May 24, 2005 Living the Theology of the Body

by Perry Cahall, Ph.D.
This talk is available for download in MP3 format. When retrieving this, we request that you download the file rather than 'streaming' the sound file. That means right-click on the link below and choose "Save Target As..." or whatever similar option you have with your browser. Download Audio File.

John Paul II's Theology of the Body is a collection of 129 homiles he gave over a span of 5 years.

John Paul II was a man who was keenly aware of the signs of the times, beyond this world. He was aware that many catholics and non-catholics and much of the world thinks that much of the teachings of the Catholic Church are backwards in terms of sexuality. He was aware that people thought the Church teaches this because they hate sex and they're prudish.

In response to that, he delivered these homiles that expoudned on Christ's vision of Human Sexuality. The Church doesn't teach what it does about sex because she thinks it's dirty, but because she knows what sex is; it's holy, it's sacramental.

I'm sure sex gets talked about quite a bit in these venues, but not in this manner that I'm speaking now. The problem is not that the world speaks too much about sex the problem is the world doesn't know how to talk about it. If we all talk about sex in the right way, it would be fine. So John Paul II has given us this language in Theology of the Body to help us understand god's plan for Human sexuality to help us live out God's design.

Now, in my own humble attempt to come to grips with the content of this work, which is monumental, when people talk about John Paul II's legacy, I'm of the opinion that it's one thing, he took Jesus Christ where ever he went, physically, in writings, in thoughts. One aspect is the Theology of the Body. I'm convinced that what he has done here will be reflected on for more centuries to come.

Pick it up and read it. But don't expect to read it in an evening or a week, my first time took me 3 months. You read something and you think, "Did he just say what I thought he said?" so you read it over again and you see he did. It's a meditative experience.

A couple more suggestions, I'm just going to start talking and I am going to leave time for interaction. I'll be giving "West's Notes" on Theology of the Body. Christopher West wrote two books (well more than two) on the Theology of the Body, the Good News About Sex and Marriage which I refer to as 'the purple book'. The other one is Theology of the Body for Beginners. These two I find them to be the most helpful.

In my own humble way of coming to Grips with the Theology of the Body, I feel John Paul II has given us four principles in to live out God's plan. Everything you see there are hung on one of these four principles. This is not authoritative, it's just a way of applying it to my life.


This First Principle comes from 1 Cor 6:18-20.

Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

So, this is the first principle for any talk on sexual morality. We are not our own.

I remmber having a talk with a Dominican priest before I ever had a class. I said, "Father, where do I start?" he responded, "Exactly, what John Paul II is saying in Theology of the Body. You start with a principle that we are not our own." The modern world acts as if we do possess ourselves. But Father's point was that this is not the case. I didn't create myself or my own sexuality; God holds the patent on that. If I want to understand what it means to be happy in living out my life as a sexual being, I need to have reference to the One who made me. That is the first principle.

John Paul II talks about sexual desire, the deepest desires of the human heart were put there to lead us ultimately to Him. ONe of the things that the modern world says it's just a biological urge, a reaction to chemicals. While that's an aspect but it is much more profound at it's core. It's a desire for intimacy; a union with another.

He's pointing out that one way or another that to be human is to long for intimacy, to hand myself completely to another and them to me. He takes this further to say this desire is suposed to be an image, that points us to, in fact, a union with God. Sexual desire is supposed to realize that I'm not meant to be an isolated in self-contained existance, I must be in comunion. Sexual desire is a particular desire for that, which opens to the possibilty that this desire points to the union alone that can fulfill the deepest part of my being.

We have this desire in the deepest sense, to point us to the fact that we are not our own, we belong to God. This union that we seek with another, even in a marriage, we realize that there is no union in this life that will fulfill the deepest longing of our heart.

Most marriages, I think, don't work because we put a huge weight on the other to fulfill the deepest longing, that's left for God. When they realize this can't happen they think something went wrong, that they married the wrong person. The human person is made with a Trinitarian hole in our hearts that only God can fill.

If we confuse intercourse with intimacy itself, then we get very disenchanted with individuals. In our ache to be loved and cherished, if we start to confuse sex with intimacy, we end up going from relationship to relationship wanting this desire and we become more lonely, especially when someone takes sex outside of marriage. We find that it cannot achieve what it hopes, even on a human level. But if we want to find the deepest meaning of our sexuality we have to realize we're not our own.

This is not some type of limit on my human freedom. To say that we belong to God, this is not a harsh dictate that limits my freedom when I realize, and this is the catch, the one to whom I belong loves me more than I love myself, wants my happiness more than I want my own happiness, knows what will make me happy with absolute certitude, in a way that I can't. I can fool myself throughout my entire life and end up realizing I'm unhappy.

If i want to experience true sexual freedom, not counterfeit freedom that says I can do what I want, when I want to whomever I want. True freedom, though, the only way to do that is to embrace God's design for human sexuality. He holds the patent.

This is where the modern world doesn't get it. People think that the Church is an evil dictator because it says certain activites are inherently evil/sinful. The world see this as a limitation on freedom, but that's not the case, you can only be free in accordance with the Truth. And the truth that comes from God.

This is why I'm so ammused and annoyed about the new Pope's election. The media says "I guess the Church's policies on sexuality won't change anytime soon." It's not like the Pope in Rome is thinking "How can I make people's lives less fun?" The Church's teachings are taught because it's God's design. The Church doesn't make things up.

These things can't change. If you're asking the Church to change it's position then you may as well ask the Pope to make the world spin backwards because you're asking him to change the human person. I'm 99.999% sure that God's design is going to stay the same.


After we realize we're not our own, John Paul II stresses that sexual union is about a union of persons, not just a union of bodies or worse-yet body parts or biological material. It's a union of persons. It's a unique act in all of creation where one person is uniting with another person body and soul. A donation of persons.

Here's where also people just misunderstand. Misread in a sense, Church teaching. We need to acknowledge that what I do with my body I do with my person. I can't drive a wedge between my body and soul like I can do anything I want and it won't affect me. John Paul II says sexual intercourse is about a union of persons, always. To think that it's otherwise is to fool myself.

Sexual intercourse is designed by God as a sealing of a Covenant between a husband and a wife. The difference between a contract and a covenant is that a contract is and exchange of goods or services. If I were to hire someone to fix stuff in my house, that's a contract. A covenant is much more than a contract. In the old and new testament, the whole history of salvation shows us that the essence of a covenant is an exchange of persons. Even in the old testament when God forged the first Covenant with his people and Abraham, His promise was this, I will be your God, I hand myself over to you, and you will be my people, I want you in turn.

This complete and total self-donation of one to another. Sexual union is supposed to be this sealing of this covenant between a husband and a wife. This is why marriage is the only situation in which man and woman can experience true sexual union. If I try to unite myself, in my body, with a woman to whom I am not married, I am falsifying the meaning of the act.

John Paul II uses this term, the language of the body. In sexual intercourse the body speaks a language and the language that it speaks is one of complete and total self-donation, I give myself to you completely, holding nothing back or in reserve and accepting you in all you are the beautiful gift that you are.

Outside of a marital union, the body cannot speak that language. If you have an unmarried man and woman having extra-marital intercourse, the body is trying to talk the language but it can't. The commitment hasn't been made. So, in essence, all the people are promising in this act is the moment. Extra-marital intercourse promises nothing but the moment, even if the couple is engaged.

People ask why can't they have intercourse when they're engaged? Because you're not married, this is the point, the act is supposed to flow out of the covenant that the couple enters into. When they stand up in front of God and the Church and say their vows, they are basically saying, I give myself to you, period. Only then can the couple speak the language of Truth in their bodies.

