John Paul II's Thesis
Johnson's most conspicuous omission in his critique of the TB is the
thesis of the Pope's project. He never mentions it. He never summarizes
it. He never even discusses the TB's main themes. While Johnson seems
happy to assert that the Pope's TB "is fundamentally inadequate
to the question it takes up," he never takes up the question the
TB takes up.
Johnson says the TB "simply does not engage what most ought to
be engaged in a theology of the body. Because of its theological insufficiency,"
he continues, "the pope's teaching does not adequately respond
to the anxieties of those who seek a Christian understanding of the
body and of human sexuality...."
But this prompts a question that Johnson never answers. What is a theology
of the body? What is a Christian understanding of the body and of human
sexuality? Contrary to Johnson's claims, the Pope does answer these
questions - in great detail and with profound insight.
We find John Paul's thesis statement in his audience of February 20,
1980. "The body, in fact, and it alone," he says, "is
capable of making visible what is invisible, the spiritual and divine.
It was created to transfer in the visible reality of the world, the
invisible mystery hidden in God from time immemorial, and thus to be
a sign of it."
The body is sacramental, revelatory of the mystery of creation and the
mystery of the Creator. According to the Holy Father, the human body
- through the reality of sexual difference and our call to sexual union
- possesses a "language" inscribed by God that proclaims his
own eternal mystery and makes that mystery present, visible, experiential
in our world.
What is this mystery hidden in God from all eternity? It's the mystery
of God's plan to unite all things in Christ (Eph 1:10). In a nutshell
(as if it were possible to put God in a nutshell...), it's God's Trinitarian
Love and Life, and his amazing plan for us to share in this Love and
Life through Christ as members of the Church.
This is what the "great mystery" of the "one flesh"
union symbolizes and reveals - the "great mystery" of Christ's
union with the Church (see Eph 5: 31-32). And this is what John Paul
means, fundamentally, by speaking of a theology of the body.
This doesn't mean God is sexual. But it does mean our sexuality reveals
something of the mystery of God's inner life and his plan to grant us
a share in the divine nature (2 Pt 1:4).
A theology of the body in this sense is difficult for many people to
swallow. It's almost too grand. How could something as "earthy"
as the body be meant to reveal something so heavenly? But it all comes
to light in the embodiment of God himself: the Word made flesh. And,
as Christ says, this is something we must swallow - quite literally
- if we are ever to have life in us (Jn 6:53).
As John Paul puts it: "Through the fact that the Word of God became
flesh the body entered theology ...through the main door" (TB,
April 2, 1980). Christ, then, is the focus of any authentic theology
of the body. Christ is the focus of a Christian understanding of the
body and sexuality. For it is Christ - in and through his body given
up for us - who fully reveals the mystery of the Father and his love,
and fully reveals man to himself (see Gaudium et Spes 22).
"Love one another as I have loved you" (Jn 15:12). This is
the summary of the Gospel. This is the very meaning of life. And, according
to John Paul, this call to love as God loves is revealed to us "from
the beginning" through what John Paul calls "the nuptial meaning
of the body." Hence, John Paul can say that if we live according
to the nuptial meaning of the body, we fulfill the very meaning of our
being and existence (see TB, Jan 16, 1980).
Sexual morality, then, is all about speaking the language of God's love
through our bodies. John Paul even speaks of the "prophetism of
the body." The body is "prophetic" because it proclaims
the truth about God. Or, at least, it is meant to proclaim the truth
about God.
This is a stunningly beautiful and dignified vision of sexuality. Even
so, our fallen humanity tends to resist it. For embracing it means we
must also embrace the demands it places on us. It means we must never
speak the "language of our bodies" in a way that contradicts
the sacramental meaning of our bodies. This would make us "false
prophets." Sexual sin consists precisely in this.
A Christocentric theology of the body has some obvious implications
for sexual behavior. The Church is not simply obsessed with pelvic issues.
