BIG C CATHOLICS

Both Were Wrong

Fr. Frank Pavone

Scott Roeder, who killed abortionist George Tiller, has been convicted of murder. Pro-life groups, including Priests for Life, reaffirmed their opposition to violence in the efforts to bring an end to abortion. It was also an occasion for people to ask whether Mr. Roeder should have been allowed to make the argument in court that his actions were carried out for the saving of human life.

The fact is that what he did was wrong. The fact also is that what George Tiller did was murder also. What we can learn from the tragedy of Scott Roeder is that the pro-abortion forces do not want anyone to give the slightest acknowledgement to the humanity of the unborn. Our movement must always be nonviolent, and it must also always insist on the truth.

The Anthropology of Sigmund Freud and the Personalism of Karol Wojtyla, (Part 1)

Kyle Sanders

At the end of the Nineteenth Century and into the Twentieth Century, there emerged a revised and yet original anthropology. Sigmund Freud, focused not on the soul or body per se but psyche, inserted a new angle at which to look at man. Man is overtly sexual. His development is sexual. Man could be seen as the evolving, an image Darwin, but evolving psychically, a precursor to de Chardin. Man is also determined. Man had a tripartite psyche, an opaque mirror of Plato, with the ego, the id, and the superego. Fifteen years after Freud’s death there emerged another brilliant mind from Poland, Karol Wojtyla. Wojtyla, a Catholic priest, had a similar idea. Man is a sexual being. However, Wojtyla splits in understanding. He sees the inherent dignity of the human person. He has a traditional Catholic understanding of the unity of body and soul. Wojtyla’s anthropology is more reasonable and leads to a more positive understanding of man.

Sigmund Freud[1]

Before Freud there was a prevalent prudishness when it came to sexuality. An overt sexuality showed up mainly in literature and art. In my limited knowledge, I have not experienced an overt sexual nature in any philosophy, except for maybe Utilitarianism, but even that is only secondary, in that sex is pleasurable. However, one can see that Freud holds fast to the pleasure principle put forth by the fathers of Utilitarianism. “Further aspects are opened up when we take into consideration the fact that the sexual instinct in man does not originally serve the purposes of procreation, but has as its aim the gain of particular kinds of pleasure.”[2] Freud begins one of his seminal works Beyond the Pleasure Principle by first stating need for avoidance of pain and seeking of pleasure. He goes on later in the work move to forward from the pleasure principle. He does not abandon it; he modifies it. He introduces the reality principle, “This latter principle does not abandon the intention of ultimately obtaining pleasure, but it nevertheless demands and carries into effect the postponement of satisfaction…and the temporary toleration of unpleasure as a step on the long indirect road to pleasure.”[3] Freud is trying to bring out that there is more to man than pleasure and pain. Because sometimes man must forego pleasure for certain reasons that go beyond the pleasure principle. The pleasure principle is just sensory. Freud wishes to delve into the psyche, the mind, the unconscious. His intention is well; he wishes to heal people of their neuroses. In formulating his developmental theory, he explicitly calls humans sexual beings. The oral stage of infants is set around the sexual pleasure gained from being at the breast. At about three, the phallic stage, children become fascinated with the male genitalia (penis envy of women). From this comes the time of the Oedipus complex, were the male child sexually desires his mother. This period moves into a latency period where sexuality is not apparent, only to be revived with puberty and matured in adulthood.[4] According to Freud, man is explicitly sexual.

________________________________________

[1] As a side note, Freud does not have an explicit work of philosophical anthropology. Therefore, I had to synthesize my readings into an explicit anthropology. This is my understanding of Freud and not Freud himself because of the aforementioned reason.

[2] Sigmund Freud, “‘Civilized’ Sexual Morality and Modern Nervousness” in Sexuality and the Psychology of Love ed. Philip Rieff (NY: Collier Books, 1963), 26.

[3] Sigmund Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle trans. James Strachey intro. Gregory Zilbourg, (NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1961), 7.

