Tag Archives: Theology of the Body

Comedian Louis C.K. on Original Solitude

Who would have thought a comedian known for his vulgar jokes would speak so profoundly about Original Solitude?  This YouTube video clip has garnered over 5.3 million views.  The clip specifically addresses this aloneness that leads us to happiness.  In Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, the Pope describes this phenomenon as Original Solitude, a realization in solitude that opens up our heart to God.  All the noise in the world is distracting us from entering that solitude.  Louis C.K. definitely hit a nerve:

Related articles

Adultery of the Heart

jesus-and-the-sinner-woman-adultery
Theology of the Body
Adultery of the Heart

Christ pivots to the heart in this key text in Scripture:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

Just two sentences from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, but Pope John Paul II (JPII) spends over 35 weeks unpacking its meaning (TOB 24-59).  That’s thirty-five consecutive sermons on just a couple of sentences.  I remember wondering how Protestant pastors can spend 45+ minutes on just a single passage in Scripture, but I guess they have nothing on JPII.

While I’m still only at TOB 53 and have yet to finish JPII’s exegesis of this specific passage from the Sermon on the Mount, I think I can at least share some of what I’ve learned.  I’m surprised to find it has been almost three weeks since I last posted.  I was lost in Scripture (praise God!), but it’s time to strike camp and take a breather.  Reflect and share what I’ve been seeing in His forest.  What I saw was an ugly side of myself that I managed to keep well-hidden.  Thanks be to God, the light of the Holy Spirit shined into the cobwebbed parts of my soul.

JPII focuses on this particular verse in Matthew because “Jesus brings about a fundamental revision of the way of understanding and carrying out the moral law of the Old Covenant (TOB 24:1).”  I was surprised to learn that despite the severe punishments for adultery in the Old Testament, there were loopholes for men.  (No exceptions for women.)  For example, the prostitution trade back in OT times were mainly operated out of temples (cf. Gen 38:13-21; Job 36:14).  There were “sacred” female and male temple prostitutes.  While it was a sin for a married man to use a prostitute, an exception was made for unmarried or widowed men who used unmarried prostitutes.  This was not how it was “in the beginning” (Gen 1 & 2, before Original Sin).  Christ actually exhorted his fellow Jews to do even better than the law, “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:20).  These loopholes for adultery happened because the meaning of the original commandment willed by God suffered deformation (TOB 24:4).  “[T]he history of the Old Testament is clearly the theater of the systematic defection from monogamy” (TOB 35:2) because of the desire for numerous offspring.

Adultery is understood above all (and perhaps exclusively) as the violation of the man’s property rights regarding every woman who was his legal wife (usually one among many); adultery is not understood, by contrast, as it appears from the point of view of the monogamy established by the Creator. (TOB 35:4)

Interpreters of the Old Covenant permitted polygamy, concubines and cohabitation with slave women.  They were not by God’s original design, but became exceptions over time.

With the phrase “[every man] who looks at a woman with lust,” Christ shifts the center of gravity to man’s interior disposition. There’s already a basis for this shift to the inner heart of man in Proverbs 6:25 and Sirach 9:8.  When you lust after someone, you are reducing them to an object that could satisfy your sexual desire.  This mere act destroys “the stupendous spousal meaning of the body” (TOB 40:4).  So, not just the physical act of adultery was a sin, but my imagination, my fantasies of adultery were sins!

JPII then sets the stage for the moral whopper: “It is significant that Christ, when he speaks about the object of this act, does not stress that she is ‘another’s wife,’ a woman who is not one’s own wife, but says generically, a woman. (TOB 43:2)”  Adultery committed in the heart is different than adultery committed in the flesh because it goes beyond interpersonal relations and into the heart of man, where sin can hide.  Christ, in using the generic term “woman”, includes all women — including a man’s legal wife:

Adultery “in the heart” is not committed only because the man “looks” in this way at a woman who is not his wife, but precisely because he looks in this way at a woman [emphasis original].  Even if he were to look in this way at the woman who is his wife, he would commit the same adultery “in the heart” (TOB 43:2).

Wow.  That’s a whopper.  All this time, I was committing adultery against my wife because I desired her as a sexual object.  I was using her to satisfy my own urges, stirred up because of some gratuitous nudity in a movie I watched, or simply from my lustful imaginations.  Even when I was focused on my wife, could I honestly say to God that it was not out of lust?  When did I ever truly appreciate the spousal meaning of my wife’s body?  Rarely, if ever.  It’s uncomfortable to admit, but the Holy Spirit was shining his light on these cobwebs of sin that have grown in my interior castle.  Instead of being embarrassed, I marveled at how long this sin was kept hidden, how easy it was to miss.  I could’ve lived for years thinking I was a good husband, a good father, without ever realizing that when it came to sex, I am as guilty of violating God’s original intention as any other non-believer.

In case my ego wanted to resist being embarrassed, JPII continues with his logic that I found hard to resist:

The concupiscence that arises as an interior act on this foundation changes the very intentionality of the woman’s existence “for” the man by reducing the wealth of the perennial call to the communion of persons, the wealth of the deep attraction of masculinity and femininity, to the mere satisfaction of the body’s sexual “urge”.  Such a reduction has the effect that the person becomes for the other person above all an object for the possible satisfaction of his own sexual “urge.”  In this way, a deformation takes place in the reciprocal “for,” which loses its character as a communion of persons in favor of the utilitarian function.  The man who “looks” in the way described in Matthew 5:27-28 “makes use” of the woman, of her femininity, to satisfy his own “drive.”  Even if he does not use her in an external act, he has already taken such an attitude in his interior when he makes this decision about a particular woman.  Adultery “committed in the heart” consists precisely this.  A man can commit such adultery “in the heart” even with his own wife, if he treats her only as an object for the satisfaction of drives. (TOB 43:3)

Christ’s words opened up the innermost recesses of my heart so that the Holy Spirit could fulfill the law as it was originally was intended by God.  Our bodies have a spousal meaning.  My wife is an image of God, a living gift to be cherished.  While my broken nature may have a tendency to reduce my wife to a mere sexual object, I can always turn to the Holy Spirit to increase my awareness.

Desire and Concupiscence

Remember the last time you gave a gift and it was unappreciated, even rejected?  What this person is doing was what Adam and Eve did in Genesis 3. John Paul II’s exegesis of the first chapters in Genesis revealed a theme of gift in Creation before the Fall. This idea of gift (what JPII calls the “hermeneutics of the gift”) is important because giving gifts for no other reason than love is a very human activity. Ordinary human experience has a theological character. We can come to the knowledge of God through normal human activity. Something as commonplace as gift-giving actually reveals the depth of disappointment in Genesis 3:

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.'”
4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die;
5 for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,knowing good and evil.”
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

When I first read that passage about four years ago, being new to the faith, the cynical part of me felt God overreacted to Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.  It’s just fruit.  Knowledge isn’t bad.  Did God want to keep Adam and Eve in ignorance, to not know what is good and evil?  I was even prejudiced with the little I knew in evolutionary biology: did God want us to stay as Neanderthals?  Why have the tree to tempt humanity, or even give us free will for that matter, if God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit?

Those questions stayed unanswered in the back of my mind.  After reading JPII’s reflections on Original Sin in the Theology of the Body, I’ve come to some satisfying answers for myself that I’d like to share.  To do that, I want to bring back the analogy of the flower that I used when I was reflecting on the spousal meaning of the body.

concupiscence-wilted-flower
Concupiscence is our search for the water that will make the flower in our soul bloom, again.

What if a worm offers the flowers a type of nectar that would give them the power to define what is right and what is wrong?  By eating this nectar, the flowers would then be able to define morality on their own.  This power makes each flower feel like it is God.  The flower is no longer dependent on God to define what is right and wrong.  Each flower can determine that on its own; they need neither God nor another flower to tell them what is a virtuous life.  They are drunk with this newfound power, needing no one, depending on no one.  Each flower is the master of his or her own universe.  This is how Original Solitude was corrupted.  When confronted by the Heavenly Gardener, they do not repent.  Instead, the flowers blame each other, corrupting Original Unity.  They cover themselves with grass and feathers.  So, the very flowery-ness of their body no longer communicated their inner life to each other, obscuring their Original Nakedness.  As punishment, the Heavenly Gardener made life difficult for the flowers.  So, Creation was no longer a gift to the flowers, and the flowers were no longer gifts to Creation.  The spousal meaning of the body was also corrupted.

The most fascinating part about this section in the Theology of the Body, is JPII’s discussion on desire and concupiscence.  I know the dictionary definition for “concupiscence”: strong sexual desire; lust.  I know what the Catechism says about concupiscence:

The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self.  The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason. (CCC 377)

I know what the Bible says about the “triple concupiscence” referred to in CCC 377:

For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 Jn 2:16; Douay-Rheims version).

