What do I think of JPII's "theology of the body"?
#1
When you see it mentioned on orthodox Catholic blogs and stuff, it's mostly described in terms of its minimal impact on society and the failed promise to achieve relevance with non-Christians/secularists.  There is also typically a reference to the fact that Francis has all but put it to bed for good in the name of a more straightforward licentious liberal theology.

But was it pretty good otherwise?  Or was it dumb Vat II stuff?
Reply
#2
I've wondered about it myself.

I was inspired by it when I was younger since it was refreshing to learn that the Church has a positive view on sex, but now that I know seeing the sex act as a heightened spiritual experience, especially the mutual orgasm, is a kabbalistic or tantric view I'm kind of suspicious.
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. 
The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders  
The Church will be in eclipse

-Our Lady of La Salette


Like Christ, His Bride the Church will undergo its own passion, burial, and resurrection.
-unknown traditional priest

Father Ripperger said that if we are detached from all things, aren't afraid to suffer, and we accept all suffering as the will of God for our sanctity, we have nothing to fear!
[-] The following 2 users Like Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
#3
(11-04-2019, 12:26 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I've wondered about it myself.

I was inspired by it when I was younger since it was refreshing to learn that the Church has a positive view on sex, but now that I know seeing the sex act as a heightened spiritual experience, especially the mutual orgasm, is a kabbalistic or tantric view I'm kind of suspicious.

I think I see what you mean.  Scripture takes an almost utilitarian view toward sex.  St. Paul pretty much just says, "If you can't keep it in your pants, get a wife/husband so it's not a sin when that happens."  But that's not necessarily a "negative" view of sex per se.  It's more of an almost... dismissive (?) one.
Reply
#4
(11-04-2019, 12:44 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: I think I see what you mean.  Scripture takes an almost utilitarian view toward sex.  St. Paul pretty much just says, "If you can't keep it in your pants, get a wife/husband so it's not a sin when that happens."  But that's not necessarily a "negative" view of sex per se.  It's more of an almost... dismissive (?) one.

Yeah, it's all discussed ad nauseam these days, but there really was a sad lack of information and lots of bad info in the days before the sexual revolution.  It was seen as tabu to even discuss the topic and many marriages suffered.

So as the revolution was rising more and more on tv and in movies etc., they also promoted the idea that the Church was anti-sex which it isn't.  

Then TOB gives this illustrious view of marital relations fleshing out the ideas Fr. Wojtyla wrote of in Love and Responsibility where he even encourages couples to make use of a sex therapist to achieve mutual orgasm as it's a sign of the love between God the Father and God the Son.

I was beguiled by this positive antithesis to all the anti-Catholic rhetoric and the romantic implications of this line of thought.

Yet now I do believe it's a way to over-promote the "good of the spouses" above the "procreative" purpose of the act.  And I'm suspicious because I've never seen anything promoting this way of thinking before in Catholic history and as I said earlier it reflects occult religious beliefs.

So yeah, I think you are right.   It's a more in the middle view with emphasis on the procreative purpose even though despite Augustine saying otherwise, procreation doesn't have to result.

I think it's important that both spouses are listened to, respected and spouses should work to please each other which requires good communication.  That belief is justified with simple adherence to loving, respectful virtue towards the other. I don't think that was always happening throughout history.  Many women never enjoyed sex and I have friends who were told by their moms it's just something you have to endure for your husband.   It's where the "lean back and think of England" joke came from.  I also have friends whose parents never taught them anything about sex and had to learn it all on the street.  School sex ed is abhorrent but parents have a serious responsibility inherent to their vocation to their children and indeed, their grandchildren who will suffer the consequences.

Louis and Zellie Martin, the parents of St. Therese, had to get counsel from a priest after many months went by without consummating the marriage after their wedding.  Zellie Martin had never heard of sex and was appalled when Louis tried to approach her with this very strange idea.

So hopefully a greater openness and emphasis on communication is one positive side effect of the pendulum swinging.
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. 
The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders  
The Church will be in eclipse

-Our Lady of La Salette


Like Christ, His Bride the Church will undergo its own passion, burial, and resurrection.
-unknown traditional priest

Father Ripperger said that if we are detached from all things, aren't afraid to suffer, and we accept all suffering as the will of God for our sanctity, we have nothing to fear!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#5
Back in seminary it was regularly derided as "Theology of the Bawdy".

There's nothing wrong with traditional Catholic sexual mores and their approach, but Theology of the Bawdy, is, in my opinion, too focused on the sexual aspect of things and the secondary ends of marriage, at the expense of teaching virtue and the importance of the primary end of marriage.

That is a problem inherent in the approach, of course, because it is founded on the ideas of Vatican II, which correctly, but backwardly describe the ends of marriage, putting the mutural help of the spouses and the pleasures of marriage before the primary end of procreation and education of the children.

Thus it easily gets twisted into speaking about sex (and also per accidens marriage, because people who are married often have sex) rather than chaste marriage (in which one uses sexual relations in an ordered way because of the virtue of chastity which is to be fostered according to one's state in life).
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, yablabo
Reply
#6
(11-04-2019, 02:12 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Back in seminary it was regularly derided as "Theology of the Bawdy".

There's nothing wrong with traditional Catholic sexual mores and their approach, but Theology of the Bawdy, is, in my opinion, too focused on the sexual aspect of things and the secondary ends of marriage, at the expense of teaching virtue and the importance of the primary end of marriage.

That is a problem inherent in the approach, of course, because it is founded on the ideas of Vatican II, which correctly, but backwardly describe the ends of marriage, putting the mutural help of the spouses and the pleasures of marriage before the primary end of procreation and education of the children.

Thus it easily gets twisted into speaking about sex (and also per accidens marriage, because people who are married often have sex) rather than chaste marriage (in which one uses sexual relations in an ordered way because of the virtue of chastity which is to be fostered according to one's state in life).

