Talk:Theology of the Body

message: 8 April 2005
Greetings! I glean from the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_body
that 
" Theology of the Body refers to a series of 129 lectures given by Pope John Paul II during his Wednesday audiences in Rome between September 1979 and November 1984. These addresses were later compiled and published as a single work entitled The Theology of the Body According to John Paul II. The work covers such topics as the bodily dimension of the human person, the nature of human sexuality, the human need for communion, and the nature of marriage." 
I would be very grateful if someone who has read both this and the apology issued to women on the 10th of July,1995 start with a discussion on the position of the John Paul II....
Punam
I believe this is the 'apoogy' though that is not a term i would use for it, it is an address by JPII on and about  women's role in soceity and the church, here is the link 
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2WOM.HTM
89.240.136.186 14:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I originally became interested in this topic through my interest in fertility awareness methods of birth control.  I've found it easiest to read his lectures on my area of interest (contraception - the last section of TOTB), and have started a discussion of that section in the article.  There are a lot of lectures; I imagine that section of the article is going to have to be even more summarized than it is now, but am hoping that the most important points will begin to stand out as I read more of Pope John Paul II's meditations.
I'm hoping others will be interested in the other topics, for the area that discusses the content of TOTB.  For the commentary/impact section, I'm not sure even where to do research.  The delivery section is also very short and I'm not currently seeing how it could be expanded.  That might end up being put up in the introductory paragraph? Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   21:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement ideas?

message: Should there be a criticism section? I understand that a number of Catholic moral philosophers have criticized the Theology of the Body as resting on Kantian grounds or other grounds rather than making use of the traditional Aristotelian moral framework. I'm not particularly fluent in the substance of the debate, though. --Hyphen5 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only am I not fluent in the substance of the debate, I don't even know where to go to learn.  If someone has relevent resources, it would be very helpful if they posted them here. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: Doesn't JPII nead to appear in the title if this page is exclusively for his theology of the body. Where on wikipedia would we write other people's theology of the body? Maybe we need a page on the theology of the body that lists Christian theology, then catholic theology and then summarises this lecture series with a link to this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Just nigel  (talk • contribs) 06:58, 31 October 2006   (UTC)
:Unrelated or loosely related topics with similar names are generally dealt with through a disambiguation page.  Diaphragm is an example of a disambiguation page.  If one of the topics is much more utilized than another, then generally that page will get the main article namespace, with a hatnote linking to other uses of the name or to a disambiguation page. The Condom article, for example, is about the prophylactic device, but has a link at a top to the Wikipedia article on the town in France named "Condom".
:JPII's Theology of the Body seems to be the overwhelmingly most utilized use of the term.  I looked through the first forty hits for "Theology of the Body" on Google and every single one referred to JPII's work.  Not only is his work the only Theology of the Body article on Wikipedia - Wikipedia has an entire category devoted to Catholic teachings related to the subject.  So I do not think renaming the article would be appropriate. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: This section heading seems reductionist. He is not just exploring the issue of can marriages be disolved (a question the pahrisees ask) he is exploring the issue of how humans were created and for what humans were created and by whom humans were created - just as Jesus answers the Pharisees question by not getting into their patriachal issues of 'owning' a wife and by what means could a man break the contract - but pointing back to how God intended marraige to really be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Just nigel (talk • contribs) 07:02, 31 October 2006  (UTC)
:I got the headings from here and mainly meant them as placeholders until someone with more knowledge of the topic was able to expand the article.  If you have information to add, please be bold and feel free to change that or any other headings to better reflect the subject matter. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still learning the cultural sensativity of wiki. On one page I change something and people houl "discuss it first" on another page I list it first and they say be bold. I guess I am happy to make the change but list it here first one day to give others a chance to give their opinion if they know even better than me. I have now changed the title to "the christian ideal of marraige" we will see if others think that summarises it better. (Just nigel 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indissolubility of marriage

message: A more literal translation than the NIV should probably be chosen for the quotation of Matthew 19.  The NIV translations the Greek word *porneias* as "marital unfaithfulness," a meaning it never holds elsewhere in Scripture; notably, the NIV was translated by people who didn't believe in the indissolubility of marriage and their interpretive slant has informed their translation.  The ESV or NASB would be more literal translations with less embedded interpretation. Jemfinch 00:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NIV is a Protestant bible; Pope John Paul II, being a Roman Catholic, would not have consulted a Protestant bible, thus the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible quotes.--Geremia (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've switched the quotes to Douay-Rheims 1899 American ed.  Although to be fair, JPII probably would have consulted the Vulgate or the Neo-Vulgate (being the pope and all), or the most prominent Polish translation (for quick reference anyway).   Deus vult!   Crusadestudent (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of NIV translation

message: I thought I made a small contribution by adding citations to the Weigel quotes,  but then Irecognized something funny in two Weigel editions. 
Regarding the long term impact of the theology of the body, Weigel writes
In 1999:
It is a "kind of theological time bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences... perhaps in the 21st century."
In 2005:
It is a "kind of theological time bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences, sometime in the third millenium of the Church"
--:)
--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what's new, so am not in a position to improve this article.  I agree it needs a lot of work. LyrlTalk     C   22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weigel's long term view 

message: Let me be clear.  The link from remnant is not an acceptable external link.  It is merely a question and answer column (i.e., a glorified blog) whose answers make painfully obvious that inadequate (if any) fact checking goes on.  In addition, some of the comments there regarding West are borderline incoherent.  Per external links guidelines, please refrain from readding that link.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link to un-factchecked Q/A column 

message: Why is the NIV being used for Bible quotes instead of a Catholic Bible?  I somewhat doubt JP II used the NIV.  --Shanedidona (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because the editors of this article (including myself) don't know any better.  Feel free to be bold and edit the article to use more appropriate translations. LyrlTalk     C   01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has this change been made? I would think New American Bible Revised Edition might be a good option --PhotographerTom (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

text:  Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition is very good too.   Deus vult!   Crusadestudent (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: PhotographerTom I've switched the quotes to DRA.   Deus vult!   Crusadestudent (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you!  --PhotographerTom (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: NIV

message: I don't really have the time to work on this article, and I expect it to be a massive and difficult undertaking as I have read JPII's "A Theology of the Body", his "Love and Responsibility" and a bunch of Christopher West's stuff for good measure and this isn't the easiest stuff to understand, nevermind summarize. But I'll start a section of some resources that might help to shed a bit of light on JPII and his Theology of the Body. They might not be good to quote from in the article itself, but may help to understand things a bit better. Hopefully others will be able to add more resources and eventually pull something together out of all of this.
1. For background, it would be good to read Karol Wojtyla's "Love and Responsibility", which was quite influential on Paul VI when he wrote Humanae Vitae. Even a short summary might be useful:
[]
In some ways Humanae Vitae was an unfinished work - something that would be finished by JPII in the series of Wednesday addresses later gathered together as "A Theology of the Body."
2. I noticed some people are having problems with various wording in the press articles. If you can get your hands on the new translation from the original Polish notes(Man and Woman He created them)  most of these problems should disappear as there are numerous translation anomalies resulting from Italian to English translation of the original addresses.
3. Christopher West is a great resource for an introduction to understanding TOB, but I doubt you will find him a great reference for the article, unless you want 'secondary opinion' sort of stuff.
[] 
4. For a more historical perspective (may be more useful) Fr. Richard Hogan may be a good starting point. He's a historian, and has written a couple of books on JPII and TOB.  []
5. I'll put this here as I don't have time to reference this, so, yes the central idea of JPII is that the body and it alone is capable of making visible the invisible - ie, the person, and to go deeper - God. JPII uses tools of phenomenology to re-explain Christianity. He uses our subjective experience as human persons to reveal what it means to be a human, and to reveal the purpose of embodiment in the divine plan. He refers to God as the Divine Subject - (when he was working on his PhD he was teased about it; at the time God was known as the Divine Object). His work is probably the most important rephrasing of the Christian faith since Thomas Aquinas moved it from the Platonic to Aristotelian worldview.
[]
Wanfactor (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TOB Resources

message: 1. Re-organize the 6 summary topics into two groups of three. First group for Christian Anthropology, Second group for applications to sexuality and marriage issues
2. Within the first group on anthropology, a topic for original man (Genesis 2:22-24), historical man (Matt 5:27-28), and eschatological man.
3. Update scripture references to use the same biblical translations that the Pope used when translating his encyclicals to English.
4. Change the reference for "the body and it alone makes visible the invisible..." to come straight from TOB 18 (original source) rather than Christopher West
5. In the introductory Matt 5:19 exposition, include a quotation from TOB where JPII says that when Jesus says "In the beginning it was not so...", he does more than answer a juridico-casuistic question from the Pharisees - he invites everyone present and future to meditate on "the beginning" when approaching all questions of sexual and marital morality. Relate meditation on the beginning to "original man" before the fall.
6. Change the name of the "adultery" section to the situation of "historical man" and how Matt 5:27-28 includes primarily an efficacious invitation to rise above lust rather than simply a condemnation of adultery and accusation of lust.
7. Change the "contraception" section to "Reflections on Humanae Vitae"
If this is okay with others, I'll do the changes in a week or so.
Wanfactor (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you have a lot of knowledge and a good plan.  I'm sure whatever changes you make to the article will be a big improvement. LyrlTalk     C   22:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes

message: That this neo-Tantric heresy should have been written by a Pope is utterly shocking. I am sure the Holy Spirit will survive being wrapped up in this cosmic fantasy, but the Church is in for some rocky times if this work gets any traction on high. Here's praying!
: Not sure what you're referring to.  Could you explain?  Also, is this relevant for the wiki?  Should there be a section added under Criticisms?   Deus vult!   Crusadestudent (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic Tantrism

message: I think Wanfactor's ideas for improving this article are good. This article is rated high importance and I agree with that rating. Engaged couples wanting to marry in the Church in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami are required to learn about Theology of the Body at a retreat before they can be approved. There are a lot of people who could benefit from a nice, one page Wikipedia style summary of the topic. Wanfactor, if you wish to work with me on this project, please post a note on my talk page or email me at the link found on my userpage. Thanks. NancyHeise  talk 01:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wanfactor's ideas

message: I am working on editing the page to add a new section about the Philosophical Context. I plan to discuss Descartes, Bacon, and Kant. Please let me know if you have any input or would recommend including other philosophers that influenced Wojtyla in his writing. 
UMWmelissa (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I sincerely hope that this section is based on reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your hard work. It is truly informative, and insightful. I wholeheartedly agree with you that these are related to this series of lectures. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

text: However, I sadly at the same time have qualms about their inclusion in this article. Yes, these Enlightenment thinkers should be included in a research paper on Pope John Paul II's TOB. But Wikipedia isnt a research paper. Im not saying that this inclusion is culpable of WP:ORIGINAL. My lamentation is something more on the lines of WP:NOT case studies or WP:NOTLAB. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical context