March 23, 2004 Theology of the Body

by Perry Cahall, Ph.D.
There is an accompanying PDF document associated with this talk. You can download it by Clicking Here. You must have the Adobe Reader in order to view the file.
View Book Recommendations

Thanks to Jen for getting a hold of me to doing this.

This is a topic that has been transformative for my life. I think it's safe to say that one of the greatest crisis' in our culture right now is marriage and the family. We are experiencing a period of time where marriage and family is being challenged, redefined, and forgotten in it's nature and purpose. There is this redefinition of marriage and family. God has given us a gift in John Paul II with his monumental intellect that has given us every tool to deal with this crisis. What Theology of the Body is is this explanation that God has given us through John Paul II to explain as clearly as possible the nature of the human person/body.

The Theology of the Body is a collective title given to 129 homilies that JPII delivered in his Wednesday General Audiences between Sept. 5, 1979 and Nov. 28, 1984. So I'm supposed to sum up 5 years of homilies in 45 minutes! You can do some reading at the end after this talk.

A quote from George Weigel who said John Paul II’s theology of the body is a "theological time bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences, sometime in the third millennium of the Church. When that happens perhaps in the twenty-first century, the theology of the body may well be seen as a critical moment not only in Catholic theology, but in the history of modern thought"

I want to do everything as possible with the rest of my life to help set off this time bomb. This is one of the most important things to come down the pipe. 2/3 of what the Catholic Church has taught on Sex and marriage have come from the pontificate of John Paul II.


You can divide it into cycles, John Paul II doesn't actually do this but the collection of the homilies divides it into these cycles. This is a very helpful division. The first part contains the first two cycles, before sin and after sin. This is a very biblically based exegesis.


This is where he takes us to where Jesus says about divorce. Matt 19:3-ff

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one'? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

This is where John Paul II starts. He says when Christ takes us back to the beginning, he quotes the book of Genesis, Christ takes us back to the way in which man and woman were formed. Why? In order to teach us about marriage.

Let's dig into this deeper, what is he showing us? In the beginning, the body revealed to us the nuptial meaning of reality. "What does this mean?" He says in the Genesis account man experiences being alone when seeing all the other bodies in creation. He realizes he's different. He only realizes himself and knows what he is when he sees woman. The text we have in Genesis says there was not a being that was a suitable helpmate. Nobody that he could enter into a union with. There was no other being in the creative order until woman comes on the scene. Once she comes on the scene, Adam utters the nuptial cry. The scene when Adam looks on her and says this at last is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. This person is finally someone I can enter into communion with and with whom I can receive her gift.

John Paul II says the complementarity of the male and female bodies reveal that we are made to be gift, to express love for one another, to exist for some one--the nuptial meaning of the body. We live in a day and age that our body is just raw data. What Christ is trying to show us though is that we're meant to be gifts for one another. We are male and female and we're meant to join.

Then he comments on the original unity of the man and the woman, before sin. Two being are made in the image and likeness of God, but note that they are not the same. Equality of dignity doesn't mean sameness. Modern society says there is no distinction between male and female, but Christ tries to teach us that male and female are for a purpose. We're equal in dignity but not the same, and this is a good thing because if we were the same then there would be no communion of love. This is complementarity. This reveals something about God in the order of creation.

What does this reveal? Our bodies can reflect the image of God who is Trinity. When I get into this part of the talk I get the theological giddies. This next part I'm about to say I normally say "did I just say what I thought I read?" This is amazing insight that John Paul II give us. He says. "it is sexual difference which allows man and woman to unite in a communion of persons in marriage, express love through a body, and imitate in the flesh the Creator’s fecundity and generosity" (CCC 2335; Gen 2:24)

This union is supposed to image the Trinity which is fruitful. The Image of God is only completed when we have this communion. The image is not complete until you have man and woman. So, the person male and female expresses a specific dignity/purpose according to what God has given them.

JP says that the human body is meant to make love visible in the world - the Incarnation shows this. "The body, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world the mystery hidden since time immemorial in God, and thus be a sign of it."

(4) Masculinity and femininity are visible signs (sacraments) of the inner life of God who is a Communion of Persons. This is what the human body is supposed to reveal, the sign of God's inner life. The union between male and female is supposed to be the window of the gift itself of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Now find that on "Friends" or any of your sitcoms that are riddled with sexual content. When did you hear Monica and Chandler say "Hey, we're imaging the Trinity!" The sexual revolution of the 60's promised fulfilment, happiness, etc. and John Paul II is taking those promises and saying, here, this is the way to do it.

