Why Theology of the Body?

[vince2paul]

Hi all,

Mod, I’m not sure where to post it

I just chatted with a guest priest in my parish. I asked him why Theology of the Body (ToB) isn’t popular in Indonesia, although it’s very popular in other countries.

He said, “that’s in other countries, I think we should not follow what other people doing, because it might not be acceptable here. Every country is different. If you want sex ed, it is part of moral theology. Sex ed is taught in Catholic school and the sisters can teach that without the need to know ToB.”

I was very annoyed by his answer, and he started to be less defensive when I told him who was the man behind it.

So my questions:

1. Is ToB important?
2. Why people need to know about ToB?

Thanks all.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Theology of the body is a phrase first used by Pope John Paul II in his lecture series based on the creation account of mankind in the Book of Genesis. These lectures contain his own private theology on the topic of human nature, gender, and marriage.

I’m doing a lecture by lecture commentary on JP2’s TOB here:
catholicplanet.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=37

Unfortunately, certain theologians have used Pope John Paul II’s name and reputation, and his lecture series, to promote their own disparate views on sexuality, which exalt sexualty and the marital act in a way that is entirely foreign to John Paul’s lectures. They use the term Theology of the Body as a way to promote their views and works on this topic.

So Theology of the Body really refers to two different schools of thought:

1. JP2’s original, modest approach, which focuses on Scripture, the human person as a whole, the marriage relationship as a whole, including sexuality; his views are deeply philosophical and theological; his expression of his views is in language that is at times difficult for the average Catholic to understand.
2. the popularized version that is only loosely based on what JP2 wrote; this popular version uses very immodest language, oversimplifies and distorts what JP2 said, exaggerates the place of sexuality in human life, promotes unnatural sexual acts within marriage, and otherwise adulterates and sensationalizes the modest philosophical and theological work of JP2.

 

[rpp]

Theology of the body is a phrase first used by Pope John Paul II in his lecture series based on the creation account of mankind in the Book of Genesis. These lectures contain his own private theology on the topic of human nature, gender, and marriage.

I’m doing a lecture by lecture commentary on JP2’s TOB here:
catholicplanet.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=37

Unfortunately, certain theologians have used Pope John Paul II’s name and reputation, and his lecture series, to promote their own disparate views on sexuality, which exalt sexualty and the marital act in a way that is entirely foreign to John Paul’s lectures. They use the term Theology of the Body as a way to promote their views and works on this topic.

So Theology of the Body really refers to two different schools of thought:

1. JP2’s original, modest approach, which focuses on Scripture, the human person as a whole, the marriage relationship as a whole, including sexuality; his views are deeply philosophical and theological; his expression of his views is in language that is at times difficult for the average Catholic to understand.
2. the popularized version that is only loosely based on what JP2 wrote; this popular version uses very immodest language, oversimplifies and distorts what JP2 said, exaggerates the place of sexuality in human life, promotes unnatural sexual acts within marriage, and otherwise adulterates and sensationalizes the modest philosophical and theological work of JP2.

This is a thoroughly incorrect and inaccurrate answer. Particularly the last paragraph.

Theology of the Body has many detractors. There are those who are so uncomfortable with the whole idea that they attack the messengers and invent falsehoods. Many, like this poster, are careful not to attack or criticize Pope John Paul II, as he was, after all, the Pope. However, they attack those who have unpacked much of the Pope’s work in this area and create falsehoods about their writing.

I think the reasons behind this are clear. Many people are more comfortable thinking that sex is dirty and a topic that should never be discussed publicly. They are upset that a Pope would write and say the things that Pope John Paul II wrote and said because he talking about “dirty stuff”.

I have studied the Pope’s writings as well as the writings of several authors, I have not seen any divergence or distortion, except by critics of ToB.

Theology of the Body is best looked upon as a fundamental theological method, like Augustinianism (Theological perspective in an based on St. Augustine) or Thomism (based on St. Thomas Aquinas), not as a series of ideas or cleverly selected scripture passages. Thus it will appeal to some and not others. However, being more physical, it is often more easily understood than these other theological methodologies.

