200 years prior to Aquinas if it ‘ALWAYS was based on Aquinas’?

:hmmm:
Click to expand...
We all know Aquinas uses scripture and Saint Augustine, and well and are you sure you want to know what was sexuality 2000 years ago: well, depends upon the culture and custom. For example in the Old testament we read that is was okay for a man who was married to visit the local temple prostitute.
 
St Augustine’s philosophy was quite different from St Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy, misericordie. The former was a Platonist, the latter an Aristotelian. Big differences in the metaphysics. The patristics were also quite different than Aquinas in their philosophical outlook. Thomism is not the only game in town for a Catholic philosopher. Don’t get so wrapped up in it. What’s really important is that any Catholic philosophy is based on the GOSPEL - not Aquinas, not Aristotle. We are to be followers of Christ first and foremost, not of any philosopher.

Also, if St Thomas could use selected ideas from the pagan Aristotle and Christianize them, then what is so wrong with the Pope taking selected ideas from the protestant Kant and Catholicizing them?
 
40.png
Minerva:
St Augustine’s philosophy was quite different from St Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy, misericordie. The former was a Platonist, the latter an Aristotelian. Big differences in the metaphysics. The patristics were also quite different than Aquinas in their philosophical outlook. Thomism is not the only game in town for a Catholic philosopher. Don’t get so wrapped up in it. What’s really important is that any Catholic philosophy is based on the GOSPEL - not Aquinas, not Aristotle. We are to be followers of Christ first and foremost, not of any philosopher.

Also, if St Thomas could use selected ideas from the pagan Aristotle and Christianize them, then what is so wrong with the Pope taking selected ideas from the protestant Kant and Catholicizing them?
Click to expand...
Two points minerva: First: yes, though Augustin was a NEO Platonist, Aquinas still builds on certain main points while differing on others. Secondly, You tell me not to get caught up on Aquinas but yet you fail to realize that not only is THOMISTIC Philosophy and theology THE CATHOLIC method of thought: but is is so mentioned In: 1. The decree on priestly training: “ite Tomasso” go to Thomas. 2. The NEW Code of canon Law: on the formation of those studing to be priests. 3. On POPE JOHN PAUL II’s Encyclical: “fides et ratio” Faith and reason, not to mention Pope Leo XIII’s exhortation on Aquinas, and Pius X’s Pascendi. UMMM, yes, I do then think Aquinas is to take presedence. On your last comment on the Gospel I almost laughed to tears: after all, Aquinas BUILDS on the Gospel, does not compare Himself to christ, that point of yours if anything seems more a Calvanist, or Lutheran view, not catholic. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_17_3.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_17_3.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_17_3.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_17_7.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_28_1.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_28_4.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_18_1.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_6_3.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_2_104.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_10_3.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_2_111.gif
 
how on earth is my view Calvinist or Lutheran? did I advocate predestination, sola fide, or consubstantiation? And what’s with all the animation?

Yes I do think it’s a mistake to make THomism the “official” philosophy of the Church because it ignores 1200 years of thought before St Thomas, especially that of the patristics who were largely neo-platonic Christians, and it ignores new ways of thought that could prove very fruitful. The Pope, who is actually a phenomenologist and has pushed for phenomenology to be taught in seminaries, is trying to move away from this, which is a good thing, although I am not a phenomenologist myself. Look there’s nothing wrong with being a Thomist, it’s not heretical like being an outright Kantian (or an outright Aristotelian for that matter!). But there’s also nothing wrong with being a Christian neo-platonist, or even a Christian phenomenologist like our Pope is. What matters is that we are faithful to the Gospel ultimately. Remember that St Thomas had a vision towards the end of his life while celebrating Mass and realized his philosophical works were nothing but “straw” compared to the greater mysteries of our faith. If he could take such a wise perspective towards his philosophy, than so should we. You my friend, come off as way too caught up in Thomism, elevating it to the level of the Gospel, and perhaps to the exclusion of charity.
 
