What's so great about the "Theology of the Body?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven’t read either JP2 TOB or West’s guide and I don’t want to. However I see these arguments come up every now and then here on CAF and elsewhere and I have always wanted to ask what the big deal is. What exactly does West say or do that “changes peoples lives”? It just seems like he is nothing more than a catholic Dr. Ruth. Is the emphasis all sex, sex, sex?
Many have experienced a conversion of heart because of Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body and because of Christopher West’s explanation of it. It is the rare human being who does not struggle with lust at some point and in some way, from the attitudes of the heart to masturbation, adultery, contraception, premarital sex and all sorts of immodesty and promiscuity. Turning from this way of life, the interior attitude of lustfulness and disorder, towards chastity–which is loving other human beings in the way God wills us to, as whole persons and subjects of His love–is a life-changing event.

As Catholics, we believe that conversion is a lifelong process, not a one-time event. Turning towards Christ involves growing in virtue, and the TOB has helped many grow in virtue. In our modern world, where we are pummeled by disordered messages about “sex, sex, sex” all the time, we were in desperate need of a voice to share God’s true plan of love with us in terms that are true and understandable. Pope John Paul II’s was that voice, and continues to be, for many. Why do you not want to listen to the voice of Christ’s vicar on earth?
 
I prefer Father Loya’s discussions on TOTB.

catholicradiointernational.com/abodyoftruth.php
Fr. Loya’s great! Christopher West is great. They are both different. It’s all good. TotB isone way to reach out to people who are separated from Christ. It’s an evangelization tool to bring people back or introduce people for the first time to Christ. It brings Catholic married couples to an understanding of Humanae Vitae in their marriages. It keeps unmarried Catholics chaste. How can those be bad fruits?

C’mon people, we’re talking about the Kingdom of God here. Sexual sins keep people from coming to Church, and from a redeeming relationship with Christ.

If you are already pure as a saint and don’t need any encouragement in that area, fine. Most Americans aren’t.
 
Many have experienced a conversion of heart because of Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body and because of Christopher West’s explanation of it. It is the rare human being who does not struggle with lust at some point and in some way, from the attitudes of the heart to masturbation, adultery, contraception, premarital sex and all sorts of immodesty and promiscuity. Turning from this way of life, the interior attitude of lustfulness and disorder, towards chastity–which is loving other human beings in the way God wills us to, as whole persons and subjects of His love–is a life-changing event.

As Catholics, we believe that conversion is a lifelong process, not a one-time event. Turning towards Christ involves growing in virtue, and the TOB has helped many grow in virtue. In our modern world, where we are pummeled by disordered messages about “sex, sex, sex” all the time, we were in desperate need of a voice to share God’s true plan of love with us in terms that are true and understandable. Pope John Paul II’s was that voice, and continues to be, for many. Why do you not want to listen to the voice of Christ’s vicar on earth?
It’s not that I don’t want to listen, I just think that everything you just mentioned is obvious. Don’t think that I haven’t had my struggles with purity and chastity. As a young adult in college I definately turned my back on the teachings of the church. But, that doesn’t mean I wasn’t aware of what I was doing. I was caught up in the sinful life I was living and refused to listen to my conscience. I made a choice, and I made a choice to repent and come back to the church.

I can understand society at large would find something new in TOB, perhaps, but shouldn’t the catholic already know these things? I mean we all struggle with sin and some of us fall now and again, but the 10 commandments are always with us. The sacraments are always with us. The steps we need to take to find our way back are already known to us as catholics. As far as other christians and secular society, doesn’t TOB just fall on deaf ears?

Sometimes I think that the modern idea of trying to always understand the “why” deflects us from living the faith. We won’t always be able to understand why the church teaches some thing or another. Sometimes we just have to accept and bend our own will. We have to be obedient. For example, I don’t understand NFP. I have heard all of the arguments, but I still don’t accept it as logical. That doesn’t mean however that I don’t accept it and follow church teaching when it comes to NFP.
 