[4] Leslie Forster Stevenson, Seven Theories of Human Nature (NY: Oxford University Press, 1977), 163.

Pray for Vocations!

Fr. Michael J. Woolley

Four years ago, in 2006, scientists and government leaders began to get very concerned when honeybees began to start mysteriously disappearing in large numbers in our country.

Hundreds of thousands of beehives across America would be thriving and healthy one day, and the next day all the bees were nowhere to be found.

By 2008, one out of every three beehives in the United States had been destroyed, in what is now referred to as “colony collapse disorder,” the cause of which is still undetermined.

Now, you might say to yourself “No Big Deal, I don’t eat much honey anyway, and there’s always sugar if the bees go the way of the dinosaur and dodo bird.”

But it is a Big Deal if all the bees disappear, a very, very very Big Deal.

Because if all the honeybees in America disappear, we would have a nation-wide disaster on our hands that would make the Haitian earthquake look like a picnic.

Because while the bee doesn’t seem very significant compared to other problems our world faces, in reality, the survival of the human race is totally dependent on the survival of the honeybee.

There is a famous quote, attributed to Albert Einstein, that says: “If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.”

The good news in all this is that last year, only a very small percentage of beehives experienced colony collapse disorder compared to the large numbers in the previous three years, so hopefully that’s the end of that.

I bring up all this, because in recent years a similar and equally serious phenomenon has taken place in our Catholic Church. But instead of Bees disappearing, we have priests disappearing.

Just a few decades ago, even the smallest Churches in America had 2, even 3 full time priests ministering in them.

U.S. Seminaries in every major city were filled to capacity with young Catholic men studying for the priesthood.

Today however, Parishes are lucky if they have one full time priest all to themselves, and the big seminaries of old look as empty as a beehive which has suffered colony collapse disorder.

And if you read last week’s bulletin insert, it said that in 15 years, half of the priests currently active in our diocese will have retired or be eligible for retirement. And we currently are in no way ordaining enough priests each year to replace these retiring priests.

And this my brothers and sisters is a very serious problem, for the local Church is as dependent upon priests for it’s survival as humans are dependent upon bees for their survival.

No more priests, no more Eucharist, no more grace, no more Church, no more mercy, no more salvation.

As St. Padre Pio once said, “It is easier for the earth to exist without the sun than without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!”

The hopeful news, however, is that we can, if we want to, easily stop priests from disappearing.

Mary says to us in today’s Gospel “Do whatever (My Son) tells you” And Jesus tells us clearly in Scripture that when priests start disappearing, you and I just need to Pray, and God will turn some of the young men in our parish into priests, just as Jesus turned water into wine at Cana.

“The Harvest is abundant,” Jesus says in Luke’s Gospel “but the workers are few, therefore pray to the Master of the Harvest to send out workers to His Harvest.”

As I mentioned last week in my homily and in the bulletin, our parish is having “24-Hours of Prayer and Adoration for Priests and for Vocations to the Priesthood from our Woonsocket Parishes” which will be held at our parish from 4 p.m. Friday February 5 and end 4 p.m. Saturday February 6.

This weekend, I’m asking every parishioner at Mass to make an offering of at least 15 minutes of their time to come to Church during that 24 hour period, to come to Church and pray for priests and for vocations.

In your pews, you’ll find a “prayer pledge card”. If you could take a moment to fill this out. . . .Once you’ve filled the pledge card out, please put the completed form in the collection basket with your budget today.

Thank you for your patience in filling this out, and for your commitment to pray for vocations.

Jesus didn’t allow the the Wine to disappear on the good Bride and Groom who invited Him to their wedding, and neither will He allow the priests to disappear on us good Catholic who pray fervently to him for vocations.

And while He’s at it, may Jesus keep those Honey Bees from disappearing again on us as well!

