Pope John Paul II has published two books that teach Catholic approaches to love, marriage and sexuality. “The Theology of the Body” builds from biblical revelation and church tradition, a comprehensive understanding of God’s plan for men and women. “Love and Responsibility” tackles the same subject matter from a philosophical point of view. Both books define Catholic teaching, not as mindless and intrusive taboos (the view held by much of society), but as the holistic and meaningful experience of love and participation in the divine plan.
The New York Times this morning reported on the popularity of the Pope’s teachings amongst devout Catholics. Not surprisingly, the Times reporting was skeptical that the Theology of the Body is anything more than window dressing, or a new age repackaging of the traditional Christian message. The Times opined, “Underneath it all, the new theology does not change the basic rules. But some say it presents them in a more appealing way.”
To emphasize its point, the Times quoted Luke Timothy Johnson, a former priest and critic of the theology of the body: "It's a feel-good message, but under that is this notion of normality, which is deeply repressive and exclusive." The Times also quoted the overtly anti-Catholic Frances Kissling: “…the theology remains negative at the core and excludes whole categories of people - gays, the remarried or anyone having sex outside of marriage.”
The Times and its fellow travelers can not diminish the Pope’s powerful message that the social fragmentation experienced in America and Europe as a result of movements toward individualism and permissiveness need not be accepted as inevitable or irreversible. The Pope presents an expansive view of human sexuality that makes sense of Church teaching and liberates marriage and human sexuality from secular clichés. That the Pope's teaching is compelling is evidenced by the popularity of Theology of the Body and Love and Responsiblity study groups.
Posted by publius at June 7, 2004 09:02 AMRight on. No matter what you say, there will always be many people who insist on seeing Catholic teaching on morality as repressive and narrow-minded. You should write a letter to the editor at the NYTimes on this subject.
Posted by: Gabrielle at June 8, 2004 10:56 AMI don't think the NYT would publish any such letter, Gabrielle. Also how come nothing here on the passage of Ronald Reagan, or as they say in the Cuba and North Korea, He Who Must Not Be Named?
Posted by: john vecchione at June 9, 2004 12:13 PMPatience Grasshopper! I am working on a piece about Reagan- I want to get it right. I was traveling last week through the weekend and have much catching up to do.
As far as the Times is concerned, Fances Kissling represents the real Church, and the Pope has it all wrong. I think they would decline to publish my thoughts.
Posted by: Publius at June 9, 2004 01:44 PMThey probably would decline to publish your thoughts. But does that mean you shouldn't try? You never know what effect you might have - maybe nothing at all, but then again who knows... :)
Posted by: Gabrielle at June 9, 2004 03:56 PMThere is of course the small matter of time.
Posted by: Publius at June 9, 2004 11:36 PM