Does JPII really promote nudism in «Theology of the Body»?

[Geremia]

Randy Engel's "John Paul II and the 'Theology of the Body' - A Study in Modernism" (originally published in CFN) is a good analysis of the Theology of the Body (ToB) audiences. She agrees with Dörmann, who said "John Paul II did not hold to the truth of the Church's doctrine on Original Sin."

Fr. Luigi Villa says in "John Paul II Beatified?" that "the masculinity and femininity of the naked body, are for him [John Paul II] the greatest revelations of the human being for themselves and for others."

John Paul II uses the very confusing phrase "revelation of the body", which encapsulates ToB's whole emphasis on spiritualizing the body ("conjugal spirituality" as he calls it in a later audience). Revelation comes from God, not the human body, although in some cases through the human body. JPII's view is consistent with his Modernistic disbelief of objective Revelation, something Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange criticized him about in the failed Angelicum thesis he directed.

• He says Genesis 2:25 ("And they were both naked; to wit Adam & his wife: and were not ashamed.") is the "original revelation of the body" (source).
• And «the "revelation of the body," helps us somehow to discover the extraordinary side of what is ordinary.» (source)
• Conclusion: Being naked and not ashamed "helps us somehow to discover the extraordinary side of what is ordinary."! This is nudism!

ToB is naturalistic. Man is mentioned far more frequently than God, too.

[Chestertonian]

It's nudism if you think q man and wife being naked together is nudism

[OCLittleFlower]

It's nudism if you think q man and wife being naked together is nudism

There are situations where it would be, I think.  I mean, if they're hanging out in the nude to eat breakfast or something.   

[Chestertonian]

It's nudism if you think q man and wife being naked together is nudism

There are situations where it would be, I think.  I mean, if they're hanging out in the nude to eat breakfast or something.   

if they're married and the shades are down who cares?

[Maximilian]

• Conclusion: Being naked and not ashamed "helps us somehow to discover the extraordinary side of what is ordinary."! This is nudism!

ToB is naturalistic. Man is mentioned far more frequently than God, too.

Yes, he does. "Naked without shame" is the theme of the "Theology of the Body." It's a denial of original sin.

http://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Presents-Naked-Without-Shame/dp/B000J1KNTI

The GIFT Foundation Presents, Naked Without Shame:
A Crash Course In The Theology Of The Body;
John Paul II's Insights On Marriage And Sexuality Explained!;
10 Audio CD Set, Second Edition, Revision 2.0, Copyright 2004

[Maximilian]

It's nudism if you think q man and wife being naked together is nudism

There are situations where it would be, I think.  I mean, if they're hanging out in the nude to eat breakfast or something.   

if they're married and the shades are down who cares?

God cares. The angels care.

When Adam and Eve realized they were naked they were ashamed, even though there were no neighbors for whom they needed to pull down the shades.

Shame is one of the fundamental elements of the cardinal virtue of temperance.

[Chestertonian]

• Conclusion: Being naked and not ashamed "helps us somehow to discover the extraordinary side of what is ordinary."! This is nudism!

ToB is naturalistic. Man is mentioned far more frequently than God, too.

Yes, he does. "Naked without shame" is the theme of the "Theology of the Body." It's a denial of original sin.

http://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Presents-Naked-Without-Shame/dp/B000J1KNTI

The GIFT Foundation Presents, Naked Without Shame:
A Crash Course In The Theology Of The Body;
John Paul II's Insights On Marriage And Sexuality Explained!;
10 Audio CD Set, Second Edition, Revision 2.0, Copyright 2004

that's Christopher West I think

West is not t o b[/list]

[Maximilian]

• Conclusion: Being naked and not ashamed "helps us somehow to discover the extraordinary side of what is ordinary."! This is nudism!

ToB is naturalistic. Man is mentioned far more frequently than God, too.