 

[Ron_Conte]

My take on Christopher West’s work is that he does not really write theology. He often makes one assertion after another without any theological argument. At best, he will quote JP2 and then make a series of comments, attributing his own views to JP2 (even though the Pope said nothing similar). The popular version of TOB is not really a type of theology at all. It uses the name of JP2 to promote ideas that are not found in his writings at all.

[Revelation]
{2:6} But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Also, JP2’s lecture series is deeply philosophical. Whereas West and others have abandoned the philosophical underpinnings of TOB.

The lecture series does not focus on sex, but on the whole person and the whole marriage within the plan of God. Whereas the popular version exalts sexuality.

[Luke]
{6:26} Woe to you when men will have blessed you. For these same things their fathers did to the false prophets.

West has been criticized by David Schindler and other theologians.
headlinebistro.com/hb/en/news/west_schindler2.html
osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/4997/Experts-debate-Christopher-Wests-theology-of-the.aspx

The criticisms make some good theological points. But the reply from West’s supporters is not theological at all. This is fitting since the popular version of TOB is not really a type of theology at all.

Calling the popular version of TOB theology is analogous to calling ‘Popular Science’ magazine a scientific journal.

 

[graceandglory]

My take on Christopher West’s work is that he does not really write theology.

True. He explains theology to the layman.

He often makes one assertion after another without any theological argument. At best, he will quote JP2 and then make a series of comments,

true

attributing his own views to JP2 (even though the Pope said nothing similar).

False. Show just ONE example to prove your point, please, so we can have a discussion.

The popular version of TOB is not really a type of theology at all. It uses the name of JP2 to promote ideas that are not found in his writings at all.

False. Give ONE example, no…you said IDEAS, so give TWO examples of ideas that Christopher West teaches that are not found in the writings of JP2.

Also, JP2’s lecture series is deeply philosophical. Whereas West and others have abandoned the philosophical underpinnings of TOB.

False; in fact, his work is HEAVILY footnoted, quoted throughout, (this was my introduction to a plethora of church documents, councils, encyclicals and other writings of Saints and Popes), and the philosophy is explained to the best of his ability. I have never highlighted so many footnotes in a book before. Pope John Paul II’s original work was not footnoted. Christopher West did that.

The lecture series does not focus on sex, but on the whole person and the whole marriage within the plan of God. Whereas the popular version exalts sexuality.

Excuse me? Your opinion… I am celibate. I attended Christopher West’s lecture series with 18 Consecrated celibates. I guess this is a case where people who are skeptical will find what they are looking for. The Catholics I know married and single, believe it EXALTS CHASTITY within and without the Sacrament of Marriage. One-fourth of the talks on TOB are about Celibacy for the Kingdom.

From the article you provided:

He added that some of the arguments against him have only shown that the individuals making those criticisms are not familiar with his work.

In particular, West feels that the critique that his approach is “all about sex” is unfounded.

“In the language of John Paul II, ‘sex’ refers first to our identity as male and female,” he explained. "The pope’s original title reveals his emphasis: ‘Man and Woman, He Created Them.’

West has been criticized by David Schindler and other theologians.
headlinebistro.com/hb/en/news/west_schindler2.html
osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/4997/Experts-debate-Christopher-Wests-theology-of-the.aspx

The criticisms make some good theological points.

“Good” in your opinion. Theological? I haven’t found a theological argument against West yet. LOTS of opinions. Nothing theological. We are free to like and dislike who we listen to and read. Some people love Augustine, some love Aquinas.

But the reply from West’s supporters is not theological at all.

Ask a theological question, get a theological answer. Do you have a theological question? Ask it, and let West’s supporters give you a theological answer.

This is fitting since the popular version of TOB is not really a type of theology at all.
Calling the popular version of TOB theology is analogous to calling ‘Popular Science’ magazine a scientific journal.

