Theology of the Body
I have to admit that I have not read the “Theology of the Body” (TOB). During the years that John Paul II (JPII) gave these weekly addresses, 1979 to 1984, I was living my own mind-body duality: ending and starting marriages while getting a PHD in American Civilization. So I can’t answer Luis Gutierrez’s questions about my blog last week: “Can anyone explain to me what are the objections to the Theology of the Body? Could it be that people, including feminists, are reading the Theology of the Body through a patriarchal lens?”
I am suspicious of any teaching on gender from the pope who issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis prohibiting the ordination of women, but I don’t really know why feminists don’t like the TOB, as Gutierrez says, even though he says “it provides the doctrinal development needed to resolve all pending issues of human sexuality, including the ordination of women, LGBT issues, etc.” It “render[s] the gender lens transparent in the sacramental economy, and [does] so in perfect continuity with apostolic tradition and without changing the faith.” Quite a big order. It’s a pretty remarkable document if it can encompass the pro and con of such specific issues.
When I started this blog, I thought I’d be writing about complementarity a lot, but I haven’t. I guess that’s the edge where feminists and Gutierrez/TOB part company. I believe that this is his summary of the TOB: “The ‘complementarity’ of man and woman is for natural reciprocity and interpersonal communion, not for artificial separation of social/sacramental roles based on cultural gender stereotypes.” This certainly gets at two possible positions, neither of which is feminist: “natural reciprocity” and “gender stereotypes.” We all know how bad “gender stereotypes” are; how do you feel about “natural reciprocity”? I think it is almost as limiting, especially since it’s seen as something deep in the psyche to one school of thought and part of the “natural law” to another. I rely on two feminist theologians.
Sheila Briggs, in a fall 2017 article in Conscience, provides a superb “intellectual history of Catholic complementarity.” She argues that in the TOB, even though JPII “discovered gender complementarity in Genesis, but first-century Christians found there a singular humanity that could overcome gender differentiation.” Men and women became one flesh, not two distinct parts of a whole. Briggs concludes:
John Paul II wanted, in his extensive interpretation of Ephesians in Mulieris Dignitatem, to discard gender hierarchy… Nonetheless, … he found a specific form of mutuality that was not restricted by historical context. He replaced hierarchy with “mutual subjection” which then, through the alchemy of gender complementarity, could still dictate specific roles to men and women based on essential feminine and masculine natures.
Yet gender complementarity always implies an asymmetry of gender roles, resources and opportunities. Women get care and nurturing roles, derived from their biological roles as mothers. Men’s roles are not strongly determined by biology but by theological metaphor, [the best descriptor in the whole article] tacitly derived from the gender hierarchy of earlier patriarchal periods. … Contemporary Catholic theories of gender complementarity have two contradictory goals. First, they want to preserve the premodern arguments banning contraception and women’s ordination that the magisterium has inherited from Augustine and Aquinas. At the same time, they do not want to acknowledge the gender inequality that is intrinsic to the gender hierarchy implied by the Augustinian and Thomistic frameworks. … Removing gender hierarchy renders premodern views of sexuality and gender incoherent, and trying to fit gender equality into gender complementarity results in an inconsistent ethics of gender and sexuality.
These are assertions that Briggs amply demonstrates in her analysis of scripture and theology over the centuries. It’s well worth the read if you’ve wondered how the TOB hopes to undo “gender stereotypes” as it promotes “natural reciprocity,” and how difficult it proves to be.
The second feminist theologian is Tina Beattie, who spoke at the Philadelphia Women’s Ordination Worldwide in 2015. Tom Fox in NCR reported on her talk, which argued that the “sharp distinctions between male and female…have dissolved.” In contrast to Briggs, she began in the late 20th century with the attempts of the Vatican to argue in international forums for both restricting and expanding women’s rights. She focused on the same JPII document, saying “Mulieris Dignitatem goes to considerable lengths to affirm the full equality and dignity of ‘woman’ in the order of creation and redemption. Although his vision of womanhood was highly romanticized and essentialized, John Paul II had a keen awareness of the extent to which women have been victims of injustice, violence and oppression.” Beattie then went into this analysis, which I still remember from hearing in person but never will repeat except on the page:
She highlighted the inconsistent gender-related references in official Catholic documents, saying, “I think I’ve lost track of the number of genders we have now. There are the genders associated with sexed male and female bodies in a rather literal reading of Genesis, but in the mystery of Christ and the church, these become prismatic and open to several different configurations. Men can be brides, but women can never be bridegrooms except with regard to the ways in which humans love. There is neither masculinity nor femininity in God, and divine generativity is not to be identified with human sexual procreation, but nevertheless as bridegroom Christ is masculine and that, which is feminine, can never occupy the position of the masculine. Femininity embraces a complex array of gendered identities, referring to female bodies as virgins, mothers and brides, but also to male bodies. It refers collectively to humankind, and to the church. But masculinity refers exclusively and only to the male body which represents the Bridegroom, Christ.”
Does this illustrate the confusion and contradictions, “incoherence” and inconsistency that Briggs identifies? Beattie concurs with Briggs: “If there is neither male nor female, and if Christ and the church are, in the words of Ephesians, ‘one flesh’, could we not say that male and female bodies together manifest the risen body of Christ as the fullness of the human redeemed in the flesh of Christ?” Look up the article if you want to read the other part of this talk that was most memorable: Beattie’s reflections on how women and men relate differently to the symbol of blood. Here she reflected gendered experiences in the present, but alluded to “a new and as yet unknowable future,” in which “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male for female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Both theologians resolve the “gender stereotypes” vs. “natural reciprocity” conundrum in this divine unity.
6 Responses
“it provides the doctrinal development needed to resolve all pending issues of human sexuality, including the ordination of women, LGBT issues, etc.” It “render[s] the gender lens transparent in the sacramental economy, and [does] so in perfect continuity with apostolic tradition and without changing the faith.”
I would have to part company with Luis right here. First of all, gender, leadership positions, as well as the portrayal of God were all very fluid prior to the councils of the fourth and fifth centuries. The “apostolic tradition” that he mentions was not held by all Christians at the time of the councils, but by educated and charismatic teachers/preachers in very specific places who used rhetorical devices to insist that their position was the correct one. One of these devices was what came to be called the apostolic tradition. In other words, men like Athanasius in Alexandria came to say, “What I say is correct because the apostles taught in this manner.”( In reality, the apostles were illiterate and left behind no idea of what they wanted because they were not even Christian. They were good Jews and Christianity did not become a separate faith until the end of the first century C.E.) Paul, a self-described apostle, lifted up women as apostles and heads of churches. So we don’t really need a “theology of the body” in order to justify the ordination of women. We just have to look to scripture and the apostle Paul. We can also look to tombstones and the catacombs for a historical record of the power women held in the early church. In this realm, Chris Schenk’s book, “Crispina and Her Sisters” has many more useful things to say about women than does JPII in his theology of the body.
Thanks for considering my questions. Your response is very instructive. Please understand that I am not a professional theologian, let alone a feminist theologian. However, I do have some training and experience in textual analysis pursuant to detect and clarify ambiguities. The TOB is a double edge sword. If you read the TOB via a patriarchal lens, complementarity reinforces the sex/gender binary. If you read the TOB via a feminist lens, complementarity is incompatible with anthropological realities.
The TOB is about human nature, male and female, in the image of God; and the full realization of that image as a communion of persons in the image of the Trinity. It then focuses on the sacrament of marriage as a communion of persons, not as a patriarchal covenant. In this context, there is, of course, male/female sexual complementarity in the conjugal act. But it should be not only a biophysical complementarity but one of interpersonal communion, mutual submission, mutual self-giving, mutual enrichment; not a hierarchical complementarity as in the curse of Genesis 3:16, which is the immediate and most universal consequence of original sin.
Sexual complementarity does not cancel the ontological consubstantiality of man and woman. Due to our fallen nature, the path that goes from Genesis 3:16 to Galatians 3:28 is long and convoluted; but the redemption of the body (a central theme of the TOB) marks the inflection point toward convergence. The TOB radically transcends the patriarchal culture, and is a response to feminism as a sign of the times. It is a response that avoids going from patriarchal gender ideology to feminist gender ideology, and points the way for doctrinal development in perfect continuity with our Catholic faith, which is always the same yet the source of ever new light.