Aristotle’s Four Causes

Aristotle

Aristotle’s four causes are answers to four common sense questions we can ask about change in the world around us. They are; What is a thing made of?, Who made it?, What is it that is being made?, and What is it being made for? When it comes to human productions, the answer to these questions is usually easy. When it comes to answering these questions as they occur in nature, it becomes more difficult.

Regarding human production, if you asked a shoemaker what he was making his shoes out of he might reply “leather.” If you asked a gunsmith producing a rifle what he was making it out of he might reply “wood and steel.” According to Aristotle, what a thing is made of is the material cause. It is one of four indispensible factors without which the production would not or could not occur.

The second question is: Who made it? Aristotle calls this the efficient cause. When we are dealing with human productions, this would seem to be the easiest question of all. The shoemaker maker makes the shoe. The gunsmith makes the gun. However, when dealing with natural processes this question is much harder to answer.

The third question is: What is it that is being made? Aristotle calls this the formal cause. The answer to this question can seem simple but Aristotle means something specific in using the word “formal” in this instance. The formal cause for the gunsmith would be a gun. The formal cause for the shoemaker would be a shoe.

The fourth question is: What is it being made for? Put simply we might say: Why is it being made? Aristotle calls this the final cause. For the gunsmith, the final cause for producing a gun might be “for protection.” For the shoemaker the final cause for producing shoes might be “comfort.”

Let’s take a look at the four causes in action in a human production. A sculpture takes marble (sculpture = efficient cause, marble = material cause) and turns it into a statue – a statue which will bring joy and be the focal point of interest to everyone who beholds it. (statue=formal cause, a thing of beauty that will be a joy for others=final cause).

Principles for Family Life

Father Rene Butler

It’s easy to imagine the life of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. All we have to do is picture the perfect family: never a cross word, no signs of impatience… None of the unpleasant things that are part of the life of most families.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a beautiful theology of the family. But it isn’t theology that makes family life good. Of course what the Catechism teaches is true. Family prayer is important. But healthy common sense is what families need, an understanding of what it takes to live together.

What follows is a talk I have given to members of religious communities, but the principles apply to family life too. There are eight principles, each with consequences.

PRINCIPLE 1 – Snowflake principle: People are like snowflakes, no two are alike.

Consequence: I cannot be what I am not. I can admire others without having to become like them. I can accept myself with my imperfections. That door swings both ways: I can accept others with their imperfections. If persons X, Y, Z can’t be X, Y, Z, who are they supposed to be?

Other consequence: Not to be used as an excuse. I still need to work on my faults.

PRINCIPLE 2 – Elbows and toes: You can’t rub elbows with the same people day in and day out without sometimes stepping on each others toes.

Consequence: Expect and accept the occasional tension. Be realistic.

PRINCIPLE 3 – Hello, I’m nobody!

I'm Nobody! Who are you?
Are you -- Nobody -- Too?
Then there's a pair of us!
Don't tell! they'd advertise -- you know!

How dreary -- to be -- Somebody!
How public -- like a Frog --
To tell one's name -- the livelong June --
To an admiring Bog!

-- Emily Dickinson

Consequence: We need a sense of humor about others and about ourselves.

Other consequence: Believe it or not, the universe doesn’t revolve around me; you either. I’m OK, you’re OK.

PRINCIPLE 4 – Remember to forget. The story is told that Clara Barton, on being reminded by someone of an offense she had suffered years before, replied, “I distinctly remember forgetting that.”

Consequence: The burden of resentment usually weighs me down more than the person who offended me in the first place.

PRINCIPILE 5 – “Of course.” We all know what people are like and how people behave. E.g.: Of course people talk about me behind my back.

Consequence: Anticipate and live with certain universal behaviors, bad days, etc.

PRINCIPILE 6 – Avoid Funagalo language. (The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency, p. 21.) "They taught us Funagalo, which is the language used for giving orders underground [in the mines]. It is a strange language.... It is a language which is good for telling people what to do. There are many words for push, take, shove, carry, load, and no words for love, or happiness, or the sounds which birds make in the morning.")

Consequence: share more than work-related ideas and plans, but love of arts, etc. Anything that brings light into your life. Even – why not? – faith.

PRINCIPILE 7 – Everyone needs a home In “The Death of the Hired Man” (Robert Frost), the wife of a farmer tells her husband that a former worker has returned. The farmer doesn’t want him. The conversation continues as follows:

Wife: He has come home to die.
Husband: Home is the place where, when you have to go there,
They have to take you in.
Wife: I should have called it
Something you somehow haven’t to deserve.

Consequence: Difference between a house and a home.

PRINCIPLE 8 – Somebody’s got to do it. There are things that I can't or won't do that need doing, maybe by people very different from me, whether I like them or not.

Consequence: Be supportive, don’t get in the way.

Summary:

Family life needs, more than anything else, acceptance. The starting point is to recognize how deeply we are accepted and loved by God. If we can then learn to accept and love ourselves and others as we and they are accepted and loved by God, our families will be transformed.

The Misfit In “A Good Man is Hard to Find”

In Flannery O’ Connor’s short story “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” the Misfit is the embodiment of evil. His chance encounter with a Georgia family culminates in the execution of the grandmother after she reaches out to touch him. O’Connor uses the Misfit to show how grace and salvation are available to both saint and sinner alike. Whether we accept these is another matter. The Misfit exercises his free will to do evil. Instead of sparing an old woman, he brutally murders her. Rejecting the grandmother’s kindness, he chooses violence over virtue – symbolizing our fallen humanity.

Despite being a cold-blooded killer the Misfit by his own words has contemplated Jesus’ resurrection and power over death. The Misfit has asked the same questions many Christians pose. His curiosity about Jesus and ultimate rejection of Judeo-Christian morality (that rooted in the natural law and the teachings of Christ), mirror the view of religious skeptics and others for whom religion has little value. In his mind, good has not conquered evil as evidenced in this statement to the grandmother:

Jesus was the only One that ever raised the dead . . . and He shouldn't have done it. he thown everything off balance. If He did what he said, then it's nothing for you to do but thow everything away and follow Him, and if he didn't, then it's nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can - by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness to him.. . .

The Misfit has not “thrown everything away “ to follow Christ. Quiet the opposite. He is “enjoying the few minutes” he has left by killing and robbing. His words are prophetic. Shortly after uttering them he kills the grandmother and steals the family’s car. Like others, the Misfit sees evil and injustice as repudiating the idea that God is loving and good. Furthermore, the Misfit cannot square his own suffering with Jesus’ redemption of humanity. Christ did not conquer sin and death by rising from the tomb. To the Misfit there is no victory in the cross, no resurrection on Easter Sunday. Being open to grace requires an act of faith – something the Misfit is incapable of.

As the conversation with the grandmother continues, the Misfit reveals more about himself. At one point the grandmother says, “I know you're a good man. You don't look a bit like you have common blood. I know you must come from nice people!" The Misfit replies that God never made a finer woman than his mother and that his father had a heart of gold. While he speaks the grandmother’s family is taken into the woods and shot. The grandmother tries to appeal to the Misfit’s humanity: “’Listen,’ she said, ‘you shouldn't call yourself the Misfit because I know you're a good man at heart. I can just look at you and tell.’" To this the Misfit replies, "No, I ain't a good man… but I ain't the worst in the world neither.”

For the Misfit to state,” I ain't a good man… but I ain't the worst in the world neither,” at the same time he is ordering the grandmother’s family members to be killed is remarkable. The Misfit rationalizes his actions, even the murder of innocent children.

Later the Misfit reveals he went to jail for murdering his father. He claims to be innocent of the charge but then indirectly acknowledges his guilt when he reflects:

Jesus shown everything off balance. It was the same case with Him as with me except He hadn't committed any crime and they could prove I had committed one because they had the papers on me. Of course, they never shown me my papers… I call myself the Misfit because I can't make what all I done wrong fit what all I gone through in punishment.