YES. EXACTLY!!!
Man and Woman He Created Them (The Pope’s original work) is a theological masterpiece. So far out of reach of the young adults that the Church loses daily to sexual sins and temptation, who may never come back to the One True Church ever again in their lifetimes. Christopher West’s’ (and others) works could be likened to “Popular Science” in that it brings theology to the dinner table.

Christopher West is only a layman, who has given his life to study and teach the Theology of the Body so that people can be healed. It’s the sick who need a doctor.

He loves Pope John Paul II, He loves the Magisterium, and frankly, he doesn’t need me to toot his horn. He is humble and teachable. Where else do you hear a public response like this: (I think it’s beyond what most of us could do)

West told Our Sunday Visitor that he has been wrestling with the question of whether or not he made the right choice in appearing on ABC.

“On the one hand, a few million people in the secular world heard about the theology of the body for the first time,” he said. "There has also been an extraordinary online discussion among Catholics that I think will lead to a clearer understanding of the theology of the body for us all.

“On the other hand, the ‘Nightline’ piece has caused a lot of consternation among certain Catholics.** For any way my own folly contributed to that, I do have regret. There have been some hard-earned lessons for me in all of this, and I’m praying that I don’t miss any of them.**”

To me, what I see reminds me of the Pharisees who were complaining that Jesus was healing on the Sabbath. So many people are spreading lies and gossiping without even checking first hand sources. Bearing false witness against our neighbors is against God’s Ten Commandments…Bearing false witness against a brother who is trying his best to teach the Church how to live chaste lives, is, well, sinful.

 

[graceandglory]

1. the popularized version that is only loosely based on what JP2 wrote; this popular version uses very immodest language, oversimplifies and distorts what JP2 said, exaggerates the place of sexuality in human life, promotes unnatural sexual acts within marriage, and otherwise adulterates and sensationalizes the modest philosophical and theological work of JP2.

This is gossip, based on what you’ve read about the Nightline broadcast, and you are spreading it in order to defame someone. Shame on you for bearing false witness.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Michael Waldstein, who translated JPII’s lectures into English as the “Theology of the Body,” approves of Christopher West. As does William May, one of the most prominent, intelligent, and orthodox moral theologians of our time.

Furthermore, West’s work does not purport to be a comprehensive analysis of the theology of the body. It does not claim or attempt to be exhaustive.

The charge that West promotes unnatural sexual acts? Been disproven many times.
The charge that “immodest language” is utilized? Downright puritanical and deeply unfortunate.

The work of West and other popular authors is certainly not - nor was it intended to be - the be-all, end-all in interpreting John Paul II’s theology of the body. What they do set out to accomplish, however, they succeed at spectacularly.

Ron Conte is wrong.

 

[1ke]

My take on Christopher West’s work is that he does not really write theology. He often makes one assertion after another without any theological argument. At best, he will quote JP2 and then make a series of comments, attributing his own views to JP2 (even though the Pope said nothing similar). The popular version of TOB is not really a type of theology at all. It uses the name of JP2 to promote ideas that are not found in his writings at all.

And yet Christopher West’s writings have an Imprimateur and your writings/lectures do not.

 

[1ke]

He said, "that’s in other countries, I think we should not follow what other people doing, because it might not be acceptable here. Every country is different.

The Church is universal, not specific to a country. And, the writings of the Pope are most certainly appropriate for any Catholic’s reading and study.

If you want sex ed, it is part of moral theology. Sex ed is taught in Catholic school and the sisters can teach that without the need to know ToB."

Theology of the Body is not “sex ed.” What does the priest mean by “sex ed” anyway?

Theology of the Body is theology.

I was very annoyed by his answer, and he started to be less defensive when I told him who was the man behind it.

Sounds like your priest is not familiar with the writings and is criticizing what he knows nothing about.

1. Is ToB important?

Yes

1. Why people need to know about ToB?

It is a great aid in the study of God’s plan for us.