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

[Geremia]

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:

George Weigel has described Theology of the Body as “one of the boldest reconfigurations of Catholic theology in centuries.” He goes on to say it is a “kind of theological time bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences, sometime in the third millennium of the Church.” Weigel believes that it has barely begun to “shape the Church’s theology, preaching, and religious education” but when it does “it will compel a dramatic development of thinking about virtually every major theme in the Creed.” (Weigel, George (October 1999). Witness to Hope (First edition ed.). Harper Perennial. pp. 336, 343, 853. ISBN 0-06-018793-X.)

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.”

 

[twinc]

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.”

Could this just be the great truth known by the old seers and sages of the agers that we are surface see ers and finger philosophers.It seems that for most of us reality is that which we can see with our eyes and touch with our fingers Doubting Thomases so to speak - twinc

 

[Cider]

I prefer Father Loya’s discussions on TOTB.

catholicradiointernational.com/abodyoftruth.php

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

If I am not mistaken, the theology of the body as presented in Pope John Paul’s Wednesday audiences is essentially natural theology. I am not qualified to critique his insights either way. It seems to offer a philosophical development of the meaning of our bodies and presents it within the context of Catholic morality. I think its importance is difficult to discern in the current climate where people are making money as experts on the subject.

Whenever I have seen it presented, they start out by mocking venerable and helpful concepts borrowed from Aristotle and the Schoolmen. They think it is amusing that modern man does not know the philosophical meaning of an accident. Modern man does not need encouragement about being ignorant of Thomas Aquinas. I think they try too hard to be hip and cool without due regard for the philosophy that Vatican II recommended as reliable. This makes me doubt that there is anything great about Theology of the Body as recommended by a handful of self- appointed lay professional apologists who have made it their livelihood.

 

[ricmat]

I have read West’s “Theology of the Body for Beginners” and have seen many of his CDs. I’ve also tried to read JP2’s original “Man and Woman He Created Them - A Theology of the Body.”

I’m not a theologian, and JP2’s work was very very deep, very very long, and I finally gave up about 2/3 of the way through. Frankly, I appreciate Christopher West’s attempts to explain things more in layman’s terms.

TOTB gave me a much deeper appreciation for the beauty of creation (as reflected in male and female), the purpose and dignity of marriage, the marriage of Christ and the Church, and the marriage of God and our individual souls. As well as our ultimate purpose and God’s love.

The dozen or so scripture references which JP2 focuses on are seemingly unconnected and seem out of place. But they are not. “Song of Songs” takes on a new meaning. Divorce, lust, “they were naked but not ashamed”, and many other references took on a new, beautiful, and awesome meaning for me.

So personally, I recommend TOTB for Beginners whenever I can, which is to say mostly to lay people. I showed a 8 session CD presentation of West at a Bible Study class I lead, and it went over very well.

His presentation may not be up there to Aquinas’ standards, or be anything new to those who studied at seminaries. But to me as a layman, it was an eye opener and I appreciate the fact that it came to my attention.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think that both of your comments could be made about many of the theological writings f the past as well, to some degree or another. Thomas, for example, was not saying anything radical in the sense that he was changing the nature of Christianity. But, he was also accused of bringing in things which were incompatible with Christianity - the newly available Aristotle who had become so popular among those studying philosophy apart from theology.

Often, older understandings and ideas have to be re-imagined to deal with new ways of thinking, or new situations. Sometimes this also involved a real modification of older ideas, other times just a new way to speak about them. Medieval teachers used medieval political structures to illustrate Christian theological ideas. Sometimes they no longer resonate with moderns who do not live within those structures and so a new illustration is required. Other times, as with Thomas, there is a real movement, say in the natural sciences, which can be applied in exciting ways to Christian theology.

I think THeology of the Body incorporates these things, and on a subject that has been very much a preoccupation of our century.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

This is a touchy subject.

