Quick Links: Letter, Hungry for More, Moral Authority, Making the Connection, Further Reading, Next Steps

 

Hungry for More: Letter Eleven

In our culture, the idea of self-control can easily be condemned as “repression” in psychological terminology, something hurtful, inhibiting free expression of self. In truth, self-control must be understood in terms of knowledge of: one’s own body; the body of one’s spouse; what our bodies were made for; and the discernment between sexual goodness and satanic deception, which breaks down moral boundaries and creates chaos in our lives.

Concupiscence 

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus directs our attention to the interior aspect of our sexuality. To even look upon a woman with lust is an interior, spiritual act equal in gravity to the physical. This unholy gaze wells up from an interior concupiscence.  Concupiscence is, therefore, not located in the body, but in the heart. Adam and Eve had to hide their bodies from one another, not because something is shameful about the body, but because of the unholy gaze, and their own concupiscence.  

In God’s punishment of Eve, God tells her that her “desire” will be for her husband, but he shall rule over her. That word “desire” only occurs one other time in the Bible, and it is in the next chapter (Genesis 4:7) where God warns Cain that “sin is crouching at the door, and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Here, “desire” definitely means “desire to dominate, or devour.” With Eve, it means sexual desire in the context of childbirth, but certainly carries with it, in the greater context of these two chapters, the meaning “to dominate.” Domination, whether it is man over woman, or woman over man, is the result of the Fall and is not in God’s original design.

Concupiscence is an interior impulse to use the body to dominate the other. In fact, sex is often more about domination than mere pleasure. God challenged Cain to master sin.  This challenge to master sin implies that we must do so or be devoured by sin.  Self-control is essential to our physical and spiritual well-being. To fail is to fall into the moral chaos of devouring and being devoured.

Within the human psyche, because of our interior disposition of concupiscence, we blame the body for our moral instability. We see this in societies where women are sequestered in the back rooms of their homes and are shrouded from head to foot when they go out in public. This locates sin in women and in their bodies, seemingly absolving men of any responsibility. The real issue of concupiscence is never recognized as the underlying problem. It is a matter of self-control for both men and women.

Having said this, modesty in dress displays an interior self-control, and is the opposite of concupiscence. Dressing immodestly stimulates others, which can be stimulating to the dresser, therefore, causing concupiscence in all involved. This brings attention to the body, devoid of spiritual integrity. Modesty speaks the truth through our bodies; “my body is not yours to gaze upon.” The Catechism is especially instructive on modesty:

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet. 

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitation of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

Therefore, we must resist this interior urge of concupiscence and immodesty on every level or it can break out into full flame, as the Catechism warns us:

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

Though our bodies have fallen from their natural glory, the body has not lost its power to express its original purpose. The body is still an expression of the spirit, bearing the imago dei, both in its male and female aspects, with power to express the deep meaning of human existence. This is objectively demonstrated by reciprocity between man and woman, the true balance of mutual two-sided exchange of self gifting.

All this comes through self-control. Self-control bestows upon its possessors the glory of true freedom. Concupiscence enslaves, spiraling into an insatiability that deadens our whole being, body and soul, reducing us to shame. This is behind St. Paul’s admonition, “Do not let sin rule in your mortal bodies (Romans 6:12).”  A little further on St. Paul gives us another way of imagining self-control: “I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (Gk. latreian, from which we get our word “liturgy,” Romans 12:1).” Notice what we are to do with our bodies: present them to God and to one another as a self-gift, a liturgical act.

This struggle of self-control is essential to our salvation, as the Catechism explains: 

1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us “holy and without blemish,” just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is “holy and without blemish.” Nevertheless, the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.

The embers of sin or concupiscence are left in the baptized and cannot harm those who do not consent to it. The Church has never understood concupiscence as a sin, but that it comes from sin and inclines to sin. Concupiscence is a disorder of the emotions coming from original sin and leads to personal sin. The emotions are good and are real; to deny them allows the devil to work.

Since every sinful act involves an inherent act of concupiscence and pride, it’s worth seeing the exact opposite in Jesus. Jesus shows us the two contrary elements, humility and poverty, contrary to the two elements of a sinful act.

The impact of sexual concupiscence

In Jesus’ teaching, purity of heart appears as an irrevocable condition for being able to attain the higher obedience demanded by Jesus for entry into the kingdom of heaven. It has to be said: this does not remotely mean that a beautiful woman (or handsome man) may not be admired as such; rather, what is attacked is ‘desiring’ the other in the heart (Matthew 5:28) in such a way as to make that person an object of our thoughts, allowing ourselves to be drawn into considering them as a sexual object for our own sexual gratification. We should recall that the new law of Jesus is much more demanding than the old law, but that the new law, more radically, is fulfilled by the interior action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit operates in the heart of the believer, so as to render him capable of living in coherence with Jesus’ more demanding teaching.

In conclusion, concupiscence is a result of our fallen human nature. Fallen humanity does not mean that God’s good creation, including human sexuality, has ceased to be good in its essence, but it warns us that living as sexual human beings is not easy. We must be realistic, so that we recognize the dangers of falling into egoism and sin, of undermining the good which we should be pursuing through our moral acts. This applies to all of us, whether our vocation is to marriage, to consecrated virginity, to clerical celibacy, or to a single life more generally. 

Return to top of page

 1 John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, trans. Michael Waldstein (Boston, Massachusetts: Pauline Books & Media, 2006), 253.

2 Ibid., 258

3 Ibid., 261

Moral Authority

 

1Cor 9:24-27 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we are an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Rev 21:27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life

Col 3:5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: immorality, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

James 1: 12-15 Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

Catechism

2514 St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life. In the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another’s goods.

2517 The heart is the seat of moral personality: “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication…” The struggle against carnal covetousness entails purifying the heart and practicing temperance:

Remain simple and innocent, and you will be like little children who do not know the evil that destroys man’s life.

2534 The tenth commandment unfolds and completes the ninth, which is concerned with concupiscence of the flesh. It forbids coveting the goods of another, as the root of theft, robbery, and fraud, which the seventh commandment forbids. “Lust of the eyes” leads to the violence and injustice forbidden by the fifth commandment. Avarice, like fornication, originates in the idolatry prohibited by the first three prescriptions of the Law. The tenth commandment concerns the intentions of the heart; with the ninth, it summarizes all the precepts of the Law.

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty respects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity, It is discreet. 

Vatican Documents

 DE  – EN  – ES  – FR  – IT  – PT

GENERAL AUDIENCE Pope John Paul II

Wednesday 2 April 1980

 Marriage in the Integral Vision of Man

The Gospels according to Matthew and Mark report the answer Christ gave to the Pharisees when they questioned him about the indissolubility of marriage. They referred to the law of Moses, which in certain cases admitted the practice of the so-called certificate of divorce. Reminding them of the first chapters of Genesis, Christ answered: “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What, therefore, God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Then, referring to their question about the law of Moses, Christ added: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:3ff.; cf. Mk 12:2ff.). In his answer, Christ referred twice to the “beginning.” Therefore we, too, in the course of our analyses, have tried to clarify in the deepest possible way the meaning of this “beginning.” It is the first inheritance of every human being in the world, man and woman. It is the first attestation of human identity according to the revealed word, the first source of the certainty of man’s vocation as a person created, in the image of God himself.

Christ’s reply has a historical meaning, but not only a historical one. People of all times raise the question on the same subject. Our contemporaries also do so. But in their questions they do not refer to the law of Moses, which admitted the certificate of divorce, but to other circumstances and other laws. These questions of theirs are charged with problems, unknown to Christ’s interlocutors. We know what questions concerning marriage and the family were addressed to the last Council, to Pope Paul VI, and are continually formulated in the post-conciliar period, day after day, in the most varied circumstances. They are addressed by single persons, married couples, fiances and young people. But they are also addressed by writers, journalists, politicians, economists and demographers, in a word, by contemporary culture and civilization.

I think that among the answers that Christ would give to the people of our time and to their questions, often so impatient, the one he gave to the Pharisees would still be fundamental. Answering those questions, Christ would refer above all to the “beginning.” Perhaps he would do so all the more resolutely and essentially in that the interior and at the same time the cultural situation of modern man seems to be moving away from that beginning. It is assuming forms and dimensions which diverge from the biblical image of the beginning into points that are clearly more and more distant.

However, Christ would not be surprised by any of these situations, and I suppose that he would continue to refer mainly to the beginning. For this reason, Christ’s answer called for an especially thorough analysis. In that answer, fundamental and elementary truths about the human being, as man and woman, were recalled. It is the answer through which we catch a glimpse of the structure of human identity in the dimensions of the mystery of creation and, at the same time, in the perspective of the mystery of redemption. Without that there is no way of constructing a theological anthropology and, in its context, a theology of the body. From this the fully Christian view of marriage and the family takes its origin. Paul VI pointed this out when, in his encyclical dedicated to the problems of marriage and procreation in its responsible meaning on the human and Christian planes, he referred to the “total vision of man” (Humanae Vitae 7). In the answer to the Pharisees, Christ also put forward to his interlocutors this “total vision of man,” without which no adequate answer can be given to questions connected with marriage and procreation. This total vision of man must be constructed from the beginning.

This applies also to the modern mentality, just as it did, though in a different way, to Christ’s interlocutors. We are children of an age in which, owing to the development of various disciplines, this total vision of man may easily be rejected and replaced by multiple partial conceptions. Dwelling on one or other aspect of the compositum humanum, these do not reach man’s integrum, or they leave it outside their own field of vision. Various cultural trends then take their place. On the basis of these partial truths, these trends formulate their proposals and practical indications on human behavior and, even more often, on how to behave with “man.” Man then becomes more an object of determined techniques than the responsible subject of his own action. The answer Christ gave to the Pharisees also wishes man, male and female, to be this subject. This subject decides his own actions in the light of the complete truth about himself, since it is the original truth, or the foundation of genuinely human experiences. This is the truth that Christ makes us seek from the beginning. Thus we turn to the first chapters of Genesis.

The study of these chapters, perhaps more than of others, makes us aware of the meaning and the necessity of the theology of the body. The beginning tells us relatively little about the human body, in the naturalistic and modern sense of the word. From this point of view, in our study we are at a completely pre-scientific level. We know hardly anything about the interior structures and the regularities that reign in the human organism. However, at the same time, perhaps precisely because of the antiquity of the text, the truth that is important for the total vision of man is revealed in the most simple and full way. This truth concerns the meaning of the human body in the structure of the personal subject. Subsequently, reflection on those archaic texts enables us to extend this meaning of the whole sphere of human inter-subjectivity, especially in the perennial man-woman relationship. Thanks to that, we acquire with regard to this relationship a perspective which we must necessarily place at the basis of all modern science on human sexuality, in the bio-physiological sense. That does not mean that we must renounce this science or deprive ourselves of its results. On the contrary, it can teach us something about the education of man, in his masculinity and femininity, and about the sphere of marriage and procreation. If it is to do so, it is necessary – through all the single elements of contemporary science – always to arrive at what is fundamental and essentially personal, both in every individual, man or woman, and in their mutual relations.

It is precisely at this point that reflection on the ancient text of Genesis is irreplaceable. It is the beginning of the theology of the body. The fact that theology also considers the body should not astonish or surprise anyone who is aware of the mystery and reality of the Incarnation. Theology is that science whose subject is divinity. Through the fact that the Word of God became flesh, the body entered theology through the main door. The Incarnation and the redemption that springs from it became also the definitive source of the sacramentality of marriage, which we will deal with at greater length in due time.

The questions raised by modern man are also those of Christians – those who are preparing for the sacrament of marriage or those who are already living in marriage, which is the sacrament of the Church. These are not only the questions of science, but even more, the questions of human life. So many men and so many Christians seek the accomplishment of their vocation in marriage. So many people wish to find in it the way to salvation and holiness.

The answer Christ gave to the Pharisees, zealots of the Old Testament, is especially important for them. Those who seek the accomplishment of their own human and Christian vocation in marriage are called, first of all, to make this theology of the body, whose beginning we find in the first chapters of Genesis, the content of their life and behavior. How indispensable is a thorough knowledge of the meaning of the body, in its masculinity and femininity, along the way of this vocation! A precise awareness of the nuptial meaning of the body, of its generating meaning, is necessary. This is so since all that forms the content of the life of married couples must constantly find its full and personal dimension in life together, in behavior, in feelings! This is all the more so against the background of a civilization which remains under the pressure of a materialistic and utilitarian way of thinking and evaluating. Modern bio-physiology can supply a great deal of precise information about human sexuality. However, knowledge of the personal dignity of the human body and of sex must still be drawn from other sources. A special source is the Word of God himself, which contains the revelation of the body, going back to the beginning.