One more word about this. One of the things he makes very clear is that we act as person in a through a body. He highlights a false dualism as if we can do things with our bodies but they won't affect our persons--one night stands, etc. What he keeps coming back to is that our bodies are visible expressions of persons or 'Sacraments of our Souls" we cannot split from our body we are a unified entity of body and soul and we image God in this way.

If I were to summarize the main points of this it is that John Paul II teaches us using Christ's words. The Human Body is a self gift. Person equals self gift. The body equals a gift sign. It reveals to us that are made to be given. Experiencing ourselves as a self-giving gift. That's what freedom is.

We live in a day and age that we are told that freedom is to be Abel--to do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want. Christ tells us what makes us free, it's not necessarily the will but to live by the Truth which brings me freedom. If you live by a concept of freedom that is like the world, it ends up using people as a tool and we see that all the time.

This first section is the foundation.


Here we focus on the text in Matthew 5:27-28 ""You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." John Paul II take this text as a cue to talk about how we experience our sexuality after the fall. How do we overcome the lust in our hearts.

To briefly explain the fall destroys the original unity of man and woman and the communion with God and with each other--their harmonies and desires. They hide themselves just after the fall, why? After sin they experienced lust, looking at each other as an object and Jesus tells us that we have to overcome this. The essence of lust is turning someone into a thing. "They are to be used for my selfish gratification."

This can exist in marriage. We cannot look upon another human person as an object, even our spouse.

This involves effort, virtue of chastity which refrains from sexuality activity. This is a positive virtue which orders things to the proper place. It does incorporate "no's", however, in a way that you don't want to sit in a car and just get it revved up without going anywhere. You need to seek the good of the other person so not to use them as an object. This virtue needs purity. Modesty helps us protect the gift in the way we dress. After discussing this in this section, John Paul asks, "Are we to fear the severity of these words [Mt 5:27-28], or have confidence in their salvific content, in their power?"

Modern man would say we can't trust these words that this is impossible. We should expect to do this. John Paul II says in response that Christ came to restore God’s original intention of love in the world, through an ongoing conversion of heart we can experience the redemption of our sexuality. This is left beside when we talk of redemption. Christ wants to redeem all of me, not just parts. This includes sexuality and sexual desire. This is the good news that the Church brings us about sexuality, this is not bad news, it's excellent news. I can experience true loving union.


These last five parts talk about redeemed man. What is it we're capable of doing.

He talks on St. Paul's teaching on the human body. Paul contrasts life according to the flesh (Rom 8:5-11; Gal 5:21) with life according to the Spirit (Gal 5:1, 13-14) 1 Cor 6:18-19 shows that we are not our own, but are temples of the Holy Spirit. Our bodies are holy! We cannot turn our bodies into an object or a thing!


The next cycle John Paul makes points about the body that this body (pointing to himself) is going to experience eternal union with God is destined. In the resurrection of the dead when we're reunited with our bodies. Christ's body reflects what will happen to us. His body is completely spiritual, it's not bound by time or space, it's the redemption of the body. The body is very holy. It is a temple of the Holy Spirit, it's destined for redemption.


John Paul II says that people don't understand the vocation to celibacy or the virgin life. People look at a celebate priest and think they are weird. They don't have a sex drive or they are sexually struggling, or worse given recent scandals. This is the prevailing view. What John Paul points out is that celebacy and virginity is a way of enacting myself as self-gift body and soul. This does not disdain sexuality or at least they ought not. It willingly forgoes a good in order to give oneself body and soul to Jesus, it's a form of nuptial union with the one spouse who is Christ.

Christopher West points out that he thinks that when we think of these people, we think of what these people have given up, not what they have embraced. They gave up sexual union for nuptial union with Christ.

In Matt 22 Jesus is asked about a woman who is married to a man, he died so the younger brother married her. He died as well without an heir, 7 times she marries a brother and then she dies childless. Now in the resurrection, who's wife would she be. He says that they don't understand, basically. She will neither be married or given in marriage, in the resurrected life we will have union with God and God alone. When we get into the resurrected life there is no reason to populate the earth. The celebate and virgin experiences are eternity breaking into time.

When my students say, "it just doesn't seem natural". I say, you know what, you're damn right, it's supernatural. The celebate or virgin should not be living a frustrated existence, it's about giving myself in love, that doesn't mean I have to have sex. I had a moral theology professor, a priest, who said one day, "Gentlemen, with every breath I take I am a sexual being." Everyone freaked out, "Father what are you doing?" Sexuality is our power to love, our power to give, just because I don't have sex doesn't mean I'm not giving; that I'm not in a loving relationship with Christ. My celibacy is encasing myself as gift, this is a sign of contradiction our world doesn't understand.