Pope John Paul is a Thomist first, just as Thomas was a Augustian. There is a good analysis of this that has been written by Fr. Richard Hogan.

nfpoutreach.org/Hogan_Theology_%20Body1.htm

Hogan presents an argument that the gospel needs to be presented in a way that is meaningful to the way people think in the age they are in. (Hogan has also has done considerable work on the history of heresies in the Catholic church and the evolution of dogma.)

Thomas presented his theology because it was needed at the time. The Holy Spirit gives to the church what is needed at the time it is needed. If you believe that the Catholic church has the fullness of the truth and that we as Catholics can be assured that the church will not teach error, then you have to accept that the Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II is not in error.

The Catholic church does not require you to look at Christianity through the lens of the Theology of the Body. The Thomist perspective is still valid. The Theology of the Body does not supercede Thomas just as Thomas does not supercede Augustine.

The Theology of the Body presents the faith in “a subjective, inductive, and experiential philosophical method.”

Thomas presented theological work in a “objective, deductive, and principled” way.

The message is the same, the content is the same, the redemption, salvation, grace and so forth are the same because God does not change. The way the message is delivered needs to change to enable people in the current age to understand the good news. Christ came to redeem us. As long as the method of delivering this message does not change the truth, and embraces the fullness of tradition and past teaching, this is a necessary development.
 
40.png
Minerva:
how on earth is my view Calvinist or Lutheran? did I advocate predestination, sola fide, or consubstantiation? And what’s with all the animation?

Yes I do think it’s a mistake to make THomism the “official” philosophy of the Church because it ignores 1200 years of thought before St Thomas, especially that of the patristics who were largely neo-platonic Christians, and it ignores new ways of thought that could prove very fruitful. The Pope, who is actually a phenomenologist and has pushed for phenomenology to be taught in seminaries, is trying to move away from this, which is a good thing, although I am not a phenomenologist myself. Look there’s nothing wrong with being a Thomist, it’s not heretical like being an outright Kantian (or an outright Aristotelian for that matter!). But there’s also nothing wrong with being a Christian neo-platonist, or even a Christian phenomenologist like our Pope is. What matters is that we are faithful to the Gospel ultimately. Remember that St Thomas had a vision towards the end of his life while celebrating Mass and realized his philosophical works were nothing but “straw” compared to the greater mysteries of our faith. If he could take such a wise perspective towards his philosophy, than so should we. You my friend, come off as way too caught up in Thomism, elevating it to the level of the Gospel, and perhaps to the exclusion of charity.
Click to expand...
Again I must laugh, sorry. Where in the world did you get the belief that THE POPE is moving the CHURCH away from Thomism?? LOL?? Seems you did not read that I wrote # main Post vatican II places where Aquinas is EMPHASIZED and two Pre-Concilar places: Well, that’s okay, I repeat: THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW’s canons of the Formation of seminarians. 2. VATICAN II’s Decree on priestly Training, and 3. THIS Pope’s Encyclical FIDES ET RATIO: Faith and Reason. Pre-Concilar: Leo XIII’s teaching on the Philosophy of study. Pope SAINT Pius X’s “Pascendi Lamentabili.” If you say I am “caught up in Thomism” it is true!!! ONLY because Mother Church wants it that way for all CATHOLIC study!!! As a matter of fact Pius X said the Study of Aquinas is a sure method to avoid “certain modernistic tendencies.” May I suggest a neoThomistic great master: Father Reginald Garrigou Lagrange, O.P. who WAS NONE OTHER THAN THE MAIN PROFESSOR OF POPE JOHN PAUL WHEN THE POPE STUDIED AT THE FAMOUS PONTIFICAL SAINT THOMAS UNIVERSITY, AKA: THE ANGELICUM.
Nice try, but phenomenology(a branch of existentialism) is not the philosophy of the church: at least not the catholic:
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_110iv.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_20_3.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_5_138.gif
 
where did I get the belief that the Pope is moving the Church away from Thomism? Well in your first post you complained that the Theo of the Body is not THomistic enough and has existensialist themes in it. And it does. It embraces the philosophy of personalism.

