Tota pulchra es, Maria, et macula originalis non est in te!
(Thou art all fair, O Mary, and there is no stain of Original Sin in thee!)
It may be a sign of encouragement that, as society continues its destruction of marriage, the Church may be turning around to defend holy and chaste marriage. One aspect of this is external, where more bishops are speaking out against terrible societal trends. Another aspect is internal, where the faithful are throwing off some of the more disgusting elements inside the Church. In particular is the recent flap over Christopher West and the so-called "Theology of the Body" (TOB). Many persons, including a priest, have expressed their difficulties with West's discourses. We hope this indicates a return to traditional modesty, and chaste speech and behavior, as is proper to marriage.
The answer to this ailment is true devotion to Our Lady, to imitate her purity, and to return to the traditional thinking of the Church. This can be difficult for a modern mind attached to TOB, because it has become desensitized to immodest speech. Christopher West and his ilk are accustomed to saying things in public that my wife and I are reticent to mention in private. Likewise, I'm reticent to provide links to discussions of West et al, but realize they are necessary for those who are unconvinced. Hence, here are some links. They contain disgusting material, and it's good to say a prayer before reading them. Link [1] has Alice von Hildebrand criticizing West's presentations as "irreverent and insensitive to the tremendous dangers of concupiscence." Link [2] has Chris Ferrara's overview of the worst of West, along with a sampling of the disgusting Gregory Popcak on EWTN. Link [3] has a review of West by Fr. Maurizio Faggioni, OFM, a theologian in Rome. This priest notes the importance of discretion and prudence, and how indiscretion invades the privacy of the marriage bed. Finally, link [4] shows that Pope John Paul II is to blame for fostering the novelty that the marriage act is sacramental. As you can see, TOB is a serious problem requiring serious measures. Hence, we call upon Our Lady to free us from it.
The fundamental error of TOB is in its elevation of the physical aspect of marriage, to become either an end in itself or to serve some end apart from generation. This is seen in the emphasis on the act alone, even elevating it to be a sacrament. The counter to this is found in the glorious marriage of the Blessed Virgin to St. Joseph. If the moderns are correct, Our Lady's marriage was lacking. However, St. Thomas Aquinas answered that question specifically, that theirs was a true marriage, below. Note that St. Thomas is very clear to render the physical aspect of marriage subservient to the end of marriage, which is children. Note also how St. Augustine is clear that the sacrament was fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's parents (link):
I answer that, Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.
Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Mat. 1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse."
But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union." Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery: sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none."
Another teaching of St. Thomas further exposes the novelty of TOB. This is where he tackles the question of whether every "venereal act" is sinful in itself (link). This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, were there any concept in Tradition of a sacramental character to the marriage act, it would be hard to imagine how this question could have arisen at all. Second, while St. Thomas answers in the negative, he doesn't go in the opposite direction, of assigning either virtue or a sacramental nature to the act. Rather, he shows that the act, while not contrary to virtue, lowers the mind from the heights of virtue:
On this way sexual intercourse casts down the mind not from virtue, but from the height, i.e. the perfection of virtue. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. viii): "Just as that was good which Martha did when busy about serving holy men, yet better still that which Mary did in hearing the word of God: so, too, we praise the good of Susanna's conjugal chastity, yet we prefer the good of the widow Anna, and much more that of the Virgin Mary."
This perfectly illustrates the mind of the Church, that the higher calling is to the religious, celibate life. Hence, TOB cannot be correct in teaching a sacramental nature to the act, for this would not be compatible with an act which holds one back from the perfection of virtue.
Finally, it is important to recall the traditional practice of avoiding discussions that can inflame the passions, recognizing that we yet suffer from concupiscence due to Original Sin. If TOB discussions aren't stimulating to the passions, then nothing is. Consider this paragraph from the Roman Catechism taken from the discussion of the 6th commandment:
In the explanation of this Commandment, however, the pastor has need of great caution and prudence, and should treat with great delicacy a subject which requires brevity rather than copiousness of exposition. For it is to be feared that if he explained in too great detail or at length the ways in which this Commandment is violated, he might unintentionally speak of subjects which, instead of extinguishing, usually serve rather to inflame corrupt passion.
In conclusion, it is clear from the perspective of tradition that TOB is, at the very least, a danger to the faithful due to its presentation of sensitive material in a public and unchaste manner. At worst, it represents a departure from the traditional teaching that the end of marriage is the begetting and upbringing of children. It also undermines the traditional teaching that the celibate life is the higher calling.
May the Ever Virgin Mother of God grant us the grace to recover modesty and chastity, help us to re-sensitize our hearts to purity, and lead us in the perfection of virtue.
Cyprian
I don't intend that what follows be regarded as anything more than my own opinion as a cradle 'traditional' Catholic. I am not a theologian and submit all my ramblings to the judgment of the Church. But until such time as the Church regains enough sanity to Judge these matters allow me to proceed, and if you or anyone else with the competence to instruct me believes otherwise then please correct me.
I agree that TOB and TOBists over emphasize the carnal aspects of Marriage. They also lack that modesty in speech which should characterize the Catholic in his discussions on the topic. However, there has long been a miss- understating of the carnal and, among many Catholics, a treatment of it as a dirty thing to be tolerated. (Perhaps this is a reaction to the 'free love' of the '60s- I don't know. What I do know is that my grandparents, who were formed prior to this time didn't seem to have puritanical hang-ups). I believe it was partly to counter this that Pope JPII wrote TOB, but he was by no means the first. There were many pre vatican 2 writers who made various attempts to 'spiritualise' the carnal including Frank Sheed & Abp Fulton Sheen. In addition, Alice Von Hildebrand alludes to her husband's early writings in the article you reference. Where TOBist go off-skew, is that in rightly elevating the carnal they seem to drag the spiritual down to where they can both meet on the same level. Whereas the carnal should be a springboard to the spiritual, they have made it a compromise, a meeting in the middleground.
But carnal doesn't mean bad. And the carnal, in Gods plan does not hinder spiritual growth. It is a fundamental pre-requisite of all human knowledge, that it flows from the evidence of our senses. The normal way for humans to learn is by seeing, hearing , touching etc. This applies also to spiritual realities. God uses physical matter in the Sacraments to give us tangeble evidence of the Grace which He is transmitting. Normally speaking we can't love unless we know, and we can't know unless our bodies teach us. We are not angels, if you separate the spiritual from the carnal the result is death. The matter for the sacrament of marriage is the union of husband and wife including their physical union for the purposes of populating Heaven. From this the couple receive Sanctifying Grace- the life of God. And God is love. So the couple, who are the ministers of the Sacrament actually give God's Love to each other to the degree that they don't let concupiscence stand in the way.
You miss one very important point in relation the the Marriage of Mary and Joseph. Their marriage was orientated to the procreation and education of the Child; Christ. Christ was conceived supernaturally without the normal means. This is impossible for the average Catholic couple to achieve. Pray as hard as you like and you won't get a visit from St Gabriel! So for every other married couple, the marriage act is fundamental to the marriage and forms part of the Sacrament. This is further proved by the fact that a non-consummated marriage is desolvable. The spouses must have the express intention to use their bodies for the purposes of marriage and this presupposes consent to the marriage Act. I believe (but stand to be corrected) that it was St Augustine in one of his treatises on marriage who demonstrates that Our lady and St Joseph made their vows of virginity subject to God's will in regard to them having children.
You also miss the point with regard to the holiness of the act. It is holy. St Thomas teaches that for a baptised person, there is no such thing as a morally neutral act. All acts are either good and holy, or evil. They are either virtuous of vices. The act taken in itself is naturally good as it is orientated to generation of life. Orientate it to the ends of the Sacrament, (procreation and education of children, and let's not forget, mutual enrichment of spouses) and it becomes holy. As stated above, it is an essential element to the sacrament for all who don't get visits from angels, as such IT IS SACRED.
I believe your interpretation of St Thomas is wrong. Read it carefully...
On this way sexual intercourse casts down the mind not from virtue, but from the height, i.e. the perfection of virtue. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. viii): "Just as that was good which Martha did when busy about serving holy men, yet better still that which Mary did in hearing the word of God: so, too, we praise the good of Susanna's conjugal chastity, yet we prefer the good of the widow Anna, and much more that of the Virgin Mary."
The marriage Act is virtuous, it does not cast the mind down from virtue. But consecrated Celibacy is better. Not all of us are called to that degree of perfection but the marriage act will not prevent us from attaining the degree of perfection God wills for us. It is not for us toes to covet to position of the arms in the Body of Christ, but on the contrary, we should endeavor to be the best toes we can be- otherwise Our Lord won't be able to walk properly!