Yes, he does. "Naked without shame" is the theme of the "Theology of the Body." It's a denial of original sin.

http://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Presents-Naked-Without-Shame/dp/B000J1KNTI

The GIFT Foundation Presents, Naked Without Shame:
A Crash Course In The Theology Of The Body;
John Paul II's Insights On Marriage And Sexuality Explained!;
10 Audio CD Set, Second Edition, Revision 2.0, Copyright 2004

that's Christopher West I think

West is not t o b[/list]

Yes he is. Christopher West is the officially-sponsored representative of the Theology of the Body movement. He has been approved by numerous dioceses. He used to work as Director of Family Life for Archbishop Chaput of Denver.

After West came under attack for his television interview, he was defended by the biggest names in the Theology of the Body movement. One of his defenders was Michael Waldstein of Ave Maria University who had been the founder of the International Theological Institute in Gaming Austria which was established to promote the theology of John Paul II.

[Chestertonian]

Right.  But that doesn't make his interpretations of tob cotrect.

[Kaesekopf]

How so?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Maximilian]

Right.  But that doesn't make his interpretations of tob cotrect.

It makes it mainstream and representative of what the "Theology of the Body" stands for as understood by the most authoritative proponents of the philosophy.

In addition to Michael Waldstein, Janet Smith also defended Christopher West. Smith is well known to many traditional Catholics and is often considered the foremost defender of Humanae Vitae.

The defense of Christopher West by Waldstein and Smith essentially consisted of this -- they said that you cannot attack West without attacking the Theology of the Body at the same time, because the two are so intimately connected together that they cannot be separated.

[Chestertonian]

Right...

I have been to theology of the body stufy groups.  we all had clothes on

hsvebt seen any nude tob conferences.  even Christopher west for all his faults........ wears clothing

[LouisIX]

I am not a supporter of Theology of the Body in any way, but Christopher West's popularizing of it is also far weirder and more problematic than the actual audiences themselves.  Look up the back-and-forth between Drs. Waldstein, Hildebrand, and Schindler for evidence of that.

I have no problem with the basic idea that there is some revealing of truth (I wouldn't use the word "revelation" in a sense that is equivocal with "Revelation") to be found in the body insofar as it is created by God.  That is entirely Catholic.  I think there are problems with the TotB, but I don't see how this is one of them.

[Chestertonian]

It's nudism if you think q man and wife being naked together is nudism

There are situations where it would be, I think.  I mean, if they're hanging out in the nude to eat breakfast or something.   

if they're married and the shades are down who cares?

God cares. The angels care.

When Adam and Eve realized they were naked they were ashamed, even though there were no neighbors for whom they needed to pull down the shades.

Shame is one of the fundamental elements of the cardinal virtue of temperance.

I agree that shame is a good thing.  It protects us from the lust of another. 

But god knows every hair on our head s.... He knows every freckle and blemish... We cannot hide from Him. 

The wife's body belongs to the husband.... His body belongs to her.  Nudity should not be something that should cause shame around your spouse..... Your body is made for them

[Geremia]

JPII appears to mention concupiscence on three occasions of ToB: here, here, & here, but does not connect it to Original Sin on those occasions.

Look when he alludes to the remedium concupiscientiæ in the context of marriage:

Hermeneutics of the sacrament [of marriage]

5. By means of the dimension of the sign proper to marriage as a sacrament there is confirmed the specific theological anthropology, the specific hermeneutics of man. In this case it could also be called the hermeneutics of the sacrament, because it permits us to understand man on the basis of the analysis of the sacramental sign. Man—male and female—as the minister of the sacrament, the author (co-author) of the sacramental sign, is a conscious and capable subject of self-determination. Only on this basis can he be the author of the language of the body, the author (co-author) of marriage as a sign—a sign of the divine creation and redemption of the body. The fact that man (male and female) is the man of concupiscence does not prejudice his capacity to reread the language of the body in truth. He is the man of concupiscence. But at the same time he is capable of discerning truth from falsity in the language of the body. He can be the author of the meanings of that language, whether true or false.

There is nothing about grace helping a husband and wife overcome their concupiscence. The sacrament, according to him, just helps the husband and wife see each other differently while remaining a "man of concupiscence." He also makes it seem like the husband and wife have the sacrament only when they "self-determine" themselves to interpret the sacramental sign they "co-authored" in the correct way. This justifies annulment because if they stop "self-determining" themselves to be husbands and wives, well, then maybe the marriage didn't exist!