Nella memoria della santa vergine e martire romana Agnese, anche in vista del prossimo Sinodo, riprendo
un estratto dall'interessante contributo - in lingua inglese - di don Pietro Leone - su autorizzazione
dell'ottimo blog Rorate Caeli,
che ringraziamo – su una teologia del corpo in ottica tradizionale, che meriterebbe,
a nostro sommesso avviso, grande attenzione, rinviando per il resto al già
citato blog per l’intero saggio.
Si puntualizza che il testo edito è parte di un libro che in primavera
sarà pubblicato in lingua italiana. Attendiamo impazienti!
“Theology
of the Body” explained
- a
Traditional Catholic view
Fr. Pietro Leone
‘Theology
of the Body’ is the title that Pope John Paul II gave to a series of discourses
delivered between September 1979 and November 1984. When we evaluate this
doctrine in the light of Tradition, we see that in its principal positions it
does not represent a development of Catholic teaching (in the sense of a
clarification or deepening of that teaching), but rather a rupture with it,
that is to say something novel. For this reason it cannot be described as
Catholic doctrine, but rather as a series of personal meditations by the then
Pope.
As our
source for this chapter we take the book ‘Theology of the Body for Beginners’
by Mr. Christopher West (Ascension Press, 2004), which affords a useful summary
of this theory. This lecturer and writer has done much to popularize the said
theory on the international level.
The
following critique (made in the briefest possible outline) will consist in the
main of the application to this theory of the philosophical and theological
principles established in the present book. This will involve a certain
repetition of material already discussed, in the interests of providing a brief
synthesis and analysis of the theory both in detail and as a whole.
We proceed
as follows: we evaluate this theory first as a personalist doctrine, then in
its understanding of conjugal love in itself, and finally in its understanding
of conjugal love in relation to God.
I
Now the
Church teaches that marriage has three finalities: 1) the procreation and education
of children; 2) the mutual assistance of the spouses; 3) the remedy of concupiscence
(see the Roman Catechism expounded in chapter 10 above). The Church teaches
further that the first finality is also the primary finality (see chapter 5 for
the relevant declarations of the Magisterium, and for the arguments from
Scripture, patristics, and speculative theology).
In
opposition to this teaching, certain modern authors hold the view that the good
of the spouses (cf. the second finality) is on the same level as, or on a
higher level than, the good of the children (cf. the first finality). We refer
the reader to chapter 5 of the present book.
This modern
view has been condemned by the Magisterium. A Declaration of the Holy See of
March 1944 (AAS XXVI p.103) poses the question: ‘Can one admit the doctrine of
certain modern writers who deny that the procreation and education of the child
are the primary end of marriage, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially
subordinate to the primary end, but rather are of equal value and are independent
of it? They replied: No, this doctrine cannot be admitted’. In his Allocution
to the Midwives (1951) Pope Pius XII refers to such doctrines as ‘a serious
inversion of the order of the values and of the purposes which the Creator has
established Himself.’
Despite
these declarations, we have seen (in the same chapter 5) how this modern view
was re-proposed on the floor of the Second Vatican Council, how it found its
way (albeit in covert form) into the texts of Humanae Vitae, and
from thence into the New Code of Canon Law, the New Catechism, and Familiaris
Consortio, inter alia.
Theology of
the Body must be seen against this background. Even if it does not explicitly
deny that the procreation and education of children is the primary finality of
marriage, it is almost exclusively concerned with spousal love, at best
mentioning procreation simply as an adjunct, as when the Pope, in reference to
‘the communion of persons which man and woman form…’ adds: on ‘all this, right
from the beginning, there descended the blessing of fertility’ (Nov. 14th1979,
West p.25).
As for the
particular understanding of conjugal love manifest in Theology of the Body,
namely that of reciprocal self-gift, we observe that this understanding was already
present in certain of the authors who denied the absolute priority of the procreative
finality of marriage. The Declaration quoted above states that certain of these
authors take as the primary finality: ‘the reciprocal love of the spouses and
their union to be developed and perfected by the physical and spiritual gift of
their own person’ and Pope Pius XII in the Allocution quoted above states
similarly that some of these authors take as the primary finality of the
exercise of the marital right: ‘that the bodily union is the expression and actuation
of the personal and affective union’, and adds that: ‘We are face to face with
the propagation of a body of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to serene,
deep, and serious Christian thought.’ In the following pages we shall see how
these ideas are developed in Theology of the Body.
We proceed
to offer a detailed critique of Theology of the Body, first in regard to
conjugal love considered in itself, and second in regard to conjugal love
considered in relation to God.
II
Conjugal
Love Considered in Itself
1. Total
Self-Giving Love
Now the
foundation of the Theology of the Body is the proposition that the act of
conjugal love consists in ‘the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and
wife’ (Familiaris Consortio 32, quoted in the The New Catechism
2370). If this proposition is false, then the whole edifice of Theology of the
Body falls.