John Paul analyzes in detail phase 5 where marriage is a sacrament. I mean this in reference to Christ and the Church. John Paul II then says "What do we mean that marriage is a sacrament?" Marriage is a sacrament not because is symbolizes Christ, it's not just an empty sign, but it's a visible sign that makes present what they symbolize. When we go to Mass and celebrate the Eucharist, this isn't just a wafer of bread, the moment it is elevated it becomes Jesus. So when we talk about mass as a sacrament. It's not just some pious trap. It's not a nice representation, by virtue of two baptized spouses they are participating in the life of the Church. Christ works in them to sanctify them. The purpose of marriage is salvation.

Now one of the things that John Paul says in this section that is mind boggling is the language of the body. In the sacrament of marriage, the sign of the sacrament is the language of the body that the spouses speak to each other. Complete and absolute self-gift. When a man and a woman are having intercourse, this is the physical expression of their wedding vows. I give myself freely openly faithfully and open to children without reserve That's what intercourse is supposed to be, a consummation of the wedding vows.

Two things about this that are important. John Paul says the language that the spouses are speaking to each other in their bodies should be a Eucharist language. Take a deep breath, this is forever going to change the way you see the Eucharist, your bodies, and married life. Where is it that Christ gives Himself freely without reserve? On the Cross. And the Eucharist is the representation of that He gave us at the last supper. This is the type of love that a husband and wife should be speaking to each other. Make this personal; when I have a sexual relationship with my wife. I am supposed to be speaking a language to my wife, "this is my body given up for you, take". She in turn says the same thing to me and we enter into the sacrament in the presence of God, we speak the language that Mary spoke to the angel. This is the language of sexual intercourse. The Truth of it.

This is why the most shorthand way to explain that pre-marital sex is outside God's plan is if sexual intercourse is an expression of the vows, non-married people can't do this. If I'm giving myself totally freely openly outside of marriage this is false.


Normally if someone knows any document from the Church, they know what Humanae Vitae is. This is the document issued by Paul VI that reaffirms the Church's teaching on contraception. That it's not allowable. I think that Humanae Vitae marks a watershed in Catholic history. Before '68 people didn't say, "I'm Catholic but...." There is a rift in the Church now and this is one of the main issues.

John Paul takes everything from previous cycles and applies it here. The Church's teaching on this issue is ascertainable to those who are not part of this faith. It is natural law. Here is how we do this, look at intercourse, what is it for? If you were a martian and someone showed you this act, what is this for? My students get it right away, it's for babies. Anything else? If you look deeper it can bond the people together, it promotes love. John Paul says that this natural law reasoning is that sex is for babies and bonding. Any attempt to change it into something else is a misuse of the act. When we do this we can expect to experience problems.

Ultimately these two purposes are always together, they are never at odds with each other. Ultimately, the act of contraception rejects the other person's fertility. When I was younger, I didn't agree with the Church teaching, I thought they were behind the times and out of step. I had no idea why they taught and I didn't care. Certain events in my life helped me accept it but I didn't understand it. Why does the Church say contraception is not okay when it says NFP is okay? When I read Theology of the Body it became very clear to me.

When we enter an act of contraceptive intercourse it rules out live and love. If the language is supposed to give myself totally freely without reserve, contraception gives all of myself to you but "that". I want all of you except that which makes you most woman/man. I'm going to hold that back. The image that popped into my mind was that this is the most intimate form of communication but contraception is like entering in with a bag on your head.


Why is NFP different? Why is this allowable? It's accepting God's design for the act. Contraception is against conception. NFP is not like that, we simply target infertile periods. If we do this we are working with God's design and we're working with God's rhythm. NFP promotes a full gift of ourselves. It has happy by-products that others don't have, it promotes communication on all levels.

With contraception a couple unfolds with "Do you have the stuff? Did you take the stuff?" End of conversation. The NFP conversation is, "Honey, I just entered fertile period." "Oh, well, what should we do?" "In don't know", "Is there a reason why we can't have a baby right now? Is there a legitimate reason why we should abstain" If there is, fine.

The other happy side affect is promoting self-mastery. Contraception turns me into a beast without self-mastery. NFP the opposite, we have to live with our passions and learn to be chaste.

In my own life, I came to believe that the Church's teachings on marriage and sexuality are truly good news. It's only the Church's teaching that is going to save our society from the sexual chaos it's in now. This is not bad news, this is excellent news. Excellent News If we live according to God's plan on this, we will experience what it means to be human, the true meaning of our sexuality.