It’s not that I don’t want to listen, I just think that everything you just mentioned is obvious. Don’t think that I haven’t had my struggles with purity and chastity. As a young adult in college I definately turned my back on the teachings of the church. But, that doesn’t mean I wasn’t aware of what I was doing. I was caught up in the sinful life I was living and refused to listen to my conscience. I made a choice, and I made a choice to repent and come back to the church.
And what motivated that choice to repent? And how did you know exactly what this repentance should look like in your life and in your heart? These are the real questions here.
I can understand society at large would find something new in TOB, perhaps, but shouldn’t the catholic already know these things?
Look back at the history of the Church, particularly surrounding the acceptance of Church teaching on human sexuality, and you will get your answer. What resources did we have in the Church before the TOB? Moral theology manuals were pretty much it. Not that there is anything wrong with moral theology manuals, but it has been pointed out that they didn’t really give the explanation behind the teachings, and rather just stated the teachings themselves. So when Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae, pretty much all that most Catholics had forming their understanding of this area of moral theology were the manuals and previous encyclicals. For a variety of reasons, that just was not enough. Bishops and priests were coming out and flatly saying that the pope was wrong on the issue of birth control! Someone needed to supply a compelling answer as to WHY the Church’s teachings on these issues is what is BEST for the human person, and that is exactly what Pope John Paul II came along and provided.

You can say that they should have just been obedient to the Church, even if they did not understand the reasons why, and I’d agree. But isn’t wholehearted embracing of the entire theology surrounding marriage, sex, birth control, etc. in some ways better both for the Church and the individual Catholic than either following or abandoning it based upon the degree of obedience which one is able to muster within themselves?
I mean we all struggle with sin and some of us fall now and again, but the 10 commandments are always with us. The sacraments are always with us. The steps we need to take to find our way back are already known to us as catholics. As far as other christians and secular society, doesn’t TOB just fall on deaf ears?
The steps are already known? In basic terms, you are right. But what the TOB does is expand upon the beautiful, rich, sacred meaning of these steps. It shows the beauty of God’s plan for men and women, married and unmarried, and for His Church, in a way which had previously not been done. The information is not new; the explanation is.

Compare it to sacred art and architecture, if you will. Before the Notre Dame Cathedral was built in France, we still had the Eucharist, and we still had the Church. But the beauty of that sacred place directs us to God and helps us to worship Him more fully in spirit and in truth. It helps us to understand His presence, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist, and to be more conscious of that presence as we receive Him. In a similar way, Pope John Paul II used human language to help make Catholics more aware of the nuptial meaning of the body, the concupiscence that reigns in our hearts, and our redemption, the redemption of our bodies as well as our souls, accomplished in Christ. It is undeniable that the TOB has enriched many marriages, helped many men and women to turn from sin. and has caused a flourishing of respect for life and for the Church’s teachings on the sanctity of marriage and the family in our society.
Sometimes I think that the modern idea of trying to always understand the “why” deflects us from living the faith. We won’t always be able to understand why the church teaches some thing or another. Sometimes we just have to accept and bend our own will. We have to be obedient.
I honestly don’t think it deflects anyone. I think it might not be the best path for every person, but there are many Catholics today who study the faith and do want to know why. Theology is “faith seeking understanding,” and theology is no “modern” invention. Aquinas sure didn’t shy away from explaining why it was most fitting for the human and divine natures of Jesus to be hypostatically united in the Word of God…among other things! His Summas are all about “WHY”. 👍

And in some sense, since so many people today are more literate and better educated in larger numbers than they were before, it is appropriate for the Church to offer these sorts of explanations. Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II, in their wisdom, recognized this. That’s why the CCC in its latest edition is a heck of a lot different than the Baltimore Catechism. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Baltimore Catechism is great for teaching children…but at some point, for many, a mature Christian faith requires more meat, and we find more meat by diving into the Tradition of our faith.

I firmly believe that the TOB–striking in its statement of the truth, goodness, and beauty of human sexuality-- has motivated many people to repent, and has taught them what living virtuously actually requires. It’s not that the teaching itself is different–it’s the same basic thing that was in the moral theology manuals of the Church for centuries. What the TOB does signify is a development in how we EXPLAIN this teaching in a way that will EVANGELIZE. It has brought people into a closer relationship with Jesus Christ and His Church, and it is orthodox teaching. I can’t understand, for the life of me, what the problem is. 🤷
 
And what motivated that choice to repent? And how did you know exactly what this repentance should look like in your life and in your heart? These are the real questions here.