The Church teaches that sex outside of marriage cannot deliver the intimacy it seeks. It's speaking a lie with the body. No matter what the couple thinks they're doing, they cannot experience and speak that language without complete self-donation.

I should say this, in many ways pre-marital intercourse is like treating each other like objects where we're test-driving each other. Like test-driving a car. Our culture is turning into the mentality of love things, use persons, rather than the other way around. Fornication is an act of use, even if it's consentual.

If a couple wants to set themselves on the right foot to have a good marriage, one thing that is important is sacrifice. If you're not willing to sacrifice sexual intercourse before you're married, the question comes to mind, what are you willing to sacrifice at all? What are they willing to say "no I will set this aside." The essence of sacrifice is giving up something for someone else so my love for them does not become corrupted. I want to make sure I am marrying them for them not for how they are in bed. If I get into the emotional and physical ecstacy of sexual intercourse before marriage, it's going to cloud my judgement in thinking, "Is this person going to make a good spouse?"


Sex is about giving, not taking.

John Paul II discusses this when he talks about lust. He refers in particular to what Our Lord says about this in Matthew Chapter 5. "You have heard that it was said you shall not commit adultery, but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

John Paul II comments at length on this verse and in the couse of commenting on this, his main point is this. Sexual intercourse, sexuality is about giving, not about taking. And lust reverses that order, it turns the person from a giver to a taker. Lust really looks upon the other human being as an object, that they are this thing to be used for my own gratification.

When one ponders sexual intercourse, the question should not be 'does this feel good?' but the focus should be on the giving of oneself to the other. And again, this can only be done in the context of marriage.

If there is one word that helps us decode the Theology of the Body, that is 'gift'. Our sexuality is a gift from God, we are meant to be gifts to each other, a husband and wife unite in giving to each other completely and giving themselves back to God in His plan for their sexuality.

Now in the process of commenting on being gift, he talks about the nuptial meaning of the body. The body is the sign of the gift. He talks about three virtues that we need to live out being a gift. They are virtues that are becoming forgotten virtues in many ways.

• Chastity He points out that many people think this is a negative virtue. It says 'no' but it's a positive virtue. It's about integrating my sexuality a true freedom in the sexual realm. It's the habit that my physical expressions of affections are true expressions of love; in accord with Truth, of my being, of the being of the other. So it does mean I say 'no' to certain things. No to activities that lead to sexual arousal, outside of an act of intercourse within marriage. The best way to think about Chastity is to say that it prevents me from using my body or another body as a pleasure tool.
  
  Chastity is a life-long virtue. It takes the form of abstinence outside of marriage. In marriage, the husband and wife still need this virtue because they need to express truth in their physical expressions of affection. Just because I am married doesn't mean I get to treat my wife as an object, nor does she me. We can't somehow arouse each other for the sake of arousal without intending to finishing it in an act of intercourse. It's like revving a car in park. What is sexual arousal for? It's for intercourse, but if I know I can't have this now, why am I revving the engine? This is not healthy for my engine. We cannot give what we do not have. We must master our sexual desires, not suppress them, but integrate them, under what sex is for; make sure we're expressing true love.


• Purity If chastity deals with actions, purity deals with looks, my gazes, eyes. We have a beatitude on this one; Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God. Purity is about always looking upon the other as a being made in the image and likeness of God never like eye candy. Guys know what I mean. We step into the realm of impure gazes when we undress the other with our eyes. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the beauty of someone, that’s fine. But we step into impure gazes when we undress them with our eyes. The extreme form of this is pornography.


• Modesty Try to find modest clothing for young teens you're going to look for a while. My wife says when our daughter, who is now 4 months old, gets old enough to where she needs to talk to her about modesty, she is going to say, "Do you want young men to be attracted to you because of your parts or because of you? Dress appropriately." Modesty is about dressing in such a way that I respect the gift of my sexuality and I don't reveal this needlessly and I don't want to incite others to impurity by the way I dress. In classes I teach, men turn to the women and say, "Will you help us out a bit with this?" Women have no idea how visual men are.
  