How significant it is that Christ, in the answer to all these questions, orders man to return, in a way, to the threshold of his theological history! He orders him to put himself at the border between original innocence, happiness and the inheritance of the first fall. Does he not perhaps mean to tell him that the path along which he leads man, male and female, in the sacrament of marriage, the path of the redemption of the body, must consist in regaining this dignity. In it there is simultaneously accomplished the real meaning of the human body, its personal meaning and its meaning of communion.

For the present, let us conclude the first part of our meditations dedicated to this important subject. To give an exhaustive answer to our questions, sometimes anxious ones, on marriage – or even more precisely, on the meaning of the body-we cannot dwell only on what Christ told the Pharisees, referring to the beginning (cf. Mt 19:3ff.; Mk 10:2ff.). We must also consider all his other statements. Two of them, of an especially comprehensive character, emerge especially. The first one is from the Sermon on the Mount, on the possibilities of the human heart in relation to the lust of the body (cf. Mt 5:8). The second one is when Jesus referred to the future resurrection (cf. Mt 22:24-30; Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-36).

We intend to make these two statements the subject of our following reflections.

      

Copyright © Dicastery for Communication

Tradition

A THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION ON THE HUMAN BODY

Most Reverend John Joseph Myers

“And the Word became Flesh (Jn 1:14)”:

A PASTORAL LETTER
A Theological Reflection on the Human Body

This is the season when we celebrate God’s entrance into history in bodily form. The word Advent comes from the Latin Adventus—“the coming.” God came to dwell among us in a particular and profound way in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who was and is truly God and truly man. We Catholics express our reverent awe for the incarnation of Jesus, the Son of God, like us in all things but sin, by bowing our heads (or, at Christmas, kneeling) at the words of the creed: “By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” We commemorate special moments of his human life in our calendar: his incarnation at the feast of the Annunciation (March 25), his birth at Christmas (December 25), his presentation in the Temple (February 2), his transfiguration on Mount Tabor (August 6), his passion, death, and resurrection at Easter.

This document setting out Catholic teaching on the human body holds up and affirms truths about what it means to be a bodily person. It emphasizes the body’s goodness and corrects certain false views of human existence. In publishing it, I hope to spark discussion and teaching about the good news of our creation and redemption as bodily beings. I invite all who read it to meditate on what it means to be truly and fully human—bodily persons created in the image and likeness of God.

In short, this pastoral letter is intended to draw us into a conversation as a community. From grade schools to universities, in homilies and families, let us consider the implications for our daily lives of this fundamental fact: we are bodily persons.

A Biblical Reflection

2. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is his most systematic work, highly structured like all of his writing. Its central portion is divided into two major sections: doctrine and morals. At the beginning of the moral section Paul makes a comprehensive statement as the basis for his teaching:

I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourself to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect (Rom 12:1-2).

Paul here states two fundamental truths of moral theology: the need for each and every Christian to offer his or her entire self to God, and the requirement that our minds, our way of thinking, be renewed by the transforming power of God’s grace.

“Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice.” To Paul, offering one’s body meant offering God one’s entire existence in space and time. But, aware that right living flowed from right thinking, he called upon the early Christians to begin by changing the way they thought. Rather than conform their thinking to the fads of the day, they should drink deeply from the wellsprings of eternal wisdom in the teaching and person of Jesus Christ.

We might say Paul challenged the early Church at Rome and all Churches of all time to think biblically—to think with the mind of Christ: “The mind in you must be the mind that is in Christ” (Phil 2:5). This is particularly true of how we think about ourselves as human persons—bodily beings created in the image and likeness of the triune God.

Over the centuries, what it means to be a person has often been distorted, and it often is distorted today. Some have repudiated the bodily nature of the human person, seeing a human being as a “ghost in the machine”—a spirit or mind lodged in a material body. Others have denied the spiritual essence of the human person, and looked upon a human being as a material entity and only that. Against radical dualism or materialism or any other false notion of humanity, biblical wisdom makes it clear that the human person is a psychosomatic unity of body and soul.

3. Among the disorders that mark our society, confusing people and leading many astray, is a misunderstanding of human sexuality rooted in deep misunderstanding of the human person and the human body. Often, these misconceptions serve as a basis for public policy and personal decisions; church leaders sometimes are criticized for not speaking clearly enough about such matters.

In this pastoral, then, I want to set out the Church’s doctrine and to do so in a fundamentally positive way. The approach is based on the ‘theology of the body’ that, though thoroughly consistent with the Church’s faith across the centuries, is one of the great themes in the teaching of Pope John Paul II. I hope to help Catholics and others grasp the fact that our teaching is not negative—that it expresses profound respect for the human person, the human body, and human sexuality.

Pope John Paul II Teaches About the Human Person

4. Pope John Paul’s genius for innovation, visible in so many ways throughout his pontificate, extends to his teaching on human bodiliness. Starting in 1980 and continuing for four years, he used his Wednesday audience talks to set out an exciting new approach to this subject. This is the theology of the body.

For a Christian, the body’s significance is good, inescapable, and central; Christianity itself cannot be understood apart from an appreciation of the body. It is a myth that the Catholic Church teaches as it does about sexuality because it undervalues sex. The Church teaches as it does because it values human sexuality so highly. And in valuing sexuality, it necessarily values the body.

5. That is hardly new. Standing in the Areopagus of Athens two millennia ago, Paul proclaimed the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Many of his sophisticated listeners laughed him to scorn. For although they thought of themselves as tolerant folks—they even had an altar dedicated to “an unknown god,” lest any touchy, anonymous deity feel left out—they couldn’t abide the idea that the body had such extraordinary dignity (cf. Acts 17.22-32). Didn’t all the cleverest people say the body was evil and corrupt? So how could this itinerant preacher, Paul, ask up-to-date Athenians to believe in a god who would stoop to rising from death with a human body? Too foolish for words!

