Is Theology of the Body Overly Sexualized?

We are usually hearing criticisms of the Catholic position on sex from people who think it's too strict. In this case a new Catholic is criticising the Theology of the Body from the other perspective. The person emailing thinks Theology of the Body puts too much focus on sex, and overly emphasizes the spiritual aspects of sex within marriage. I've interspersed his comments in bold italics below with responses.

I have also heard some advocates of TOB, like Mr.. West, are not against sexual perversions, like anal sex. The adore sex (within marriage) and give it a much to high position.

There are a few things I think we could look at in this sentence. Christopher West was quite young when he released his first edition of TOB. Until that time, Pope John Paul II's writing was not very accessible to young people of this generation.

He brought his youthful appeal, along with some of his misconceptions, as well as a touch of his past which was, like mine, not the most pure. Soon after he released TOB 1st edition, he changed his position on anal sex... he corrected it in the 2nd edition... and is very clear that it is not permissible in marriage. Having said that, I agree with some of the criticisms of Mr. West that say he's made TOB a little too genital centred. Some say the original from Pope John Paul II does not take that focus. I have not read TOB so I can't comment on that... Mr. West has recently taken a period of time to meditate and explore, in prayer, the criticisms of those who say he is too "sex" centred in his interpretation of TOB... I'm not sure what the outcome of that period of reflection is, but I think he is maturing.

I actually wrote an article about anal sex in marriage, and why it has no place, and why there does not need to be a dogmatic declaration from the Vatican about it. The Magisterium holds all of Scripture to be true, and the Bible says it's wrong (Rom 1:24 etc). Period. In my article I expand on this.

I would not say that any good Catholic "adores" sex. Adoration is a specific type of worship reserved for God alone. Pope John Paul II would not advocate that, neither would any good Catholic, including one who advocate TOB.

As you know from my Testimony, I was very active sexually from 13-26 years old, until my life fell apart. I stayed single for 23 years after that, after finding Christ, no relations with anyone, and for the last 6 years before marriage, I did not have any sex with self, not once, and we had a 15 month engagement with no sex (except a couple of superficial non-intercourse slips). No sex with self during that time for either of us.

Before being called to marriage, I thought I was called to celibacy, which is a special calling, but it's not a normal calling, nor is it for everyone. It is a very specific vocation, very rare for a lay person, who is not in an order, and even more rare for a married person. In the passage you describe, Christ was talking to his disciples, future priests.

The name TOB is somewhat strange as 'theology' comes from the Greek words Theos and Logos, the study of God. Whereby TOB is about our bodies, sexuality and reproduction.

I think the word "Logos" primarily means "The Word" which of course is God. However, the Word of God is the Bible, so I think that a more accurate definition of Theology is the study of the Word of God, which most certainly includes sex. The Bible has a lot to say about sex and a lot to say about relationships between a man and wife. I think it was an incredible advance in the study of the Bible for the Catholic Church, through Pope John Paul II the Great, to endeavour to study what God had to say about love, relationships and sex... particularly in light of the competing demonic sexual revolution which was raging at the same time. The Church could no longer turn a blind eye to sex, nor could it respond with the rigid "puritanical" approach it took in the prior century... it was time to face this issue head on, from a biblical perspective and Pope John Paul II did so, and I would assert that he did so with flying colours.

But the main thing is not as clearly mentioned, the purpose of intercourse is the birth of children.

The Catholic Church asserts that the Unitive and Procreative functions of sex are inseparable. Separating these two functions (procreative and unitive) always ends up in some kind of problem because they are inseparable. Usually I'm dialoguing with people who are into contraception. They try to separate the procreative function of sex so they can enjoy the unitive without the procreative... I think you are actually going in the opposite direction... separating the unitive from procreative to focus on the procreative... I would say this is (almost) as problematic.

The Catholic Church asserts, and has always asserted, although never as articulately as clearly as in TOB, the inseparable nature of the two. The fruit of separation of unitive and procreative in the case of contraception, is moral decay, objectification of women, infidelity, abortion, and the emergence of women using their procreative functions like machines (i.e., IVF, cloning, designer babies, sex selection, abortion of disabled babies, divorce and even homosexuality which is the ultimate in contraception, etc). In this respect contraception is the grandmother of all moral decay in the last 80 years since the Lambeth Anglican conference of 1930.

However, in the case of Puritanism, the separation of the two leads to an overly austere life, which in the case of a monk who marries the Universal Church is good, but in the case of a marriage, is extremely dangerous for the intimacy of the couple. This is perhaps the reason for the sexual revolution... it may well have been a reaction to Puritanism earlier in the century. The Catholic Church asserts that God created matter in a very real way... Jesus used mud to heal the blind man, then mixed it with spit. God loves the material world and all its "muddiness". He created it, and he created sex

This contradicts 1 Cor. 7, 5 where it is shown that abstaining is fitting to get closer to God, as is the case with fasting.

I think you are putting the wrong focus on the passage. The focus of the passage is not on abstaining from sex. He is teaching, rather, on how important it is not to deprive each other of sex. About how important sex is to a healthy marriage, and he is very clear in his understanding about human nature, which was created by God, in which sex normal. The phrase "for a time" is not indicative of the regular expectations of marriage. We don't know what the term "for a time" actually means. It could be the days during the week where there is no sex... (saying that the couple should not be having sex every day) it could even mean the period of time that couples abstain during fertile periods, where they can pray. Or it could mean an extended retreat or something... but the passage is definitely not advocating married celibacy which is the logical outcome of interpreting this passage to say that it is holier to not have sex.