The Misfit feels his incarceration was unjust and that the punishment didn’t fit his crime. His statement: “I call myself “the Misfit” because I can’t make what all I done fit what all I gone through in punishment,” illustrates this. He doesn’t deny committing murder nor does he admit to it. O’Connor offers us a tantalizing clue however. Earlier in the passage he says: “Jesus thrown everything off balance. It was the same case with Him as with me except he hadn’t committed any crime and they could prove I committed one because they had the papers on me…of course…they never shown me my papers.” First, it is significant that the Misfit identifies himself with Christ. Just as Christ is the source of morality for Christians, the Misfit adheres to a view of right and wrong that is entirely of his own making. Secondly, he acknowledges that like Jesus, he, the Misfit has “thrown everything off balance.” But he quickly adds: “It was the same case with Him as with me except he hadn’t committed any crime.” The Misfit acknowledges Jesus’ innocence while seemly indicating his own guilt.

Finally, O’Connor contrasts the grandmother’s last earthly act and the Misfit’s violent reaction to it. In the climactic scene the grandmother tells the Misfit that he is: “One of my babies…,” and one of “my own children.” When she reaches out in compassion and touches him, the Misfit springs back from her: "as if a snake had bitten him….” The fact the Misfit would react as if she were a snake is itself telling. The snake has long been associated with evil as in the Garden of Eden.

According to Catholic theology, to sin against the Holy Spirit is to know that a thing is good and to hate it for its goodness. The Misfit is at once afraid, repulsed and startled by the grandmother’s desperate and ultimately futile act of charity. He “shot her three times through the chest,“ then removes his glasses to clean them. The Misfit is evil, By rejecting grace and doing unspeakable harm, he perpetuates evil. For the grandmother it is an occasion of grace. She dies in a pool of blood: “her legs crossed under her like a child's and her face smiling up at the cloudless sky.” Perhaps in her last dying breath she found redemption.

O’Connor uses the Misfit to show how grace and salvation are available to everyone. As human beings we also have free will and are ultimately responsible for our choices and actions. We can be open to and cooperate with grace. But we are just as capable of doing evil. No one is without sin in this story. But one senses no one is beyond redemption either.

Theology of the Body, Part 3

In John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, he compares and contrasts the three states of man; “Original Man,” mankind before the Fall or first sin, “Historical Man” man after the Fall, (our current state,) and “Eschatological Man,” man following Christ’s second coming, (our life in heaven).

Original Man

The state of original man concerns two human beings – Adam and Eve. They viewed each other with, “all the peace of the interior gaze.” God walked in their midst, suggesting an intimacy with their creator we can only imagine. Adam and Eve’s lives were untouched by sin. Vice, depravity, and despair were foreign to their experience.

The boundary line between the state of original man and historical man is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is key. Man was the only person in the garden. The animals were not persons. They could not choose like Adam could. They could not till the ground or tend to the garden as human beings were called to do.

We have a choice. We can love God or reject God. We can be good stewards or bad stewards. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents this choice.

Two Accounts of Creation

The book of Genesis features two accounts of creation. Detractors of Christianity, and even some Christians, claim these stories contradict each other by telling different versions of the same event – namely, when God created the world. The two creation accounts also pose a challenge to fundamentalists who hold a literal interpretation of the Bible. Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body, shows how the two creation stories in Genesis are complimentary, not contradictory.

The first creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:9) is called the Elohist account since the term used for God is “Elohim.” It is chronologically newer than the second creation account starting at Genesis 2:10. The second creation account is called the Yawhist account since the name used for God in that story is “Yahweh.”

The Elohist account or first creation story is creation from God’s point of view. God separates the light from the darkness, divides the waters, creates the sun, moon, and stars, land, vegetation, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea and so on. Before creating man God pauses as if pondering a momentous act. He makes man in his image, that is to say, in God’s own image. In this way, human beings – men and women – are different from everything else in creation.

The second creation account, the so-called Yawhist account, is creation from Adam’s point of view. The second creation account is the story of creation through Adam (and Eve's) experience. In other words, the second creation account is creation seen through the eyes of the first humans. In this sense, the Yawhist account is subjective - based on experience.

At first, Adam is alone without Eve. The Hebrew word for Adam in the Bible before the arrival of Eve is man meaning mankind. Adam before Eve is genderless. Only later does Adam the male appear with the first woman Eve. The Theology of the Body puts it this way:

The Bible calls the first human being "man" ('adam), but from the moment of the creation of the first woman, it begins to call him "man" (ish), in relation to ishshah ("woman," because she was taken from the man—ish).

Our personhood - being a subject before God - is more fundamental to who we are than even our gender. In the Bible our personhood, our dignity before God, comes before gender differentiation. (We will discuss gender more fully in a future post.)

God brings all the animals of the Garden to Adam to name. After naming all the animals Adam realizes he is alone. John Paul calls this "original solitude." It is through the experience of original solitude that Adam comes to realize that he is a person. Furthermore, after naming all the animals Adam is aware there are no other persons like him. (Adam knows that even the most human like animals are not persons.) He longs for an other to relate to and love. God waits for Adam to have this self-revelation before making Eve. As a loving creator, he never acts before Adam is ready.

Original solitude has two senses and paves the way for "original unity."

Original Solitude

When Adam named all the animals in the garden he realized he was alone. In otherwords, he realizes that he is the only "person" in the visible world. He experiences what John Paul II in his Theology of the Body calls "original solitude." This original solitude has two senses.

The first sense of original solitude has to do with Adam's relationship with God. In "the beginning," Adam quickly began to understand that he had a unique relationship with the creator. He alone could talk with God. He alone could have a personal relationship with God. None of the other creatures in the garden could do this.

It naturally follows that only man has an interior life. Only man is capable of loving. Adam/man is the Hebrew word for "mankind" as mentioned previously. Adam and Eve together experience original solitude. This is key to understanding the Theology of the Body. Mankind experiences original solitude in all its senses, both male and female. Adam and Eve both experience original solitude - not just Adam the male.

The second sense of original solitude is perhaps the most obvious one. In naming all the animals Adam discovers he is alone. There is no other human person to love and to receive in love. Adam longs deep in his heart to love an other and to be loved by an other. This profound loneliness, the second sense of original unity, was felt by both Adam and Eve.

Through his experience of original solitude Adam (mankind) realizes he is alone. There is no "other" to give himself over to in love. Adam cannot perfect himself, he cannot fulfill himself, he cannot know himself except by making a gift of himself to another human person. Adam longs for another human person to love. It is in his spiritual DNA to give himself to an other. God acknowledges this when he says; "It is not good for the man to be alone."

God bringing the animals to Adam to see what he will name them is a kind of test. Through it Adam discovers that there is not a help mate fit for him. Genesis states; "The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man."

In ancient Hebrew tradition, to name something is to have responsibility for it. In this way, mankind is to be the caregiver of the garden, the steward of all creation. Furthermore, in the first chapter of Genesis God tells man;"Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

God is clearly enjoining man to be a responsible master over all creation. In the beginning, this responsible mastery came easily. After sin, it would prove difficult if not impossible to achieve.

God causes Adam to fall into a deep sleep "and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man." God then presents the woman to man who exclaims; "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken." In that moment, original solitude gives way to the joy of original unity.

Original Unity

When Adam awoke from the divine sleep God presented him with Eve. Adam explained “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” This was an exclamation of love. Adam saw in Eve a human person like himself. Eve saw in Adam a human person like herself. In this moment original solitude was over come. The loneliness that each person felt for the other, the longing that they felt for another was over.