Question: It seems that it's such a Catholic approach, how do you share this with other faiths? How do you integrate this into that situation.

I think we take John Paul's lead when we talk about people of right reason can look at this we can start there. Some of the messages of earlier sections come to bear. We have to talk about the dignity of the Human Person, we are not animals, we need to point out the consequences of misbehavior.

The current situation we find ourselves in is the issue of same sex marriage we live in a culture who can't see the difference between two men, two women living together for life. There is a direct connection between this and contraception.

A biology student pointed this out to me. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out. If you put a frog in cold water and slowly heat it up, it will happily boiled to death. The reason why we can't see the difference is because we have been boiling to death for 30 years.

If I am a man and I love a man dearly. If I see a couple who has told me they never want to have children. They have ruled children out of the picture. If I am a gay man, I have to ask the question, "why can't I have what they have?" The minute we separate sex from babies, we have to accept homosexuality. We can't effectively argue against same-sex marriage and accept contraception in our culture, it connects the dots.

Question: Does it take away from the Catholic person who really believes against Contraception?

Baby steps. You meet people where they are and bring them along ever so slightly. Jesus did this, His response was to tell them a story, at the end it was like a wake up call. They then wanted to know more and more.

Question: How does this tie into those who live together out of wedlock? How much of a problem is it to live a proper life sexually?

Several ways it ties in. First, they don't respect each other as persons. Pre-marital sexual intercourse is not an authentic expression of love, they haven't made this commitment, they could wake up and say, "bye" the next day. Married couples only have the right because they have made the commitment. Pre-marital sex in is a mockery of marriage. Cohabitation for a millennia was not the norm because they didn't want to have children. But contraception has redefined this.

We are headed to the point of cohabitation unions will be put on the same level as marriage. Because of marriage has nothing to do with babies then why should anything else not be allowed. Marriage has been upheld for centuries because they give something to the society; other humans. But now that that's not an issue, anything can happen, unions with Dogs, I love my dog. That may sound extreme but it's logical.

Question: The question about is Theology of the Body too Catholic. Do you think people in good heart and good spirit could renew their Catholic Faith? Could a protestant be attracted by this and even convert?

I think it's possible, I know of one instance of a couple who read Theology of the Body wrote a book about contraception for Protestants, they have become Eastern Orthodox and are now putting out books on the subject. It doesn't take being Catholic to see the truth of this. The Wall Street Journal has a story about a Methodist minister on "Can Marriage Be Saved?" which talks about contraception. It doesn't take being Catholic.

The only problem with that article was that he says, "There's no turning back." We're plummeting into Sodom. I don't believe that. We can get out of this situation. It means proclaiming the Truth with Love.

Question: How receptive are your students to this message?

Surprising receptive. The seminarians are very receptive. The undergrads that I teach. I have not had the experience where people have a violent reaction to this. I have had people not completely agree or understand. The resounding response is that the people see the Truth of this and want it, especially the young women. The woman in the classroom say contraception turns them into a thing. They know this, I don't tell them this.

If I am a man who just wants to foster the lust in my heart, I want an entire nation of women on the pill; No consequences. The young women know this. The men are shocked how quickly they say it. But they see it.

The young people today are living in a vacuum, they are receptive to it because they are experiencing no direction in their sexual existence. They know it's right but don't have the arguments of it.

Comment: I think you have a lot of nerve.

I'll take this as a compliment

continues: There are not many bishops or priests are teaching what you teach.

I will comment in return. I will acknowledge that and will say that it's sad, but I'll also say that in talking to priests on this, I know a little bit why. Some are gun-shy. Every time they try to present this the congregation says, "You're not married, how do you know?" Any priest that I talk to has said this is their problem. I give them advice: If married people tell you you can't tell me what to do, are you telling me that I'm not sexual. That I don't have a sex drive? That practicing abstinence is too hard because it's too hard. If they say, "try all year." Call their bluff. They know what it means to deal with their sex drive, they know what it means to be sexual and know what it means to love. Priests have insight. The two men in my life who have influenced me more than anyone else are my father and a priest. They taught me what it means to be a man.

I think priests need to make it clear to their parishioners. When was the last item we encouraged a priest to give a homily like this or when we hear it we actually praise them? They need our support just as much as we need theirs.

Question: Is this included in pre-cana classes?

It depends on where you go. This is another thing we need to be working on as a Church. We as holy people need to take responsibility for marriage training in the parishes. Tell the priest we need to incorporate this message. Depending on where you are you will receive resistance.