Study St Thomas and his “straw” all you like - but maybe spend some time reading the Gospel too. Be a Christian first, a Thomist second. It’s not very Christian to laugh at other people’s serious posts because you disagree with them and put disrespectful animantion up. I think it’s very sad that you equate being centered on the Gospel, i.e., Christ’s own words and teachings, as protestant.
 
40.png
Minerva:
where did I get the belief that the Pope is moving the Church away from Thomism? Well in your first post you complained that the Theo of the Body is not THomistic enough and has existensialist themes in it. And it does. It embraces the philosophy of personalism.

Study St Thomas and his “straw” all you like - but maybe spend some time reading the Gospel too. Be a Christian first, a Thomist second. It’s not very Christian to laugh at other people’s serious posts because you disagree with them and put disrespectful animantion up. I think it’s very sad that you equate being centered on the Gospel, i.e., Christ’s own words and teachings, as protestant.
Click to expand...
Wow, nothing more anti-catholic than to say “study Thomas and all his straw, but only stick to the gospel.” UMMM, sola scriptora??? So, than all is only contained IN the gospels?? What about Scripture AND Tradition??? After all, this is the CATHOLIC teaching. You easily seem to brush to the side, without addressing the fact that I pointed out in CANON Law, Vatican II decrees, etc?? So, is canon Law wrong then because it solely mentions Aquinas?? Not a “personalist” view?
:tiphat: :whistle:
 
I suggested you study the Gospels, I didn’t say ONLY study the Gospel, or that all truth is contained in only the Gospel. Read my post again, carefully. The Gospel is where we have CHrist’s own words and teachings and it’s much more important to be centered on those than the writings of a 13th century philosopher. Believe me, I am as far away from sola scriptura as one can get. So don’t put words into my mouth, and don’t accuse me of being anti-Catholic. Your uncharitable attitude towards me is why I suggested you read the Gospel in the first place.

Yes I know what canon law says, as you pointed it out, and I already said that I don’t think it was a good idea on the Church’s part to make Thomism it’s official philosophy. Fortunately there has been a move away from Thomism since Vat2 - the new catechism for example draws from a wide variety of sources, more non-Thomist than Thomist, unlike previous catechisms which basically paraphrased the Summa. And we have our current Pope’s fondness for other philosophies such as personalism. I hope this trend continues. Of course we shouldn’t forget St Thomas, he was extremely influential on Catholic thought. But we shouldn’t ignore the philosophy that came before him and after him either.
 
40.png
Minerva:
I suggested you study the Gospels, I didn’t say ONLY study the Gospel, or that all truth is contained in only the Gospel. Read my post again, carefully. The Gospel is where we have CHrist’s own words and teachings and it’s much more important to be centered on those than the writings of a 13th century philosopher. Believe me, I am as far away from sola scriptura as one can get. So don’t put words into my mouth, and don’t accuse me of being anti-Catholic. Your uncharitable attitude towards me is why I suggested you read the Gospel in the first place.

Yes I know what canon law says, as you pointed it out, and I already said that I don’t think it was a good idea on the Church’s part to make Thomism it’s official philosophy. Fortunately there has been a move away from Thomism since Vat2 - the new catechism for example draws from a wide variety of sources, more non-Thomist than Thomist, unlike previous catechisms which basically paraphrased the Summa. And we have our current Pope’s fondness for other philosophies such as personalism. I hope this trend continues. Of course we shouldn’t forget St Thomas, he was extremely influential on Catholic thought. But we shouldn’t ignore the philosophy that came before him and after him either.
Click to expand...
I not only read the gospels it was my University focus and my degrees are based ON THE Synoptics.
Error again on your part: You say the Church has moved more and more away from SAINT Thomas Aquinas since V. II, nothing further away from the truth than that: I repeat for the third time: LOOK AT THE SECOMD VATICAN COUNCIL’S OWN DECREE ON PRIESTLY TRAINING, LOOK AT JOHN PAUL II’S FIDES ET RATIO, AND LOOK AT THE NEW CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH QUOLTS AQUINAS MORE THAN 4OO TIMES: THE SUMMA.
 