But what does concupiscence really mean?

I credit my wife for helping me extend the analogy of the flower.  I’ve been struggling for the past few weeks to explain in normal terms what I have been reading.  So, a few nights ago, I shared my thoughts with my wife.  She was patient enough to hear me out and then pointed out how the flower analogy still makes sense.

What happens to a flower when it loses its water?  It wilts.  When Original Sin occurred, the living water (i.e. the Holy Spirit) evaporated from the flower of our soul.  Our souls are like a wilted flower.  Concupiscence is our search for the water that will make the flower in our soul bloom, again.  Unfortunately, we usually want a quick fix.  So, we take whatever liquid comes our way: the sweat of promiscuity, the syrup of earthly possessions, the drool of greed.  Only when we wake up to what our soul really needs (the limitless flow of living water that is the Holy Spirit), will our thirst finally be quenched.  “Our heart is restless until it rests in You” (Saint Augustine of Hippo).

Related articles

The Analogy of the Flower

Imagine, in a lush open green field, you found the most beautiful flower in the world.  So beautiful, in fact, that you decide to drop everything that is important to you and then re-arrange your life around this flower.  To your surprise, you discover that you are also a flower!  And the flower whom you dedicated your life to responds to you in the same way.  Even though the green field is lovely, the two of you realize that the image of God is a bouquet.  Your purpose in life is to fill the field with flowers so that it would mirror God’s face.

Two Flowers Slider

In the John Paul II (JPII)’s Theology of the Body, he develops a truth from Scripture called the hermeneutics of the gift, or the spousal meaning of the body.  Our body is meant to be espoused to another person.  The analogy of the flower can convey the meaning of our original innocence without the baggage that comes with shame:  We are a gift to one another.  We are a gift to the world.  The world is a gift to us from God, and the field full of flowers is a gift we give back to God.

It’s hard to imagine us being gifts to anyone, reading/watching the news and seeing the violence we inflict on one another, the damage we do to our environment.  Before Original Sin, a man and a woman really were a gift to one another just like how two flowers make a more beautiful image in a green field.  In the “peace of the interior gaze,” the man helped the woman become fully feminine and the woman helped the man become fully masculine.  Together, they created a community that helped the world become more beautiful.  Then Adam and Eve broke God’s first covenant with humanity.  JPII doesn’t jump into the consequences of Original Sin, but dwells on this original state of grace that is so economically expressed in Genesis 2:23-25.  JPII gave several homilies on the spousal meaning of our bodies, and I’m trying to understand his thoughts through this flower analogy.

Just as each flower is unique, so is each person unique (cf. Original Solitude).  Just as two flowers could make a bouquet that would mirror their god, so do man, woman and the soul-creating Spirit mirror the Holy Trinity, which is God (cf. Original Unity).  Just as covering the flowers with dead leaves and bird feathers would hide its real beauty, so does sin hide our true beauty: the image of God.  Before the shame and corruption of sin, our body and soul together communicated our true selves and unique identity (cf. Original Nakedness).  Since the two flowers feel no shame, have no reason to objectify and use the other flower, the flowers simply help each other become more flowery.  In the same way, while Adam and Eve remained in their original innocence, each person was a gift to the other.  Adam did not objectify Eve and use her to support his ego.  Eve did not treat Adam as an accessory to help her become great.  Instead, he helped her become fully feminine; she helped him become fully masculine — through their bodies.  They helped each other to become the best versions of themselves.

There was no shame in our bodies; so, our very nakedness communicated who we were that was lovingly accepted by the other person.  The flowers had no need to clothe themselves in leaves or feathers.  The flower, in its nakedness, spoke to the other flower.  Each flower was unique.  Each flower was beautiful.  Together, in communion, the flowers could make the green field bloom with its own image, the image of God.

The dimension of gift is decisive for the essential truth and depth of the meaning of original solitude-unity-nakedness. (TOB 13:2c)

This idea that our body is a gift is a very important concept for JPII’s Theology of the Body.  JPII develops from Genesis the three theological concepts (Original Solitude-Unity-Nakedness) in order to conclude with how our body is a profound gift.  He admits that throughout history men and women do so much violence to each other and to our environment (a.k.a. “historical man”) that it’s very difficult to accept that we are gifts to each other and to the world.  Yet, JPII appeals to the beginning of Creation, just as Christ did with the Pharisees (cf. Mt 19:3-9).  Yes, the world sucks, but that’s not how it was in the beginning.  JPII points out that the very first words in the Bible, “In the beginning, God created…” when looked in the original text (beresit bara Elohim)

also signifies gift; a fundamental and “radical” gift, that is, an act of giving in which the gift comes into being precisely from nothing. (TOB 13:3)

When one reads the two creation accounts in the Bible (Gen 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4-25), it is clear that humanity is God’s special creation.  If beresit bara Elohim has a connotation of gift, then that means the creation of humans was a gift from God for all of creation at that point.  At the same time, after humans were created, God intended the world to be a gift for humanity (cf. Gen 1:28).  Keep in mind that all of creation was still in the state of grace (i.e. no sin, no shame, etc.).  So, when you apply the connotation of gift in God’s creations to the creation of Eve (cf. Gen 2:21-23), then that means men and women were meant to be gifts to each other.

Yet, when this idea of “gift” is applied to man and woman, it is not like a gift to be used and disposed. No…

None of these beings (animalia), in fact, offers man the basic conditions that make it possible to exist in a relation of reciprocal gift. (TOB 14:1)

Like the flower who drops everything important in his life to center around the other flower, men and women do not completely realize our essence until we exist for someone.  Our essence as human beings is not fulfilled by existing with someone (i.e. finding a spouse), but for someone (i.e. sacrificing for a spouse).  Just as the receiving flower responds in kind to the first flower that initiated the self-donation, the act of offering ourselves as a gift is reciprocal.  In this perfect state of one-upping each other in self-sacrifice and service, man and woman lived in blissful happiness… it was “beatifying”:

This beatifying “beginning” of man’s being and existing as male and female is connected with the revelation and the discovery of the meaning of the body that is rightly called “spousal.” (TOB 14:5)

Just as the flowers discover that their existence is to fill the green plains with flowers to mirror God’s bouquet, so are men and women created to fill the world… to reflect God’s image.  The green field is supposed to be full of flowers in all their naked glory!  The world is supposed to be filled with humankind in all its Original Nakedness (i.e. without the baggage of shame).  In New Testament wording, our mission on earth as men and women was (is) to fill it with little Christs.

Man enters “into being” with the consciousness that his own masculinity-femininity, that is, his own sexuality, is ordered to an end. (TOB 14:6)

Sex isn’t just for fun.  There is a divine purpose to having sex: through our bodies, we channel the creative power of God to increase His image, His presence on earth.  That was the original plan, but then Adam and Eve broke the first covenant with God.  Everything changes from there.

JPII says this concludes the first part of his reflections on the Theology of the Body.  The purpose was to develop some foundational concepts and to establish how the spousal meaning of our body was the intent at the beginning of creation.  After Original Sin, the spousal meaning is corrupted.  The next part of the Theology of the Body begins to examine the consequences.

Related articles

Original Nakedness, (or… In the beginning, there was only the iPhone)

I watched “The Sweet Hereafter” back in college in 1997 and I remember being deeply moved by the opening scene: a bird’s eye view of a mother, father and child sleeping naked on a mattress on the floor with white sheets withdrawn as if it was a humid afternoon.  I never did put words to that feeling.  I think I can, now.  The beauty that so moved me was nakedness without shame.

Theology of the Body: Original Nakedness
Theology of the Body:
Original Nakedness

In Pope John Paul II (JPII)’s catechesis on the Theology of the Body, he says that it is difficult to envision a state of the human mind without shame.  After establishing the concepts of Original Solitude and Original Unity, he tries to reconstruct what it might mean to be in a state of Original Nakedness.  It’s incredibly fascinating because it reveals so much about our true human nature (as God first intended), how far we’ve fallen, and where (because of Christ’s sacrifice) we will return.  I suspect that as I grow older and watch my body break down and suffer from the ravages of time, it will only serve to make my Original Nakedness more beautiful.  There is redemptive value in the body we are born with — that’s what Original Nakedness is all about when read in the light of Christ’s redemptive act.