In chapter
4 of the present book we have argued to the falsity of this proposition: first
metaphysically, because the human person is incommunicable; second physically,
because the act of conjugal love essentially involves the seeking and taking of
pleasure, without which it would indeed be impossible; and third morally,
because total self-giving love is commanded (and indeed only possible) to God
alone (Lk. 10.27), whereas man is commanded to love his neighbour to a lesser
degree, and where conjugal relations are concerned, with modesty and
moderation[1] (cf. Roman Catechism on the Use of Marriage). Indeed to love
one’s neighbour with a total love would be idolatry.[2]
In Theology
of the Body, at least as it is presented by Mr. West, Grace enables men and
women to live in the mutual and sincere gift of self (cf. Papal Discourse
Jan.30th 1980, West p.42), just as in the beginning man and
woman were infused with Grace. Through this Grace, the Holy Spirit impregnates
our sexual desires ‘with everything that is noble and beautiful’, with ‘the
supreme value which is love’ (Papal Discourse Oct. 29th 1980,
West p.43-44). Similarly purity ‘lets us perceive the human body - ours and our
neighbour’s – as a Temple of the Holy Spirit, a manifestation of the
divine beauty’ (The New Catechism 2519, West p.47).
There is a
suggestion here that Grace (albeit in conjunction with mortification, West
p.47) enables man to regain the state of his first parents[3]. And yet their
state, that of elevated nature, has been irremediably lost by Original Sin, and
moreover it differs from our state, that of fallen nature, not only in regard
to Grace, but also in regard to concupiscence, that is to say the dominion of
the passions over the reason, which is one of the evils consequent on the Fall
to which all humankind is subject (with the exception, of course, of the
Blessed Virgin Mary. See chapter 2 of the present book). Theology of the Body,
intent on presenting the positive side of conjugal love, largely neglects
concupiscence[4], hence giving an incomplete and unrealistic picture of this
love. The Church, by contrast, had always recognized and taken seriously this
objective disorder in human nature, and has indeed defined the third finality
of marriage as ‘the remedy of concupiscence.’[5]
According
to the Theology of the Body, the nuptial meaning of the body is the body’s ‘capacity
of expressing love: that love precisely in which the person becomes a gift…’
(Papal Discourse Jan.16th 1980, West p.29). In other words the
nuptial meaning of the body is the fact that it expreses total self-giving
love. The Pope continues: ‘… and – by means of this gift – fulfills the very
meaning of his being and existence.’ At another point in the same discourse he
describes the nuptial meaning of the body as ‘the fundamental element of human
existence in the world.’[6] In a later discourse (April 28th 1982,
West p.74) he adds: ‘On the basis of the same nuptial meaning of (the)
body…there can be formed the love that commits man to marriage for the whole
duration of his life, but there can be formed also the love that amounts to a
life of continence ‘for the sake of the Kingdom.’’ Moreover, those who rise to
eternal life will experience ‘the absolute and eternal nuptial meaning of the
glorified body in union with God himself.’ (March 24th1982, West p.
61.)
In reply,
according to the natural law, the meaning of the body in the domain of sexuality
is different from that which the Pope proposes, for according to the natural
law (see the beginning ofchapter4), all that one can say of the human body in
this domain is that 1) the sexual differentiation of man and woman is oriented
towards sexual union; and 2) this sexual union has as its natural outcome the
procreation of children.
In regard
to the first fact, we have no evidence on the level of the body, that is to say
on the purely natural level, that this act of union is characterized by giving,
or by taking, or by both. In regard to the second fact, we note that the
Theology of the Body, like the Personalism of which it is a part, in its
insistence on the subjective realm: on the secondary and intermediate end of
sexuality and marriage, which is love, neglects the objective realm: the
primary and final end of sexuality and marriage, which is procreation.
As for the
Pope’s assertion that the nuptial meaning of the body forms the basis both for
marriage and for a life of perfect chastity, it must be said that if, as we
have denied, the body expressed the orientation towards total self-giving love,
it would not be on the basis of this fact about the body that man undertook a
life of perfect chastity, but on the basis of the total self-giving love that
it expressed; and that the life of perfect chastity does not involve a love
characterized by the body, but rather by the renunciation of such a love.
As for the
Pope’s assertion that the nuptial meaning of the body will be experienced in
Heaven, we recall that the conjugal union is a sign of Christ’s union with His
Church in virtue of the intimacy, benevolence, and holiness of marital love,
and not in virtue of bodily union; indeed since the act of conjugal union is
ordered towards procreation, it exists only for this world and not for the
other, for which reason ‘in the Resurrection they shall neither marry nor be
married, but they will be as the angels of God in Heaven.’ (Mt. 22.30.)
Finally,
the suggestion that Theology of the Body in general, or the nuptial meaning of
the body in particular, somehow reveals or constitutes the meaning of life, we
reply as we have done in regard to perfect chastity above, that, even if, as we
have denied, the body expressed an orientation towards total self-giving love,
what reveals or constitutes the meaning of life is not the Theology of the
Body, the nuptial meaning of the body, or indeed anything essentially connected
to the body, but rather total self-giving love itself.
