Sex, Sin & Salvation–Maciel & the Theology of the Body
John Allen reported the breaking news about Maciel on May 18. His “The Word from Rome” for this week, dated May 12, talks about a major conference on “Loving Human Love: The Heritage of John Paul II on Marriage and the Family.” It ws sponsored by the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family, and focused on the anthropological presuppositions of JPII’s ”theology of the body.”
I find the coincidence ironic–but not ultimately surprising. From all accounts, JPII steadfastly refused to believe, or even to listen to, those who expresessed worries about Maciel. He couldn’t conceive, I believe, that someone who had done so much good was also capable of this type of behavior.
I think the theology of the body is ultimately a wrongheaded way to defend Catholic sexual teaching, because it proposes a romantic and idealized notion of sex and male-female relationships. It doesn’t give you the space to see, and recognize, the ways in which things can go wrong in human sexuality. And, if you are finally forced to recognize that things have gone wrong, it’s easy to read the perpetrators out of the realm of humanity entirely.
I think a modified Augustinianism is far preferable: sex is good, but it is a place in which human beings–human desires–can go awry, in a number of ways that inflict harm, sometimes great harm, on other human beings. Going awry isn’t good, and some ways of going awry are very bad indeed, but they don’t diminish the humanity of the perpetrators.
I find Augustine’s approach to sex (modified to take into account his “issues”) ultimately realistic, and even ultimatley more merciful than the superficially more beautiful “theology of the body.”
I am no defender of JPII and if forced to choose between the late bishop of Rome the great bishop of Hippo I should undoubtedly choose the latter, not the least on grounds of style and perhaps also because distance lends charm. But I had understood that Augustine held that even among the married sexual intercourse was justified only if one intended to procreate, and that even then it was probably a venial sin. I doubt these are propositions of which you approve. Could you elaborate a little about Augustine’s “issues” and what you think the heart of his position is.
I agree there’s too much “sex gone awry” in society, and most denominations and religions condemn it as damaging to the dignity of the human person.
But why does there have to be all this theologizing about sex, especially about sex within marriage? I wonder how many married couples find the “practical application” of these discussions so difficult to fathom that sex just becomes more trouble than it’s worth.
Catholics talk about sex too much, if you ask me.
Joe, those are good questions. I think the heart of Augustine’s position is his understanding of the will: people who sin will the good but fall short; their conception of the good is disordered That’s really easy to do in matters of sex. I think Augustine’s views were influenced by the pervasive sense around him that sex and procreation were bad things (e.g.., Manichees), even as he tried to combat these views. And he was obsessed with sex, contributing to the Church’s obsession with sex. I agree with Jean about this.
The notion of venial sin– well, I’m not really convinced of the adedquacy of the traditional categorization in terms of veinial and mortal sin. But if Augustine’s category of venial sin is reinterpreted as a reminder that a wedding ring doesn’t confer absolute protection against the misuse of sex in terms of exerting power unjustly over someone else, then that’s not so bad. I just wish he’d talk about money in the same way.
Do you think that there could be a meeting point between your modified Augustinian thought and John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? Or at least a starting point for a vision that takes the best of both approaches. Do they have to be exclusive? It seems from your article that you thought that they were. That said, I didn’t really understand how pointing towards a New Jerusalem isn’t less of an idealized state.
I agree with your concern regarding idealization/romanticization. It does kind of seem that you are drawing on the excesses of popularizers to make this point. Is it their interpretation that is wrong, or is it the whole idea? For example, I had the privilege to attend a class with Gustavo Guttierrez. I think by the standards of Grant Gallicho I would qualify for the right wing camp, by my own standards I probably hang more with the new pantagruel crowd. I found Gustavo to be very interesting and capable of pointing out the weaknesses of his own arguments, etc. I learned a lot. At the same time, the m.div crowd conversations and interpretations of his work were a bit nauseating. Could something similar be said for the Chris West crowd who are putting evangelical theatrics to the pope’s writings?
I would argue that JPII’s other writings on vocation/women/etc do point out the challenges of putting women in boxes/stereotypes (If you want, I could go back and find the citations).
Thanks for your thoughtful post!
As a slight aside, I hope one of this blog’s “initiators” begins a commentary on John Allen’s latest interview with David Schindler on “the laity.”
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/
It’s the snippet toward the end.
Ana, you make a good point. JPII’s theology isn’t to be equated with the work of his popularizers. The relationship between his thought and Augustine’s would, I think, be a good dissertation topic.
On his thought on women, I guess the Buffy article shows that I’m ambivalent. On the one hand, he really did a tremendous amount to articulate the dignity and vocation of women. On the other, some of his ways of conceptualizing women’s nature, identity, and roles are, at the very least, easily misunderstood by popularizers. They can devolve into stereotypes. The book which made me realize just how crude those stereotypes could be was Gloria Conde’s New Woman, which I criticized in my Buffy article. Incidentally, I came across the book by happenstance: my mother had gone with a friend to one Regnum Christi event, and bought a couple of books, which she passed on to me. She knew right away that a group like that wasn’t for her, but managed to salvage something out of the afternoon for me!
Cathy,
Thanks for your response. I used the expression “venial sin” because I assumed that the source I was citing from memory used it accuratedly to reflect Augustine’s language. I suppose it carries the etymological sense “pardonable” as opposed to “deadly”. I am incline to follow Herbert McCabe’s idea that the traditional categorization is misleading. There are not two species under the genus sin. Rather–this is again from memory– we have the sin that involves a rejection of God’s gift of himself to us as opposed to the sin by which we do not quite live up to the demands of that gift , and they are not two species of one genus but are bear the name “sin” analogically.
The shame of Catholics and sex is that most of us grew up thinking that was the only sin. If ever there was an argument against mandatory celibacy. …
I blame the Desert Fathers. As someone said, they went out to find God and found their bodies. Then they had to gall to write about it as if they knew what they were talking about. Augustine, of course, was a master of making a scriptural passage mean what he thought it should mean.
Dr. David Rueben wrote a book years ago: “Everything you wanted to know about sex but was afraid to ask.” This is as good as anything theologians have ever said. couple that with the salient advice of Bernard Haring who said that sex is also how one treats one’s spouse in all other facets of life. Naturally, Haring was censured by an all knowing sexual group–The Roman Curia.
Ana,
How did I get dragged into this? I’m curious how you’ve divined my standards and in what regard you think they apply to you.
Grant, I would like to apologize for bringing you into my comment. It was completely unnecessary. I should have re-read my post. I was presumptuously using you as a shorthand.
My main point was to say that I would be considered conservative by many members of your site given that I have participated in Regnum Christi events, received email from the Cardinal Newman Society, and have intermittently maintained a subscription to the always lively First Things– all groups that have been commented on the blog. I wouldn’t personally put the label of conservative on myself– I like to think of myself as veering more toward the eccentric crowd over at http://www.newpantagruel.com or caelum et terra.
Thus, it makes it all the worse that I did the same sort of labeling to you that I was unconsciously reacting against.