Experience confirms that sex and gender can be distinguished but cannot be separated. There is a pony under all the verbiage in the TOB, and the pony pertains to all pending issues of human sexuality where religious doctrines (Catholic and otherwise) are still conflated with patriarchal gender ideology. I can see without any difficulty, and without engaging in culturally conditioned theological obfuscations, using the post-patriarchal anthropology in the TOB as the starting point to understand that, for example:
– Jesus Christ is not a patriarch
– The Church is a communion, not a patriarchy
– The patriarchal priesthood is not a dogma
– All men and women are consubstantial in their human nature
– Apostolic succession is not dogmatically contingent on masculinity
– Jesus Christ is the bread of life, not the male of life
– Canon 1024 is an abortifacient of female priestly vocations
In brief, the Christ-Church nuptial mystery is NOT a patriarchal covenant! Please help me to articulate this in ways that contribute to the ongoing process of discernment. I believe in my heart that this is the most critical issue facing the Church. For heaven’s sake, is the Virgin Mary, “type” of the Church, a woman with a male head?
In Christ,
Luis
Dear Luis,
I remember you well from the Canon 1024 E group all those years ago and I respect your opinion and your scholarship. However, I still must respectfully disagree with your assessment.
Why does Jesus need to be a bridegroom and the church a bride in order to understand human relationships? Marriage has been problematic institution for most women in most times as they were sold to the highest bidder for a cow, a horse, or a kingdom. It remains problematic. Hence the high rate of divorce. Why not use a different metaphor? The Hebrew Bible portrays God as a rock, a fortress, a horn of salvation, a mother hen, and a woman in labor. Why use the Trinity, two guys and a bird, according to Sandra Schneiders, as the model for communion? (I know God has no body, but Schneiders, I think, aptly describes a lot of people’s understanding of the Trinity.)
JPII was a celibate man who had no experience with real women, women who might have disagreed with him or taught him something. He readily excommunicated women and men who supported women’s ordination. His TOB is unscientific. His insistence upon the full equality of women why banning them from ordination borders on the ridiculous. It is not wonder that young people walk away from the church in droves and why the church will not solve this problem by continuing to ban women from ordination.
We need a new book written by men and women together who respect and actually talk and listen to each other to help understand human nature. JPII had proven himself to be suspect to far too many areas to be considered any kind of authority on human nature.
Ms DiFranco, I am a 56 year old women, and I suppose that I could be described as a conventional practicing Catholic. I love TOB frankly. I admit that what I know of TOB is basically second hand, specifically through Christopher West’s commentaries. I admit that St. JP II tended to romanticize women. Further, as for what happened in the early days of the Church, there seems to be disagreement, although I understand that women held leadership positions which involved preaching.
The main point of TOB is not to provide an exact definition of male vs. female spirituality. The main point, I think, is that a person’s biological sex is a very important part of their identity. It is much more important than other physical features. Jesus’ biology was and is male. Not intersex, not anything other than male. Correct?
His male gender is a profound part of who he is. In fact, it would make sense that Jesus’ relationships with Christian men would not be quite the same as his relationships with women such as ourselves. Not unequal, but different.
Really, the spiritual significance of gender is a mystery, as is any important truth. Any attempt to explain the difference, such as complementarity, is clumsy and tends to devolve into stereotypes. JP II tried. While one may criticize St. JP Ii’s attempt, his overall respect for the human person and particularly women should not be disregarded.
Bottom line, women are fully equal to men, and they are not lacking in a comparison of important traits. However, assuming the importance of gender in Jesus’ identity, it is reasonable to think that someone stepping in Jesus’ own shoes, performing miracles on a routine basis, needs.to share in his gender to do so. I
It is not a question of merit or lack thereof. Women should not take exclusion from ordination as a slight. The most powerful person (aside from ,Jesus himself) in the Church as a whole is not ordained as a priest. She is Mother, Theo he spouse of the Holy Spirit some say. For us ordinary mortals on this earth, it is entirely possible that the most powerful person is a simple woman who prays sincerely, not the Pope. One does not need to be ordained to be very powerful.
And, lest some choose to misread my post, I have been happily married for 44 years. I have four children and five grandchildren. I remain deeply concerned about the welfare of families and children.
Apologies for the typos. I was unable to correct them. Thanks for any time you spend reading my thoughts.