She is concerned with protecting the "great mystery" of Creative
and Redemptive Love revealed by the "great mystery" of nuptial
union. It seems to me that Johnson completely avoids John Paul's thesis
on the sacramentality of the body because he doesn't like where it leads.
John Paul II's Dramatic Development
Johnson criticizes the Pope for not paying enough attention to
the first creation account in which we are created in God's image
as male and female. While it's certainly true that John Paul spends
more time unpacking the second creation account, Johnson fails to
recognize the dramatic development of thought that the Pope is making
in his TB regarding how we image God.
Traditional formulations posited man's imaging of God in various trinitarian
breakdowns of an individual's soul (e.g., memory, understanding, and
will). But for John Paul, "man became the 'image and likeness'
of God not only through his own humanity, but also through the communion
of persons which man and woman form right from the beginning"
(TB, Nov 14, 1979).
This is a bold theological move on John Paul's part. Through his TB,
and even more authoritatively in later statements (see, for example,
Mulieris Dignitatem 6-7 & CCC 357, 1702), John Paul brings the
once dismissed idea that man and woman image God in and through their
communion into the realm of Magisterial teaching.
And, just in case we need clarification, John Paul stresses that from
the beginning, this is an incarnate communion, i.e., it's a communion
in "one flesh." Yes, John Paul sees sexual union as an icon
of the inner-life and love of the Trinity. He even goes so far as
to say that this "Trinitarian concept of the 'image of God' ...constitutes,
perhaps, the deepest theological aspect of all that can be said about
man."
It's curious that this dramatic development isn't even mentioned by
Johnson. Of course, once again, if you accept this, you have to draw
some lines in the sand with regard to sexual morality. Some, indeed
many, sexual attitudes and actions do not image God's life-giving
love. And men and women can never fulfill themselves by contradicting
the image in which they are made.
Mystical Union & the Joys of Heaven
Much more could be said about what Johnson omits in his critique of
the TB, but I'll cite just a few more examples. Johnson faults the
Pope for not appreciating how sexual energy pervades a Christian's
life of prayer. Yet he fails to mention that John Paul describes true
sexual intimacy as a mystical and even liturgical experience (see
TB, Jul 4, 1984).
Johnson claims that John Paul reduces "sexuality to 'the transmission
of life.'" Yet he remains silent about the Pope's pervasive theme
that "the human body ...is not only a source of fruitfulness
and procreation, ...but includes right 'from the beginning' the 'nuptial'
attribute, that is, the capacity of expressing love" (TB, Jan
16, 1980). Elsewhere, John Paul says that if the only reason a couple
is having sex is to transmit life, then they may be in danger of using
each other rather than loving each other (see Love & Responsibility
p. 233). I can't help but wonder if Johnson is more interested in
reinforcing stereotypes than in clarifying what John Paul really teaches.
Furthermore, Johnson claims that the Pope has little to no appreciation
of sexual joy and pleasure. Yet he fails to mention the fact that
John Paul describes the "beatifying experience" of conjugal
union as a foretaste of the joys of heaven (see TB, Dec 16, 1981 and
Jan 13, 1982). In Love & Responsibility, Wojtyla raised more than
a few eyebrows by his detailed discussion of the husband's responsibility
- out of authentic love for his wife - to see that she achieves sexual
climax (see Love & Responsibility pp. 270-278). Johnson shows
his ignorance of this when he lumps John Paul II in his statement
that papal teaching sees sexual passion "mainly as an obstacle
to authentic love."
And as a final example, Johnson claims that John Paul's interpretation
of Genesis doesn't uphold women as moral agents sharing the same dignity
as men. Such a claim demonstrates the depth of Johnson's misreading
of the Pope's project. The Holy Father's claims about the meaning
of original solitude and unity would collapse if they didn't rest
on the sure foundation of man and woman's equal dignity as persons.
John Paul goes to great lengths to demonstrate this (see TB, Nov 7,
1979, in particular). Furthermore, a veritable "eulogy of femininity"
pervades the Pope's entire catechesis (see TB, Mar 12, 1980, Oct 8,
1981, Aug 11 - Sep 1, 1982).