Original solitude gives way to original unity. Adam was a gift for Eve. And Eve was a gift for Adam. Their very bodies spoke a language of love and communion, intimacy and union. Neither Adam nor Eve would use another person. Original unity meant they could view each other “with all the peace of the interior gaze” and not be afraid. Man was not given over to dominating woman. Woman was not afraid of man. The two represented a communion of souls. There was harmony in the male-female relationship. Such were the characteristics of original solitude.

The nuptial meaning of the body is central to the idea of John Paul’s Theology of the Body. As he states “the body and it alone is capable of making visible what has been invisible, the mystery of the divine since time immemorial.” The body makes visible the ineffable mystery of the human person. It is a sign of the person but then again it is more, it is the embodiment of the person. There is no disconnect between a man’s sprit and his bodily desires in the beginning. The two work in concert with each other. Just as there was harmony in the male-female relationship so to there was harmony in the mind-body-sprit relationship within the human person.

The Nuptual Meaning of the Body

Adam and Eve were created as gifts to one another. Their very bodies made this truth known. It was through their masculinity and femininity that they could express this gift. This is called “the nuptial meaning of the body.” The nuptial meaning of the body is a central concept in John Paul’s Theology of the Body. He refers to in numerous times throughout his addresses.

To love is the essential activity of the human person. We were created to love others and receive love from others. Because our bodies make visible what is invisible in the world, it is through our bodies that we are called to love others. This is evident in the conjugal union most obviously. But we are also called to love and to serve others in numerous ways using our bodies. We cannot serve others unless we have a body to serve them. Man can only discover himself through a sincere gift of himself. This is at the heart of Christ’s teaching. It is also the heart of the theology of the body.

Before sin, Adam and Eve had a clear perception of this truth. After sin, it became cluttered and obscure. For the children of Adam and Eve it remains clouded and obscure. We struggle daily through sin to love and serve others. In the beginning love was undiluted. Love was spontaneous. Adam and Eve served each other without thinking. It was in their spiritual DNA to do this.

Now with historical man, that is man after the first sin, we do not automatically love as God loves. It is not something we do automatically any more. It takes work. It takes conscious effort. In many ways it is a struggle among our heart, our will, and our body. "In the beginning," there was no struggle.

Theology of the Body: The Nuptual Meaning of the Body

Adam and Eve were created as gifts to one another. Their very bodies made this truth known. It was through their masculinity and femininity that they could express this gift. This is called “the nuptial meaning of the body.” The nuptial meaning of the body is a central concept in John Paul’s theology of the body. He refers to in numerous times throughout his addresses.

To love is the essential activity of the human person. We were created to love others and receive love from others. Because our bodies make visible what is invisible in the world, it is through our bodies that we are called to love others. This is evident in the conjugal union most obviously. But we are also called to love and to serve others in numerous ways using our bodies. We cannot serve others unless we have a body to serve them. Man can only discover himself through a sincere gift of himself. This is at the heart of Christ’s teaching. It is also the heart of the theology of the body.

Before sin, Adam and Eve had a clear perception of this truth. After sin, it became cluttered and obscure. For the children of Adam and Eve it remains clouded and obscure. We struggle daily through sin to love and serve others. In the beginning love was undiluted. Love was spontaneous. Adam and Eve served each other without thinking. It was in their spiritual DNA to do this.

Now with historical man, that is man after the first sin, we do not automatically love as God loves. It is not something we do automatically any more. It takes work. It takes conscious effort. In many ways it is a struggle among our heart, our will, and our body. Again in the beginning there was no struggle.

Original Unity

The nuptial meaning of the body is central to the idea of John Paul’s theology of the body. As he states “the body and it alone is capable of making visible what has been invisible, the mystery of the divine since time immemorial.” The body makes visible the ineffable mystery of the human person. It is a sign of the person but then again it is more, it is the embodiment of the person. There is no disconnect between a man’s sprit and his bodily desires in the beginning. The two work in concert with each other. Just as there was harmony in the male-female relationship so to there was harmony in the mind-body-sprit relationship within the human person.