  There is assistance that men need that women need to help us with. Vice versa, Modesty covers dress but it also covers speech. The extreme view of immodest speech is locker-room talk.

John Paul II says as he unwraps this sex as gift, he makes the point that in this act of giving of husband and wife there is a Eucharistic aspect of this. Intercourse is supposed to be a bodily expression of the wedding vows. I have pledged that at the alter and I enact that in my body. If we enact these vows there is a Eucharistic aspect of this. He uses the Eucharistic prayer, there is an analogy between Jesus saying, this is my body, take. This is the language the couple should speak in their language bed. In true freedom, we must allow Jesus into our bedrooms.

What right does the Church have to stick it's nose into my bedroom, well the nose is attached to the head and the head is Jesus. If you don't want Jesus in your bedroom, you're not going to be happy, we're not going to achieve what we desire.

Let me make this comment because this has come up in times past. In talking about sex as giving people will say, 'is this even possible?' This seems so high-minded. It's an idealistic vision of sex. I think we need to understand what John Paul II is saying, he is not promising that by living in accord with God's design that sex is going to be awesome. It's not about great sex, that's not his point. His point is that we must speak Truth. It is possible to experience an awkwardness in intercourse their entire marriage, you're trying to coordinate your bodies and sometimes it's awkward. This isn't always the best experience. The point is, I may stutter and stammer, but the point is I must always have in my mind the desire, devotion and will to express the Truth. If I seek to do that, I will experience happiness. I will, because I have the confidence of knowing what I'm expressing is in accord with the truth of Love.


In accord with God’s design, this union of persons is about giving two things, giving life and love.

What is intercourse for? It's designed for babies. But for humans it can be an expression of intimate love. So, here's the shorthand way to understand the Church's teaching. It's for babies and bonding. Any use of this act that closes itself off to either one, is opposed to God's design, is harmful to us, and is sinful if I'm doing it knowingly and willingly.

When the Church proposes issues on sexual morality, it starts by saying these teachings should be evident to people of right reason. This is the objective reality. Trying to short-circuit this realty is never good.

Eating is for nourishing the body. But if we want to have the pleasure of eating without ingesting it's bad for us; it's a disorder.

Uses of intercourse that oppose the procreative aspect.

• Obviously Abortion which is also a violation of the 5th commandment thou shalt not kill.
• Homosexual intercourse. This is becoming more and more an issue in our world.
  
  I was disturbed when talking to a group of high school students. I thought their issue was going to be pre-marital sex. It was not, the issue we spent the most time was homosexual marriage. They would say, "How can you deny the ability for these people to love each other?" I found this astounding. This is their main concern, and how they don't see the disorder for what it is. The Church doesn't hate homosexuals. It's a disorder of the sexual drive. There are many disorders that one can experience, A-sexuality (no drive at all). Hyper-sexuality, pedophilia, and homosexuality. The disorder itself is not sinful, it's a malformation of the sex drive, but acting out on this is. I can't stand up in front of a group of people and say this is okay. It's like saying if you have an eating disorder to allow them to eat whatever they want. That's not loving. No matter how hard it is for me to do, I must stand up here and say: What you desire is not possible by acting out on these disordered desires, you will not get what you desire, it's impossible. The loving union can't happen. Homosexual intercourse cannot be open to babies. There is no union of sexual organs, there is not a sexual union that occurs. There is no self-donation through those anatomical parts. It's not possible. This is not unloving or unfeeling, it's simply saying no matter what you think you are not going to achieve happiness while doing this. Trust that He will help you through the disorder and enable you to be happy. This is not dooming people to a life of loneliness. One can be perfectly satisfied without ever acting out on these desires.
• Contraception, any form.
• Direct sterilization
• Withdraw; the sin of Onan.