I always knew the difference between right and wrong. There were alot of things going on in my life at the time, which I won’t go into, but the road back was paved with intervening parents and family members and basically growing up.
Look back at the history of the Church, particularly surrounding the acceptance of Church teaching on human sexuality, and you will get your answer. What resources did we have in the Church before the TOB?
 
I always knew the difference between right and wrong. There were alot of things going on in my life at the time, which I won’t go into, but the road back was paved with intervening parents and family members and basically growing up.
And for some the road back has been paved with learning the theology of the body. Why is this a problem?
Thou shalt not commit adultery…the scriptures. That was enough for people for centuries. To me the question is not about understanding, but about selfishness and disobediance.
No one is changing the teaching of the Church, they are developing in the presentation of the teaching. I am really not sure what you mean when you say that the commandments, scriptures, and laws of the Church were “enough for people for centuries”. At what point in the history of Christianity was lust not a huge problem and the sacramentality of marriage fully understood?

My point in saying that we did not have the resources to encourage a deeper understanding of moral theology was that it is obvious that this type of faith, this basis of orthodoxy, did not work out so well for the Church through the 20th century. There is nothing wrong with seeking an orthodox understanding of right teaching (ie, orthodoxy). It’s what the Church has done for centuries in almost every other area of theology…why not marriage, why not human sexuality?
Not enough because of a lack of understanding or indifference and disobediance.
I would venture to say both. Of course disobedience is the main problem, and you can’t really argue someone into obedience. But if you go back and look at the arguments made against Humanae Vitae, in some cases it seems as though a big part of the problem was not understanding where Paul VI was coming from in his reasoning.
This is what I’m talking about, Bishops and priest (name removed by moderator)articular should be examples of submission to the teachings of the church. There are still bishops and priests who regularly council couples that BC is really just a matter of one’s own conscience, they just don’t call attention to themselves anymore.
I agree, this is a huge problem. Thankfully there are many rising priests and bishops who were formed by the orthodox thought of Pope John Paul II (the “JP 2 generation”), and God willing they will change the Church.
How has TOB helped curtail the use of BC by catholics and the priests that condone it?
The TOB has helped curtail the use of BC by many Catholics–you can find testimonies here on CAF.

Asking how it has helped curtail the use of BC by Catholics and bishops who currently condone BC isn’t really a fair question. By the same token I can ask you how those Thomistic moral theology manuals have gotten the job done.

Why is there a problem with an entirely orthodox body of teachings that has helped bring a number of Catholics back to faithfulness to the Church’s teachings? The beauty of it all has just struck many people and led them back to faithfulness and virtue. How is the beauty of the TOB any different than the beauty of a cathedral…to return to my earlier example?
I completely agree and I have read some theological explanations of married life and love, just not from West. Alice Von Hildebrand comes to mind. The problem I have with what I have read about West is the discussions of oral sex, and foreplay, etc. I have even heard of advice given about anal sex (I can’t imagine that is true, however). I don’t think that any of that is proper discussion in a large group setting of men and women together. It seems to me banal and ment to be titilating at best.
You don’t seem to be just attacking West when you are talking of the TOB being unnecessary. The term “theology of the body” was coined by Pope John Paul II…you are talking about papal teaching here. West is merely someone who has carried on this teaching in his own way, and there are others who have done the same.

Have you read West or attended any of his talks? It seems like the presentation is entirely important when claiming that he is intending his teaching to be “titillating at best”. It’s not fair to judge an entire area of theology by hearsay. Before he was pope, Karol Wojtyla wrote about both male and female climax in Love and Responsibility. Discussing these things is not “banal” or “titillating”…it is part of the human experience, and part of God’s design. As you can see all over CAF, Catholics have questions about sex, specific questions. The TOB provides a foundation for answering those questions, and in some cases provides exact answers.
I didn’t mean that the study was the modern idea. I only ment that we have been moving toward the concept, in this modern age, of replacing objective truth with our own subjective opinions. Relying to heavily on the dictates of our supposed “informed conscience”, rather than the scriptures, sacraments, and tenets of the faith. I think that study and reasoned faith is beautiful, I am constantly learning and growing in my studies. However, one much be careful not to lose the foundation of faith.
Relativism is a problem, I totally agree. But nothing in the TOB is relativism, and nothing in the TOB has “lost sight of the foundation of faith”. Understanding the faith can bring someone to the faith and to a deeper commitment to the faith which they already hold. Faith and reason go together; they can never be separated.
 