It is not the act which is at fault. It is concupiscence. We have a tendency to seek the pleasure of the act as an end. We tend to be selfish. This is what drags marital relations down. It is the mission of all married Catholics to overcome concupiscence. JPII & St Augustine would both agree on this. And TOBists seem to understand this better than your average traditional Catholic. The problem with TOBists is that they seem to have the idea that all they have to do is practice NFP and they have done enough mortification and are now free of concupiscence. But reality shows it is a constant battle and we must wage war with ourselves over it. Nonetheless. it is possible with the grace of God and constant effort, to overcome this and render the Act as good and holy as God intended it. The lives of St Therese of the Child Jesus' parents are an example of this- and look at the fruits, something we all should aspire to!
We should not be complacent with our own concupiscence. We should not allow ourselves to believe that Marriage, as a 'remedy for concupiscence' (the 3rd end of marriage) is some sort of licence to be 'concupisceable'. Nothing could be further from the truth. Marriage brings us face to face with the effects of concupiscence, and helps motivate us to overcome it.
An example; before I married I thought that I was a patient sort of fellow, I even had a reputation for being such. Now my 8 kids are a constant reminder that I was living a lie and I must seriously work to acquire this virtue for their benefit as well as mine. Am I any less patient now than I was then? No, back then there were no challenges to my wafer thin guise of virtue. Marriage has had the effect of making me realise this fault, and I must confess, many others, and through the grace of the Sacrament I now hope to overcome them all one day. If I were to say 'oh, I'm married now so I don't have to worry about patience' you'd waste no time in saying I was nuts. The same applies to concupicience relating to the marriage act. I can't say 'oh I'm married so it is OK'. I have to mortify myself to overcome it. Periodic continence (for short periods, by mutual consent, and with spiritual direction) is an essential part of married life. Even JPII understood this. But to go overboard is just as dangerous. The relationship of husband and wife needs intimacy, primarily because the kids need to be brought up in a loving environment. If we were spiritually perfect, we might be able to go without sensible (carnal) displays of love. But most of us aren't. Once I become a really patient fellow and the kids have grown, it might be time for my wife and I to consider the religious life, but not just yet.
I absolutely agree that TOB needs sorting out. I myself (and I'm no theologian) see many big discrepancies between it and traditional sound theology. But we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is also much sound theology in TOB and us armchair theologians just don't have the ability to distinguish it from the rot. For example, we might real in horror at the 'in-your-face' language of Gregory Popcak quoted in Chris Ferrara's piece, when the underlying principle is no more 'blasphamous' as that which inspired the Canticle of canticles – ie: the infinite love of Christ for his Church. (I could also quote some pretty 'blasphemous' sayings of Fulton Sheen to prove the point). As such, we are likely to go too far in the opposite direction- in this case, rendering our Love cold and Jansenistic whereas we should be loving God with our whole mind, whole heart and our whole body. This means using our bodies to accomplish Gods will- not using them for our own personal gain.
At the end of the day, sorting out the theology is not our role as laymen. But we do know that we should mortify ourselves to overcome concupiscence so lets start with that. We should seek first the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and then the rest will follow.
Paul,
Thank you for your well considered reply. Like you, I have learned from my children that I am very lacking in patience! This is a grace of marriage, no doubt.
I think we are in agreement for the most part. I'm not the best at writing, and may not have given you the correct impression on some points. First, regarding the marriage of Our Lady and St. Joseph, my point is that, because the lack of the physical aspect didn't render their marriage lacking in grace, it follows that the physical is not essential to the sacrament of matrimony. (I shouldn't call it my point, because I'm just following St. Thomas: theirs was a true marriage.) I didn't mean to say that the act isn't essential to the end of marriage for the rest of us.
Second, I regret not simply quoting St. Thomas. I haven't misinterpreted him. This is from S.T. II-II, 153:
Reply to Objection 1. A thing may be a hindrance to virtue in two ways. First, as regards the ordinary degree of virtue, and as to this nothing but sin is an obstacle to virtue. Secondly, as regards the perfect degree of virtue, and as to this virtue may be hindered by that which is not a sin, but a lesser good. On this way sexual intercourse casts down the mind not from virtue, but from the height, i.e. the perfection of virtue. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. viii): "Just as that was good which Martha did when busy about serving holy men, yet better still that which Mary did in hearing the word of God: so, too, we praise the good of Susanna's conjugal chastity, yet we prefer the good of the widow Anna, and much more that of the Virgin Mary."
This point of St. Thomas is lost today, and plays a role in our lack of vocations. The higher calling, and the higher virtue, is found in the celibate life. But again, I think we agree on this.