Doing these things says to God, I don't care what you made this act for, I'm going to do what I want. The reason why people can't see why homosexuals can be married is because of the contraceptive nature of the world. If one couple is sterilized and are not open to children why can't a gay couple do the same? They have a valid point, and it's the reason why this culture has lost it's mind.

Those things that oppose loving union.

• Acts of violence.
• Adultery
• Pre-marital sex.
• More and more poignant in our day and age is re-productive technologies. In the shorthand rule of thumb, if a technology tries to assist a couple through intercourse, fine. It's about healing the body. But if I try to manipulate human life into existence if I try to produce a child outside of intercourse, I have violated God's design. Because every human being has a right to enter into existence through the proper means. No couple has a right to a child. If, unfortunately, we're sterile, I cannot separate life from love and produce a child in a dish in a laboratory. This is more and more an issue.

So those are the four principles. If we want to realize God's vision for sexuality, if we want to become truly free, then we live out what John Paul II has given us in this program. We are not our own. Sex is about a union, it's giving and not taking and it's giving life and love. I have to trust that God knows what He is about, I have to trust that He knows what he's doing. I must abandon myself to His design. He's not going to ask anything of me that He wouldn't assist me with.

I want to leave you with this from St. Paul to the Romans

I appeal to you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Question: What level of closeness can an unmarried couple have?

Anything that will promote sexual arousal on purpose cannot happen. There is a certain amount of subjectivity here, certain things would arouse some people but not others. The point is this, you should respect the person. Don't treat the other as an object. If you become aroused you should stop. You cannot lay down hard-fast lines. You can show things that are NOT appropriate; fondling, heavy petting, touching intimate parts, french kissing, which mimics the sex act. In terms of what is appropriate, that's individual. For some men, perhaps long embraces are arousing. You should be honest with the other on what is and is not okay with you.

Comment: It's hard to go out into the world thinking this way, the world sees this as insane.

I don't disagree with that. This vision, God's plan is so 'other' to the way people live their lives it's going to take time to try to get it accross. I think this... I reference the first time I had to talk to young people about this. I was scared, I was scared of reaction. I didn't know what would happen.

I can only tell you that it was a grace that after that first time, I realized that the Truth has it's own power, it's persuasive in itself. I just have to present it. I have to present it in such a way that it is what it is. It's not a cudgel to beat people with, it's like honey to bees. I am to present the honey, the bees can fly away if they want, but it is not the way I presented it. And it must make sense so at some point it will work it's way to the heart.

I have confidence in this though, what John Paul II has presented in the Theology of the Body, because it is God's design, it delivers. It delivers a satisfaction that the world cannot deliver on. The sexual freedom of the 60's has been spent. Divorce is rampit. Abortion is all over, using people as objects. That's what the 60's gave us. What John Paul II gives is much much more. If people give themselves a chance to experience it, it will be beyond their imaginations.

Never posture yourself as if you're talking down to people. Acknowledge that you're part of the fallen condition too. I say to my students that I don't want them to ge the impression that I am holier than thou standing up here high and mighty. I had my problems in school too, I learned the hard way. I did not have intercourse before I was married but it was only by God's grace. I thought what would make me a man was to go as far as I could with as many women as possible. What I found in my experience, everytime I was in one of these situation I felt very empty.

I was talking to this guy in a bar. And this guy said the Catholic Church was stupid in the way it teaches about sex. He started talking and I would correct him on the issues. And after a certain point I noticed I would never get past the hurdles unless I got something from him. I said, I'm humbled that you want to talk about this. I said, we have to be honest, I'm going to ask you a question and I want you to be honest. In all these encounters, does it give you what you want? "What do you mean?" I'm assuming you don't want just the pleasure; you're not a hedonist. You want an intimate union; you want to experience love, am I wrong? "No" Okay, do you get what you desire or somewhere in the pit of your soul do you feel alone?