JPII was not the clearest writer on philosophical topics, and so people have a variety of reactions to actually reading his original works. In my experience, if they are a JPII fan, they find great depth and meaning in his TotB…if not, they don’t. I’m one of the ones who doesn’t find anything particularly new there, but I certainly haven’t read them all. I think there are 129 of them…and to me they are almost as boring as Rahner, and the odds of me finishing the remaining 125 are nil. So, try them youreself and find out.

Now, on the subject of West: Christopher West has done JPII a great dis-service IMO. West, when he began giving talks and writing books about TotB, was not qualified. He held pretty obvious misunderstandings about sin and concupiscence. He was more of a “shock jock” than serious theologian. I attanded several of his events and became pretty disgusted with him. You probably won’t be allowed to do it on CA, but on some other Catholic sites, people speak pretty frankly about West, his life, his habits, and this IMO is good info to have.

West’s success as author and speaker prompted some other lay people from Franciscan U to write booksm like Steve Kellmeyer’s “Sex and the Sacred City”. I think it has even less merit than the West stuff.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

This thread was actually good opportunity to check in on the current state of the TotB industry. Seems that Kellmeyer is now on the outs with West. There’s a nice discussion going on HERE about the current state of Chris West, it makes good reading. Here’s my favorite comment from the thread:

I find it interesting that so far no one has noted what would be two primary critiques of Christopher West. I will go on record and say I think West does much good. I also believe that he leads many people astray. First, he tends to have a flawed approach to the question of grace and free will, usually sounding as if he thought man could reach a state of perfected virtue in relation to sexuality. That is just bad theology, for it either limits the role of grace or limits the reality of fallen human nature. Secondly, his presentations, even when perfectly doctinally sound, do not take into account fallen human nature, and do not emphasize the care and privacy with which human sexuality should be taught. What should be passed on from couple to children is spoken of in front of hundreds, and far too often ends up being an excuse to talk about sex. One last point is that West’s focus tends lead his hearers to think: “All we need is TOB to lead a moral life.” TOB is one drop in the bucket of Catholic Tradition, and is not a new one, at that. West and TOB (not really a Theology) cannot answer all our questions, and sex is not a key to unlocking a mystical and amazing understanding of everything that is.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

One last bit - Here’s a new West quote, apparently the one that set Kellmeyer off. Good, looks like Kellmeyer is more solid than I though. Here’s the Chris West quote:

“There is no magic trick on the wedding day that suddenly makes what you do that night an act of love. If you could not be alone together the day before you got married and not sin, there is no magic trick, there is no waving at the wand at the altar, that suddenly makes your sexual behavior beautiful, true, good, lovely, and pure.

…and the source.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

Electrons are cheap, so I’ll post one more.

Here is a really great post about West’s current issues by Jimmy Akin.

Be sure to watch the video.

 

[bbentrup]

West has a great explication of JP’s TotB. West’s understanding and ethos is spot on; it must be so in his Denver diocese diaconate practice with the no-nonsense Archbishop Chaput giving his blessing. He has a Master of Theological Studies, Magna Cum Laude (1997) from the John Paul Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family and is an ordained deacon. West has an extremely great way of making high theological truths digestible for the average layman. I think every once in a while a turn-of-phrase he might employ might come off a bit wrong, I see where he intends it to be, and in the meanwhile the vast, vast majority of his analogies hit the bullseye. West’s theology certainly hits the critical points (anti-abortion, anti-conception, anti-fornication, anti-pornography, pro-chastity) and no one has claimed to the contrary there. Akin’s criticisms are too harsh and basically unfounded and the jimmyakin.org comments thread largely vindicates West.

JP II really comes to life via his talks - I hope more people will hear the pope’s words through this wonderful speaker.

 

[Geremia]

Could this just be the great truth known by the old seers and sages of the agers that we are surface see ers and finger philosophers.It seems that for most of us reality is that which we can see with our eyes and touch with our fingers Doubting Thomases so to speak - twinc

Of course everything and everyone we know—even God—comes through our senses; unless we know it by faith, which God gives us as a gift, or unless God directly plants it in us.