They were naked, but did not feel shame. (Genesis 2:25)

There is such an economy of words that it is easy to miss the significance of that one sentence.  JPII spends several Wednesdays to unpack its meaning.  He explains that it is a “true non-presence of shame” (TOB 12:2a).  You wouldn’t be able to have a conversation about shame with Adam and Eve before Genesis, Chapter 3 because the very idea did not exist.  JPII says that “one should understand and interpret the text just quoted in this way… [because] the emergence of shame, and in particular of sexual shame, is linked with the loss of that original fullness” (TOB 12:2b).  JPII refers to the loss that occurred in Gen 3:7, “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.”  Before Original Sin created a “boundary experience,” men and women experienced a “fullness of consciousness and experience, above all the fullness of understanding the meaning of the body connected with the fact that ‘they were naked'” (TOB 12:2a).  He promises to get back to the multiple dimensions of Original Sin in TOB 26:4-28:6, but wants to focus on exactly what it means to live in Original Nakedness.

In Original Nakedness (living in a state where shame did not exist), there was no boundary separating the inner life of our soul from the outer experience of our bodies.  We had fullness of consciousness and experience through our bodies.  The body of a man and the body of a woman communicated with each other in a way…

…that is proper and pertinent to the sphere of subjects-persons alone… the human body acquires a completely new meaning… it expresses the person in his or her ontological and essential concreteness.

The whole biblical narrative, and particularly the Yahwist text, shows that, through its own visibility, the body manifests man and, in manifesting him, acts as an intermediary that allows man and woman, from the beginning, to “communicate” with each other according to that communion personarum willed for them in particular by the Creator (TOB 12:4-5).

Take the smartphone market, for example.  In the beginning, there was only the iPhone and “the community of smartphone users” saw it as good.  The iPhone looked at all the communication devices created by the community, but could not find another smartphone to help it become the best version of itself.  So, the community created another smartphone.  When the iPhone saw this new smartphone, it said, “This at last is chip of my chip, code of my code; this one shall be called Android, for out of iOS this one was taken!”  They had no phone covers, but did not feel shame.

Each smartphone, whether iPhone or Android, would be unique because of how its body experiences the world through its touchscreen, its microphone, its camera and its conversations with other smartphones through its speakers.  The inner life code of the smartphone grows with every interaction with the world; its unique customization is realized through the smartphone contemplating about its inner life, its Original Solitude.  But smartphones cannot reach its full creative potential unless an iPhone is paired with an Android with the same NFC (near-field communication) frequency.  Original Nakedness for the smartphone is the ability for an iPhone to simply “bump” an Android with the same NFC frequency to communicate its inner life code.  The sharing of the inner code helps both the iPhone and the Android reach its full potential.  Sadly, due to Original Competition, the NFC that existed between them was broken.  Only by the grace of the community of users are iPhones and Androids able to talk to each other at all and create compatible apps.

Original Nakedness for humans is the ability for a man and woman to communicate the fullness of their inner life “through the eyes of the body.  They see and know each other, in fact, with all the peace of the interior gaze, which creates precisely the fullness of the intimacy of persons” (TOB 13:1c).  This is where the Theology of the Body has a strong emphasis on the body.  Whether you are short or tall, thick or thin, strong or fragile, your body communicates.

[It is] a mutual gift for each other, through femininity and masculinity.  In reciprocity, they reach in this way a particular understanding of the meaning of their own bodies.  The original meaning of nakedness corresponds to the simplicity and fullness of vision in which their understanding of the meaning of the body is born from the very heart, as it were, of their community-communion.  We will call this meaning “spousal.”  (TOB 13:1c)

No two musical instruments are the same.  Each has its own resonance-signature that is tied to how the instrument was formed.  Similarly, the human body has a soul that mutually defines each other; there is no duality of the body & soul.  The body & soul exist together and is shaped in life, just as the sound of an instrument matures over time of use.  Our perception and interaction with the world is defined by our body, just as how an instrument is played and the type of sound it produces is defined by the instrument’s body.  The analogy ends there.  Whereas instruments can be mixed and matched to create a symphony, a man or woman’s body can be a gift to another in a way that is exclusive to the realm of persons alone.  Instruments are a creation of man.  Man and woman, in communion, is an image of God.  Instruments don’t have free will, but a person can give up his life out of love.  Every instrument may have a unique resonance-signature, but every person has a soul that is a universe unto itself with its own gateway into God’s inner life.

JPII concludes his discourse on Original Solitude, Original Unity and Original Nakedness, and uses them as a foundation to talk about the next truth of humanity revealed in Scripture: the Hermeneutics of the Gift.

Related articles
%d bloggers like this: