Talk:Theology of the Body
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
8 April 2005 Greetings! I glean from the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_body
that
" Theology of the Body refers to a series of 129 lectures given by Pope John Paul II during his Wednesday audiences in Rome between September 1979 and November 1984. These addresses were later compiled and published as a single work entitled The Theology of the Body According to John Paul II. The work covers such topics as the bodily dimension of the human person, the nature of human sexuality, the human need for communion, and the nature of marriage."
I would be very grateful if someone who has read both this and the apology issued to women on the 10th of July,1995 start with a discussion on the position of the John Paul II....
Punam
I beleive thisi s the 'apoogy' thought hat is not a term i would use for it, it is an address by JPII on and about women's role in soceity and the church, here is teh link
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2WOM.HTM 89.240.136.186 14:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] NEW TRANSLATION
A new English translation of the Theology of the Body lectures has been produced, based on the Polish original: Paulist Press Announcement "For the first time in English, the Pope’s original 219 chapter headings (an additional 1600 words), six additional catecheses, and his trademark use of italics to aid in clarity." It also offers consistent translation of key terms. Zenit: New Translation Part 1 Zenit: New Translation Part 2 --Freder1ck 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck
-
- A correction: Prof. Waldstein's new translation is to be published by Pauline Books, rather than Paulist; however, the link above goes to the right site. Chonak 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The link uses a strange mix of gender specific langauge. This will be a problem for contemproary English readers. In a section on sexuality to use Man to refer to all humankind and then use man and woman to refer to the genders is confusing at least ... and could indicate implicit sexism at worst. (Just nigel 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC))
-
-
-
-
- Which link? I've looked at all three links in this section. Nothing in the Pauline Books link. References to genders as man and Woman in the first Zenit article; the second Zenit article refers to the human person, the human body, man, and woman. Freder1ck 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It would appear that this is a criticism of the article itself not the link, where I do see both human and man used as generics. So, Be_bold. The preceeding unsigned comment was added by Just nigel
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The second article uses human as a generic for all people; it then speaks of man and woman as generics for each gender. There is no use of man as a generic for all human persons. Freder1ck 18:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck
-
-
-
-
[edit] Improvement ideas?
I originally became interested in this topic through my interest in fertility awareness methods of birth control. I've found it easiest to read his lectures on my area of interest (contraception - the last section of TOTB), and have started a discussion of that section in the article. There are a lot of lectures; I imagine that section of the article is going to have to be even more summarized than it is now, but am hoping that the most important points will begin to stand out as I read more of Pope John Paul II's meditations.
I'm hoping others will be interested in the other topics, for the area that discusses the content of TOTB. For the commentary/impact section, I'm not sure even where to do research. The delivery section is also very short and I'm not currently seeing how it could be expanded. That might end up being put up in the introductory paragraph? Lyrl Talk Contribs 21:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism?
Should there be a criticism section? I understand that a number of Catholic moral philosophers have criticized the Theology of the Body as resting on Kantian grounds or other grounds rather than making use of the traditional Aristotelian moral framework. I'm not particularly fluent in the substance of the debate, though. --Hyphen5 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not only am I not fluent in the substance of the debate, I don't even know where to go to learn. If someone has relevent resources, it would be very helpful if they posted them here. Lyrl Talk Contribs 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Title
Doesn't JPII nead to appear in the title if this page is exclusively for his theology of the body. Where on wikipedia would we write other people's theology of the body? Maybe we need a page on the theology of the body that lists Christian theology, then catholic theology and then summarises this lecture series with a link to this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Just nigel (talk • contribs) 06:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unrelated or loosely related topics with similar names are generally dealt with through a disambiguation page. Diaphragm is an example of a disambiguation page. If one of the topics is much more utilized than another, then generally that page will get the main article namespace, with a hatnote linking to other uses of the name or to a disambiguation page. The Condom article, for example, is about the prophylactic device, but has a link at a top to the Wikipedia article on the town in France named "Condom".
- JPII's Theology of the Body seems to be the overwhelmingly most utilized use of the term. I looked through the first forty hits for "Theology of the Body" on Google and every single one referred to JPII's work. Not only is his work the only Theology of the Body article on Wikipedia - Wikipedia has an entire category devoted to Catholic teachings related to the subject. So I do not think renaming the article would be appropriate. Lyrl Talk Contribs 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Indissolubility of marriage
This section heading seems reductionist. He is not just exploring the issue of can marriages be disolved (a question the pahrisees ask) he is exploring the issue of how humans were created and for what humans were created and by whom humans were created - just as Jesus answers the Pharisees question by not getting into their patriachal issues of 'owning' a wife and by what means could a man break the contract - but pointing back to how God intended marraige to really be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Just nigel (talk • contribs) 07:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I got the headings from here and mainly meant them as placeholders until someone with more knowledge of the topic was able to expand the article. If you have information to add, please be bold and feel free to change that or any other headings to better reflect the subject matter. Lyrl Talk Contribs 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm still learning the cultural sensativity of wiki. On one page I change something and people houl "discuss it first" on another page I list it first and they say be bold. I guess I am happy to make the change but list it here first one day to give others a chance to give their opinion if they know even better than me. I have now changed the title to "the christian ideal of marraige" we will see if others think that summarises it better. (Just nigel 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Use of NIV translation
A more literal translation than the NIV should probably be chosen for the quotation of Matthew 19. The NIV translations the Greek word *porneias* as "marital unfaithfulness," a meaning it never holds elsewhere in Scripture; notably, the NIV was translated by people who didn't believe in the indissolubility of marriage and their interpretive slant has informed their translation. The ESV or NASB would be more literal translations with less embedded interpretation. Jemfinch 00:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