St. Paul nevertheless understood that a version of Christianity that left the body out of account would be worse than incomprehensible—it would subvert Christianity from within. “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins,” he bluntly told the people of Corinth (1 Cor 15.17). John Paul II also grasps the fact that central dogmas of Christianity like creation, the Incarnation, the redemption, and the truths of eschatology cannot be understood without reference to and profound respect for the human body.

A Signpost to Truths of Faith

6. The body points to the doctrine of creation. God created our first parents as bodily beings. “Male and female he created them” (Gen 1.27), a distinction most evident on the bodily level. God’s deliberate creative design means women aren’t “misbegotten males,” as Aristotle erroneously believed. Nor is the difference between the sexes a biological accident, a cultural artifact, or some kind of mistake.

Sex, then, is not a code word for discrimination or what the civil rights lawyers call a “suspect category.” We are obliged to take sexual differentiation seriously, indeed to reverence it, for, written into our very chromosomes, it is part of the gift of creation and an expression of God’s will.

God gives only good gifts. As one of these, our bodiliness is a blessing. The refrain running through the first chapter of Genesis—”And God saw that it was good”—drives home this point. And after the creation of man and woman (in God’s own image, we are told), there is an important shift: “And behold, it was very good” (Gen 1.31).

7. The body points to the doctrine of the Incarnation. In Jesus Christ, God became a flesh-and-blood human being. The gospel of John puts it with uncompromising clarity: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1.14). The late Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski, Primate of Poland, expressed this in a phrase of exquisite domestic tenderness: in Jesus Christ, he said, we encounter “God in diapers.”

All the same, the reality of Jesus’ bodiliness has been a stumbling block for many from St. Paul’s day to ours. Ancient heresies with names like Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism sought to evade the fact of Jesus’ corporeality and avoid its consequences. Like the skeptical Athenians before them, their adherents couldn’t abide the fact that God had a human body. They have counterparts today.

8. The body points to the doctrine of our redemption by Christ. Jesus suffered and died to redeem us. Mental suffering—fear, dread, anguish—is a reality of course, and Jesus surely suffered that way. But his Passion was something more: bloody sweat on a human forehead, a back shredded by scourging, thorns thrust into a man’s head, three body-wracking falls under the weight of a cross, spikes driven through arms and legs. John scrupulously records the flow of blood and water from Jesus’ pierced side (cf. Jn 19.34) to underline the fact that he was a real human being who suffered in a real human body.

Jesus died for us. His body was anointed, shrouded, and placed in a grave. We don’t say, “Jesus’ body died for us,” but, “Jesus died for us.” His body is no appendage, not something borrowed but not really his. His identity as God incarnate and the fullness of his redemptive life and death both are bound up with his human body.

So much so, in fact, that his victory over death is signaled by bodily resurrection. Jesus did not conquer sin and death only by dying. All good people die, but Jesus’ victory was accomplished in his rising. He is our redeemer, and our redemption will be fully accomplished when “the last enemy…death” (1 Cor 15.26) is abolished by the power of the risen Lord and we rise in our bodies with him.

9. The body points to eschatology—the Christian doctrines concerning the end times or final things. We say in the Creed, “we believe in the resurrection of the body”; and we believe that on the last day, at the end of time, all men and women will enter body and soul into that life of eternal fulfillment called heaven or else into that “second death” called hell (Rev 21.8). Just as we have lived good or evil lives body and soul, in this world, so also, body and soul, shall we be rewarded or punished in the next.

God does not bestow bodily resurrection on human beings arbitrarily. If Jesus rose from the dead, then his body rose. From the first ages of the Bible to the last it is clear that the primary curse brought on us by sin is bodily death: To disobey God is to die. But our God is the God of the living (cf. Mt 22.32, Mk 12.27, Lk 20.38), who opens graves and raises bodies. This resurrection of the body is part of the reintegration and restoration of all things in Christ, who “fills all in all” (Eph 1.23). And in the end, “death shall be no more” (Rev 21.4).

Lessons of Experience

10. Along with the truths of faith, our own experience also points to the importance of the human body. Although the tangibility and immediacy of our bodies can hardly be ignored, thinkers over the centuries sometimes have sought to downgrade the body’s significance and, instead of recognizing the body as a constitutive element of the human person, spoken of it as something apart from our core identity.

From ancient Manichaeism to the “cogito ergo sum”—I think, therefore I am—of the seventeenth-century philosopher Rene Descartes, whose thought took scant notice of the human body, errors of this sort express what generically is called body-soul dualism. This alien anthropology, which takes a false view of the unique body-soul composite that is the human person, is incompatible with Christianity. Yet it persists. It is alive and well—and profoundly destructive—today.

On some level, of course, everyone knows perfectly well that the body is intrinsic to his or her identity. Think how we speak. If I suddenly and unexpectedly struck you, very likely you would demand, “Why did you hit me?” Not “Why did you hit my body?” but “Why did you hit me?” We all know that someone or something that touches our bodies is touching us. That is why crimes like assault and battery are crimes against the person, not just property violations.

A Philosopher-Pope Speaks of Sexuality

11. Up to this point I haven’t said a lot about Pope John Paul. There is a reason for this. No matter how indebted we are to him for the theology of the body, we need to make it our own. Studying and quoting the Pope are all well and good; but the theology of the body is not just an object of study, to be examined and then returned to the shelf. This way of thinking—this way of seeing reality—must be applied to contemporary life. There can be no greater tribute to John Paul than for others to carry his thought forward; there could hardly be a greater betrayal than to pay only lip service to what he says.

Although the expression ‘theology of the body’ has become widely familiar only since he became pope, Karol Wojtyla began developing this theology as an important part of his academic work as a professor and his ministry as a priest. This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of his first writings on sexual morality: in 1952, as a young priest, he wrote an article called “Instinct, Love, and Marriage” that discussed the virtue of purity.

Seeking, unlike some of his predecessors and contemporaries, to develop a positive understanding of the virtues, Wojtyla says purity is not negative, not fundamentally a ‘no,’ even though practicing the virtue requires saying no to some forms of behavior. Purity is primarily a ‘yes,’ a positive response to two things: what the human sexual instinct stands for and what sexual intercourse symbolizes.

