What the Halifax is Theology of the Body - Part II

+

JMJ

The questions surrounding the 'Theology of the Body' continue to abound.  I've attached an article from the National Catholic Register that sings its praises.

I've also attached some links to other references, that should help to form an opinion on the phenomenon called 'Theology of the Body'.

Now for the my first thoughts, formed prior to any uindepth review of the subject matter:

1. TOB seems to have spawned a cottage industry of 'consultants' and interpreters who provide their own interpretation of Pope St. John Paul II's talks.  (No this is not a good thing, if you need someone to provide an interpretation, its like hiring a consultant to tell you the time).
2. Culturally, the title Theology of the Body, seems to be very weird.  Why?  Because theology is "the study of the nature of God and religious belief".  God does not have a Body, so it appears incongruous to apply the title of Theology to this title. Unless the point is that Man and Woman are gods - not a very Catholic thought.
3. Appears to be nothing more than a continuation of a 'man-centered' body of thought prevalent in the Church of Christ since the Second Vatican Council.
4. Appears to be used as a justification for natural family planning (NFP).

People seem to think this treatment [TOB]on the topic [Modesty, Marital relations etc]was 'new' after the Second Vatican Council.  However, it appears that a great Catholic mind already considered some elements and wrote them down for posterities sake: St. Thomas Aquinas.

-- Hence it should be noted that the conjugal act is sometimes meritorious and without any mortal or venial sin, as when it is directed to the good of procreation and education of a child for the worship of God; for then it is an act of religion; or when it is performed for the sake of rendering the debt, it is an act of justice. But every virtuous act is meritorious, if it is performed with charity. But sometimes it is accompanied with venial sin, namely, when one is excited to the matrimonial act by concupiscence, which nevertheless stays within the limits of the marriage, namely, that he is content with his wife only. But sometimes it is performed with mortal sin, as when concupiscence is carried beyond the limits of the marriage; for example, when the husband approaches the wife with the idea that he would just as gladly or more gladly approach another woman. In the first way, therefore, the act of marriage requires no concession; in the second way it obtains a concession, inasmuch as someone consenting to concupiscence toward the wife is not guilty of mortal sin; in the third way there is absolutely no concession. (h/t: Pertinacious Papist, original source)

There have been a number of crititques and praises heaped upon TOB (see links below).  I would like to focus on two aspects, Original Sin & Natural Family Planning (aka NFP).

Original Sin and the Concept of Sin

One element that seems to course through the TOB literature (caveat emptor: My review has not been extensive and is not likely to be so) is a masking of the effects of our fallen human nature and the concept of sin in general.  

It seems that this perspective is taken to an extreme where it almost seems as if TOBers worship the body, leading to the conclusion that any harm to the body is to be avoided.

Since an attack on the body is an attack on life, the body must be the expression of the person. ... Since we are hurt when our bodies are injured and since they were given to us as part of the gift of life, our bodies are closely connected to our very lives. The human body is the expression of the human person. Any act which manipulates, uses, or harms the human body is an attack on the human person and cannot be tolerated. (source)

So much for mortification of the flesh.  Not that I have ever 'taken the discipline'.

Another example, sexual sins are now described as 'attacks against the body' and treated as offenses against the dignity and value of the body. 

For example in discussing the sin of lust, one author explains:

Therefore, the one who looks lustfully violates the infinite dignity of both persons. Since lust is a violation of the human body, of the dignity properly ascribed to the human body, it is contrary to human dignity.(source)

All this seems to contradict the notion that there are three things that Catholics need to combat: The World, the flesh and the Devil.

Natural Family Planning 

NFP is a controversial issue that divides Catholics because it goes against the Catholic Teaching that the primary aim of the marriage act is for procreation etc (see St. Thomas above). From this flows the assumption restricting the performance of the marriage act to only the infertile times of a wife's cycle should only be done for serious reasons ( Humanae Vitae, no. 16.).

Given that this is a cultural land mine, I was not surprised to find some issue within 

Responsible parenthood signifies the virtuous choice made by a married couple either to strive to procreate or to try to avoid conception. (source)

 The phrasing is a little strange perhaps it would be better to call is 'responsible un-parenthood' as it is seeking to avoid parenthood.  The concept seems to place the onus on the conscience (a recurring theme in the Church today) as to when to or not to seek conception of a child.  This perception on procreation is reflected in the next quotation.

The NFP couple has said to God, "We do not think this is the time, but if you wish a new life, we will accept that life." In this sense, the NFP couple making use of the infertile times have not excluded the (remote) possibility of procreation physically or purposely (in their wills). There is a radical difference in these intentions. (source)

The issue here is what is their intention and motivations?  That is where people deviate from the path God has set out for those entering the married life.  Is there a serious reason and have they consulted someone else (priest?) about this in order to provide a more objective opinion?