I had this debate with the priest who married my wife and me earlier this year.  I got this question "wrong" on the little quiz they give you that is graded by the archdiocese.  I said the primary purpose of marriage was procreation and that got flagged.  So we got reeducated that love comes first.  I gave push back on this, and it led to this wacky situation where the priest and I were sitting there on our phones trying to google what the Church "really" taught.  Finally he said, "Well, either way it amounts to the same thing, right?" and we moved on.

I'll always regret not getting married at my SSPX parish.  I had to stupidly give the FSSP a try, which led to my terrible experience that drove me away from the Church for over a year and led to me settling for a N.O. wedding because it was easy.  My Pre-Cana was also at an "evangelical" Catholic parish that featured such memorable moments as an educational video about marriage featuring a rabbi using a lesbian couple as an example of a strong relationship.
Reply
#7
(11-04-2019, 01:15 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Yeah, it's all discussed ad nauseam these days, but there really was a sad lack of information and lots of bad info in the days before the sexual revolution.  It was seen as tabu to even discuss the topic and many marriages suffered.

So as the revolution was rising more and more on tv and in movies etc., they also promoted the idea that the Church was anti-sex which it isn't.  

Then TOB gives this illustrious view of marital relations fleshing out the ideas Fr. Wojtyla wrote of in Love and Responsibility where he even encourages couples to make use of a sex therapist to achieve mutual orgasm as it's a sign of the love between God the Father and God the Son.

I was beguiled by this positive antithesis to all the anti-Catholic rhetoric and the romantic implications of this line of thought.

Yet now I do believe it's a way to over-promote the "good of the spouses" above the "procreative" purpose of the act.  And I'm suspicious because I've never seen anything promoting this way of thinking before in Catholic history and as I said earlier it reflects occult religious beliefs.

So yeah, I think you are right.   It's a more in the middle view with emphasis on the procreative purpose even though despite Augustine saying otherwise, procreation doesn't have to result.

I think it's important that both spouses are listened to, respected and spouses should work to please each other which requires good communication.  That belief is justified with simple adherence to loving, respectful virtue towards the other. I don't think that was always happening throughout history.  Many women never enjoyed sex and I have friends who were told by their moms it's just something you have to endure for your husband.   It's where the "lean back and think of England" joke came from.  I also have friends whose parents never taught them anything about sex and had to learn it all on the street.  School sex ed is abhorrent but parents have a serious responsibility inherent to their vocation to their children and indeed, their grandchildren who will suffer the consequences.

Louis and Zellie Martin, the parents of St. Therese, had to get counsel from a priest after many months went by without consummating the marriage after their wedding.  Zellie Martin had never heard of sex and was appalled when Louis tried to approach her with this very strange idea.

So hopefully a greater openness and emphasis on communication is one positive side effect of the pendulum swinging.

I think the other ulterior motive of emphasizing the pleasure/orgasm aspect over the procreative is that homosexuals can do it too that way.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#8
Quote:ICT Scripture takes an almost utilitarian view toward sex.

Some interpret the Canticle of Canticles (Song of Solomon) to be pretty steamy.  Some protestants go so far as to say it promotes oral sex and premarital sex.

Not sure what authentic Catholic teaching is on how to interpret that book...
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. 
The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders  
The Church will be in eclipse

-Our Lady of La Salette


Like Christ, His Bride the Church will undergo its own passion, burial, and resurrection.
-unknown traditional priest

Father Ripperger said that if we are detached from all things, aren't afraid to suffer, and we accept all suffering as the will of God for our sanctity, we have nothing to fear!
Reply
#9
(11-04-2019, 02:44 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: I had this debate with the priest who married my wife and me earlier this year.  I got this question "wrong" on the little quiz they give you that is graded by the archdiocese.  I said the primary purpose of marriage was procreation and that got flagged.  So we got reeducated that love comes first.  I gave push back on this, and it led to this wacky situation where the priest and I were sitting there on our phones trying to google what the Church "really" taught.  Finally he said, "Well, either way it amounts to the same thing, right?" and we moved on.

I'd have said, no Father, sorry. Not the same.

Dying of cancer after a long protracted battle with family surrounding you, or injected with lots of morphine against your will by a "merciful" doctor.

You're dead either way. Amounts to the same thing, right?

If it's firstly about love, and not about creating a stable and good environment in which to produce and raise children, then when love is gone, it's okay to separate, since the new "primary purpose" is gone. In short, the image of a couple is not Christ and the Church.

Instead if it's firstly about the stable and good environment for the kiddos, then even when love is tough, you make sacrifices for them, and you learn to love, because love is all about sacrifice. That's the image of Christ and his Church. Christ offered his entire self, emptied of everything for the good of his spouse and her children (us). So should not a father and mother do the same?

So, yeah, the order of those things kinda matters.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Imperator Caesar Trump, jovan66102, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#10
(11-04-2019, 03:36 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
Quote:ICT Scripture takes an almost utilitarian view toward sex.

Some interpret the Canticle of Canticles (Song of Solomon) to be pretty steamy.  Some protestants go so far as to say it promotes oral sex and premarital sex.

Not sure what authentic Catholic teaching is on how to interpret that book...
I've seen it interpreted as the soul's longing for union with God, which is a far more intimate thing than just mere sex. Traditionally, the soul is seen as feminine, which makes sense given the view of God as pure act and the perfectibility of the human creature through potency. The fact that Protestants would see this book that way proves that they do not have the guidance of the Holy Ghost when reading scripture.

I think it's a beautiful book when seen in this context.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes: vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.' - Ecclesiastes 1:2

My blog: https://slavetothesacredhe.art.blog/
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • Sacred Heart lover
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)