12. A human being, the future pope points out, is more than a collection of bones, muscles, organs, and tissues, $3.95 worth of this and that, plus a few gallons of water. And what comes into existence as a result of sexual intercourse is a human being. Not a potato, not a toad, not a mass of cells—a human being. Thus the human sexual instinct has more than biological meaning; it has existential meaning, since it is oriented to human life. This orientation is important for two reasons: because what’s at issue in any concrete instance is a living human being; and because the link between the sexual instinct and the transmission of life was placed there by God the creator, who only gives good things.

A man and woman ought to experience sexual intercourse as a mutual giving and receiving in open self-surrender to each other; it is a kind of communication—the language of the body—a sign of sincere giving of self and sincere acceptance of the other’s gift, and of their mutual opening up to God’s gift of life. This kind of giving and receiving without reserve requires the foundation of stable, permanent love.

Thus, considered as communication, intercourse outside marriage and contraceptive intercourse both are lies told with bodies; the two parties do not truly give and receive openly and unconditionally but only use each other for pleasure. They do not say with their bodies, and from their hearts, what they speak with their lips. Indeed, all sexual sins are at their heart sins of dishonesty.

For Karol Wojtyla, purity is a yes to the goodness of God’s creation, including the share spouses have in it through the use of the sexual instinct, and a yes to the unreserved and permanent commitment of love that sexual intercourse symbolizes and expresses. Purity is needful not because there is something unclean about sex but because the body’s language should be consistent with the language of the heart and mind. It is a way of ensuring honesty and integrity of heart, mind, speech, and bodily act. One ought only to say with one’s body what one can rightly mean with one’s heart.

13. Pope John Paul is a staunch defender of marriage. It is interesting to consider why. Certainly his stand is grounded in Tradition, Church teaching, and Sacred Scripture, but his defense of marriage also comes in large part from the theology of the body.

If sexual intercourse naturally expresses the giving and receiving of love that is open to the possibility of life—of children—then the love itself requires certain things of sex, and sex already images certain unavoidable requirements of love.

Among these are: unity—one beloved, one husband, one wife; exclusivity—this man, this woman; permanence—not for a single encounter, nor a brief season, but for all the rest of life; totality—complete giving and receiving, with no strings attached (how strange it would be if a man said to a woman, “I love you eighty-five per cent”); and life-giving—because the language of the body means giving to and receiving from a spouse in the totality of his or her being, which includes the fact of fertility that sometimes, through the grace of God, results in conception, new life—a new human being. The Church’s teaching in effect is that someone who here and now can’t mean what sex intrinsically means shouldn’t ‘say it.’ The message is: Be honest, don’t lie.

14. Children have a right to be conceived, born, and reared through and in the love of their parents. This is why in vitro fertilization and other techniques of producing human beings that violate the bodily integrity of sexual intercourse are wrong. These technologies separate the creation of a new human person from the only human context worthy of it—the loving conjugal union of husband and wife. Children conceived by these means are truly human of course; and because they are, they deserve better.

Techniques of this kind reduce human embryos to the status of products of technology. That is clear in the routine discarding of ‘imperfect’ embryos and the production of ‘spare’ embryos to be subjected to experiments and then destroyed. Today we are learning to our horror that these assaults against the dignity of the human person pave the way to human cloning (whether for experimentation or reproduction). This is another step in replacing the language of the body with the language of the laboratory dish.

In Defense of Human Dignity

15. Sometimes you hear it said that “Sex is between two people and only them. It is nobody else’s business.” One implication is that the fundamental reality of sex is a psychological interchange between consenting adults.

This represents a central part of the rationale for homosexual sex. Defenders of homosexual intercourse do not take the body too seriously but not nearly seriously enough. Sex is not exclusively or essentially a psychological encounter, and it cannot be divorced from the meaning and language of the body.

Confused thinking on this subject—an updated version of our old Manichaean and Cartesian nemesis, body-soul dualism—goes a long way to account for the fact that marriage no longer has a clear, specific meaning in some people’s minds. They imagine that ‘marriage’ refers to something altogether fluid, shifting, malleable, and manipulable, subject to constant reshaping and revision to suit changing preferences, including the preferences of homosexual partners who want their relationships recognized as marriages.

16. And, after all, if marriage is just a mental state, a psychological something-or-other and only that, why not say two men or two women (or three men, or two women and a man, or any other recipe for gender stew that suits somebody’s taste) are ‘married’? Start down this road, and marriage can be redesigned at will. Or at least it can be until such time as the redesigners come face-to-face with the reality of the human body and its language.

As this suggests, in insisting on the body’s significance, the Church is fighting for human dignity. “We are in the front line of a lively battle for the dignity of man,” Cardinal Karol Wojtyla already pointed out in 1976 as he preached that year’s Lenten retreat for Pope Paul VI. As Pope himself, John Paul II has powerfully delineated the opposing worldviews now battling for human hearts, minds, and bodies. He calls them the culture of life and the culture of death. Appealing for a new evangelization, he asks all Catholics, all Christians, and indeed all people of good will to join in proclaiming the Gospel of Life.

Some may proclaim that Good News from philosophical conviction about the dignity of the bodily human person and the cause of human rights. Some may proclaim it from commitment to God as creator and redeemer, the one who made us and saves us as bodily persons. Some may even proclaim it from self-interest—for most people see the merits of the culture of life when the life involved is their own. Wherever the impetus comes from, the proclaiming of this Gospel of Life is an instance of practical ecumenism that embodies a shared vision of human dignity that all men and women of good will can embrace and advocate.

17. The Second Vatican Council in the 1960s encouraged Catholics to take note of the ‘signs of the times’ in the awareness that the gospel must be preached in many different cultural circumstances. In that spirit, today’s disciples seek to respond to the imperatives of the new evangelization by proclaiming the Gospel of Life.

This work begins at home. Christians, says Pope John Paul, “need to begin with the renewal of a culture of life within Christian communities themselves. Too often it happens that believers…end up separating their Christian faith from the ethical requirements concerning life” (The Gospel of Life, n. 95). The family, the basic Christian community as well as the fundamental cell of society, must be a “sanctuary of life” (ibid., n. 92), where life is welcomed and cherished.

Then this vision of the dignity of human life must radiate from the family and the community of faith and inform society and the sphere of civil law and policy. Recall that Pacem in Terris, the great encyclical of Blessed Pope John XXIII whose fortieth anniversary we mark next spring, begins with the simple yet profound words: “Peace on earth…can never be established, never guaranteed, except by the diligent observance of the divinely established order” (Peace on Earth, n. 1).

