Theology of the Body has been in the Catholic news a lot lately.  TOB is something I have been thinking about for a while.  The following six posts or so will be a collection of many of my thoughts on its merits and liabilities.

For the sake of fairness, it might be appropriate from the outset to let readers know where I am coming from. First, I am not into Theology of the Body. And this is not only due to the circumstances of my intellectual formation. I remember hearing the usual TOB-inspired arguments against fornication, contraception, etc., as a high school student, and even then, I wondered about their cogency. By way of example, I was never content with being told that contraception was wrong because it did not signify a total self-giving. The terms just seemed too indefinite. I thought things were much clearer and simpler if we just admitted that it was simply because it was not ordered to procreation, which remains the primary end of marriage. I know that Theology of the Body does not deny this. But the Thomistic approach makes it clearer, by going directly to the cause of the disorder of the act, while TOB, as it was presented to me, makes circumlocutions through sign-values. And these would only be cogent if significative power, and not order to an end, was the measure of morality (of course, there are those who define morality as the study of human actions insofar as they are pieces of communication, but I also find this unconvincing).

Second, I consider myself a Thomist, and while many see TOB and St. Thomas as not incompatible, I certainly find that they are very different. TOB is certainly connected with phenomenology and personalism, and many experts in Catholic versions of both of these schools practically begin their treatises by identifying the “shortcomings” of Aquinas. Whether one seems them as compatible or not, one thing is for certain: they are distinct.

Third, I have not read Christopher West. Hence, in what follows, I do not intend to give him particular consideration. I am simply unqualified to do so. However, I am acquainted with the Wednesday Audiences of Pope John Paul II. And I have read them in their more correct translation by Michael Waldstein. I would hazard that I have the gist of it. But I will readily admit that I am no expert.

So let the reader beware. My words here will not satisfy everyone.  C. S. Lewis once said that one who dislikes science fiction is precisely unqualified to be a critic of science fiction. For this reason, the critique of Christopher West himself is better left to those who belong to the TOB school. And they have been doing so.

But, to take the analogy further, it certainly could pertain to an expert in literature to judge the relative merits of the different genres of literature and answer such questions as how science fiction fits in. In fact, it always pertains to the more universal art or science to judge the conclusions of the less universal art or science. Theology of the Body, simply by the addition of that descriptive phrase, is a particulated branch of theology. Thomism is at least an attempt to over the whole, springing from a time when Theology was simply the Theology of God; and that’s as universal as you can get. Of course, one could argue that I am not universal theology incarnate, and neither is St. Thomas; and that is, of course, true. But my study of theology has led me to have a definite opinion of TOB.

1. Theology of the Body is not very useful for discovering or demonstrating moral precepts.

I am a Moral Theologian, and a lot of Moral Theology is talking about what’s right and wrong, what is or is not against reason. For these particular questions, TOB by itself is not very helpful. And this is so for a very simple reason: most moral precepts belong to the natural law. Their proper principle is nature, not Revelation, and therefore, not theology. It is true that God has also revealed many moral precepts, coming to the aid of our ignorance. But most moral precepts, even those that have been revealed, regard the natural law. This is certainly true with regard to sexual matters: the norms that the Church proposes belong to us as men, not as Christians.  The difference between philosophical ethics and moral theology is not to be found primarily in a new set of precepts, proper to believers, but rather, in new principles (grace, the infused virtues, the Gifts of the Holy Spirit), a new end (the Beatific Vision in the glory of the saints), and a new mode (e.g., natural temperance curbs appetites so as not to harm bodily health, whereas infused temperance “chastises the body, and makes it obey” one, and unites one to the sufferings of Christ, etc.). The substance of the acts is the same, though now their form is supernatural charity.

I know that most TOB experts will agree with this. But I think it is worth mentioning again because some have advocated a re-visiting of moral questions to find new solutions through Theology of the Body, as if the natural law has not or cannot give us a demonstrative answer. Or, even further, some speak as if the Catholic Church has been operating under an inability to arrive at a true understanding of sexual morality until Theology of the Body arrived on the scene.

The fact is that when we give an account for the reason that fornication, or contraception, etc. is wrong, to say that it does not adequately express the total personal self-giving of the Trinity will neither convince everyone (for unbelievers are not too concerned about the Trinity, and yet they are bound to the natural law), nor is it the real argument. It may be a true argument, as an added further effect and sign of the disorder of reason entailed in these acts. But such an argument would presuppose a disorder already present in the act. The primo and per se argument, that is, the argument that does not presuppose any other disorder, is the one that manifests the lack of due order to man’s end. The moral precepts that the Church has been defending in the 20th century are precepts of the natural law, not precepts from divine command added to the natural law. One does not need to have recourse to theology or Revelation or the Faith to defend them. They are proposed to all men. Theology of the Body can reinforce the arguments from the natural law. It can be an aid to believers. Indeed, it is often said that Pope John Paul II wrote it to defend Humanae Vitae.  But it cannot do without the arguments from natural law. Indeed, as much as it may try to get away from them, it is actually based on them, for a thing cannot be a natural sign of something unless the reality entails the cause and effect relationship between the signified and the signifying.

***

See part 2 here.

See part 3 here.

See part 4 here.

See part 5 here.

See part 6 here.

See part vii here.