Intercoure is made something holy by TOB, which it isn't. It is a earthly good, just like food. But nothing holy. To the contrary. >Abstaining from food through fasting is fitting to a life close to God. As is celibacy which is better than marying (1 Cor.).

This is an area where perhaps an expert in TOB can better answer... but I have a few thoughts:

  • I think we should first examine the word "holy". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/holy I think nuptial relations definitely fit many of the definitions of Holy, including "set apart, deserving special reverence and respect" etc...
  • New Catholics, including me, when I was new, sometimes are slow to see the profound implications of the Eucharist, and all it's aspects, ramifications and nuances. One of those implications is that it is God's way of consummating his relationship with us... it is why we cannot receive communion until we have fully accepted the lifelong commitment to be the spouse of Christ, (Eph 5), a member of his Church.
  • All through Scripture, God (and Jesus) describe the Church and his people as his spouse, and in many ways (perhaps too involved to go into now), there is a perfectly logical theological relationship between Jesus' consummation with the Church, through the Eucharist, and a husband's consummation with his wife (the beginning of the domestic Church as described in the Catechism 1655 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#VI) through intercourse.
  • In both cases life flows as the result, love flows, and the pleasure of being in intimate relation is experienced
  • This may sound very "shrill" to someone who has a puritanical background, but it is most certainly perfectly defensible, and even more logical, than to assume the opposite, that sex is something to be avoided in marriage, or that we have to somehow be ashamed of it. Again, I'd postulate that that is Puritanism, which was a practical and theological failure.

If intercourse is holy, why can't priests be married?

I have an article on that here: Why priests can't marry. Peter, the first Pope was married. Jesus chose a married man. However, to be in ministry is to take on the "persona christi" and as such, the lover of the Priest must be the Church, not the spouse... it is a very specific call to care not for the domesic Church but for the universal Church in a specific community.

and [if intercourse is holy why did] the H. Virgin Mary [stay a virgin]

Mary made a vow to God before she was married that she would stay chaste. The Greek language of "I know not man" is a permanent state of celibacy. So abstinence in marriage was consistent with her pre marriage vow. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, in a very physical way, no other human has ever had that type of relationship to the Holy Spirit, she was set apart... In the area of being impregnated, the Holy Spirit has claim to Mary, no other has that claim ... and since the procreative and the unitive aspects of sex cannot be separated, Mary would not be in position to have sexual relations with Joseph. There is much more on this that is beyond my theological expertise.

What God has permitted within marriage does not mean it is something we should try to do as much as possible. As is the case for example with praying, which is a good work, something holy, which you can't do too much.

To use the phrase "what God has permitted" is kind of suggesting God didn't invent sex... as if the devil created sex, and God put some kind of a protection around it in order to make the dastardly deed possible in marriage, so children can be born...perhaps you wouldn’t go that far to say it was created by the devil, but I think this is the logical conclusion to turning sex into something “permitted”. If it was created by God, then it would be “encouraged” not “permitted, which is kind of the view of Puritanism, a grievous disaster, which led to the sexual revolution. I would postulate that this is a profound misunderstanding for a number of reasons:

  • The devil cannot invent ANYTHING. He can only pervert something that God has created. This truth is accepted by every theologian. The devil is not very creative... only God can create, the devil can only pervert
  • Everything God created is good, if it used in the context for which it was created ... therefore sex within marriage is good... it's not a "necessary" evil... it is good and right, "he saw that it was Good"...
  • When God formed woman in Genesis, God created the clitoris of a woman... it was his idea... no one else thought of that... him alone... it has absolutely no physical purpose whatsoever, except to give sexual pleasure... nothing else... so the pleasure of sex is inherent in it. God created it that way.
  • No good Catholic would say that sex is something you should do "as much as possible". That's like saying food is good so we should eat as much of it as is possible. Moderation in all things. Prayer is important for married couples, sex is important for married couples, food is important for married couples etc... and as mentioned above... single people are called to serve the Church, the Universal Church... the husband and wife are called to serve primarily the domestic Church.

In other words, having sex regularly practicing NFP inside marriage with close to 100% certainty you will not get kids (NFP is reliable almost as much as the pill) without proper reason is sinfull too.

I think it would be very careless to put words into the mouth of Pope John Paul II. I wouldn't say "in other words" when speaking about TOB. I think we should stick to TOB itself, not even Christopher West. Catholic teaching is clear that abstaining from sex during fertile periods is only permissible for good reason. The must be a good reason to practice NFP. Tthe Church provides some guidance on that in Humane Vitae and elsewhere.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

There is a very good article on the moral difference between using contraception to avoid children and using NFP. It gets into the difference of intent between NFP and contraception. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html

Being Catholic is like being married. The marriage day is just the first day of a lifelong journey into unity with our spouse. The first day we become Catholic is the first day of our lifelong commitment to be the spouse of God. There is much to learn after the initial commitment, and in order to fully appreciate the gift of the vocation and to become more and more in full communion with Christ and his Church.


Lord Jesus, let Your prayer of unity for Christians
become a reality, in Your way.
We have absolute confidence
that you can bring your people together,
we give you absolute permission to move.
Amen