Implications of the Theology of the Body

18. So far we have utilized John Paul II’s theology of the body to reflect especially on the meaning and purpose of the family and human sexuality. But it has many more implications besides. These extend to how we live and enjoy our bodiliness and the threats and dangers associated with our bodily existence.

19. Human persons should always strive to participate fully in the good of bodily health and life. Christian faith condemns any practice or thing that harms health or threatens life, from the abuse of drugs to intemperance in food or drink and unsafe driving. We are to be good stewards of our life and health. Exercise, healthy diet, access to and use of proper health care are all part of this stewardship.

This also is part of the reason why we should embrace the cycle of work and rest intended by the Creator. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:9-10a). For Catholics, keeping holy the Sabbath means active and full participation in the communal worship in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass together with observing a day of rest and recreation. The weekly Sunday holiday is good for individuals, families, and the whole community.

20. Faith also recognizes the goodness of a healthy life of the senses. Recreation and exercise, good music and good food, art and aesthetic experiences all belong to a full life. As G.K. Chesterton says in his biography of St. Thomas Aquinas, a Christian is someone “who believes that deity or sanctity has attached to matter or entered the world of the senses.”

Sometimes Christians are depicted as people who don’t enjoy life. The way we have presented our faith or lived our lives may sometimes have lent support to this caricature. But it is far from the truth. Jesus came that we “may have life and have it to the full” (Jn 10:10), in this world as well as in the next. Again and again scripture and the Church’s teaching speak of life in heaven as complete fulfillment in all the goods of human existence (cf. Rev. 21, Gaudium et Spes 38-39). Participating here and now in human goods like friendship and beauty and truth is a foretaste of what heaven will be.

21. Bodiliness also deeply affects how we worship and pray. This is clearest in the sacraments. God uses tangible, ‘fleshy’ things like bread, wine, oil and water as signs and symbols of his sacramental grace. He takes us most seriously as bodily beings in the Eucharist. By allowing us to receive his very Body and Blood, Jesus forges a one-flesh unity between himself and someone who receives him. This unity—akin to the one-flesh unity of husband and wife made tangible in the physical act of love-making—is both spiritual and physical.

What is true of the sacraments is true also of the rest of the life of prayer. Our bodies participate in our praying. We spontaneously kneel in the presence of our Lord and God when engaged in either communal or personal prayer. We turn naturally to physical objects and sensual signs—candles and bells, incense and statues, stained glass and crucifixes, rosary beads and holy cards, chant and sacred music, icons and countless other sacramentals—to help us pray.

22. God takes us seriously as bodily persons by himself becoming bodily. He sanctified all created reality in this way, enabling us to experience him in his creation and honor the divine artist in his art. It is right to find God in the beauty of his creation. Pope John Paul reminds us that prolife commitment should extend to care for the environment and created reality.

23. Important as it is to emphasize the positive implications of the theology of the body, the threats and dangers can’t be ignored; they must instead be resisted and overcome.

The most serious of them may be precisely the practical denial of bodiliness and its consequences. As we have seen, this underlies the present campaign to claim the dignity of marriage for homosexual relationships. Still more destructively, it gives impetus to the attacks on human life originating with the culture of death: euthanasia, abortion, techniques of research and reproduction that violate human life.

While the euthanasia movement advocates killing the sick and incapacitated, its supporters know most people would be horrified by a proposal to kill another person. Thus they seek to depersonalize the sick or handicapped. To kill them, it is said, is merely to terminate bodily life that has become burdensome, not an assault on the person at all. Killing a body doesn’t count.

The same mentality is at work among those who support abortion. The genetically unique bodily being who came into existence at conception and now is growing beneath his or her mother’s heart is—so we are told—not a person but merely a ‘blob of tissue’ or a ‘mass of cells.’ Remarkable—a mass of cells with a beating heart at 25 days, a brain producing brain waves at 43 days, eyes that begin to form at 19 days, tiny fingers that open and close during the sixth week! That this bodily being is a child preparing to be born is censored out.

Still less do we hear about abortion’s bodily consequences. How often do proponents of ‘choice’ mention the little arms and legs ripped off in vacuum aspiration abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy? When was the last time an abortion propagandist in the media spoke or wrote of the scalded skin of a body aborted by saline infusion in the second trimester? When was a ‘personally opposed’ politician brave enough to admit that, yes, the face in the surgical bucket after a third-trimester hysterotomy really does look troublingly human? How likely are we to see, outside the pages of prolife publications, a child’s fingers distended as surgical scissors are plunged into her or his skull in a partial-birth abortion?

Abortion in any of its forms is a grievous violation of the dignity and rights of the human person by a direct assault upon the person’s bodily integrity and life—the deliberate and direct killing, as Pope John Paul puts it, of “a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth” (The Gospel of Life, n. 58). Abortion includes the deliberate interruption of pregnancy before viability, the deliberate prevention of the embryo’s implantation in the mother’s womb by the use of ‘morning-after pills’ or other abortifacient drugs, including so-called contraceptives that produce their effect by early abortion, and the direct killing of an unborn child after viability is reached. Abortion in any of its forms is one of the deeds condemned as “abominable crimes” by the Second Vatican Council (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, n. 51).

24. The body and the view one takes of it are central to all human life issues. No doubt that is one reason why such pains often are taken today to deny or ignore the human person’s bodily reality. Abstract arguments for the ‘right to choose’ and the ‘right to die’ are at risk of being overwhelmed by the flesh-and-blood reality of a human body. No wonder the culture of death tries so hard to avoid it!

In an old movie called “The Guns of Navarone,” one character asks another why he hesitated to kill a villain only an arm’s length distant. The answer: “You shoot a man at two hundred yards, he’s just a moving target. You kill him with a knife, you’re close enough to smell him. I smell them in my sleep.” The culture of death sleeps better at night by keeping reality two hundred yards away.

But the body puts people immediately, tangibly, in touch with reality. That experience in itself can have a salutary restraining influence on evil impulses, something like the bracing effect of a splash of cold water in the face. It is easy to talk about termination of pregnancy, perhaps not so easy to look at a dismembered baby. The difference is the body, which obliges us to confront reality as it is.

