|
Home |
Catholic News & Opinion Page |
Catholic News Section
|
Guest Article (Used With Permission):
'Theology of the Body'
Warning: Contains adult
material & some offensive references |
|
Important
Notice: Items herein do not necessarily represent our views. We make no guarantee regarding any item
herein. We are not liable for any occurrence which may result from using
this site. By using this site you agree to all terms. For more terms
information,
click here.
|
'Theology of the Body' (Q & A)
By John Salza of ScriptureCatholic.com (www.scripturecatholic.com)
What do you think of the "theology of the
body"?
Mary: John, what do you think of Pope John Paul II's "theology of the
body"? I have heard some very disturbing explanations by people who
purport to be Catholic theologians, things that I have never heard of
before in my over 50 years of being Catholic.
J. Salza: Mary, you are referring to the
130 audience addresses that Pope John Paul II gave regarding his view of
human sexuality. I have not studied these speeches in any depth and have
gleaned most of my knowledge from TB from the so-called "experts," so my
opinions are not based on Pope John Paul II's writings, but on what
others say that he wrote. Nevertheless, because these people claim to be
authoritative interpreters of TB, it is fair to evaluate what they have
to say. Based on what I have seen and heard from these experts (most of
them lay evangelists), I have serious reservations that TB, at least the
way it is being presented by these lay people, is an authentic
development of Catholic Tradition. And it is not just because it fails
to meet the objectivity and precision of Thomism (which is my preferred
approach to theological questions) that I am skeptical. There are other
reasons for my skepticism.
First, I sense in the explanations of
these apologists a subtle denigration of traditional Church teaching on
human sexuality. TB apologists often refer to TB as a great "advantage"
over pre-Vatican II teaching, which was too "formulaic" and "arcane."
It's as if the Church were a sleep at the wheel regarding Catholic
sexuality for 1950 years until the TB apologists came on the scene to
enlighten us of this "new vision" of John Paul II. They fail to mention
that the pre-conciliar documents
Arcanum Divinae
Sapientiae by Pope Leo XIII and
Casti
Connubii by Pope Pius XI are the bedrock encyclicals that express
the Church's "vision" of marriage and procreation. Thus, any teaching on
the "theology of the body" - which is an undefined and seemingly
self-contradictory term - must be harmonized with the teachings of these
two great popes. Certainly, there may be developments in the doctrine of
the Church, but as St. Pius X taught, these developments must proceed
from the same genus of teaching, with the same sense and understanding.
It is difficult to reconcile TB with pre-conciliar teaching when pre-conciliar
teaching is almost never mentioned. And that might be because TB, which
has never been defined by the Church, is a departure from the Church's
tradition on human sexuality, at least what I have heard from the
"experts."
Second, much of the TB catechesis is
anthropocentric (it focuses on man and his "self-fulfillment"), and
exaggerates the role that sexuality should play in one's life. TB
apologists even attempt to argue that the conjugal act is a supernatural
means of sanctification, as if it is some type of quasi-sacramental act.
Thus, TB advocates equate the natural good of the conjugal act with
supernatural goods. Certainly, because we are both flesh and spirit,
there is a spiritual component to our sexuality. But trying to explain
the supernatural by means of the natural is an error called
Reductionism, and it permeates TB thinking. This is why many TB
proponents deny that the husband has true, God-given authority over his
wife*. They see the natural
only. They don't view the husband as the "Christ" of the family who has
been given supernatural authority over his wife and children as he leads
them to heaven.
Treating the conjugal act as a
supernatural means of sanctification has no basis in Catholic Tradition.
Such a teaching would certainly be news to many modern saints like St.
Therese and St. Maria Goretti, not to mention Jesus, Mary and Joseph. In
fact, the truth is just the opposite. That is, abstaining from the
pleasures of the flesh helps one grow in holiness. St. Paul teaches this
clearly in 1Corinthians 7:1,7. As St. Paul says, the flesh is at war
with the spirit, and we are able to grow in the spiritual life only by
taming the corporeal passions. The conjugal act is a passing natural
good, not an eternal supernatural good. In heaven, there will be no
conjugal relations, or marriage for that matter, for we will all be like
the angels of heaven. This is why faithful celibate priests and virginal
nuns, who have renounced the pleasures of the flesh, are already living
a life of closer union with God.*
Third, the manner in which many of these
"experts" (and, in some cases, perverts) speak of conjugal love is
profane and offensive to pious ears. Speaking openly about the conjugal
act, especially in mixed company, defies the sensus Catholicus. Such
lurid speech deviates from the Catholic sense of modesty. I have heard
and read incredible things come out of the mouths of these TB apologists
- comparing the physical act of conjugal relations, for example, to the
internal life of the Holy Trinity, and even (I hate to say this), the
Sacrifice of the Mass. In fact, there are some proponents of TB who
actually profess that non-consummated sodomy - an unnatural act and one
of the
four mortal sins which cry to heaven for God's vengeance - is a
permissible prelude to "lovemaking." I have heard other filth but I will
stop here. Needless to say, this kind of teaching should be condemned,
not praised. I am certain that Pope John Paul II never said or wrote
such things. One wonders who is monitoring these TB apologists?
