John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” may be “Gnostic and heretical,” according to this writer:
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/SnakeOil.html
This is very interesting on Gary Wills’ criticisms of John Paul II. Please note the response of the Pole, who thinks it quite legitimate for a critic of th e late Pope to mention the role of his Polish ethnicity in describing his world-view:
This article presumes that “complementarity” is just “patriarchalism” and homophobia writ large, whereas I think it has mostly to do with anxiety to preserve the ecclesiastical power structure:
The pope upholds his particular view of the complementarity of the sexes (which he finds revealed in the Genesis creation narrative commanding procreation) and concludes that in the church there exists a female Marian principle (no ordination) that complements a male Petrine principle (ordination). Granted, John Paul II has made efforts to defend the goodness and sacredness of married heterosexuality in his prolific writings, but his insistence upon gender complementarity and the ban on contraception ensure that his teachings fail the needs of ordinary persons. The pope's romantic rhetoric is not received beyond a minority.
While Christian teachings and understanding of sexuality and gender have been evolving over the centuries, at this point we are caught in both an underestimation of the positive power of sexuality to engender love, unity and transformation in committed couples, and an overestimation of the moral, psychosocial and theological significance of gender identity (mostly female). [I personally attribute this to the late Pope’s exaggerated and unnecessarily anti-ecumenist cult of the VIRGIN Mary.] These inadequacies are systemically interrelated and thwart change. Authorities fear that if the ban on contraception and procreative gender complementarity is relaxed, then the way is opened to homosexual unions, which would further threaten gender complementarity, which in turn would threaten the ban on women's ordination, and so on.
I should hasten to add, though, that I believe that the late Pope is to be given a great deal of credit for BEGINNING this re-visiting of traditional Catholic sexual morality. Although I believe his teachings are “half-baked” regarding gender roles and identity (“complementarity” being too narrow an understanding of the impact of gender on affectivity and identity, and also too narrow an image of God’s or even Jesus’ nature), I also believe that, in the fullness of time, a more mature, charitable and civilized attitude toward same-sex and transgendered love WILL arise.
We could actually start with a more historically accurate understanding of the encounter between Jesus and a centurion who wanted his catamite-slave (as all in the crowd of 1st-century Roman subjects would have understood the nature of that relationship) to be cured and who reached the Saviour’s heart with his plea and his gentle, trusting "queer" faith.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
For Your Greater Edification...
Date: 2006-03-12 06:20 pm (UTC)The legacy of John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body,” which this writer sees as a “stunted teaching”:
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/032103/032103q.htm
John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” may be “Gnostic and heretical,” according to this writer:
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/SnakeOil.html
This is very interesting on Gary Wills’ criticisms of John Paul II. Please note the response of the Pole, who thinks it quite legitimate for a critic of th e late Pope to mention the role of his Polish ethnicity in describing his world-view:
http://www.therevealer.org/archives/daily_000267.php
This article presumes that “complementarity” is just “patriarchalism” and homophobia writ large, whereas I think it has mostly to do with anxiety to preserve the ecclesiastical power structure:
The pope upholds his particular view of the complementarity of the sexes (which he finds revealed in the Genesis creation narrative commanding procreation) and concludes that in the church there exists a female Marian principle (no ordination) that complements a male Petrine principle (ordination). Granted, John Paul II has made efforts to defend the goodness and sacredness of married heterosexuality in his prolific writings, but his insistence upon gender complementarity and the ban on contraception ensure that his teachings fail the needs of ordinary persons. The pope's romantic rhetoric is not received beyond a minority.
While Christian teachings and understanding of sexuality and gender have been evolving over the centuries, at this point we are caught in both an underestimation of the positive power of sexuality to engender love, unity and transformation in committed couples, and an overestimation of the moral, psychosocial and theological significance of gender identity (mostly female). [I personally attribute this to the late Pope’s exaggerated and unnecessarily anti-ecumenist cult of the VIRGIN Mary.] These inadequacies are systemically interrelated and thwart change. Authorities fear that if the ban on contraception and procreative gender complementarity is relaxed, then the way is opened to homosexual unions, which would further threaten gender complementarity, which in turn would threaten the ban on women's ordination, and so on.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2003_01_06/2003_03_21_Callahan_StuntedTeaching.htm
Luke Timothy Johnson on American Catholicism and on the “Theology of the Body”:
http://www.catholicsinpublicsquare.org/papers/fall2001commonweal/johnsonpaper/johnsonpaper.htm
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=200
I should hasten to add, though, that I believe that the late Pope is to be given a great deal of credit for BEGINNING this re-visiting of traditional Catholic sexual morality. Although I believe his teachings are “half-baked” regarding gender roles and identity (“complementarity” being too narrow an understanding of the impact of gender on affectivity and identity, and also too narrow an image of God’s or even Jesus’ nature), I also believe that, in the fullness of time, a more mature, charitable and civilized attitude toward same-sex and transgendered love WILL arise.
We could actually start with a more historically accurate understanding of the encounter between Jesus and a centurion who wanted his catamite-slave (as all in the crowd of 1st-century Roman subjects would have understood the nature of that relationship) to be cured and who reached the Saviour’s heart with his plea and his gentle, trusting "queer" faith.
(Reply to this) (Parent)