Question: Tell us how this relates to someone who is called to the single life. True single life. "Consecrated single person"

Well, we can apply John Paul's insight that the person finds their fulfillment by giving a gift of self (Cycle 5 above). I realize the fullness of my humanity in the vocation that I have accepted. All the vocations are calls of complete self-giving. If I am called to the single life only because I don't want to be bothered, then I'm not doing it for the right reasons.

Followup: How do you self-give like people who are 50 years old and haven't found "the one"

There has to be, at some point, an acceptance of this vocation, a calling to remain single. They must consciously commit themselves to single life. If they think there may be a spouse around the corner, part of giving myself is helping others. I give myself in service to others. I don't live like a hermit or a frustrated bachelor. There is disconnectedness in our culture that leads people.

Question: So if someone is single but maybe looking to meet someone, do they not have a vocation at that time?

Your vocation at that time is to live the life of chastity and service to others until God reveals. Just because you haven't found a spouse yet I can't say you are destined to remain single, you have to work that out with God.

Followup: If you don't know you're destined, what are you classified as, say they are to be married eventually do they not have a vocation.

I wouldn't say that person is in a discernment period. I remember this not so long ago, I've only been married for three years. I was open to a priestly vocation, explored it for a while but it didn't fit for me. It was not celibacy by the way, but it was a discernment period for me. This is something we should cultivate in our parishes, discernment. Discernment is not just a priestly/religious life but also married life.

You an try to avoid it but it keeps coming back and at some point you just know.

Question: I was wondering, you were saying how people use contraception to avoid the consequences of marriage, are there any underlying problems of people wanting to avoid children altogether.

Yes, there is a certain message sent that marriage is strictly about the mutual gratification of the spouses and we have a culture that is willing to accept that premise and accept a man an woman coming together who never want to have children. Western Europe is experiencing a depopulation problem. We're contracepting ourselves to death. People in Sweden are going on TV to ask people to have children. Because you have couples that are not producing.

Followup: Is it more selfishness? Or other reasons?

It's multiple, it's a focus on the individual instead of the other or society. It a naval gazing view of marriage. We can see this in the changing of the wedding vows in different Churches. When I'm standing at the alter I'm saying what I promise to give, it's not about what I'm going to get. It's not I promise to be good to you as long as you fix me meals, satisfy me sexually and stay pretty. No, it's a giving.

Question: (missed question) NFP as contraceptive.

To use NFP there has to be a reason to abstain. You cannot just say "I'm only have three children and that's it." Would you assume God would want you to have as many as possible? Only if that isn't detrimental to the spouse or the children. When John Paul talks of responsible parenthood, it is first of all working with God's design, it stands with God with all circumstances to dialog with Him as to what to do.

I would challenge a couple who says 2 and we're done, 3 and we're done, I would say, you can't say that until after you're married until after you dialog with God.

Comment: Going from the old testament... children are always a blessing, "go forth and multiply" is a directive.

I think one problem is that we're starting to view children as an intrusion or burden. That my wife and I can only handle a certain amount of intrusion but this is not the biblical view or what John Paul is saying. Every child intensifies our love.

A couple then says "Well we want to wait a while to have a first child so we get to know each other first." If you don't know each other, you shouldn't be married. Second of all, having a child brings acknowledge of my wife that I could have never dreamed of. Before, she was a woman that I thought I knew, having a baby revealed aspects of my wife that never existed. And with every child I'm sure I'll experience the same thing. This is going to reveal things that I never knew before, children aren't burdens, they contribute. But that's not a message you hear on "Friends".

Comment: With the information age, there are just so many factors in terms of family size. Can you imagine you have a job and all of a sudden you have nothing, 40 years ago you lose a job you're not losing that much. The stakes are high.

Let me flip this inside out. John Paul says being a responsible parent may dictate having a large family. The needs of my home or society may tell me that I need a larger family. John Paul is trying to say that it's not necessarily responsible parenting, it's not about numbers, it's about doing God's will.

Question: Go back to the question as to why people are not have children purposely. For couples that have no children or for homosexual "marriages", what are the theological implications in terms of the Trinity?

Well, we don't even have to go there, the Church teaches us that part of the requirements of entering into a valid marriage is openness to Children. Whatever it is, it's not marriage.

Followup: What are the implications as having that as a norm as far as imaging the Trinity?

They are not pledging themselves a complete self gift so they are not imaging the Trinity. Distorting this distorts what we believe God is.

We have complete exhausted comments and questions. Thanks for your patience and interest in this. If were to plug one book here I would plug this one. Good news about sex and marriage by Christopher West.