Fourth, in light of the comments on
sodomy, there is a de-emphasis in TB on the risk of committing mortal
sins when exercising human sexuality, even within marriage. But as Our
Lady revealed to Blessed Jacinta at Fatima, "the sins which send most
people to hell are the sins of the flesh." The fact is, married couples
have more risk of committing mortal sins than those who have renounced
marriage for the kingdom of God. They have to constantly struggle with
kindled concupiscence, an overindulgence in or disordered focus on
sexual pleasure, contraceptive acts and the like, which endanger their
souls. Priests and nuns do not face these same temptations. TB
apologists would do well to promote a holy fear of hell and damnation
for those who choose to indulge in sins of the flesh. Since salvation is
the supreme law of the Church, this is a glaring omission in the TB
catechesis.
Fifth, TB proponents twist the meaning of
the dignity of the human person. They often focus on the body as giving
dignity to the person, and back it up by referring to the Incarnation as
perfecting the body's dignity. This is not Catholic Tradition. The
traditional teaching of the Church is that we receive our dignity when
we have sanctifying grace in our souls, which commences at baptism. That
is how our bodies become Temples of the Holy Spirit. It is not the
Incarnation which gives us this grace, but the Passion and death of Our
Lord. Christ came to save us from hell, not to raise our dignity (which
we didn't possess until baptism). It is true that we are made in God's
image and likeness because we have an intellect and a freewill, but our
dignity comes from God's grace which makes us His Sons and daughters. In
a state of grace, we are dignified children of God. In a state of mortal
sin, we are alienated from God and have no dignity (without regard to
our intellect and freewill).
Sixth, TB advocates invariably promote
Natural Family Planning (NFP). It never fails. It is as if NFP is
the sine qua non of healthy marriages. Deliberating trying to avoid
pregnancy runs counter to God's divine command to "be fruitful and
multiply." While Pope Paul VI did teach in Humanae Vitae that married
couples could abstain from the marital embrace for "grave motives," the
Church has never taught that couples can regulate the size of their
families at will, especially by charting fertility cycles and other such
measures. This is a novelty that cannot be attributed to John Paul II.
In fact, the late pope lamented the low birthrates and contraceptive
mentality in the West (Ecclesia in Europa, No. 8, 2003). Advocates of
NFP show a disregard for Divine Providence and put their trust in the
fallible judgments of sinful man.
Again, I reiterate that these criticisms
are based upon what I have read and heard from TB apologists. These are
not criticisms of John Paul II, for I have not studied his speeches on
this subject in any depth, and highly doubt his writings convey the
foregoing. Instead, my criticisms are based on the "crib notes" version
of the most popular TB apologists, who claim to speak authoritatively
for TB, but surely have mutilated the message. It is not my practice to
name names on my website; I simply want to arm my patrons with the
information and the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. I also
presume the good intentions of the TB apologists and consider them
brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, as I have said, some of the TB
message is very good, such as abstaining from pre-marital intercourse
and denouncing pornography. But when I see teaching that opposes our
Catholic tradition, I am duty-bound to respond. Thank you, Mary, for
raising this very important issue. I hope my reflections are helpful.
Instaurare omnia in Christo!
John Salza
Used With Permission
Please Note: We have added links above which are not part of the
original article. We have also added *
references above for 'refreshers' (see below).
* Refreshers...
Primacy of Husband:
"But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a
husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ." (St. Paul, 1
Cor. 11:3) [More...]
Superiority of Celibacy: "If any
one saith that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of
virginity or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to
remain in virginity or in celibacy than to be united in matrimony; let
him be anathema." (Council of Trent) [More...]
We
make no guarantees regarding any item herein. Views of others do not
necessarily reflect our views. By using this site you
indicate agreement to all terms. For terms information, see "Important
Notice" above and
click here.
|