Then we have the following comment: 

Nevertheless, how do couples decide on the spacing of children? In the past the magisterium has taught that couples, who have recourse to the infertile periods only, should have "serious reasons." (See Pope Paul VI, On Human Life, Humanae Vitae, no. 16.) However, in The Apostolic Exhortation on the Family,Familiaris Consortio, nos. 32 and 33, Pope John Paul II does not use the phrase "serious reasons" when speaking of responsible parenthood. Rather he sees the natural regulation of births as fidelity to "the Creator-person." (See John Paul II, "A Discipline That Ennobles Human Love," L'Osservatore Romano,[English Edition], [September 3, 1984], vol. 17, no. 36, no. 118 in the Theology of the Body series.) .... If the language of "serious reasons" has almost disappeared, it is because John Paul knows that these will exist as a matter of course if families respond to his challenge to learn the theology of the body, NFP, and the theology of the family. (source)

So regulation of birth via NFP is now the norm not the exception? Can't see how this isn't a  contradiction of the motivations noted by St. Thomas.

My concluding thought is that TOB seems to be a simple continuation of a human centered perspective that, like the Novus Ordo Liturgy has turned away from God to face the humans.

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience

Reference (Plus some quotes)

PRO Theology of the Body Institute

This is what the union of the sexes is meant to proclaim and foreshadow – the eternal union of Christ and the Church. As St. Paul says, quoting from Genesis, “‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:31-32).

By helping us understand this profound interconnection between sex and the Christian mystery, John Paul’s theology of the body not only paves the way for lasting renewal of marriage and the family; it enables everyone to rediscover “the meaning of the whole of existence, the meaning of life” (TOB 46:6).

PRO NC Register Article: The Good News That the Church Has for the Modern World

“Is TOB a flash in the 2,000-year-old pan of Catholicism or the 16,000-year-old Judeo-Christian Tradition? Or is this really a new movement akin to St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine or Trent? Owens asked. “For those of us who have been transformed by the teaching, we know it is.”

PRO USCCB

CON Magisterial Weight of TOB

CON “John Paul II and the ‘Theology of the Body’ – A Study in Modernism” Randy Engel

"As Blondel and de Lubac discovered “authentic Christianity” 2000 years after the fact, so Karol Józef Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) discovered “authentic Christian sexuality” for the Church 2000 years later.(1) 

The “Theology of the Body” is the invention of Karol Józef Wojtyla, known to history as Pope John Paul II. (2) The major themes of Wojtyla’s new philosophy and theology on the bodily dimension of human love, sex, sexuality, marriage and celibacy gestated and took concrete form over a long period of time beginning even before his ordination to the priesthood in 1946 and continuing to his appointment as Auxiliary Bishop and later Archbishop/Cardinal of Kraków, Poland (1958 -1978). 

On September 5, 1979, less than one year into his pontificate, John Paul II delivered the first of one hundred and twenty-nine talks based on the revised texts of his earlier completed book on the Theology of the Body, to the Wednesday General Audience. Six talks based on the Song of Songs were prepared but not delivered as they were deemed too delicate for youthful listeners. The pope’s last catechesis on Theology of the Body was delivered five years later, on Wednesday, November 28, 1984. 

As a catechetical work, the Theology of the Body is anthropocentric, that is, man-centered, and personalist in keeping with the central theme of the Second Vatican Council, and the phenomenological and personalist philosophy of Wojtyla. 

From a Catholic perspective, the very term “theology of the body” is problematic. Theology [Greek from theós, meaning God and logos meaning discourse], in all its form, centers upon God, on God’s attributes, on things divine, revealed truths and matters of faith, and not man, per se. Regarding the human body, man is one. He is composed of both a rationale, spiritual soul and a material body, which gives man his personal corporeal identity. The immortal intellectual soul, infused into the body at the moment of conception, is the first informing and substantial principle which makes the body alive. The body without a soul is inert, a corpse. How then can there be such a thing as a “Theology of the Body”? A difficult question, but only one of many such questions that the author (Wojtyla) and his supporters have endeavored to answer in defense of the “new” and “revolutionary” “development” in Catholic sexual catechetics called the “Theology of the Body.” 

That the Theology of the Body makes for difficult reading and even more difficult understanding is readily admitted by both proponents and opponents of Wojtyla’s work. Indeed a world-wide cottage industry [Interesting convergence of thought] has come into existence having as its sole objective the explanation and popularization of the new theology among Catholic and non-Catholic laymen, clergy and religious. It has yet to dawn upon advocates of the cult of John Paul II, that perhaps the difficulty in discerning Wojtyla’s writings on the Theology of the Body stems from the fact they are not Catholic, or perhaps it is fairer and more accurate to say that where his writings are original they are not Catholic, and where they are Catholic they are not original. "

CON Remnant: Theology of the Body From David Bowie to Spiderman to Christopher West

CON The Theology of the Body as Realized Eschatology

REF TOB Cliff Notes

REF TOB Summary

REF EWTN Link to the original series of talks

REF CNS on Christopher West's ABC Interview

REF ABC Article on Christopher West 

(Eschatology: That branch of systematic theology which deals with the doctrines of the last things.)