Talk about politics and religion!!! I love the Theology of the Body but read little about it here. What place does this have in Eastern Spirituality in helping us understand that God is indeed with us?

I personally have a great love for the Theology of the Body, having grown up on it and having its teachings infused into me at a very young age. But I find more and more that it is really in many ways a translation of a fundamentally Eastern approach to the Faith into the Latin mainstream, redirecting the emphasis of Latin theology from being Scholastic and pseudo-Scholastic to being very experiential in nature. The Theology of the Body restored to the West a "Sacramental-Liturgical worldview" that for centuries had played second fiddle to Scholasticism. Of course, this restoration did not happen in a vacuum, and we see such wonderful theologians as Yves Congar, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Jean Danielou, etc., etc., etc. leaving their own mark in a process that eventually culminated in John Paul II's "Theology of the Body."

But that's just my opinion. I'll be interested to see what others have to say.

As for TOtB's role in the East; I'd say the text itself has little to offer us, except perhaps in supplementing what Fr. Lawrence Cross has said to be a rather "unmystical" approach to marriage.

To me it seems to have as much to do with Eastern Christianity as the Rosary. There's certainly nothing wrong with being Eastern and loving and practicing the Rosary, but there is nothing particularly Eastern about the practice.

Theology of the Body is in my mind a Western development that doesn't really have much to do with the Eastern Christian faith. It comes from Western philosophy and theology, and you end up having to put a square peg into a round hole when you try to harmonize it with Eastern philosophy and theology. Adapting the two side-by-side is one choice, but I can't see how one can claim it to be consistent with Eastern or Byzantine theology, it just isn't.

I am thrilled for Eastern Christians that embrace it and are edified by it, but I think trying to fit it into the Eastern or Byzantine way of life is akin to fit the Rosary into the Eastern or Byzantine way of life - it doesn't really fit.

And it in no way makes sense for an Eastern Catholic to perceive it as binding.

Fr. Thomas Loya has spoken extensively on this subject. You may find his take of interest.

Theology of the Body

Yeah, I've seen his website.

Like I said, it's fantastic that he and other Eastern Catholics are so enthusiastic, and there is much that can be beneficial from it.

But it's an Eastern Christian adoption of a uniquely Roman Catholic understanding of marriage and sexuality. That doesn't make it bad, but it doesn't make it binding either, which if you get down to it, is what is taught.

One thing I will point out is that there is, in fact, an authentically Eastern/Byzantine rosary that has been around since the 8th Century (long before St. Dominic began spreading his own version of the rosary. The Eastern "rosary" is called the Prayer Rule of the Theotokos. Some claim that this Rule was prayed at one point by every Christian, but it has since fallen out of popularity in the East. St. Seraphim of Sarov actually used to recommend this Rule to his directees, and the nuns of the Diveyevo convent, at his recommendation, used to pray it communally while walking around the convent grounds. You can learn more about it by checking out my blog, particularly the following link: http://themasterbeadsman.blogspot.com/2012/05/prayer-rule-of-theotokos-ii-st-seraphim.html .

So the comparison of the Theology of the Body and the rosary isn't quite adequate. I will concede that Easterners embracing the Theology of the Body means effectively embracing a Western construct. But, like i said earlier, I believe it is actually a Western construct of an Eastern approach to the Faith.

Aside from knowing of Fr Loya's interest in the subject, I really don't recall hearing much about it in EC circles.

The question posed initially here is whether or not it has a place in Eastern spiritual life. The issue of whether or not it is "binding" on Eastern Catholics seems a secondary consideration, and implies it is some form of dogmatic teaching. From what I know of it, I would call it more of a "perspective".

I think it depends on the EC circles that one travels in, I've come across it before.

Much of it is harmless and quite holy and beneficial and would be compatible with Eastern thoughts on love and marriage.

I should explain better, I am speaking specifically of the parts that incorporate the teachings and elaborations of the Roman encyclical Humanae Vitae, which is considered binding by the Roman Church.

Whether or not it also applies to the Eastern Churches depends who you ask.

As I don't believe the entire Theology of the Body series was meant to be a "pick and choose" teaching and is to be taken as a whole, my focus is mainly on these parts that seem the most specifically Roman in nature.

Another thing that bothers me about Fr. Loya's take on this is his constant use of phrases like "the Catholic way of seeing things" or "the world doesn't see things like us Catholics" etc.

As if all Catholics see these things uniformly.

It makes it difficult for me to appreciate his shock and indignation when Eastern Catholics are told to toe the celibacy line.

That is, after all, the norm for "Catholic" priests, isn't it?

I think he likes to try to have is cake and eat it.

jjp, How would you say it? If there isn't a distinctive truth in Catholicism why be Catholic?

Are there not some ways of looking at the world through the eyes of the Faith that are common to both East and West? For example, since the Incarnation of the Logos, do we not all think that human life has been restored to its original state--that is, that we have a profound dignity no matter what social, economic, or other measure that the world may apply to a given individual? Is not human life worth a lot, no matter how we may express its value? (If not, then we will continue to talk past each other and the Tower of Babel--my way is the only way to express the Faith once delivered--will contineu to divide us.)

I think Pope John Paul II of thrice blessed memory was trying to express this for the world--the ancient Faith in a way that the world could understand at this point in history. And even if the world could not accept it, the vision of human beings and their profound dignity is something we need to remind ourselves of as believers because we're not immune to the corrosive worldview that sees people as disposible--of little or no value. There are plenty of religions and political systems still active that take this point of view. We need look no further than the Middle East, India, Communist China, North Korea--lots of places where disposible people are relegated to gulags of one sort or other; or to social systems that denigrate their dignity. Yes, he used Western constructs and ways of expressing his vision. But if he didn't use what was given to him as God's gift to him, how would he have expressed anything at all? Would any form of communication be possible without one's formation and cultural structure somehow being seen as part of one's expression?

And this obsession with "binding." Is everything about what is binding or not binding? If so, we've got an awful narrow view of what Christianity is all about, whether Eastern or Western. I grant you that the West has been obsessed with the binding thing. But that misses the point. If one is committed, the binding means nothing because whatever it is is already incorporated into one's life in Christ voluntarily because we love Him, the Greatest Good there is. As the Desert Fathers would say, "I do not fear God because I love Him and love casts fear out of doors."

The Lord has bound us with a very simple, light burden--to love one another: to care deeply for each and every other person as we would for ourselves. I haven't read the entire Theology of the Body text, but it seems to me that the gist of it deals with this vision of our profound dignity that comes from being created in the image and likeness of God.

Bob

I wouldn't say it at all.

As to why be Catholic, the answer is different for every person, I imagine.

I don't see any greater reason to be Catholic than to be Orthodox. Neither church are perfect, Lord knows, and neither are heretical, and both are good and holy.

This is a bit divergent from the topic of Theology of the Body, however, and would probably best be explored more fully in a new thread. I don't want to derail the topic into talking about what it means to be Catholic.

Of course there are, which is why I reject labeling such ways as "Catholic" when they are indeed not exclusively Catholic.



I don't begrudge him for using Western constructs and expressions in the slightest - as well he should, he's the Pope! But to say that these Western constructs and expressions are the "Catholic" way to see things implies that an Eastern or Byzantine construct is other than Catholic.



It tires me as it seems to tire you.



It does indeed have an obsession with binding its faithful. It is this obsession that I am raising an issue with. Theology of the Body is the pleasant side of the coin - mortal sin for disobeying its teaching is the unpleasant side *of the same coin*. One can't fairly talk about one side and ignore the other.



The gist of it may indeed, but I view it in its totality. Unless we are free to pick and choose the sections that appeal to us and ignore the ones that do not make sense, then it seems only right to focus on those that trouble us most.

I didn't ask you what it means to be Catholic. If you don't wish to respond to me then respond to Bob who asks the same question but more eloquently. If it isn't for truth what's the point of any religion?

What's the use of having cake if you're not allowed to eat it?