4. The
Vocation to Marriage or Virginity/Celibacy
In Familiaris
Consortio 11 (West p. 65) the Pope writes: ‘Christian revelation recognizes
two specific ways of realizing the vocation of the human person, in its
entirety, to love: marriage and virginity or celibacy.’ The Pope again has
total self-giving love in mind, here as the constitutive feature both of
marriage and of virginity/celibacy. We observe that he does not specify here,
as he does elsewhere, that this virginity/celibacy is for
the Kingdom of Heaven, therefore amounting to the consacrated
life. This omission opens his statement to a naturalizing interpretation.
In
commentary, whereas the love of spouses cannot be termed total self-giving
love, the love for God on the part of those who lead the consacrated life can
be so termed, because it constitutes a love with undivided heart (cf.1Cor.7.33
as expounded by Pope Pius XII in Sacra Virginitas 15, 20, 24,
30-1. See chapter 4 of the present book).
As far as
vocation is concerned, the concept of vocation to marriage as an alternative to
the vocation to the consacrated life is a further instance of naturalization,
or, more fully, of the confusion between the natural and supernatural orders,
for it involves placing something purely natural on the same level as something
purely supernatural. We have analyzed this tendency at the end of chapter 4,
where we pointed out that vocation in the traditional, in the most obvious, and
also in the deepest, sense of the term signifies: 1) a call, 2) from a person
without, 3) id est immediately from God, 4) in order
absolutely to transcend the possibilities of human nature; whereas the propensity
towards marriage is 1) an instinct, 2) which originates within human nature, 3)
and therefore only mediately from God, 4) in order to realize a potential of
that same human nature.
We may
conclude with the following question: if both states of life involved total
self-giving love and both were the object of vocation, in what sense would the
life of virginity or celibacy be ‘better and more blessed’ than the married
life, as the Council of Trent dogmatically declares?[7]
... the text continues on the blog Rorate caeli ....
__________________________________
[1] Moderation in the area of sexuality is equivalent to
chastity; modesty is a virtue complementary to it (see chapter11).
[2] At
the beginning of this treatment it will be useful briefly to distinguish three
basic forms of love which have been enumerated in detail in chapter 2. First there
is sensible love (or the passion of love), of which sexual love is an example;
second there is rational love (or the virtue of love); third there is Charity,
which is that form of rational love which is elevated by Supernatural Grace. In
the light of these distinctions, the act of conjugal union in its ideal form is
to be understood as an act of sensible love informed by rational love, which
enables one spouse to love the other not as an object but as a person, and
further informed by Charity, which enables the spouse to love the other in, and
for the sake of, God.
[3] In
this connection we refer to his concept of ‚original innocence’ in the address
of 26th Sept. 1979, by which he perhaps intends to justify the
possibility of a return to the state of our first parents, even if this concept
lacks clarity. The Pope speaks of ‚this real innocence of man as his original
and fundamental state, as a dimension of his being created in the image of
God.’He says in addition that: ‚These situations (‚original innocence’ and
‚original sin’) have a specific dimension in man, in his inner self, in his
knowledge, conscience , choice, and decision’; and that they are linked, for
the ‚state of sin’ which is part of ‚‚historical man’ plunges its roots, in every
man without exception, in his own theological ‚prehistory’ which is the state
of original innocence’, At another point he describes Original Sin as a state
whereby ‚man has lost his primitive innocence’, and in the address of 12th Sept.
1979 he says that ‚the first account of man’s creation is of a theological
nature.’ This doctrine is unclear inter alia because it
oscillates between a supernatural and a natural concept of ‚original
innocence’. This concept has a supernatural colour in so far as ‚original innocence’is
presented as a property which man acquires in the ‚theological’ account of
creation, and which man loses by the Fall; it has a natural colour in so far as
it derives from creation (in the traditional, Catholic understanding of
creation), and in so far as it is presented as persisting as a state in man,
indeed in all men.
[4] One
of the criticisms of Mr.West’s account made by Dr. Alice von Hildebrandt in her
article comparing this account with her husband’s work in the field, is that he
‚underestimates the effects of Original Sin on the human condition’.
[5] In
fact, since it is the virtue of chastity which combats (carnal) concupiscence,
those who pursue this virtue perfectly (through the vow of perfect chastity)
resemble our first parents prior to the Fall more closely than spouses.
[6] in
a similar vein the Pope states that the Theology of the Body is…’essential and
valid for the understanding of man in general: for the fundamental problem of
understanding him and for the self-comprehension of his being in the world.’
(Dec.15th 1982, West p.2.)
[7] Si
quis dixerit…non esse melius ac beatius manere in virginitate aut caelibatu
quam iungi matrimonio…Anathema sit (S.24 Can.10).
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento