Last December, Family Theater Productions in Hollywood sponsored a Theology of the Body script contest.

The winning script? A characteristically brilliant piece of writing by Sean Dillon, fellow Act One 2002 alumnus:

Labels: hollywood, John Paul II, marriage and family, moral life, movies, respect, theology of the body

I received this e-mail from Katie von Schaijik of the Personalist Project today:

There was so much interest in the talks the other night that we decided to hasten the launch of our public forum for discussion.

You'll find there Dr. Healy's reflections on his experience of the event and his impression of the controversy surrounding Christopher West these days. Soon we'll be able to add audio recordings of the lectures, with, hopefully, video to follow.

We think of the forum as an online watering hole for personalists and their friends. We're calling it the Linde, after 2 establishments of that name in Liechtenstein, where we used to drink beer and philosophize between classes.

We hope you'll visit often and add your comments to our discussions!

Labels: communication, dialogue, John Paul II, moral life, theology of the body

The Personalist Project is hosting a lecture by Dr. Michael Healy, with a response by Christopher West, on June 3 in West Chester, PA.

Both speakers will consider the true nature of sexuality as essentially deep and intimate and in relation to betrothed love. Sex is not just another instinct or appetite, but unique in its vocation toward the expression of something higher. Von Hildebrand’s Purity, the Mystery of Christian Sexuality (on which Dr. Healy’s lecture is based), written in the 1920’s, anticipates many of the insights of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

More details here.

Labels: events, marriage and family, moral life, theology of the body

I've posted an MP3 audio version of the homily given by Archbishop Timothy Dolan this past Wednesday during the Mass of Installation at Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York City.

It's available on my podcast feed, or directly here.

A favorite passage from the homily:

...This is not all about Timothy Dolan, or all about cardinals and bishops, or about priests and sisters, or even about family and cherished friends.

Nope ... this is all about two people: Him and her ... this is all about Jesus and His Bride, the Church. For, as de Lubac asked, "What would I ever know of Him without her?"

The Resurrection, Easter, is the very foundation of our faith, our hope, our love. Everything in the Church commences when, like those two disciples on the road to Emmaus that first Easter, we recognize Jesus as risen from the dead. The Church herself begins.

Past memorable quotes from the Archbishop, from his years in Milwaukee, here.

Labels: Easter, human life, multimedia, paschal mystery, podcasts, theology of the body

The climb to Calvary is complete; a moment’s rest awaits. But the humiliation continues, as the guards strip Jesus of His garments. He is left naked, exposed, vulnerable. But this is the very form of love, the trustful abandonment of all defenses. Unlike Adam, who, in his nakedness, hid himself in fear, the New Adam does not seek to cover Himself. He has no one to fear: God is His loving Father.

If you wish to glory in yourself, but do not wish to appear ignorant and foolish, discard the things that are not yours and you will have glory in what remains. But certainly if you discard all that is not yours, nothing will be left, since you must not glory in anything if you do not want to fall into vanity.

Saint John of the Cross, Sayings of Light and Love

Labels: John of the Cross, Lent, stations of the cross, theology of the body

This week, I posted the ninth talk from last October's Act One Story Symposium:

"How Storytelling is True, Good and Beautiful" by Dr. Peter Kreeft


Here's a short excerpt:

We have strong defenses against goodness in our free choice. We have weak defenses against truth in rationalization -- or we can just ignore it, or live in denial, but that takes effort, and eventually all those walls we put up will come down. But we have no defenses at all against beauty. The will is strong and free. The mind is fairly strong and fairly free. But the heart is as weak as butter and doomed to fall in love with whatever it sees smiling at it. The movies you make are the smiles with which you hail passers-by, with the hope that they will sing "Pretty Woman" to you.

You can listen to the entire presentation by using the player above, or download the audio in any number of ways by visiting the Act One Story Symposium site here.

Labels: communication, hollywood, moral life, movies, podcasts, theology of the body

This week I've posted the audio recording from our class on human sexuality and the sacrament of marriage, which was led by guest speaker Patrick Coffin, now the host of the radio show Catholic Answers Live. The class was held a year ago this week.

A short excerpt:

The will to contracept is very similar to the will to abort, because they are fruits from the same roots. They both desire the indulgence in sex without desiring the natural result of sex, which is the new human person. And a lot of the Catholic dissenters from Humanae Vitae... admit that you cannot argue against any other sexual perversion as long as you deny that each act of intercourse ought to be open to new life.

How can a couple who are married and are using the pill argue against gay marriage? Or against any kind of homosexual acts? They really can't, because the logic has a way of catching up with them. They have already, in a sense -- biologically at least -- gay-ified their own union by making every act sterile and therefore their rationality in condemning other sterile acts is, I would say, compromised.

Click here for the links to the audio and the materials we read in preparation for the class.

Labels: communion, human life, marriage and family, multimedia, podcasts, RCIA, sacraments, theology of the body

I'm posting this on behalf of two of my friends here in Hollywood. Sounds like a great contest!

Choose one or more of the following major lessons from Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body,” write a short film script 5 to 10 pages long that helps illustrate that point(s) and submit it to our festival by February 14th, 2009.

The winner will receive $100... and fantastic food. Runner ups and other finalists will receive cool prizes as well. Here are the major points...

1. The family is the fundamental building block of society. Hence, the way we treat marriage and procreation has a direct effect upon society (positive and negative). See October 22, 1980 audience and January 16th 1980 audience (section 5)
   
   
2. Earthly marriage and the conjugal union between a husband and a wife is meant to mirror the relationship between Christ and the Church. Hence it is a sign pointing us to heaven (i.e. God). Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the Church: selflessly. However, it is dangerous for us to get caught up in the sign (conjugal union in marriage) while not paying enough attention to where it is leading us (heaven). See August 11, 1982 audience


3. Christ not only calls us to avoid being lustful but to allow Him to change our ethos, or the inner desires of our heart in regards to lust. He wants us to follow his teachings out of love, not obligation or guilt. He wants us to find lustfulness unattractive. He wants us to attain the freedom that allows us to be in a relationship with God and away from the emptiness of sin. See September 10, 1980 audience


4. Christ calls us to affirm the value of the person in "every" situation by never treating another human being as an object for our own selfish pleasure. We are called to always think of the dignity and welfare of others, before our own desires. See January 7, 1981 and January 14, 1981 audience


5. The use of contraception is directly opposed to the free, total, faithful and fruitful love Christ calls us to in marriage. See August 22, 1984 audience


6. The body has a "language" that is meant to proclaim the truth of God's love. However, if we are able to speak the truth with our bodies we are also capable of speaking lies. See August 22, 1984 audience (section 4 specifically)

FOR MORE THOUGHTS ON WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, SEE OUR FACEBOOK PAGE

Email your script to: tobscripts@gmail.com

Sponsored by Family Theater Productions

Labels: movies, theology of the body

There's an initiative underway to provide a comprehensive pastoral plan for the Church in Hollywood. Currently headed up by Fr. Don Woznicki, a priest of the archdiocese of Chicago, this plan could significantly re-shape the forms of ministry and support that the Church provides to the entertainment industry. From the mission statement:

The Hollywood Project is a five-phase plan to establish a dedicated, committed, and resourceful presence of the universal Church in Los Angeles, California, to support the people of the entertainment industry in their special calling to bring truth, beauty, and goodness to the human race.

I've known Fr. Don since 2002. He was the catalyst behind Cardinal George's invitation for Barbara Nicolosi to bring the the Act One: Writing for Hollywood program to Chicago that year. I attended that program, which ultimately led me to move to Hollywood a year later to pursue an interest in screenwriting and to serve in various pastoral outreaches, including a Theology of the Body study group and the RCIA Hollywood program.

At any rate, after many months of preliminary planning, there's information about The Hollywood Project online. There's a blog, a Facebook group, and I've also posted an audio podcast from a recent presentation Fr. Don gave at Saint Victor's Catholic Church in West Hollywood:



I encourage you to support this spiritual endeavor at the service of artists here in Los Angeles.

Labels: hollywood, podcasts, theology of the body

So Christopher West has been in Los Angeles twice in the past month. Here's the latest, for anyone who can attend:

Noted Theologian Christopher West will be giving an inservice for all archdiocesan and parish high school teachers and staff for three regions in the archdiocese. The inservices take place as follows:

Thurs., Nov. 20 8:30-2:30 San Fernando Region @ Bishop
Alemany High School, Mission Hills

Fri., Nov. 21 8:30-2:30 San Pedro/Our Lady of the
Angels Regions @ Junipero Serra High School , Gardena

As was noted in the secondary principals' calendar and at the September meeting all private high school teachers and staff are also urged to attend.

Speaker: Noted Theologian Christopher West
Topic: Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body
Fee: $10 per person (includes lunch)

Labels: marriage and family, theology of the body

From the Vatican this morning...

VATICAN CITY, 14 JUL 2008 (VIS) - The Holy Father appointed Fr. John LeVoir of the clergy of the archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, U.S.A., pastor of the parish of St. Michael and Mary in Stillwater as bishop of New Ulm (area 25,535, population 284,793, Catholics 66,785, priests 58, permanent deacons 3, religious 60), U.S.A. The bishop-elect was born in Minneapolis in 1946 and ordained a priest in 1981.

See the website for the diocese of New Ulm for all the details.


This is great news for the diocese of New Ulm and for the Church! He is an excellent priest; when I first met him, he immediately impressed me as a man radiant in goodness.

Among his accomplishments, he and Fr. Richard Hogan penned one of the first books about the Theology of the Body: Covenant of Love: Pope John Paul II on Sexuality, Marriage and the Family.

He also was appointed by Archbishop Flynn as the first chaplain of Faith in Action, the local chapter of Courage in the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. He was interviewed about Courage and same-sex attraction by Catholic Parents Online (audio podcast available here).

Here's a statement from the bishop-elect:

My background is that of a parish priest. I was an Associate Pastor at St. Charles Borromeo in St. Anthony for eleven years, and Pastor of Holy Trinity in South St. Paul for twelve years and for four of those years, I was at the same time Pastor of St. Augustine in South St. Paul. I have been Pastor of St. Michael and St. Mary in Stillwater since 2004.

I am grateful to the parishioners of all of these parishes for their goodness to me. I am especially grateful to the late Monsignor Richard Schuler for the support that he gave me during my seminary years and for Father Francis Kittock, who was my Pastor and mentor at St. Charles Borromeo where I was his Associate.

I am particularly grateful to my parents, Marvin A. LeVoir, now deceased, and Mary A. LeVoir, now 93 years old, and to my brothers Frederick J. LeVoir and Paul W. LeVoir, and my sister, Mary Ellen Steinkraus.

In his retirement years, I was blessed to have known Bishop Alphonse Schladweiler, the founding Bishop of the New Ulm diocese. He was a kind and gentle shepherd.

I am pleased that this announcement is being made on July 14, the Feast of Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha (1656-1680). She was beatified in 1980 by Pope John Paul II. Kateri is the first Native American to be declared Blessed.

I am going to be a new Bishop. I know that I have much to learn about serving as a Bishop and about the New Ulm diocese. Archbishop Nienstedt has assured me of his advice and help. I appreciate that so much. I ask the clergy, the religious, and the people of the diocese to be patient with me and to pray for me, as I will for them. With the help of God's grace, I will do my best to be a faithful shepherd.

Hat tip to Rocco (via Ray Marshall).

Labels: priesthood, theology of the body

Paul Furey's condition has been changing rapidly. His family has done a great job keeping people up-to-date via the journal on the CaringBridge site. (The CaringBridge site is the best place to stay up-to-date as to his condition, and to leave comments in the Guestbook that his family can read to him.)

Last night, his brother posted this entry:

Paul's breathing is very labored today. He has asked that we not do any extraordinary means to prolong his life, as the cancer is growing very fast. All of us siblings and Mom and Dad are here, or have been here within the last day or so to surround Paul with love. He is still able to communicate. Although he has trouble saying more than a word or two, he has been texting furiously.

And via Katie van Schaijik:

Paul's brother Tom just called me from Mayo and asked me to send out an update which says that Paul's main doctor, Dr. Porrata, has said that for any people who would like to see Paul and say goodbye, that they should come within the next 24 hours (although it could possibly be up to 48 hours). Tom said that Paul is conscious, but he can't talk really because talking even just a word or two is thoroughly exhausting for him. But, he can see and recognize people. It was also confirmed to Tom that the cancer in Paul's lungs is quite large and widespread.

Since I am in Minnesota, I decided to take the opportunity to drive down to Rochester this afternoon to see Paul with some friends: Stephen, Jenni, and Leopold Maas, and Brother Peter Gabriel (Vecellio). When we arrived around 3 pm, there were several friends visiting from New Ulm and other places. His parents and some of his siblings were also there with him.

We only were with him for about ten minutes. It was good, difficult, and humbling to be with Paul during this hour of trial. Feelings of loss, joy, and gratitude all spring up at once. How do you even begin to say thank you for such a life of witness to the Gospel? We assured him of our prayers. He is praying for us as well.

Paul was conscious most of the time we were with him, although occasionally he would close his eyes. He seemed fatigued but strong. He had a pad and paper to communicate with us, but he also spoke to us out loud several times, removing his oxygen mask to do so. By turns serious and humorous, he shared memories, asked questions, and told stories.

I don't know Paul very well, as most of my encounters with him have happened at events at which we were both volunteering -- ROMA 2000 young adult retreats, Steubenville North youth conferences, Theology of the Body talks, etc. But since he worked in New Ulm and frequently was in Saint Paul for these events, he stayed overnight at my house on Kenneth Street a few times. I have always been impressed by his generous service, his intelligence, and his love for the Church. Some of the brightest lights in the Church burn quietly, and Paul strikes me as one who is incandescent.

Back in 2002, I had been given a small replica of an icon of St Paul (that was commissioned by Archbishop Flynn for the Cathedral of St Paul in Minnesota). Paul was over at my place, and commented on it, and since St Paul is his namesake, I thought he should have it. (I learned today that he was named after Fr. Paul Marx, who met his mother when she was pregnant with him.) Now Paul has become something of an icon himself, a testimony to triumph through suffering: "May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Galatians 6:14).

Tonight, as dusk settles, the Church worldwide enters the Pauline year. One wonders at the mysterious providence of God. JPII enters the next life on the eve of Divine Mercy, and Paul seems to be standing at the doorway on the eve of the Pauline year. When, in God's good time, he passes through, may the angels lead him into paradise.

Thank you, Paul, for burning brightly.

More on the Pauline year over at Amy's.

Labels: pauline year, theology of the body

As some of you know, the New York Times is hosting a series of blog discussions during Pope Benedict XVI's apostolic visit to the United States. Among the bloggers is the infamous Rosemary Radford Ruether.

I first became familiar with her work during college when I picked up a copy of Ungodly Rage, Donna Steichen's expose of the ugly underbelly of Catholic feminism. Then, in 1995, I worked shoulder to shoulder with one of her students while completing my Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) at Regions Hospital in Saint Paul, MN.

So I was not very surprised by Ruether's contribution to the discussion on the New York Times blog yesterday. I've reprinted her post below, as well as the response I made (which, surprisingly, did get published in the comments box).

A Few Good Priests?

By ROSEMARY RADFORD RUETHER

Declaring himself to be “deeply ashamed” by the misbehavior of Catholic priests in the sexual abuse cases, the Pope said it “is more important to have good priests than many priests.” While this remark may seem obvious, it strikes a hollow note for many Catholics in the United States and around the world who suffer from the lack of adequate priestly ministry in their parishes. As the numbers of Catholics grow, and the numbers of priests decline, an increasing number of Catholic parishes lack resident priests. They make do with lay leaders, women and men, who, while dedicated, lack the ability to administer the sacraments that are key to Catholic religious life.

It is not that there is a lack of Catholics willing to serve in the priesthood, but a lack of those who are willing to take on the vows of celibacy. There are also increasing numbers of women who are theologically educated and eager to serve in the ministry, but this Pope, like his predecessor, has been adamant in rejecting the possibility of the ordination of women at a time when most other Christian churches have changed their minds on this historic exclusion of women from ordained leadership. The limited social base from which Catholic priests are recruited is the obvious reason why there are dwindling numbers of Catholic priests. It is also directly connected not only with why there are not “many,” but also why some have proved themselves sexually abusive.

When a church recruits its leadership exclusively from those who repress their sexuality and are taught to view sex as the opposite of sacredness, it is inevitable that some of those who take such vows have an immature sexuality that will be acted out secretly in sexual abuse of the vulnerable, young boys and girls. Until the Catholic Church faces up to the way its negative views of sexuality are connected with sexual abuse, it will continue to be faced with the problem of priests who are both not “good” and also not “many.”

My response was:

I don’t think the requirement of celibacy is the reason for the diminished number of priestly vocations. If a link could be drawn along these lines, it would be better to point to the source: an inability or an unwillingness to live one’s sexuality in a generous, self-giving way. This is the call for every Catholic, whether married, single, or vowed as celibate.

We don’t live in a culture that supports chastity — the ability to put one’s erotic desire at the service of another in a generous, selfless way. This is the key to enduring marriages and enduring vocations to priesthood and religious life.

There’s nothing repressive about this vision. When the Theology of the Body espoused by John Paul II (and by Benedict also in encyclicals such as Deus Caritas Est) truly comes into its own, I believe we’ll see an abundance of vocations lived in a beautiful, life-affirming, and love-filled way.

It’s not the time to give up on celibacy. Because it is not the time to give up on love. A celibate life, well-lived, is a witness to hope.

As I wrote this, I realized that so often, if you read between the lines written by those who reject the Church's teaching, you will discover that the driving force is a lack of hope: Fatherhood has failed us, priests have failed us, the promises of celibacy have failed us, etc. Our sacrifices have not yielded the successes we were asking for. In short: We have been fishing all night, and have caught nothing. No matter how dissenters want to dress up their despair, to make it seem as though they have something positive and forward-looking to propose, the reality tends to be that it's an impoverished vision, a vision that has lost hope.

We can attack the dissenters, insult them, mock their ideas, etc., but perhaps it would be better to find ways to invite them to rediscover hope. I think that is one thing Pope Benedict would like to do this week. I pray that his work in the vineyard of the Lord bears the fruit of an abundant hope for those tempted to despair.

Labels: dissent, pope benedict xvi, theology of the body

Karen Hall posts about an ad run by the uber-expensive/elite fitness club, Equinox, which portrays a group of nuns sketching a male nude.

The advertisement in question is not only irreverent toward the Catholic Church, but is a form of pornovision, demonstrating a lack of respect for the human person.

An article in the Boston Channel writes:

A fitness club ad running in Boston magazine that depicts nuns sketching a naked man has triggered protests among some members of the Bay State's Catholic community.

The ad for the Equinox Fitness Club is running in this month's issue and some Catholic organizations blasted the photo saying it was offensive. C.J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts said the ad shows contempt for the Catholic religion.

"It says a great deal about this perverse obsession in both the fashion industry and the advertising industry of exploiting and mocking and sexualizing Catholic religious imagery," Doyle said.

The fitness company responded with a written statement saying, "Our ad campaigns are based on personal motivation and fantasy and throughout history the body has been considered a form of art."

The Daughters Of Saint Paul said they are taking the high road and not worrying about the ad.

"It is crass, but there are a lot of crass things that I don't pay attention to. I don't need to," said Sister Martha Moss.

"We work in the media all the time and we know that these things come and go and the best thing is to let them go," said Sister Kathryn Hermes.

The company only has one gym in Boston.

I think the reaction of the Daughters of Saint Paul is sad. We really should not be resting on our laurels when it comes to the portrayal of the human body in the mass media... not because we're prudes, but because we believe in the beauty, dignity and sanctity of our creation as male and female. More of my thoughts on this, as it relates to John Paul II's Theology of the Body, here and here.

I should note that, in relation to my dialogue with John Heard over at Dreadnought, he later had a change of heart about the images he was posting:

[UPDATE] Please note, DREADNOUGHT's views on this matter have changed since this post was published. I was later convinced, via arguments advanced by JPII and repeated by a number of DREADNOUGHTERS, that posting gratuitous pictures of nearly naked young men is not perhaps the most loving or appropriate way to celebrate the human form. Thus, I no longer feature DREADHOTTIES. Thank you to the many DREADNOUGHTERS who took me to task over the images. I made a mistake and I have changed my mind. That's called ongoing conversion.

I think we need to be much more proactive about this sort of thing. If you agree, you can e-mail the General Manager of the Equinox club in Boston: James Herson.

Labels: respect, theology of the body

One of the insights that John Paul II developed with great beauty and depth was the idea of the priest as spouse of the Church. This understanding has the potential to put into proper perspective a number of dimensions of priestly life, especially celibacy. It's one of the reasons I hope that the Saint Paul Seminary will begin to incorporate some of these insights into its curriculum. I have heard that the seminary in Denver already does this. Other seminaries may be doing this as well; I don't know.

I do know I would have benefited from learning about the Theology of the Body during my seminary formation, particularly the sections on the resurrection of the body, virginity for the sake of the Kingdom, and the sacramentality of marriage.

I posted a short article back in December about Fr. Roger Landry's application of these themes to the ordained priesthood. After reading this, I cannot help but see the following sections of the Program for Priestly Formation from the point-of-view of a spousal theology of priestly life:

spouses have unique and complementary roles

[The disciples] were to minister in a special way to those with whom they were united in the body of Christ, a body in which “all members have not the same function” (Romans 12:3; Presbyterorum Ordinis, 2). Thus while all the baptized participate in the priesthood of Christ, some are called and ordained to minister to all of the faithful. In the sacrament of orders, priests are especially configured to Christ to act in his person as head and pastor of the Church and in the name of the whole people of God (Lumen Gentium, 10; Presbyterorum Ordinis, 2; cf. Pastores Dabo Vobis, 15). (PPF, 30)

husband and wife each provide an indispensable contribution to the mission of Christ in the world

“Though they differ essentially and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless ordered one to another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ.” (Lumen Gentium, 10) (PPF, 32)

husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church

“The ministry of the priest is entirely on behalf of the Church; it aims at promoting the exercise of the common priesthood of the entire people of God.” (Pastores Dabo Vobis, 16) (PPF, 32)

the life of a spouse is a life lived for the sake of the other

Although committed to a great diversity of individual ministries, priests are united in the common goal of building up the body of Christ through ordained priestly service. (PPF, 35)

spousal love as mutual subjection

From the waters of baptism and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, priests and laity share a sacramental origin and a common purpose as disciples of Christ. These bonds imply a continuing relationship of collaboration and mutual respect. (PPF, 39)

Labels: priesthood, seminary, theology of the body, vocations

I've posted a new audio podcast today from a television episode of Catholic Parents Online, on the subject of homosexuality and the Catholic Church's teaching on same-sex attraction. In the show, host Colleen Perfect interviewed Fr. John LeVoir, a priest of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, who is a chaplain to Faith in Action, the archdiocesan chapter of Courage. Fr. LeVoir co-authored one of the first books about John Paul II's Theology of the Body with Fr. Richard Hogan entitled Covenant of Love. Colleen also interviews Paul Ruff, a licensed psychologist from the Twin Cities.

If you have iTunes on your computer, you can subscribe to my podcast by clicking here. Or, to simply listen to this episode in your web browser, click here.

Labels: theology of the body

Barbara Nicolosi saw Munich this week, and liked it. I didn't. And in one of her comments boxes, I added this:

My feeling is that Munich didn't contain much in the way of wisdom. And without wisdom, do you really have art?

I mean, either the universe means something or it doesn't. Take your pick. Everyone has a right to a world view. But, in the end, not everyone's world view is correct. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either the world is ultimately a place of mercy and benevolence or it isn't.

I guess, in an American sort of way, you could say that Speilberg, as a filmmaker, has a right to nihlism and a right to tell lies on the big screen. But I don't think that those who are not nihlists have to endorse it or call it art.

For the believer, it's a bit hard to get around the fact that Wisdom was with the universe from the very origins of its creation... and that the Fall didn't obliterate this fact... if anything, the Fall and the sins of the ages only make the wisdom and goodness of the Creator more evident, providing a sort of negative space around the main subject of God's canvas, if you will.

Put another way, there's a sense in which we wouldn't feel dissonance in the experience of evil if original man did not exist. (See JPII's Theology of the Body for more on that concept).

Is there a value in having an artist simply detail the negative space of his canvas? I suppose it could call the rest of the work of art into sharp relief. Does this meet a human need? Maybe it can tease a plea for mercy out of the heart of obdurate man, but I think it's more likely that it will simply endorse his inclination to despair.

And I think that despair is the artistic path of least resistance; what is revolutionary, and truly creative, is hope.

What did anyone else think?

Labels: movies, theology of the body

Although I may be posting in the next ten days, it will be sporadic at best. This evening I begin my pilgrimage... first leg, Ireland... then Paris... then Rome. I haven't travelled overseas in almost ten years, and I'm very much looking forward to it. It's a pretty aggressive schedule, but this is a pilgrimage, not a cruise.

Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical may be released while I'm still in Europe. From early reports, it sounds like it will take JPII's Theology of the Body a step further. I'm taking John Allen's advice and listening to The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis during my trip:

A senior Vatican official told NCR in early January that the release of Benedict XVI's first encyclical, Deus caritas est, would likely come sometime after Jan. 15. This official said that Benedict is concerned about "information overload" from the Vatican, and wants the Christmas and New Year's messages to have time to sink in before another important text is issued.

Anyone looking for a "warm-up exercise" might consider C.S. Lewis' 1960 book The Four Loves. The encyclical is expected to review different concepts of love, much like Lewis did in distinguishing among affection, friendship, erotic love and unconditional love. Like Lewis, Benedict will argue that if the modern world could arrive at a proper understanding of the nature of love, many problems would be on their way to resolution.

I'll be sure to say a prayer for everyone in the Catholic blogosphere while visiting the shrine of St. Blog, martyr, in the Roman catacombs. God bless!

Labels: theology of the body

John Paul II once observed that the opposite of love is not hate, but use: the act of treating another person as an object for self-gratification.

We are in the throes of a culture of use and degradation of the human person. If you had any doubts about this, you must read this disturbing article about a young man named Justin Berry in today's New York Times. If you don't have much time, simply watch the video clips of an interview with Justin (totalling about 12 minutes). Justin's six-year descent into the dark world of internet pornovision is a very sobering narrative about the exploitation of young people through the use of internet webcam technology. The scale and depth of the abuse is stunning, and confirms the notion that the clerical sexual abuse crisis was merely the tip of an iceberg, and that our culture is truly hemhorraging from the effects of the sexual revolution and advances in technology that are unaccompanied by parallel advances in virtue. Justin's paying clients included lawyers, doctors, teachers, and at least one adult who worked in "child protection services."

Alfred Kinsey would be proud of the masterful incarnation of his new Holocaust. And Planned Parenthood is actively involved in this assault on the innocence of the young. The best resource that I know of in terms of uncovering this dark world is Dr. Judith Reisman.

The thing that makes the New York Times story compelling is that we can see, in stark relief, how damnably cavalier our culture has been about the exploitation of the young: under the auspices of civil rights / free speech / free love, the most outrageous permissions have been granted to prostitute our future by exploiting the innocence of the young.

Another very sobering dimension of the article -- and very telling -- is Justin's relationship with his father... a father who was not just asleep on the job, but actively participating in his son's exploitation. Talk about a trust-shattering experience. This article and the movie Brokeback Mountain are two powerful testimonies to the devastating effects of a fatherless culture.

You have to admire the courage of Justin in being willing to push through the shame and the lure of money and power. Somehow, he found the grace to listen to the voice of conscience, reminding him of his own dignity, and of the dignity of his peers, while facing all kinds of fear of reprisal for leaving that dark world behind.

Pray for healing for Justin. Pray for the many other unknown victims of child pornography, online and offline. Pray that Catholic educators will become part of the solution, rather than active participants in the problem. And pray that God would raise up missionaries to the world of porn, who will step forward to nurse the wounds of the victims of this all-out war on the humanity of the next generation.

Especially appropriate, in relation this article, is a recent address by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations:

Given the ever increasing ease of access to information of every possible kind, the Holy See also stresses the need to protect the most vulnerable, such as children and young people, especially in the light of the increase of content featuring violence, intolerance and pornography.

Perhaps the most essential question raised by technological progress is whether, as a result of it, people will grow in dignity, responsibility and openness to others.

Kudos to the staff of the New York Times for taking an active role in helping Justin out of this dark world.

Labels: fatherhood, homosexuality, theology of the body

There has been much talk in recent weeks about what the priesthood should not look like. As important as this is, I would say that such discussion needs some context -- especially given the media's complete lack of context in discussing such issues.

The Theology of the Body provides a great context for reflecting on what the priesthood could and should look like in the third millennium. The Theology of the Body is not really an innovation, but a restatement for our own times of something ever ancient and ever new: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

For Theology of the Body resources that are concise and practical, I have not seen any parallel to the resources provided by Fr. Roger Landry.

Check out this article (PDF format) on the Theology of the Body as it relates to the spiritual and pastoral life of priests.

One of John Paul II's lasting legacies will be, I think, his Theology of the Body, which is a great resource to help us rise above the myopia of "hot button" issues and to give us a broad, generous view of the Christian life... a radical anthropology that has the power to reframe the discussion and which could serve as the basis for the new springtime of evangelization in the Church and in the world.

Labels: priesthood, theology of the body

Last Saturday I attended a conference hosted by the archdiocese of Los Angeles entitled Issues in Human Sexuality. Since I live in Los Angeles and have an interest in the Theology of the Body, I was very interested in attending and seeing what sort of education the archdiocese is providing.

It was informative just to compare the Los Angeles promotional material with the material for an event held in Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis just a couple of weeks ago. Both events were scheduled for a Saturday. The similarities ended there. The Saint Paul event offered Mass with the archbishop, while the Los Angeles event offered only a prayer service. The Saint Paul event was offered by the Archdiocesan Office for Family, Laity, Youth and Young Adults, while the Los Angeles one was offered by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles Human Sexuality Taskforce, Department of Catholic Schools, Office of Religious Education, and St. Camillus Center for Pastoral Care. The Los Angeles poster spoke of "issues" but made no mention of love, vocation, God or marriage. So when I made a reservation for the Los Angeles event, I was fully aware that I was bringing a number of reservations with me.

I won't be blogging about the whole event today. There's a lot to discuss. The day was broken down into several parts:

• Prayer


• A talk entitled "Human Sexuality: Gift and Challenge" by Fr. Chris Ponnet


• "Talking to Children & Youth about Sexuality" by Theresa Abbene


• "Issues for Lesbian and Gay Catholics" by Fran Ruth and Dr. Bill Mochon


• "Medical Issues of Sexually Transmitted Diseases" by Dr. Elizabeth Crabb Breen

I attended everything except the final presentation on STDs.

My overall impression? Some of the material in each presentation was quite good, some was questionable, and some was, to be frank, problematic. I'll be unpacking my impressions over the next few days here on my blog.

I have to say that, overall, the presentations were much better than I expected from this archdiocese. But I guess that isn't saying too much, is it?

Labels: theology of the body

Two years ago, just weeks after I had moved to Los Angeles, I decided that Hollywood needed to know about "Pope Day" -- October 16, the anniversary of the election of John Paul II.

A friend had e-mailed me a reminder of the event, and here was how I recounted my adventures pedalling down Hollywood Boulevard, distributing brochures from the Love and Responsibility Foundation:

Anne,

Thank you so much for the reminder about October 16 - "Pope Day"!

As soon as I got your e-mail, I went to see if there was, in fact, anything planned in the Los Angeles area. The popeday website simply mentioned that someone in LA had requested copies of the Love & Responsibility handout. But there was nothing in the calendar of the diocesan newspaper, so I couldn't connect with other young adults.

But I decided to do my own Pope Day activity: hand out the L&R article on the streets of Los Angeles! I went to Kinko's and made 25 copies. When I approached people, I first would initiate a conversation with one of the following:
* Could I ask you a question? What do you know about Pope John Paul II?
* I have something I'm handing out for free. You don't have to take it if you don't want to. It's about the teachings of the Pope on sexuality, which most people have never seen. When people start paying attention to this message, it's going to turn the Church on its head (sounds exciting, doesn't it? What communist wouldn't be interested in that?)

Some of the recipients so far:
- a guy sitting next to me at the Kinko's in Burbank
- a gay man on Hollywood Boulevard who propositioned me as I approached him (there's a screenplay here... PG-13); he thought that the Pope had already died
- a intelligent-looking woman standing in front of the Chinese Theater waiting for a friend; she told me that the only thing she knew about the Pope was that the Vatican was ticked that the Pope got overlooked for the Nobel Peace Prize
- the entrance to a big porn shop on Hollywood Boulevard (just threw it across the entryway)
- a guy who had stepped out of a trendy bar in Los Feliz for a smoke

Almost always, people have been curious. And three of them genuinely thanked me for the chance to read what the Pope actually has said.

So God's grace is active, even in the bowels of the Hollywood dragon.

Have a blessed Pope Day!

In Christ,

Clayton

Ah, the lusty zeal of youth...

Labels: John Paul II, theology of the body

is not a very winning strategy in attempting to explain the Church's moral teaching.

I started to think about this during a pro-life rally on the steps of the capitol building in Saint Paul several years ago. It was the first time I'd seen this particular slogan on buttons and posters: God is pro-life.

Okay, obviously I believe that is true... but how does that help to persuade the not-convinced? There are several things that make this slogan ineffective and unhelpful:

• it is easily perceived as triumphalistic, and as a way to express a smug sense that "my way is God's way"
• it makes no appeal to human reason, thus shutting non-believers out of the conversation and giving the impression that the pro-life position is merely a credal position, rather than a human one
• it simply invites the not-persuaded to pull out their own theological trump card, God is pro-choice, and now we've established the setting for a sequel to Homer's Iliad, with warring gods duking it out

Of course, the slogan God is pro-life does have this in its favor: it could cause pro-choicers to reflect on the fact that they are not God. But, of course, pro-lifers share the same metaphysical situation...

I bring this up by way of introducing a conversation that I recently had with the "not-convinced" about another hot-button issue -- namely , the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. My hope is that we can learn from mistakes made in other debates, such as the pro-life debate, in which the theological trump card has shown itself to be ineffective.

So what are the lessons learned? Firstly, that not every assertion that is true is helpful in advancing the conversation. Secondly, that in dialogue with the non-convinced (religious or otherwise), we have to find some common ground... and so the best approach is to situate the debate within the realm of this question: What does it mean to be human? This was one of the great insights of the Second Vatican Council and, in particular, of John Paul II.

What follows are some excerpts from the dialogue I recently had in a comments box on Dreadnought's website.

* * * * * * *

A priest having a sexual relationship that is non-exploitative (= (i) with an adult, and (ii) outside any pastoral or hierarchical context) obviously literally breaks his vow of celibacy, but on the scale of sin it is at the extreme minor end, analogous to a speeding fine for driving slightly over the limit, *and* in circumstances where no harm was done.
Paul Watson

Paul,

You said: A priest having a sexual relationship that is non-exploitative (= (i) with an adult, and (ii) outside any pastoral or hierarchical context) obviously literally breaks his vow of celibacy, but on the scale of sin it is at the extreme minor end, analogous to a speeding fine for driving slightly over the limit, *and* in circumstances where no harm was done.

The Church understands Christ - and those configured to him in the ordained priesthood - as spouses of the Church. 

So breaking the commitment to celibacy is a form of adultery. Are you equating adultery with a speeding ticket?
Clayton

Clayton wrote: [A priest] breaking the commitment to celibacy is a form of adultery. Are you equating adultery with a speeding ticket?

Clayton, "adultery" is a rather medieval word that seems to gave no application to gay sex (since the is no such thing a gay marriage) apart from the metaphorical sense in which you use it (being a "spouse of the Church" can't ever be physically sexual, anyway - so it's a dumb metaphor.)

OTOH, I'm NOT saying that (i) gay sex has its own in-built license, or (ii) medieval concepts should automatically be presumed obsolete. A priest having gay sex (with a (i) non-priest (ii) adult) will be much less likely to be exploitative than his having hetero sex with a woman, because the latter will most likely have a pastoral overlap (see my above comment). 

What matters, in the end, is that the priest does his job well –and if having sex is going to in any way compromise this, then obviously, the job must come first. The medieval absolutism of celibacy has long been effective in policing the boundaries here, but in 2005, it is somewhat of a once-size-fits-all, blunt instrument.

My really big problem with an absolutist approach to celibacy is the license/succour it indirectly gives to child-abusing priests. Spare me the "spouse of the Church" guff – what really matters is that a priest raping children is very, very bad, and not remotely in the same category as a priest having non-exploitative sex. And if you don’t admit this, then it is tantamount to endorsing the *former* as a relative speeding ticket, in the scheme of things.
Paul Watson

Paul,

If adultery is a medieval word, what is it doing all over the Old Testament? Why is it, with the concept of covenant, thematically essential to the Torah? By the way, gay sex existed back then too. See the story of Sodom in the book of Genesis.

Clerical celibacy is not just a functional reality to keep expenses down for the Church, or to keep Church politics cleaner. If it were embraced solely for either of these reasons, obviously, the time would have come to dispense with it. As John Paul II took great care to explain in his Theology of the Body during a series of Wednesday audiences, celibacy exists to give a prophetic witness to the fact that sex and marriage do not exhaust our human calling, but that both are sacramental realities along the way to the final state that will be shared by all and with all. Without celibacy, the world lacks a witness to remind us that marriage is not our destiny but an essential part of the human pilgrimage toward beatitude. Without marriage, we have no point-of-entry, no sign reminding us of the total, fruitful, faithful love that awaits us in the kingdom of heaven.

To dispense with celibacy is to dispense with marriage, and vice versa. They are indispensable witnesses for each other.

Your suggestion that mandatory clerical celibacy must necessarily foster an environment in which some children are sexually abused by priests is a canard, since the rate of sexual abuse of children - undeniably a grave sin - happens with at least equal frequency with married men.

Your criteria for a sexual ethic ("non-exploitative sex") is tenuous at best. It could be argued that gay sex is essentially exploitative, regardless of one's relationships or commitments. It does not respect the human vocation to love in the image of God. I know these are fighting words, but spare me any vapid accusations of homophobia. To be a homosexual is not a sin. To engage in homosexual activity is a sin... since it does not respect the finality and vocation of those who engage in it. The human person is not destined for union with another who is metaphysically identical, but with an Other. To say otherwise is to endorse a form of atheism.
Clayton

Clayton – yes, I know that the world turned even before medieval times; I was using the word “medieval” as shorthand for a relatively brutal and inflexible ideological system. To extend my previous example, comparing clerical celibacy with car speeding fines/crimes. You maintain, as I understand it, that the former is black+white, but latter properly has shades of grey. Indeed, the current orthodoxies of the Vatican and our Western criminal justice system, respectively, confirm as much.

But what if we step outside these orthodoxies into cold applied philosophy? Specifically, if you accept that driving a speeding car, will, at its extreme end, almost certainly kill, so resulting in life-imprisonment (or worse) for the offending driver – why should a line (much less a whole series of lines) be drawn to say that driving slightly over the limit (and in circumstances where no harm was done) is any less serious? After all, it’s all just one big continuum/slippery-slope.

In other words, applying your celibacy matrix to car speeding fines/crimes would necessarily result in slightly-over-the-limit speeders getting mandatory life-imprisonment (or worse). I’m not saying that this – or hence you – would be absolutely wrong and ludicrous. In medieval times/mindsets, harsh and inflexible laws are, by definition, the way to go. What does trouble me though, Clayton, is that you seem to be having it both ways: in the bedroom, priests live in medieval times, while on the roads, they live under Enlightenment rules.
Paul Watson

Paul,

After reading your comments through several times, I think I get your drift, although I disagree with it, even on the level of philosophy. As an aside, I wasn't aware that philosophy came in a cold, hard variety -- must be a reference to the Enlightenment... when philo + sophia (love of wisdom) became something akin to love of data, thanks to nominalism and the like.

Returning to your comparison of traffic law infractions with infractions of the natural law... I would say that they differ not only in degree, but in kind. It's not a slippery slope... any more than calling apples oranges is a slippery slope... this is really a failure to make essential distinctions.

The ethics of human sexual behavior is a matter that depends on an anthropology and a determination of what is essentially human. It's not a matter of positing a particular creed, but of a shared understanding of the nature of the human person. To violate this law is to violate something universal and essential to the good of the human person.

The ethics of behavior on the roadways depends on how a society decides to order itself. To be sure, the laws established are aimed at protecting the good of individuals and a society, but particular traffic laws vary from state to state, country to country... and so there is no one way to behave on the roadways that is absolute and binding on all persons. Such laws bind within a particular, limited context.
Clayton


Clayton said: Gay sex is essentially exploitative, regardless of one's relationships or commitments. It does not respect the human vocation to love in the image of God.
There you have it. This is the kind of spiritual violence the Church commits against gay people over and over again, the ongoing effort to dehumanize us. Obviously, the Church does not want its gay sheep to breathe and live as WHOLE human beings. A healthy expression of one's sexuality is of course only a part of being whole, but it is a crucial part. However, Orthodoxy teaches that homosexuals' most intimate feelings can never, ever express Love. This is not 'human flourishing', it's a cruel, cold, cynical and inhuman attempt to control people. It's a lie, plain and simple. 
Dreadnought's descriptions of sex are indicative of how sad sexuality can become when you put it in a box and call it Lust. All that's left is an animal-like sort of fornication, void of any human connection...or so it seems. Some dark urge, one has to compulsively give in to when it becomes too strong. And then off we go again to the priest to confess our sins and be forgiven. And don't start with me about anti-Catholic bigotry, as a gay man from a Protestant background I've known this mechanism (although in a different form) personally. I know from experience how harmful, destructive and unethical this really is.
The Truth is, this type of doctrine has not in the least anything to do with morality at all. Nor is it based on Scripture, nor on the teachings of Christ. It has to do with imposing guilt, shame, and taking away responsibility.
Vincent

Vincent said: This is the kind of spiritual violence the Church commits against gay people over and over again, the ongoing effort to dehumanize us. Obviously, the Church does not want its gay sheep to breathe and live as WHOLE human beings. A healthy expression of one's sexuality is of course only a part of being whole, but it is a crucial part. However, Orthodoxy teaches that homosexuals' most intimate feelings can never, ever express Love. This is not 'human flourishing', it's a cruel, cold, cynical and inhuman attempt to control people. It's a lie, plain and simple.

I'm aware that the Church's teaching about sex and marriage is not received as "good news" by many in the homosexual community. And my personal view is that the Church has not been very effective in demonstrating how her teaching does not oppress, but actually liberates the person with same-sex attractions. To do so, I think the conversation has to shift from the sinfulness of certain acts to the question of what, intrinsically, a sin is (missing the mark) and how the activity in question misses the mark. It has to address the question: what is the good, truth and beauty of striving toward that mark. Sin has become such a loaded word, carrying a heavy emotional payload not because of what it means, but because of the way it is sometimes used, as leverage over and against other people, as a spiritual trump card of sorts in an argument. It would be helpful to move beyond this way of talking about sin, which is surely not producing much in the way of fruitful dialogue. To say, "God finds gay sex to be deplorable" is like saying "God finds abortion to be deplorable." Both statements are true, and can be supported from the scriptures and early patristic texts like the Didache, but noting all of this does not advance the dialogue.

A better method might be this: let the believer and the unbeliever in the Church's teaching about sex both agree to consider a viewpoint not their own... for the sake of the dialogue. This isn't a matter of giving up one's convictions, but of each party creating an opening by which a dialogue can take place. Perhaps the other person is saying something I have not heard yet, and may even be saying something that is true. I think one has to adopt this attitude for a dialogue to go anywhere. And I think, in too many cases, on both sides of the argument there are not enough efforts to adopt this sort of attitude, as it is hard work, requires a certain discipline of the emotions and a certain reining in of the ego... and - most importantly - requires a readiness to take the risk of positing that the other person could have my best interests at heart, and could be seriously interested in the question of what is good, true, and beautiful.... in other words, it requires a mutual trust. We're never going to lay a framework for discussion without this... as the breach of trust between persons goes to the heart of human woundedness. When the serpent convinced Eve that God was not a loving Father, but a cruel oppressor, everything began to crumble into suspicion and fear.
Clayton

Clayton said: The Church has not been very effective in demonstrating how her teaching does not oppress, but actually liberates the person with same-sex attractions.

Well, I'm all for dialogue, but so far I've never heard any Orthodox explanation (from all branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelicals, Russian Orthodox) that makes it clear what kind of 'liberation' it is they're meaning. Even on this blog, while John is very effective in explaining the Church's teachings, it remains completely clouded how this is supposed to work in real life. So far, anyone who challenges him or tries to engage in dialogue is labeled as enemy, Nietschzean, or moral relativist. 

For me, it comes down to this: if the Church thinks I cannot express my deepest inclinations, then this denies my dignity and my conscience. It means assenting to it will always result only in misery and self-loathing. And of course, the occassional 'rumpy pumpy' because I'll always lose the fight with Lust. I hope you understand I don't want that kind of life. I chose to live as a free man.
Vincent

Vincent,

You're right to aspire for freedom. The question of the hour is: in what does freedom consist? What brings true liberty to the human person? This is a fundamentally human question... one not predicated on one's sexual orientation, or one's creed.

I also appreciate your question about "how is this supposed to work in real life?" That is an essential question. I think John Paul II has at least arrived at the proper method of coming up with the answer, with his use of personalism and phenomenology, which makes an explicit appeal to human experience as something that reveals the truth about the person. Now it is up to the members of this generation to bring about an integration of faith and practice that makes sense. 

I would suggest that there are two things that bear examination: the inclinations of the human heart, and its aspirations. I think they're different. Every human person has inclinations that, at times, conflict with their aspirations (the ideals, values, goals on which one sets his sights). So how does one work out this conflict?

I won't try to answer your whole question here. Instead, I'll simply point in what I believe might be the right direction: your dignity is most fully expressed by your aspirations and -- in a qualified way -- by your inclinations as well. What is the essential aspiration of the human heart? To love and to be loved. See C.S. Lewis essay, The Weight of Glory, for more on this.

There is no reason for you to loathe yourself, and certainly Christ does not loathe the work of his hands. Lust does not have the final word on how our lives play out... so do not grow discouraged by human weakness. In Christ, there is genuine freedom and strength to live according to one's aspirations... that is the constant refrain of John Paul II.
Clayton

Clayton,

I appreciate your response. I agree with you one's aspirations ultimately are more important than one's inclinations. But...to be able to aspire for anything, one needs to be honest about one's self. It is vital for the human soul to live in openness, honesty and authenticity, to live in Light. I also agree wholeheartedly the essential aspiration of the human heart is to love and be loved.
Vincent

* * * * * * *

Obviously this discussion hasn't solved the world's problems... but at least it had the merits of a dialogue, of a conversation that could actually go somewhere, rather than getting stuck in an endless circuit of accusations.

Labels: dialogue, homosexuality, theology of the body

I think that is the common view of beauty - that it is merely a subjective response made by the individual. Of course, already this view is a bit tenuous... as it assumes that there is no such thing as authentic subjectivity, a subjectivity which could actually unite people. The idea that our response to beauty can be a shared experience... that truth, goodness and beauty are not just constructs, but actual realities to be encountered by the human person... is a very rich notion, and something which I think lies at the very foundation of John Paul II's Theology of the Body. JPII again and again intimates that we are capable of an authentic subjectivity -- that is, that our experience can actually point us to what is true... it doesn't leave us isolated in the likes/dislikes of our own sweating selves, but can instead be an authentic value-response to the True, Good, and Beautiful.

It seems that John Paul II was very much influenced by the work of Dietrich von Hildebrand on questions of aesthetics... see Thomas Howard's summary of von Hildebrand's thought for more details. My hunch is that one of the strongest contributions to the question of beauty and value-response given to us by the late John Paul II has its origins in this great 20th century thinker who was also a personal friend of both JPII and one of my teachers, Dr. Joseph Seifert, of the International Academy of Philosophy in Lichtenstein.

I took a class from Dr. Seifert during my semester in Austria as part of my studies in Franciscan University's semester-abroad program. The class, entitled Metaphysics of the Human Person, probably had as great an influence on my worldview as any course I took during my undergraduate program. An integral part of the course was an understanding that aesthetics is not a merely subjective endeavor. Some works of art are objectively more good/true/beautiful than others... whether it be music, something depicted in the plastic arts, etc. The year I studied under him, Seifert wrote an essay on The Objectivity of Beauty in Music and a Critique of Aesthetic Subjectivism, which naturally flowed into his class lectures. I like to describe Seifert's presentations as part lecture, part meditation, part contemplation. The whole approach was really irritating to those who just wanted to get the necessary notes and move on to the final exam.

Dr. Seifert's own work does not focus primarily on aesthetics. His primary inspiration regarding questions of beauty, it seems, comes from the extensive work of von Hildebrand on aesthetics, a work that has yet to be translated from the German.

Von Hildebrand was truly one of the great minds of the 20th century. I applied to the U of Dallas MA program in philosophy back in 1994, with the hope that one day I'd be able to help with translating von Hildebrand's work on aesthetics into English. But instead I entered the seminary, where I learned to appreciate beauty by its absence, and to suffer through liturgies that didn't rise above the level of what was subjectively satisfying to the liturgists...

Labels: theology of the body

Here's my guess, which I posted over at Democracy of the Dead...

If Benedict is as deliberate as John Paul II was in setting forth a catechetical vision for his pontificate, then I would expect Benedict's first encyclical to be about the Church as communion, something along the lines of his book, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today. I say this because this theme is not just one idea among others, it is a notion which offers a whole ethos from which to view the deposit of faith.

What John Paul II's Theology of the Body is to an understanding of the human family, Benedict's Theology of the Body of Christ may very well become to an understanding of the family of God, the Church.

Also, while John Paul II's primary emphasis has been on the acting person, with a particular focus on the acting man -- in other words, the creature -- as one with freedom and responsibility, I expect that Benedict's emphasis will continue to be on the acting God... that is, on the Creator and the primacy of His activity. Ratzinger's continual theme is how we have lost the sense of God's activity in the world, and that one of our primary mistakes - in the liturgy and in other areas - has been to rush in to fill some supposed void of activity on the part of God... and that we have stopped paying attention to what God is doing... in the liturgy, in the Church's life, and in the world.

Anybody else want to hazard a guess?

Labels: theology of the body

I know that this post over at Waiter Rant has circulated pretty widely in recent weeks, but I'm linking to it anyway, because it brings back vivid memories of my own days as a chaplain in a Level I trauma hospital, 10 years ago this summer. It was the Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) required of every seminarian.

Most of the guys told me to dread the experience, that I would be forced into interdenominational small groups with other Christian seminarians, likely facilitated by an angry ex-nun. My experience was nothing like that. It was without question the happiest three months of my formation for priesthood. For three months, I was free of the academic navel-gazing, the myopia of seminary politics, and anti-clerical hostility. Here was a place where I was surrounded by people with missionary hearts... and I think it's true that very diverse people can form community when they share a common mission. Especially if everyone has a good sense of humor.

I had a very diverse small group - the director of my program was Methodist, and then I had two Lutheran seminarians (a man and a woman) and a Unitarian woman, Nancy, who had studied under Rosemary Reuther (yikes). Strangely enough, the Unitarian and I became pretty good friends over the summer. She was much more orthodox than some of the faculty at my seminary. Every so often she would have an insight that came straight out of the Theology of the Body or the Gospel of Life, and I would say to her, "You know, the Pope said the same thing." It was my way of poking fun at her. I think it surprised her, and caused her to ask more questions. What I appreciated most about Nancy was that she wasn't constantly tripping over an agenda. One day she came to me and asked me if I could teach her how to pray the rosary, because she had Catholic patients that wanted to pray the rosary and she wanted to be able to minister to them. She really came to appreciate the value of the rosary over the course of that summer.

At the end of the program, each of us had to write a theological reflection paper about what we had learned from merging our theological studies with pastoral work in the hospital. I'm posting my theological integration paper here. Naturally, it references The Weight of Glory, which I had just discovered the previous spring.

Labels: church, moral life, prayer, priesthood, seminary, theology of the body, vocations

I just emerged from the theater in Westwood after seeing Bewitched. A full review will follow. But I'll just say: it's a must see for students of the Theology of the Body. It's not a great film in itself, but worth watching for its theme.

How cool it is to have a Hollywood movie poke fun at the culture of power and image, which is essentially a "witchcraft" of sorts! How remarkable that Tinseltown can produce a film that understands that what is essentially wrong with witchcraft (on the horizontal plane) is that it seeks to acquire love rather than to receive it, and that it fails because it substitutes domination over the other for the only thing that can really produce happiness, the sincere gift of self!

I'm not sure that I need to write a romantic comedy with TOB themes anymore. Nora Ephron... perhaps unwittingly, but quite effectively... has already done it.

Labels: movies, theology of the body

as the headlines about the Pope's teaching on marriage become, quite predictably, shrill expressions of shock and outrage.

I'm always amazed that the mainstream media can manage to pretend not to have heard this stuff before. Just how long can one sustain a reaction of surprise and moral indignation, before it stops helping to sell newspapers?

It is time for those of us who understand the Church's teaching to examine our consciences. Pope John Paul II has given us over twenty-five years of teaching about the divine plan for human love, its beauty and its dignity. It's a teaching that has many practical consequences. How ready are you and I, as members of the lay faithful, to respond to the questions of our friends, our co-workers, and all those we encounter in the marketplace of ideas, about the Church's teaching on human life and love? Are we ready to engage in dialogue with others about these most important questions? We really have no excuses for not being prepared. And if we're not prepared, I would say it's high time for a crash course in the Theology of the Body.

Labels: theology of the body

and sometimes the fruit of dialogue is modesty. I'd like to think that a recent dialogue with a fellow blogger produced the latter (more on this below).

Let me start by saying that authentic dialogue is a necessary part of the new evangelization envisioned by John Paul II; it's part of bearing the weight of our neighbor's glory, to borrow a line from C.S. Lewis. What exactly is authentic dialogue? I'll save that for another post. I might have more success defining it by what it is not. For now I'll just say that it involves at least three things: 1) a certain kind of asceticism; 2) a focused attention on what the other person is saying, and also on the good that the other person embodies (it is good simply that they exist); and 3) a firm intention to make a proper value-response to that person, despite anything that might counter-indicate that the other deserves it.

This leads me to my recent dialogue with John Heard, an Australian blogger I discovered through a link on Amy Welborn's site. John operates a blog called Dreadnought and describes himself this way: "sometime banker, former Newmaniac, probable lawyer, perpetual writer, gay, Catholic and conservative." The guy (who calls himself "Dread") clearly loves the Pope and the Church, and at the same time posts pictures of nude and semi-nude men that seem quite incongruous with his convictions. Anyway, I decided to invite a dialogue with him about the pictures, particularly in light of what John Paul II has to say about the matter in his Theology of the Body. The conversation covered a range of topics from the human body and pornography to iconoclasm and John Paul II. At times it got heated... accusations and personal attacks began to fly... but after things calmed down, I think it's safe to say that the conversation was worth the effort. Apparently Dread felt the same way, because he created a new post in which he references the dialogue that took place.

The Dreadnought blog can be found here, and our dialogue can be found here. NOTE: There are images on the blog that many will find objectionable. Our dialogue, I hope, is less objectionable.

In conclusion, I'll just say that the more I make efforts like this to engage people with whom I disagree, the more I am reminded of the wise words of Cardinal Newman: "It is not the way to learn to swim in troubled waters, never to have entered them." Be not afraid.

Labels: dialogue, theology of the body

A couple of years ago, a certain Michael Bayly printed an editorial in the St. Paul Pioneer Press entitled, Catholic Church: It's time to re-evaluate our views on human sexuality. In the article, he set up two straw men - Catholic Parents Online and the Suspend Abortion Compact - and I didn't feel he should get away with this, so I wrote him, hoping to start a dialogue. Dissenters are always speaking about dialogue, I thought to myself. Let's see just how interested Mr. Bayly is in dialogue.

So here is the correspondence that transpired between myself and Mr. Bayly:


Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:51:53 +0000
Subject: Opinion Page article: August 12 Pioneer Press

Dear Mr. Bayly:

I read your recent column in the Pioneer Press with great interest.

The title of the column was "It's time to re-evaluate our views on human sexuality." I definitely agree. Some of what you said within the article seemed quite penetrating and insightful; there were other assertions made, however, which I would be interested in discussing with you via some kind of dialogue (e-mail would be my preference).

So I have two questions for you:
1) Would you be open to having me ask a few questions of you?
2) If so, I would want to see the July 19 letter by Phyllis Plum that you reference in your column. I have been looking all over the Web for it without success. If you have a copy, could you forward it to me?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Clayton Emmer



From: "Michael Bayly"
Date: Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:37:46 PM US/Central
Subject: Re: Opinion Page article: August 12 Pioneer Press

Dear Clayton,

I'd be happy to correspond with you via e-mail re. my August 12 commentary.  Below are several other relevant pieces including both Ms. Plum's letter and Suspend Abortion Compact's open letter to Archbishop Flynn.

Peace, Michael
_______________________________________________

1) "Gay Debate Goes On" by Phyllis Plum (St. Paul Pioneer Press, July 19, 2003)
2) "The Voice of a Good Heart: An Interview with Kathy Itzin" by Michael Bayly (Rainbow Spiritóthe newsletter of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities [CPCSM])
3) An Open Letter to Archbishop Harry Flynn from the Suspend Abortion Compact (July 7, 2003)
4) "It is Time to Re-evaluate Our Views on Human Sexuality" by Michael Bayly (St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 12, 2003)
5) "CPO Does Not Speak for All Catholic Parents" by Michael Bayly and Mary Beckfeld (Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 5, 2003)
6) "Concerned Catholics to Stage Alternative Forum on Homosexuality" (Press Release from the Dignity Coalition, July 2003)



Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:27:23 +0000
Subject: Beginning a dialogue

Dear Michael,

I'm grateful that you are willing to engage in a dialogue with me. Thanks for sending along, in addition to Phyllis Plum letter, the additional five related articles; that was very generous of you.

I will need a day or so to read these carefully and then I will e-mail you again.

In the meantime, I thought I would introduce myself and let you know what I would hope for from a dialogue with you.

A brief overview of my background: I am 33 years old, an English Literature major, and a former serminarian for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. I studied for two-and-a-half years in the MDiv program at Saint Paul Seminary as part of my priestly formation. I currently work as a website manager and IT support person for a professional school in Saint Paul. Next month, I will be moving to Los Angeles to pursue a career in screenwriting and to serve as a missionary in the spiritual slums of Hollywood.

Ever since college, I have taken a strong interest in theology and pastoral practice. Thus, in recent years, I have been watching with great interest the debates and exchange that have been taking place in this Archdiocese over issues such as sexual orientation, the ordination of women, etc. So when I saw your article, I immediately wanted to enter the discussion.

For me, the way a discussion takes place is just as important as what is said. The principles of dialogue and respect are very important to me, and I hope they will govern the conversation that will take place between you and me. Charity must be at the center of the discussion - or else, all that is left is the clashing of cymbals (cf. 1 Cor 13).

So in preparation for our dialogue, I want to ask if you would please read the attached article by C.S. Lewis entitled "The Weight of Glory." Especially the last portion of the essay is significant, I think, for the process of dialogue:

"It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour's glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously - no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner - no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat - the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden." (CS Lewis, from The Weight of Glory)

Again, I look forward to our conversation. Thank you for your willingness to engage in a dialogue with me.

Let's pray for one another.

In Christ Jesus, our hope,
Clayton



Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:41:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Opinion Page article: August 12 Pioneer Press

Michael,
I haven't forgotten you, nor my promise to respond to the articles you sent me. Life has simply been so busy as I prepare to leave my current job that I haven't had time to respond. But the coming week should offer me a chance to write to you.

Having visited the CPCSM website this week, I'm aware of the friendship between CPCSM and Fr. Greg Tolaas. I imagine this week is a difficult one for you. While I didn't know Fr. Greg personally, everyone who speaks about him remembers his remarkable compassion.

I hope to be at the funeral this morning, and perhaps I can meet you in person at that time. If not, expect to hear from me next week.

In Christ, Clayton



Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:48:12 -0500
Subject: FW: Opinion Page article: August 12 Pioneer Press

Dear Michael,

I hope this e-mail finds you well.

I have finally settled in my new home in Los Angeles, and am ready to begin a dialogue with you regarding your August 12 Pioneer Press editorial, "It's time to re-evaluate our views on human sexuality."

As I said before, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the sentiment expressed in the title to your editorial. And Pope John Paul II subscribes to the sentiment as well.

I know of no twentieth-century thinker who has spent more time writing about this topic than John Paul II. In fact, the first 129 Wednesday audiences of his pontificate were spent on a detailed catechesis on human sexuality, which has now become known as the "Theology of the Body."

I have been studying these audiences with a group of young adults in the Twin Cities for the past two-and-a-half years, and it has completely revolutionized my understanding of the human person. Many young adults across this country apparently experience the same kind of awakening upon reading these audiences, or upon hearing a synthesis of the teaching provided by a man named Christopher West. Theology of the Body study groups are rising up and growing rapidly across this country.

With this background, I find it difficult to understand the following assertion that you made:
"When it comes to issues of human sexuality, members of CPO and, unfortunately, much of the leadership of the Catholic church, base their 'right' understanding on a worldview no longer relevant in light of contemporary findings in the human sciences. Accordingly, just as church teaching has changed on issues such as cosmology, the procreative process, slavery, usury, democracy and capital punishment, so too must the church re-evaluate its understanding of human sexuality."

First of all, I would caution against the generalization that the views of Catholic Parents Online represent those of much of the leadership of the Catholic church. It is a bit difficult to substantiate such a broad generalization.

Secondly, I am not sure I know what you're referring to when you say that church teaching has changed on the issue of the "procreative process."

Thirdly, I am not certain I would use the word "change" to describe the development of the Church's teaching in any of the other areas you mention. Are you familiar with John Henry Newman's work on the development of doctrine, or Pope John XXIII's address on October 11, 1962, which opened the Second Vatican Council?

Here is a small portion of the address:
"The manner in which sacred doctrine is spread, this having been established, it becomes clear how much is expected from the Council in regard to doctrine. That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.

Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that
must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character."

At any rate, I will be interested to know if you have already encountered the Theology of the Body, and if so, what you make of it. I've attached a couple of articles in Microsoft Word format, as well as the complete address by John XXIII.

I look forward to hearing from you, and I remember you in prayer.

Yours in Christ Jesus, Clayton Emmer



Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:11:46 -0600
Subject: Checking back in with you

Dear Michael,
I sent you this message a month ago. Did you receive it, and if so, did you have a chance to review any of the associated material? Just wanted to check in with you.

Sincerely, Clayton Emmer



Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:28:19 -0600
Subject: FW: Checking back in with you

Michael,

Now it has been nearly two months since I wrote to you and I have not received any acknowledgement of my correspondence. Please let me know if you received my message.

Regards, Clayton Emmer



Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:52:52 -0600
Subject: August 12 Pioneer Press article

Michael,

It has been over six months and I still have not heard from you. Are you no longer interested in a dialogue about your StarTribune editorial?
I hope to hear from you.

Regards, Clayton Emmer

Labels: dialogue, theology of the body