Talk:Theology of the Body

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
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)

MODERNISM AND "THEOLOGY OF THE BODY"
     A New Order fabrication, the "Theology of the Body, was developed by John Paul II in 129 Wednesday talks given between September 5, 1979, and November 28, 1984.
     It is clear from the very first talk that JPII's approach to theology diverges from the approved theology of the Catholic Church, that is, Thomism, founded upon the theology of the Church's Principal Theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas and indirectly upon the theology of St. Augustine of Hippo, the Great Father of the Church. Rather than being rooted in the realism and objectivity of Catholic Thomism, the Theology of the Body is rooted instead in the false subjective philosophies of Modernism. The Church's theology is objective, deductive, and rational. The Theology of the Body constructs a counter-theology that is subjective, inductive, and experiential.
     An objective view of reality refers to something that is true, regardless of whether or not I know it to be true. For example, if a blind man is outside, but cannot see the trees, the trees still exist, irrespective of whether the blind man perceives them or not. Objective reality exists independent of one's individual perception. The subjective view of reality claims that only what I perceive to be real is actually real. For example, if I believe that a certain poison will cure my disease, then that poison is healthful in my perception, whether the poison objectively will kill me or not. A dangerous philosophy!
     One can see how Theology of the Body can lead to serious consequences in the area of morality. The subjectivist view of reality is clearly captured by the phrase, "That may be true for you, but not for me!" In other words, what is true depends on what I believe or accept or perceive. In Catholic theology, such a claim is utter nonsense. For example, in Theology of the Body, if your perception is that Allah is God, then he is—for you. If your perception is that it is moral to divorce and remarry, then it is moral—for you. You can see how this subjective thinking has led to Vatican II's infamous "oecumenism" ("we all worship the same god"; all gods are equal) and moral relativism.
     Catholic theology is deductive and rational; that is, it uses objective reason to determine what is true and false. Modernist subjectivism determines truth by induction, that is experimentation and observation to determine what people believe by their own perception and experience. Subjectivism thus leads, in effect, to doctrine by poll, which the Protestants already have. For example, it makes no difference what Christ objectively said in Scripture against divorce. Since the perception of (some) people is that divorce and remarriage is moral, then it is moral—for them. And no one can tell them that it is wrong—for them.
     The Theology of the Body is the result of the use of a philosophical movement called "Phenomenology," an offshoot of Modernism, in which Karol Woytyla, later JPII, was instructed in Poland. The founder of Phenomenology was a German philosopher named Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), who, in the Protestant fashion, focused on the subjective, individual experience of people. Phenomenology, in turn, was based on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who had taught that moral norms are unknowable because they lie beyond immediate human experience. Thus, morality is not objectively knowable, as it is in Catholic theology, and morality is divorced from reality. Therefore, one cannot say objectively that anything (murder, stealing, perjury) is immoral. Only the conventions of society (i.e., civil law) bind, and they can be changed at any time.
     In the 19th century, the Church first took note of the heresy of Modernism and defined it on September 26, 1835, when the document condemned the approach of certain priests, professors in German universities, who were using the Modern Philosophy of Descartes, Kant, and Hegel to reinterpret the Articles of Faith. At the heart of the Modernist ethos is the belief that truth can contradict itself. As God is the author all truth, Modernists believe that God can contradict Himself, that He has not revealed anything that can be defined definitively, that it is up to believers to "reinterpret" the meaning of "truth" time and events unfold.
     In 1864 Pope Pius IX condemned Modernism in his encyclical Quanta Cura (1864), accompanied by the famous Syllabus of Errors as an appendix. The Holy Office under Pope St. Pius X published the famous decree Lamentabili sane (1907), in which 65 condemned propositions drawn from the works of Modernist writers were listed, and he himself issued the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), in which he outlined the errors of Modernism, described as "summa omnium heresum" [the synthesis of all heresies].
     The Modernist acceptance of the Hegelian view of the world (that ideas contain within themselves the seeds of their own inherent contradiction, thus creating a conflict that is resolved in the evolution of a new idea, a synthesis, from the first idea and its antithesis) is the foundation of the work of men such as the late Fathers Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac and their protege, Father Joseph Ratzinger.
     To the contrary, Catholic theology (Thomism) begins with God. The Renaissance started to veer off the centrality of God by focusing on human beings. Protestantism furthered the emphasis on individual human beings and especially on the individual with its insistence on the private interpretation of Scripture. The same tendency can be seen in the modern development of "Scientism," that is, the veneration of science as a kind of secular "god" rather than as simply a tool of man's mind to understand the universe.
     Many people today are loathe to accept conclusions based upon principles. Rather, they give more credibility to an individual's personal "experience" and the conclusions he draws from that experience. For example, if his experience is that Muslims are good people, then it is morally acceptable to believe that Allah is god. The Theology of the Body results in a concept of the world which is subjective, irrational, and experiential.
     And that is exactly the moral timebomb that Newchurch is preaching, which is, and will continue to, destroy every traditional teaching on Catholic morality. ([1])

--Geremia (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (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)

[edit] Weigel's long term view

I thought I made a small contribution by adding citations to the Weigel quotes, but then Irecognized something funny in two Weigel editions.

Regarding the long term impact of the theology of the body, Weigel writes

In 1999: It is a "kind of theological time bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences... perhaps in the 21st century."

In 2005: It is a "kind of theological time bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences, sometime in the third millenium of the Church"

--:)


--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The first ten centuries constitute the first millennium, centuries eleven through twenty constitute the second millennium, and the twenty-first century begins the third millennium. "21st century" and "third millennium" are two different ways of saying the same thing. LyrlTalk C 19:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Not really!

If the "time bomb" goes of within this century, some of us may have a chance witnessing the breakthrough of the "Theology of the Body" in our lifetime.

If however, as Weigel suggests now, "the time bomb" goes off within the third millenium, that is within thousand years, our chances of watching this specacle are indeed very slim. The 1000 year prediction, by the way, makes the "time bomb" forecast a safe bet for Weigel. Weigel is smart enough to see realize huge problems for the theology of the body, which make it unlikely, to ever leave the paper it is written on:

    • The Pope is very hard to read and understand: "The density of John Paul's material is one factor.
    • A secondary literature capable of translating John Paul's thought into accessible categories and vocabulary is badly needed."
    • The dominant political correctness on such issues as women, birth control, abortion and divorce is also an obstacle to the "theology of the body" becoming known or accepted "

Sounds like a Requiem to me.

As a sypathetic but neutral bystander I have a larger question regarding this Wikipedia article. It mentions (without discussing) concepts like "Christian ideal of marriage", resurrection of the body, virginity and so on. Fine.

These are basic, traditional concepts on which virtually all Popes and Vatican II have spoken to since the beginning of time. I could easily prove this here.

The article fails to make clear: What's new? Where is the beef? What is the contribution or novelty of it all?

I am referring to the theology of Pope John Paul II, which is a sophisticated, complicated nuanced piece of art, quite different from often simplistic Baltimore Catechism.

I am not saying that " the theology of body" exists in name only. Yet, this Wikipedia article, as it is presently written, may unfortunately lead the reader to such a conclusion. It needs lot's of work.

Friendly greetings

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's new, so am not in a position to improve this article. I agree it needs a lot of work. LyrlTalk C 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

As it reads now, sorry to say, this article is a great disservice to the great Pope John Paul II.

Regarding the novelty of it all, the uniquess, the "time bomb" potential and so on.

    • This has to be documented by the protagonist, and not the critic. The Theology of the body categories in this article, "Christian ideal of marriage", "Resurrection of the body", "Virginity" and so on refer to nice, traditional standard Catholic teaching.
    • Needed is a simple statement what the Theology of the Body implies, and what its contribution is to theology as a whole and the teachings of Pope John Paul II. The article does tell us anything on this.
    • Needed is a discussion of the very few, who have discussed Theology of the Body, including critical Catholic Theologians like Timothy Johnson, who imply that Theology of the Body is nothing but an old-fashioned theological, hard to understand rumbling.

-:)) Greetings

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theology of the Body: Thomas Aquinas and Pope Benedict XVI

I added the views of Thomas Aquinas and Benedict XVI as a necessary update, and partial challenge to JP II, which should bring some life into this topic. I also separated the more or less finished sections from the unfinished construction sites, hoping to make the article more readable.

One could discuss, whether to remove the unfinished sections and add instead to an overall description too JP II theology of the body. This way, the question of "novelty" on issues like marriage, divorce and so on, would not even come up. I have no strong view on this one way or another, except that the construction sites look just aweful.

Greetings

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the vast majority of the Benedict material is hopelessly synthy at best, and (having read Deus Caritas Est cover to cover) also highly misleading. Let's also stick to John Paul's lectures as this topic, and use a different title for Aquinas's ideas. That said, I reverted the material per my comments. If you have some third party refs with the Benedict connections, let's dicsuss them here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

Poor Pope John Paul II. His Theology of the Body, as described here, is a great disservice to a great Pope.

Missing are, to name a few:

  • His scope,
  • the historicity of his argument,
  • the biblical nature of his anthopology,
  • his positive view of redemption,
  • his Christological orientation
  • his frequent mention of totus tuus Maria
  • the overall relation to Vatican II.

To use your terminology, the emphasis on birth control is hopelessly synthy at best, and does not reflect well on this great Pope.

Please bring this in order. Even without looking at the many construction sites and the unrelated biblical quotes, this page does injury to the memory and theology of Pope John Paul II.


Friendly greetings

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: "Body" existed before JPII, "theology" existed before JPII, and so did "theology of the body", which is the topic here. Like "moral theology" it is not a term belonging to one person or pope. It would be different, and I would agree with you, if the topic were ToB of JPII. It is highly simplistic to assume that JPII started this thing. I am sure, nobody here serously believes that.

If you or anybody has problems with Pope Benedict or my statements about him, kindly be specific! I am not married to my words and gladly change, if required.

I will redo the changes but have no intention to start or participate in an edit war. A neutral controvery section here and in other related pages could be another solution.

The scope of this article has been discussed before: #Title. The long-standing consensus (reinforced here by Baccyak4H and myself) has been that this article is restricted to the teachings of Pope John Paul II. Please do not edit the article in opposition to consensus.
The text added by Ambrosius007 was cited only to primary sources, which verify the quotes but none of the interpretation found in that text. Without a citation to a secondary source or sources that support the interpretation - not just the direct quotes - that material is original research which is not allowed by Wikipedia policy.
The fact that this article is in an early stage of development in no way justifies violations of consensus or Wikipedia policy. LyrlTalk C 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] external link to un-factchecked Q/A column

Let me be clear. The link from remnant is not an acceptable external link. It is merely a question and answer column (i.e., a glorified blog) whose answers make painfully obvious that inadequate (if any) fact checking goes on. In addition, some of the comments there regarding West are borderline incoherent. Per external links guidelines, please refrain from readding that link. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NIV

Why is the NIV being used for Bible quotes instead of a Catholic Bible? I somewhat doubt JP II used the NIV. --Shanedidona (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because the editors of this article (including myself) don't know any better. Feel free to be bold and edit the article to use more appropriate translations. LyrlTalk C 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)