25. If denying the body’s reality is dangerous, so is its unreal glorification to excess. In today’s cult of the body, physical appearance becomes a matter of absolute, ultimate importance. Consider the obsessive fixation on youthful looks and fashions that leads to the squandering of money, time, and resources in pursuit of Hollywood’s idea of beauty while futile attempts are made to deny the facts of age and mortality. The cult and culture of the body make it cause for stigma, marginalization, and severe loss of self-esteem to be ill, elderly, or merely less than super-glamorous according to somebody else’s notions.

The scourge of pornography is another byproduct of this mentality. Both the gross hard-core pornography trafficked in films, magazines, and pervasively on the Internet and the soft-core pornography that pervades the media, especially advertising, cheapen and distort human beauty and sexuality. Those involved in any way in the production and dissemination of pornography corrupt themselves and contribute to the corruption of others by encouraging the moral evils of sexual arousal outside marriage, masturbation, and the sexual abuse of women and children. No society sincerely concerned with the well being of its members can tolerate the evil of pornography.

26. At the root of many threats to and abuses of bodiliness lies concupiscence. This is the tendency to sin remaining in us even after baptism. It is not sin in itself but is the tendency to sin resulting from disordered passions. As a result of concupiscence, we do not always easily think, feel, and will as we should; often we are drawn, sometimes strongly, to what isn’t good for us.

This makes cultivating a strong, active spiritual life imperative. Through grace, God’s supernatural help, it is possible to resist temptation; and if we cooperate consistently with grace, disordered passions over time are healed and brought into line. Especially helpful in this struggle to win the authentic freedom of self-control are frequent reception of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, a strong, daily life of prayer, fasting and mortification of the senses, and devotion to the Mother of God, especially by prayerful recitation of her Rosary.

State of Life as Total Gift

27. As bodily beings, we are called to offer our entire existence in space and time to “God, our spiritual worship.” Two ways of doing this, traditionally called states of life, are marriage and celibacy (or consecrated life for the sake of the kingdom). In marriage, a man and woman give themselves completely, each to the other, in a stable, permanent commitment that lasts until death, thus forming the community of life and love—the family—that is the suitable place for the begetting and rearing of children. As a community of persons, the family is akin to the community of life and love that is the Triune God.

Celibacy or consecrated life for the sake of the kingdom is another way of offering oneself as a sacrifice pleasing in the eyes of God. This charism also involves a total gift of self, by which one enters into a nuptial relationship with Christ and his Church. This gift empowers men called to celibacy to devote themselves fully to their bride, the Church, and enables women to give themselves totally to their spouse, Jesus Christ, in loving and serving him and the Church. Both marriage and celibacy or consecrated life are ways of making a bodily gift of self; both are ways to love as Jesus loves; both call for total, intimate, unreserved love.

Conclusion

28. At the start of this pastoral I spoke of the familiar fact that in the season of Advent and Christmas we celebrate the coming of the Son of God into human history as Jesus of Nazareth. Because he was born into a human family, we celebrate in a particular way the gift of family life.

But we also look forward in this season to Jesus’ second coming at the end of history. Together with Christians of every age we pray Maranatha—”Come, Lord Jesus!”

Living between two advents, two comings of Jesus, we live in history. That is to say: we live as bodily beings in space and time. Praying Jesus will come to us in grace, to sustain and sanctify us and the entire world, we respond to his advent in our lives by offering our selves entirely to him—an oblation of heart, mind, body, and soul.

We do this in communion with the whole Church extended through space and time—those living and also those who have gone before us “marked with the sign of faith or whose faith is known to God alone” (Fourth Eucharistic Prayer). Especially we are united with Mary of Nazareth, who already shares bodily in the Resurrection of Her Son. In her we see the ultimate meaning and purpose of bodily existence—total and complete union with Jesus.

We human persons are bodily beings. Only a philosophy, a theology, and a system of law that take the body seriously as an integral part of who and what we are can protect real human beings and defend real human rights. Pope John Paul II has pointed the way.

God creates us as bodily persons. Jesus Christ, our brother in human flesh, redeems us by his bodily life, death, and rising. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we are called to rise with Jesus from death and to live forever, body and soul, with God. Let us ask Mary, who bore the Deity in diapers, who was and is Theotokos—Mother of God, and who exemplified the meaning and dignity of the human body for her Son, to be our model and patroness in the work that lies ahead.

Given at my Chancery,
December 8, 2002—2nd Sunday in Advent,

Most Reverend John Joseph Myers
Archbishop of Newark

ATTEST:
Sheri Rickert
Chancellor

Copyright 2002, Archdiocese of Newark
Used with permission

 

 

​Return to top of page

 

 

Making the Connection

A Real-Life Example

Lauren’s Story

My own history with chastity is nothing to be proud of. I first had sex when I was 15, with a guy I met at summer camp. We dated for three months and had sex, but gradually our relationship dissolved—he went away to college, we wrote letters occasionally, but things fizzled out. A year later, I started college myself. And even though I was part of an observant Jewish community, I kept having sex. My freshman year, I dated a stunning man (he looked like an Armani model), and we had sex a few times. Then I began dating the man I now think of as “my college boyfriend,” and we had sex too. None of this behavior was sanctioned by my Jewish community, so I kept it pretty quiet.

As I graduated from college and moved from New York to England for graduate school, I got pretty serious about Christianity. I was going to church regularly by then, praying to Jesus, thinking about him as I walked down the street, believing with a certainty that surprised me that he was who he said he was: God. I did some of the things you might expect from someone who believes that Jesus is God. I got baptized. I started spending inordinate numbers of hours hanging around with other Christians. I read the Gospels. I prayed the Psalms. I wore a small silver cross around my neck, proclaiming to passersby that I am part of this tribe whose allegiance is to Jesus.

But there were other things that you might expect a Christian to do, and I did not do them. I didn’t forswear sex. I didn’t tithe. I didn’t especially enjoy going to church on Sunday mornings; in general, I had to grit my teeth, silence my alarm clock, and drag myself there.

I knew, dimly, that Christianity doesn’t look kindly on premarital sex, but I couldn’t have told you much about where Christian teachings about sex came from. It would not have been too difficult, of course, to get more clarity on this sex issue. But I didn’t do that for one principal reason: I didn’t really want to get more clarity on Christian sexual ethics, because I wanted, should the opportunity arise, the option of having sex.

