The original Theology of the Body is not a theological work authored by Christopher West. West took the original Theology of the Body sermon series given by St. John Paul II in a series of public audiences in the 1980s and has re-presented them and edited them through his own unique lens.
The Theology of the Body that's presented in the original sermon series (which is available in a book) is not the same thing as West's re-interpretation of that work.
There was a thought to putting West’s book on “the list.” Not that there is “a list” anymore. Although some articles do still make it to the not good for human consumption list. Considering how absolutely perverse western civilization has become there is not much that isn’t shoved down our throats by those big media monopolies that care so much. Not much hope in putting out a list when nearly everything in media belongs on it.
Your view of John Paul II as some type of perverse extremist for highlighting the passages that Jesus cites on marriage is interesting. I wonder where the concept of complementarity then sits in your duck pond for shotgun lovers?
I read this comment two or three times and still have no idea what you're talking about in the second paragraph.
I did my best to make it as clear as I possibly could that my problem is not with St. John Paul II's work, but with those who "translate" it to be more accessible without an appropriate sense of caution or reverence. I do NOT see him as a "perverse extremist" and I'm baffled as to how you drew that conclusion.
Primarily my reaction to “frank and honest discussion” used to mean something entirely different than what it is exactly that John Paul the Great did. He did as frank and honest a discussion as is possible in his audiences.
More so, perhaps, as hauntingly threatening what you have seen on TOB confers. I am sorry for your experience in this.
Outside of West and his, as you noted, capability to open the concepts to a section of society that few could have imagined, I have found no such cultist nor especially threatening perspectives of misogynistic or otherwise perverse views from TOB.
My experience of such discussion was always extremely reverent and highlighted the sacred nature of the human person. I am quite sorry you have seen otherwise and will pray this oppression will be relieved. I hope yours is an exception and wish that this burden of yours be lightened.
I do not doubt that most of these discussions are conducted with good intentions.
The problem is that West's view, and others in that vein, have become the de facto widely accepted popular view of JP2's work, and that the gaping blind spots that view has, and passes on, enable predators to move in. If you haven't already, I list several examples of the sorts of predators, particularly clerics, who take advantage of these blind spots to do some truly reprehensible things in the footnotes to this piece.
I'm worried about a misunderstanding of "frank and honest", not so much the real thing.
Sure. Its probably deserving of a post at some point, but the shift of the highest end of the marital act from one to two ends combined with the phenomenological approach of totb seems to, at least in translations i have heard, give too much to the fetischizing of sensible luv. People today need to hear and hear explained what is repugnant to their perverse minds, i.e. sex is for creating new life. The attempt to make cst palpable or understandable to perverse lends itself toward being misunderstood.
You have a point, but I've also seen the sexual act focused on the act of procreation to the point that the human dignity of the people doing the act is obscured, damaged, or ignored. There's a reason that infertility is a particularly difficult cross for Catholic married couples to carry, and one of those reasons is that the sexual act can become focused on trying to have a baby to the point that one or the other partner begins to feel used.
I honestly think it's necessary to keep BOTH aspects of the act in focus, or the human dignity of the people involved and the full meaning of it can become lost.
That said, the problem I was trying to explore in this particular post wasn't so much what TOB says about the relationship between a man and wife so much as the combining of sexuality and spirituality. It needs to be handled much more carefully, and I don't see current TOB speakers/writers recognizing how absolutely devastating the potential fallout from that bit being misunderstood or weaponized by an abuser is (if you look through my footnote listing example cases of this, two of the cases involved celibate religious sisters being groomed for assault via their abuser weaponizing sexually charged "spiritual" language). They're downright careless with how they express it in a lot of instances.
I just want to offer a quick clarification:
The original Theology of the Body is not a theological work authored by Christopher West. West took the original Theology of the Body sermon series given by St. John Paul II in a series of public audiences in the 1980s and has re-presented them and edited them through his own unique lens.
The Theology of the Body that's presented in the original sermon series (which is available in a book) is not the same thing as West's re-interpretation of that work.
Good thoughts. Temptation happens. Avoid it.
There was a thought to putting West’s book on “the list.” Not that there is “a list” anymore. Although some articles do still make it to the not good for human consumption list. Considering how absolutely perverse western civilization has become there is not much that isn’t shoved down our throats by those big media monopolies that care so much. Not much hope in putting out a list when nearly everything in media belongs on it.
Your view of John Paul II as some type of perverse extremist for highlighting the passages that Jesus cites on marriage is interesting. I wonder where the concept of complementarity then sits in your duck pond for shotgun lovers?
I read this comment two or three times and still have no idea what you're talking about in the second paragraph.
I did my best to make it as clear as I possibly could that my problem is not with St. John Paul II's work, but with those who "translate" it to be more accessible without an appropriate sense of caution or reverence. I do NOT see him as a "perverse extremist" and I'm baffled as to how you drew that conclusion.
Primarily my reaction to “frank and honest discussion” used to mean something entirely different than what it is exactly that John Paul the Great did. He did as frank and honest a discussion as is possible in his audiences.
More so, perhaps, as hauntingly threatening what you have seen on TOB confers. I am sorry for your experience in this.
Outside of West and his, as you noted, capability to open the concepts to a section of society that few could have imagined, I have found no such cultist nor especially threatening perspectives of misogynistic or otherwise perverse views from TOB.
My experience of such discussion was always extremely reverent and highlighted the sacred nature of the human person. I am quite sorry you have seen otherwise and will pray this oppression will be relieved. I hope yours is an exception and wish that this burden of yours be lightened.
I do not doubt that most of these discussions are conducted with good intentions.
The problem is that West's view, and others in that vein, have become the de facto widely accepted popular view of JP2's work, and that the gaping blind spots that view has, and passes on, enable predators to move in. If you haven't already, I list several examples of the sorts of predators, particularly clerics, who take advantage of these blind spots to do some truly reprehensible things in the footnotes to this piece.
I'm worried about a misunderstanding of "frank and honest", not so much the real thing.
The theology of the body seems to lend itself more readily to misinterpretation than than the thomistic framework.
Would you be willing to elaborate on what you mean by that?
Sure. Its probably deserving of a post at some point, but the shift of the highest end of the marital act from one to two ends combined with the phenomenological approach of totb seems to, at least in translations i have heard, give too much to the fetischizing of sensible luv. People today need to hear and hear explained what is repugnant to their perverse minds, i.e. sex is for creating new life. The attempt to make cst palpable or understandable to perverse lends itself toward being misunderstood.
You have a point, but I've also seen the sexual act focused on the act of procreation to the point that the human dignity of the people doing the act is obscured, damaged, or ignored. There's a reason that infertility is a particularly difficult cross for Catholic married couples to carry, and one of those reasons is that the sexual act can become focused on trying to have a baby to the point that one or the other partner begins to feel used.
I honestly think it's necessary to keep BOTH aspects of the act in focus, or the human dignity of the people involved and the full meaning of it can become lost.
That said, the problem I was trying to explore in this particular post wasn't so much what TOB says about the relationship between a man and wife so much as the combining of sexuality and spirituality. It needs to be handled much more carefully, and I don't see current TOB speakers/writers recognizing how absolutely devastating the potential fallout from that bit being misunderstood or weaponized by an abuser is (if you look through my footnote listing example cases of this, two of the cases involved celibate religious sisters being groomed for assault via their abuser weaponizing sexually charged "spiritual" language). They're downright careless with how they express it in a lot of instances.
Right this bad combination is what i was trying to account for. Thanks for your thoughtful response.