Essay on the theology of the body
#2
Thanks for the article. 

For our purposes, the author seems to be saying that "trads" don't like TOB because it emphasizes the unitive purpose of marriage over the procreative, which can result in an overemphasis on "love" as the normative benchmark of marital consent, and hence validity.  He points out how the two emphases (the old and the new: procreation and unity) are consonant with the difference between the two Codes of Canon Law, 1917 and 1983, as well as what was said about marriage in Gaudium et Spes that was underemphasized in the Church prior to Vatican II.  He also points out that the more recent emphasis is more in keeping with the definition of marriage as a "covenant" rather than with the older, and "thinner" definition of "contract".  He also cites the progressivists' problems with TOB as a mirror image of the trad problems with TOB as part of his argument that both are misguided. 

He's basically saying that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, ratified as a sacrament by God and made permanent, and that the covenenat and marriage act both reflect eschatological theology; and that any definition or over-emphasis on either the personalistic (or subjective) aspect of "love", or the contractual and procreative aspect, is too thin and exclusive of the other, and also misses the larger picture of the sacrament as covenant reflective of eschatology. 

Anyway, I'm just trying to work out what he's saying, and so far I don't seem to have a problem with it.  If he is right about the reasons why trads don't like TOB, then I agree with him that they are wrong.  Any help?  Am I nuts? 
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Essay on the theology of the body - by Arturo - 05-19-2009, 10:10 PM
Re: Essay on the theology of the body - by JonW - 05-06-2010, 11:34 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)