Instead, I settled for an easy conclusion: what God really cared about was that people not have sex that might be harmful in some way, sex that was clearly meaningless, loveless, casual. I more or less managed to abide by that. I didn’t have sex until that truly committed relationship came along, and then when it did—when I met a man I’ll call Q.—I did. Once, during the Q. months, I broke my own pledge, to God and to Q., having sex one night with an ex-boyfriend and then lying to Q. about it. I began to have some twinges of misgiving.

The twinges continued (even after the “committed relationship” with Q. ended and another “committed relationship” began). Eventually I went to a priest. I was there to confess a long litany of sins, not just sexual sin. When I came to the confession of sexual sin, my confessor said, gently but firmly, “Well, Lauren, that’s sin.”

And in that sacramental moment, kneeling with another Christian whose sole task was to convey Christ’s grace and absolution to me, something sunk in. I knew that this priest had just told me something true.

I wish I could say that at that moment I abandoned all that smacked of sexual sin and never looked back; but that’s not true. But I did begin what has been a sometimes-halting movement, deeper into chastity.

Deeper into Chastity – Christianity Today

 

Return to top of page

Further Reading

Calloway, Donald H., MIC, ed. The Virgin Mary and Theology of the Body. West Chester, Pennsylvania: Ascension Press, 2007.

This book is a compilation of essays written by some of the world’s foremost Mariologists and experts on the Theology of the Body.

“After reading this book you will understand:

• The nuptial meaning of the body in the marriage of Joseph and Mary
• The Immaculate Conception and the human person
• The significance of Mary as virgin and mother
• The Virgin Mary and the culture of life
• The image of God in the image of Mary as a model Christian

Through an understanding of Mary’s role in salvation history, we are able to see more clearly our personal roles in the Christian life.”

Hammond, Colleen. Dressing with Dignity. 2nd ed. Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, INC., 2005.

This author challenges the prevailing culture with regard to the demeaning fashion for women. She discusses the historical context, church teaching, and how to dress in a chic, attractive, dignified and feminine manner.

Kurey, Mary-Louise, Miss Wisconsin 1999. Standing with Courage: Confronting Tough Decisions About Sex. Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, INC., 2002.

“In Standing with Courage, Mary-Louise Kurey provides valuable insight into the spiritual, emotional, and social consequences of our moral choices. Her example of purity will inspire young adults to stand for righteousness and offer hope for those who have made wrong choices.” Jeff Cavins, Host, EWTN’s Life on the Rock

Shalit, Wendy. A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.

“Ms. Shalit marshals impressive evidence from philosophers as well as the tabloids to make her case for a return to modesty – as both a sexual ideal and a strategy for greater pleasure…[a] serious yet bouncy study.” Ruth R. Wisse, The Wall Street Journal

Return to top of page

 

Next Steps

Ready to Take the Next Step?

How can we commit to sexual self-control?  Study, Prayer and Practice!

📖 Study

• Learn how to say and spell “concupiscence.” 

  (Phonetic spelling: kahn-kyoo-puh-sens.) Memorize this definition: Concupiscence is lust void of the true passion of self-giving love.

  2.   Read Galatians 5:13-26

  In this biblical passage St. Paul reminds us of the freedoms that we are given, but we have a responsibility to exercise self-control in our behaviors:

  For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another. 

  The Works of the Flesh and the Fruit of the Spirit

  But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness,idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

  If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another. 

  3.     Read and Reflect on the Scriptures referenced in the letter that describe “seeing and taking”:
  • Eve saw and took the forbidden fruit – Genesis 3:6-12
  • The fallen angels saw and took the fair daughters of men – Genesis 6:1-4
  • Shechem saw and took Dinah – Genesis 34
  • David saw and took Bathsheba – 2 Samuel 11: 2-4

   

  4.     For an example of telling the truth with our bodies, read the Song of Solomon in the Bible:
  • Bride – Song of Solomon 4
  • Bridegroom – Song of Solomon 5:10-16 

💖 Prayer

A Prayer for self-control (inspired by Proverbs 25:28)

Lord, Your Word says that a person without self-control is like a city with broken walls. I don’t want to be defenseless against the attacks of the enemy. Strengthen my will and give me the discipline to resist anything that draws me away from You. Build a wall of protection around my mind and heart. Help me stand firm in faith. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Taken from: https://bibleversesandprayers.com/40-powerful-prayer-for-self-control/

✝️ Practice

Develop Practices of Self-Control

1. The following website has practical tips for practicing self-control:   Self Discipline: Do it for HE, WE and ME – Benedictine College Media & Culture.

The author provides six concepts to motivate us in our struggle for self-control, and a mnemonic device to help us remember them, He We Me:

• He is for the first person who motivates me to practice self-control, Jesus Christ:
  • H is for Honest – Be honest with yourself and give up what separates you from God.
  • E is for Endure – We must imitate and endure the sacrifice and suffering of Jesus.
• We is for the next people who motivate me to practice self-control, my family and the community:
  • W is for Well-being – Those around us count on our physical, emotional, and moral well-being.
  • E is for Engage – Spend time with virtuous people.
• Me is for the last person to motivate me to practice self-control, myself:
  • M is for Model – Become a model of holiness for others.
  • E is for Excel and Effort – Live an excellent life of holy effort that gives glory to God.

 

1. Learn and practice intentionally relating with your spouse to be able to discern true body language between the two. Practice these steps:

• Communicate openly. Discuss physical touch, preferences, and boundaries with your spouse to foster understanding and trust.
• Engage in regular touch. Initiate small touches like holding hands, hugging, or gentle caresses to create comfort and connection.
• Create a comfortable environment. Set up a cozy space to encourage relaxation and closeness.
• Practice consent. Always seek and respect consent, understanding and agreeing on physical boundaries to build trust and reassurance.
• Focus on non-sexual affection. Prioritize non-sexual touch to strengthen emotional ties.
• Explore new activities together. Participate in activities that promote physical closeness, like dancing, to deepen your connection.
• Express gratitude. Show appreciation for each other’s efforts in building intimacy, creating a positive atmosphere and encouraging further connection.
• Spend quality time together. Dedicate time to be together without distractions, leading to stronger bonds and increased physical intimacy.

Taken from: how to relate intentionally with your spouse’s body – Search

Return to top of page