Randy Engel, thank you very much for this posting. Thank you also for your work. Of all the noxious weeds so carefully nurtured under the last papacy, this one will be the most difficult to root out, I think. I am glad you have taken up the spade....
more
Randy Engel, thank you very much for this posting. Thank you also for your work. Of all the noxious weeds so carefully nurtured under the last papacy, this one will be the most difficult to root out, I think. I am glad you have taken up the spade. I had read these works before I ever heard of the "TOB" tag, and then was surprised to see a veritable cult rising up around it 20 years later. There is a beauty in it, but it is in many parts speculative at best. That is all I will say for now; let the proponents shout back.
I wish to thank the moderators of 4Marks for airing my interview on Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body over Catholic Radio.
Normally I do not participate in blogs, either pro or con my writings on Catholic ...
more
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ –
I wish to thank the moderators of 4Marks for airing my interview on Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body over Catholic Radio.
Normally I do not participate in blogs, either pro or con my writings on Catholic themes, but the nature of many of the posts indicates the necessity of some clarifying remarks by me in the name of truth, justice and charity.
My short interview on Theology of the Body (TOB) with Catholic Radio was based on my 2-year study of the late pope’s works on marriage and conjugal love, specifically on the readings of the Waldstein translation of the pope’s TOB text and on the pope’s earlier works including Love and Responsibility. The study culminated in a 7-part series titled ““John Paul II and the ‘Theology of the Body’ – A Study in Modernism,” which ran in Catholic Family News from May to November 2009. The complete series is now available online at www.newengelpublishing.com for those who wish to examine more closely all the issues touched upon in my interview.
As I re-read the 24 comments posted on TOB in general, and my interview in particular, I think it is fair to say that while everyone has an opinion on TOB, few of the posters have actually taken the time to read and study John Paul II’s TOB or his revolutionary ideas on marriage expressed in Love and Responsibility released in 1960.
I therefore invite all those who have not as yet done so, to read the Waldstein translation of Theology of the Body and Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility in conjunction with my 84-page critique complete with footnotes and then make a truly informed decision on John Paul II’s New Theology on marriage and sex.
Having done this, compare Wojtyla’s writings on the body with that of Saint Paul whose theology of the body was somewhat different from that of the late pope -----
But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway (1 Cor. 9:27)
But whilist we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world (1Cor. 11:32).
For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth, and he scourgeth every son, who he receiveth (Heb. 12:6)
For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places (Eph. 6:1).
But I see another law in my members, fighting the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of death? (Rom. 7:23-24).
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die; but if by the Spirit you mortify the deed of the flesh, you shall live (Rom. 8:12-13).
And then ask yourself the question – which is truly Catholic?
Jim, I'm no expert either but that's the take I have on TOB also. Randy Engel says it "infected" JPII's encyclicals in regards to marriage though, so it sounds like it may have a little more seriousness to it, at least to the d...
more
Jim, I'm no expert either but that's the take I have on TOB also. Randy Engel says it "infected" JPII's encyclicals in regards to marriage though, so it sounds like it may have a little more seriousness to it, at least to the degree it feeds into his encyclicals. Pope Benedict was pretty up front about his book on Jesus being his opinion though.
Tom, I haven't read Mr. Madrid's book. It just sounded like it might be a good book to check out in light of this discussion. I suspect he does not make the argument that no one could ever be more faithful to Catholic teaching than the pope or should ever try. When you're dealing with someone whose office has been given the gift of infallibility though, I give him much more careful consideration (no offense to anyone posting here). Otherwise, you could possibly find yourself in the awkward position of claiming to have more fullness of truth than the Church.
Donna, the real issue to me is Ms. Engel's comments regarding Vatican II having already "changed" Church doctrine. Do you agree with her? What does that say about Vatican II and the papacy? Are you making the case for sedevacantism?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about JPII's view of abortion. I haven't read Love and Responsibility, but it looks like a good read from the intro. My take from reading the intro is that L&R focused on justifying (not challenging) Catholic morality from the point of view of life as it is experienced. Therefore with this focus, it makes sense to describe abortion from the point of view of the woman's experience of it. The unborn child is not in the position of requiring justification for Catholic morality in regards to abortion. Your complaint seems to be that you wish he hadn't focused on justifying Catholic morality on abortion from the negative effects it has on women.
Here's a quote from the L&R intro:
"It is not an exposition of doctrine. It is rather, the result above all of an incessant confrontation of doctrine with life (which is just what the work of a spiritual adviser consists of)." Was this the part of the intro you were referring to? If so, saying the book is a result of the confrontation of doctrine with life is not the same thing as saying the book itself challenges Catholic doctrine. Elsewhere in the intro it says, "The present book was born principally of the need to put the norms of Catholic sexual morality on a firm basis." You may disagree with that, but don't say it was JPII's intention to change Church doctrine.
Finally, the argument that anyone with a little common sense can see that JPII broke from Church teaching is just not convincing enough for me. One reason is because I believe JPII himself had more than just a little common sense.