 

[otjm]

If I am not mistaken, the theology of the body as presented in Pope John Paul’s Wednesday audiences is essentially natural theology.

You are mistaken. It is a combination of personalism and phnomenology.

I think its importance is difficult to discern in the current climate where people are making money as experts on the subject.

whether people make money teaching it or not is irrelevant to its intrinsic value. Dr. Janet Smith gives lectures on NFP; the fact that she makes money doing so has no bearing on the value of her talk or the value of NFP.

Whenever I have seen it presented, they start out by mocking venerable and helpful concepts borrowed from Aristotle and the Schoolmen. They think it is amusing that modern man does not know the philosophical meaning of an accident. Modern man does not need encouragement about being ignorant of Thomas Aquinas. I think they try too hard to be hip and cool without due regard for the philosophy that Vatican II recommended as reliable. This makes me doubt that there is anything great about Theology of the Body as recommended by a handful of self- appointed lay professional apologists who have made it their livelihood.

You seem unable to spearate fact from delivery; if you had a bad experience I am sorry. But the delivery has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the message.

 

[otjm]

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.”

Without going into a pros and cons of Christopher West, perhaps a few answers might help.

Interesting that you should mention St Thomas. The scholastics and neo scholastics, or Thomists and neo Thomists, seem to be the group that has the largest problem with TOTB. Part of that is because it is not deligvered in shcolastic terms; it is delivered in terms of personalism and pheomenology. Those are not systems out to overthrow Thomistic philosophy; they are simply a different way of looking at the same reality. Thomistic philosophy is largely reliant on Aritotelian philosophy, which tends to categorization; taking things and breaking them down into their smaller parts.

Personalism asserts that the real is the personal, i.e., that the basic features of personality—consciousness, free self-determination, directedness toward ends, self-identity through time, and value retentiveness—make it the pattern of all reality. In the theistic form that it has often assumed, personalism has sometimes become specifically Christian, holding that not merely the person but the highest individual instance of personhood—Jesus Christ—is the pattern; Phenomenology is primarily concerned with making the structures of consciousness, and the phenomena which appear in acts of consciousness, objects of systematic reflection and analysis.

The issue with marriage is that its end is twofold: procreation, and the bonding of the couple. It is nto either/or; it is both/and. And there is not a little bit of residual heresy in the background of many who cannot seem to cross over the fact that enjoyment of the sexual act between husband and wife is not some form of latent lust; the heresy being that the material world (and including our bodies) are somehow evil. It discomforts people when they are told that their enjoyment is a sacramental act.

Pope John Paul 2 had a PhD in Theology and also one in Philosohpy; and he leaned more towardsa philospher while Benedict 16 leans more towards a theologian. It takes some serious wading to get through JP2; and while it appears that West has had some things he needs to modify (or has modified), he has distilled a lot of what the Pope wrote and spoke to layman’s terms.

It si easy to get caught up in a dissecting of West and presume that if he makes an error, that therefore TOTB is wrong. Such a critique misses most of what is said, and may in part be driven by the fact that some people are not comfortable with the Pope’s message.

 

[Geremia]

One last bit - Here’s a new West quote, apparently the one that set Kellmeyer off. Good, looks like Kellmeyer is more solid than I though. Here’s the Chris West quote:

…and the source.

Yeah, that is a good example. Avoiding near occasions of sin is indeed virtuous! I am not sure why West seems to think otherwise. I wonder if West advocates not delaying marriage?

 

[Geremia]

Kellmeyer seems right on, especially his piece on how West contradicts St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[otjm]

Yeah, that is a good example. Avoiding near occasions of sin is indeed virtuous! I am not sure why West seems to think otherwise. I wonder if West advocates not delaying marriage?

West does not seem to be saying what you posit him saying; you seemed to have missed the point entirely.

It is not that West thinks that avoiding the near occasion of sin is other than virtuopus; it is that he thinks that there is a vast difference between treating sexual acitivity as lust and seeing sexual activity as the gift that God has given us.