40.png
misericordie:
I not only read the gospels it was my University focus and my degrees are based ON THE Synoptics.
Error again on your part: You say the Church has moved more and more away from SAINT Thomas Aquinas since V. II, nothing further away from the truth than that: I repeat for the third time: LOOK AT THE SECOMD VATICAN COUNCIL’S OWN DECREE ON PRIESTLY TRAINING, LOOK AT JOHN PAUL II’S FIDES ET RATIO, AND LOOK AT THE NEW CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH QUOLTS AQUINAS MORE THAN 4OO TIMES: THE SUMMA.
Click to expand...
Misericordie (and anyone else to whom this might apply),

Since you have brought up your college education, would you please demonstrate it and write in a manner befitting such an education? When I take the time to read what you write, I find that you have something of substance to say, but your message is usually clouded by your over-reliance on highly emotional language and an excessive use of capitalization. The occasional use of all-caps for emphasis is fine by me, but save it for exceptional circumstances – it comes across as yelling. For all other times, please make use of the forum-provided bold, italic, or underline options. Even with those, use them with care, for if you emphasize everything you have effectively emphasized nothing, relatively speaking.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
Misericordie (and anyone else to whom this might apply),

Since you have brought up your college education, would you please demonstrate it and write in a manner befitting such an education? When I take the time to read what you write, I find that you have something of substance to say, but your message is usually clouded by your over-reliance on highly emotional language and an excessive use of capitalization. The occasional use of all-caps for emphasis is fine by me, but save it for exceptional circumstances – it comes across as yelling. For all other times, please make use of the forum-provided bold, italic, or underline options. Even with those, use them with care, for if you emphasize everything you have effectively emphasized nothing, relatively speaking.
Click to expand...
Okay, then I will post my degrees here.
 
Hey… I’m new to this forum, and I’ve found some good and some bad here. One of my problems is the occasional… um… rudeness. I’m not pointing fingers anywhere, but saying things like “I LOL at your ideas” or “that is obviously stupid” can really hurt some people’s feelings. Not only is doing that unloving, but it also squashes any chances you have to convince someone of whatever knowledge of the truth you possess. Sometimes the truth hurts; sometimes you have to tell a person that their husband is a cheat or that they are living a sinful life or whatever. I’m not saying that we need to spare other’s feelings no matter what. But there is no reason to make the truth more painful than it has to be, and usually it doesn’t need to be so at all

Those of us who aren’t sensitive to criticism must nevertheless do our best to consider people who are.
 
40.png
Catholic_Mike:
Hey… I’m new to this forum, and I’ve found some good and some bad here. One of my problems is the occasional… um… rudeness. I’m not pointing fingers anywhere, but saying things like “I LOL at your ideas” or “that is obviously stupid” can really hurt some people’s feelings. Not only is doing that unloving, but it also squashes any chances you have to convince someone of whatever knowledge of the truth you possess. Sometimes the truth hurts; sometimes you have to tell a person that their husband is a cheat or that they are living a sinful life or whatever. I’m not saying that we need to spare other’s feelings no matter what. But there is no reason to make the truth more painful than it has to be, and usually it doesn’t need to be so at all

Those of us who aren’t sensitive to criticism must nevertheless do our best to consider people who are.
Click to expand...
You are right: I sometimes forget there are OVERLLY sensitive people in the Church: It reminds me of what a Theologian who is famous on TV said once: “people no longer say: I think so and so, but rather, I FEEL so and so.” All is feelings nowadays: how sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top