You know what happened, he started crying... in the bar. And he said we couldn’t have this conversation anymore, he wouldn't go on any further. People know it because they know it. They just don't want to admit it. This has to be presented with compassion. None of us our immune to lust, it's not about me saying, any one person is a heinous sinner and beyond redemption. It's ridiculous to say. The whole goal is to hold out the hand of hope. Jesus wants you to experience life, He wants all of you. Give it to Him. You'll be happy.

Question: What's the best question you ever had from a High School audience.

I have to admit, I haven't spoken to many high school audiences. But I am amazed but at the same time disappointed or disturbed by the level of knowledge in high schoolers in matters of sexuality. What impresses me is when they ask about reproductive technologies. The questions that disturb me are like, "What about anal or oral sex?"

Which apparently is more common, even those who have chastity rings and abstinence oaths. They convince themselves that as long as they don't have genital to genital contact that it's okay. They think they can arouse themselves or have anal or oral sex and it's okay. Those questions are disturbing. My response is, well, genital organs are made to unite with complimentary organs. One should not seek to arouse oneself to the point of the completion of the sexual act outside of genital union.

Followup: Thanks to the president.

You could be right. I mean, we're dealing with here an issue of scandal. A person in a very visible office has done something that children will then apply it to their own lives. It's possible.

I also think on a deeper level is it's a loss of a meaning of chastity. Teens things Chastity is just abstinane but it is about respecting the body. Not treating each other like tools. I didn't understand what chastity was until I was 23. There was a point where I thought I was living chastely but I wasn't.

Comment: A big problem I see is Catholics don't know what is proper and right. I was told in Catholic high school that contraception was a matter of conscience. Or pamphlets on how to stimulate your partner without having sex.

There is a statistic that 95% of Catholic married couples contracept. This is a scandal, it's a breakdown of catechesis. And until people see that to be Catholic means that I believe the Faith and everything they teach, not just what I want, until people undersand that the Church doesn't just make stuff up, we're going to have an inconsistency on how to live out the Gospel. You can't be truly prolife and pro-contraception. That activity is anti-life.

The reason why we have a rise in abortion is because contraceptives. People thought more contraceptions, less abortions. But contraception solidifies that I don't want this child and they are driven to kill the child when it occurs.

What about a married couple that has 5 kids and can't afford anymore? It's not like you can shut it down. It's about every act should speak the Truth. Couples in this situation in financial straights or emotional straights, the answer is NFP according to God's design.

In my 20's I didn't see the difference between NFP and contraception. But I want to help you with this. The only way you can judge them as the same thing is to judge and act by it's outcome. You can have the same results, but you can get there with moral means. I can put food on the table by either robbing a bank or working honestly. Both put food on the table, one is immoral.

If I'm in a situation where I need to avoid having a child, or for an extended period of time. How can I do this and still observe God's design? Contraception enters into intercourse and closes it off to babies; distorts it. In NFP, they simply abstain in a fertile cycle every time they come together they're open to life. The difference is what are you doing.

What act are you performing to get to that goal. In one case, you're having intercourse to change it, the other way is just not having intercourse. You can only say NFP and contraception are the same if you say having and not having intercourse are the same thing.

And NFP has virtues like practicing chastity and controlling my desires. When a woman becomes fertile, you have to have a conversation and decide whether or not you should abstain. With contraception it's just "Do you have the stuff?"

NFP is good for people! This is the best kept secret of the Catholic Church. The whole purpose of medicine is to promote the function of the human body. Contraceptive medicine hopes to make the body function improperly. Every form of contraception has serious side-effects.

If this is not clear, ask about this.

Question: Do you know the statistics on how effective it is?

Now, if you use NFP to avoid, billings, CCL, Creighten model. All these methods are 96-99% effective which is the same as any other contraceptive method.

Just some anedotal evidence for you... The statistics that are put out are inaccurate, my wife and I know couples that refer to babies as 'oops's'. Which I hate that word. There is no such thing as an 'oops' child. Every child is a planned child, it may not have been in your plan but it was in God's. But I have more couples we know who talk about oopses who are contracepting than those using NFP.