In other words, yes, it is virtuous to avoid sin; and it is more virtuous to change one’s perspective on sexual activity from a lustful viewpoint to a viewpoint in harmony with God’s plan for us. And it should be patently obvious that one does not do so by engaging in sexual behavior before marriage. In short, if one has a “Playboy” view of sexual acitivity, West would agree that avoiding the near occasion of sin (being alone together) is a virtuous thing; but the point that he is trying to make is that getting married is not going to automatically change a “Playboy” view of sexual activity into a sacramental, giving (as opposed to taking) view. The view that sex is perfectly ok as long as one is married is beyond a parsimonious view of what sex is about. One can engage in lustful acts with one’s spouse; the marriage ceremony is not a magic wand waved over one’s attitudes.

 

[Geremia]

In other words, yes, it is virtuous to avoid sin; and it is more virtuous to change one’s perspective on sexual activity from a lustful viewpoint to a viewpoint in harmony with God’s plan for us.

Yes

And it should be patently obvious that one does not do so by engaging in sexual behavior before marriage.

Of course

In short, if one has a “Playboy” view of sexual acitivity, West would agree that avoiding the near occasion of sin (being alone together) is a virtuous thing; but the point that he is trying to make is that getting married is not going to automatically change a “Playboy” view of sexual activity into a sacramental, giving (as opposed to taking) view. The view that sex is perfectly ok as long as one is married is beyond a parsimonious view of what sex is about. One can engage in lustful acts with one’s spouse;

Yes, we all have original sin. Has West mentioned that?

the marriage ceremony is not a magic wand waved over one’s attitudes.

Then what is it? It is a sacrament; it confers sanctifying grace! We cannot live with original sin without God’s grace; we cannot change our attitudes regarding lust, e.g., by our own powers; only God’s grace can do this. If one stays out of mortal sin via frequent confession, then one is on the right path to being more open to God’s grace.

What worries me about West is that I have not read or heard a talk of him where he uses the words “original sin,” “mortal sin,” “marriage debt,” “sanctifying grace,” etc. Is this too theological for Catholic laymen audiences? Is there a speech where he uses these words? If so, could you please provide a link? Thanks

 

[Bluegoat]

YesOf courseYes, we all have original sin. Has West mentioned that?Then what is it? It is a sacrament; it confers sanctifying grace! We cannot live with original sin without God’s grace; we cannot change our attitudes regarding lust, e.g., by our own powers; only God’s grace can do this. If one stays out of mortal sin via frequent confession, then one is on the right path to being more open to God’s grace.

What worries me about West is that I have not read or heard a talk of him where he uses the words “original sin,” “mortal sin,” “marriage debt,” “sanctifying grace,” etc. Is this too theological for Catholic laymen audiences? Is there a speech where he uses these words? If so, could you please provide a link? Thanks

Since having a disordered attitude or real misunderstanding of sexuality before a marriage can be grounds for annulment, that is, it actually prevents the sacrament from taking, I don’t think your first point is quite correct.

I am actually inclined to think the reason for avoiding the words you mention may be deliberate. Many people do find those terms somewhat confusing and difficult to apply to their real life situations. As well, some people have been taught strange and wrong ideas about marriage and sex and original sin, and that only adds to the confusion.

 

[otjm]

YesOf courseYes, we all have original sin. Has West mentioned that?Then what is it? It is a sacrament; it confers sanctifying grace! We cannot live with original sin without God’s grace; we cannot change our attitudes regarding lust, e.g., by our own powers; only God’s grace can do this. If one stays out of mortal sin via frequent confession, then one is on the right path to being more open to God’s grace.

What worries me about West is that I have not read or heard a talk of him where he uses the words “original sin,” “mortal sin,” “marriage debt,” “sanctifying grace,” etc. Is this too theological for Catholic laymen audiences? Is there a speech where he uses these words? If so, could you please provide a link? Thanks