As you can see all over CAF, Catholics have questions about sex, specific questions. The TOB provides a foundation for answering those questions, and in some cases provides exact answers.
Well Rach, although I am still not persuaded as to the profound affect of TOB (where West is concerned) you have persuaded me to study for myself. I’m glad that there are those who have been helped in a possitive spiritual way by TOB and West, I guess that when it comes down to it, it’s just not my cup of tea.

God Bless
 
Well Rach, although I am still not persuaded as to the profound affect of TOB (where West is concerned) you have persuaded me to study for myself. I’m glad that there are those who have been helped in a possitive spiritual way by TOB and West, I guess that when it comes down to it, it’s just not my cup of tea.

God Bless
I’m not a Catholic, but I know a few people who became Catholic after reading TOB. So I do think it has had an effect.

I would also say - the Church has always re-introduced old ideas in new language or with new models when old ones are not speaking to people in the same way any more. I think in the 20th century, we had a lot of changes in our culture around sexuality. This stemmed from a lot of things - changes in economic patterns, changes in medicine in technology, changes in our understanding of biology, and the beginnings of an understanding of psychology.

And these aren’t really negative things, but they really have changed the language people use to speak about sex, and how they understand it in relation to morality and their own lives.

To my mind, TOB is meant to address those changes in how people think about sex, without changing the actual moral teachings about sex. It puts those teachings in a context people can understand.
 
I came in late, and I’m a little confused. Is the debate about JPII’s Theology of the Body, or Christopher West’s presentation of the Theology of the Body, because honestly, if I had only read West’s version, I wouldn’t think much of it.

I realize that Christopher West is trying to present the Theology of the Body in a easy-to-understand form, but I think that if you are going to read it and critique it, you should read the actual Theology of the Body, not someone elses interpretation (however close it might be to the original).

I think John Paul’s TotB is beautiful, but the more I see it interpreted, the more disappointed I am.
 
Fr. Loya learned from Christopher… he attended the institute a couple years ago.
Fr Loya began learning the material from His Holiness John Paul 2 during the Pope’s Wednesday audiences in Rome at which Fr Tom was present during his studies there in the early 1980s
 
I’ve just purchased both and have begun with West’s Good News About Sex and Marriage; as a Traditional Catholic I have found no argument thus far with West’s book. Theology of the Body seems a much more in-depth read; it is a reference source at the moment for West’s book but it’ll be read on its own in due course.

I do not think I will be disappointed with either.
 
Fr Loya began learning the material from His Holiness John Paul 2 during the Pope’s Wednesday audiences in Rome at which Fr Tom was present during his studies there in the early 1980s
You missed the point. What you say doesn’t contradict what I said. Fr loya has learned delivery style from west, then made his own.
 
=Geremia;5912064]I do not know much about what John Paul II’s (or Christopher West’s) “Theology of the Body,” but from what others have said to me about it, it (1) doesn’t seem like anything new, especially for those familiar with Thomism (i.e., that we do not have any knowledge except through our external senses), or (2) seems modernistic, as though it is going to radically change our Creed:That and Christopher West’s seeming to sacramentalize the marriage act instead of conceiving it as an instrument for creating new life and maturing a marriage confuse me about this “new theology,” the “theology of the body.”
Marriage IS On of the seven Sacraments of the CC, as institued implicitly by Christ at the Miracle of Cana.

B]Matt. 19: 3-11 [3] And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, **but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” **The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.”

**Heb.13: 14 **“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous.”

**Rev. 19: 9 **And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are true words of God.”

Futhr the CC theaches that there are two primary goals of marriage. Unitive an creative.

2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”

**2366 **Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top