The 20th topic of the A-Z of DiscipleSHIP, “T”, is about the Theology of the Body. The other day, I was attempting to fill up a form and they asked me for my pronouns. How should other people identify me? Am I a he/him, she/her, they/them or any other combination?
I didn’t like this to be honest. But if I had to choose, I would put he/Him.
“he”, (small caps) because I am a biological male.
“Him”, because I am redeemed by Jesus Christ the God-Man.
At the heart of this trend of declaring your pronouns is the belief that you cannot assume someone’s gender. Biological sex, the argument goes, is not necessarily accurate information. Your gender is not dependent on your biology. It is dependent on how you feel.
The book of Genesis challenges this assumption, with this bold declaration “male and female he created them.” (Gen 1:27)
And Saint John Paul II teaches that the “ancient text of Genesis” constitutes the “beginning” of the theology of the body. “The fact that theology (the study of God) also includes the body should not astonish or surprise anyone who is conscious of the mystery of the Incarnation. Through the fact that the Word of God became flesh, the body entered theology… through the main door [1].”
What follows is an attempt to unpack the why and what of the book of Genesis as developed by Saint John Paul II, and so help us in redeeming our understanding of what it means to be male and female today.
Play on Spotify to listen to the full podcast:
Opening Prayer – Matthew 19:3-12
“Some Pharisees came to him to test him and asked him “is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” And he answered them, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator created them male and female and said “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and unite with his wife, and the two will be one flesh?” So it is that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined, let man not separate.” They objected, “Why then did Moses order to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus answered, “Because of the hardness of your heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:3-8)
Opening Song – “Reckless Love”, by Cory Asbury
Introduction: Do We Need “Jesus” Spectacles?
Most Singaporeans wear spectacles. We could see clearly once. Then things got blurry. We get diagnosed with myopia. We visit the optician, get our spectacles, put them on, and “voila”, we can see clearly again.
Imagine for a moment a society where spectacles do not exist. People experience their vision deteriorating. Everything is a blur. Overtime, blurry vision would seem to be the norm.
Yet even in such a society, people will still remember what it “once was.” They would remember that “in the beginning” when they were children, they could see clearly.
The analogy of seeing with and without spectacles is a helpful way to grasp what the Theology of the Body is trying to do.
John Paul II notes that having a “blurred” vision of the purpose of human sexuality is not something new. In the passage which we read for our opening prayer; we see the Pharisees in Jesus’ time suffered from this problem. They were unsure over whether divorce was lawful and even cited Moses as evidence that it probably was.
Christ, on the other hand, “does not accept the discussion on the level on which his interlocuters try to introduce it… Instead, he appeals twice to the beginning [2].”
To truly “see” the meaning and purpose of human sexuality, we need to put on a pair of “Jesus spectacles”. And the lenses of these spectacles is through the two accounts of creation found in the book of Genesis which we will now turn to.
Part one: The Two Lenses of Genesis Chapters One and Two
Original Solitude
In the era of the smartphone, what do we do when we are alone?
We will typically open our social media feed and start scrolling.
Whether that’s a good idea or not is a discussion for another day.
But it does suggest something.
That we are echoing the experience of the first human being “it is not good for man to be alone.” (Gen 2:18).
We are not comfortable being alone. We desire company. A podcast, an Instagram post, the latest YouTube shorts.
We desire human contact.
But we only discover this when we are alone.
The Theology of the Body calls this “original solitude.”
In the second chapter of Genesis, the first human being experiences this ache. He was alive, he had work to do (Gen 2:15), he had animals as companions (Gen 2:19), and most importantly, he had a harmonious relationship with his Creator.
He was conscious that he was “a partner of the Absolute”, capable of “choosing good and evil” (TOB 6:2).
Original Unity
Yet, the text still says that “for the man, there was not found a helper fit for him.” (Gen 2:20)
He simultaneously discovers that he “was a body among bodies” (TOB 7:1).
His creator has allowed him to experience that ache for his self-knowledge.
And the Creator now seeks to assuage that ache by “putting him to a deep sleep” (Gen 2:21).
When he awakes, we hear the man expressing an “original emotion”.
And it was an ecstatic one.
“This at last is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones.” (Gen 2:23)
He recognises that the body of this person is essentially different from the other “bodies” he had already encountered.
“She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (Gen 2:23)
He is now no longer a “body among bodies”. There is now another, who is “flesh of his flesh”.
The theology of the body calls it original unity.
Discovery of the Law of the Gift
The man recognises that everything that he has experienced thus far, from him given breath by God, to the existence of plants and animals, to his ability to name them and work with his hands, and culminating in his recognition that she who is “flesh of his flesh” was not “made” by him but “taken out of him” while he was put into a deep sleep by his Creator, could not be demanded, but were gifts freely given by his Creator.
What attitude then should he adopt in response to this gift?
The rest of Genesis chapter 2, sketches this out.
Original Nakedness
Now if the book of Genesis was a television production, viewers would have rated everything so far i.e. from Genesis 1:1 all the way to Genesis 2:23 as “G” i.e. “suitable for general audiences.”
Genesis 2:24 onwards would probably warrant a different rating.
“Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
The text alludes to marriage and sexual intercourse between husband and wife.
The next line is more direct.
“And the man and woman were naked, but not ashamed.” (Gen 2:25)
They looked at each other, in all their vulnerability, without fear and with excitement. Because they were looking with “all the peace of the interior gaze.” (TOB 13:1)
There was no desire to dominate. There was only love. And “there is no fear in love, perfect love casts out fear.” (1 John 4:18)
Original nakedness, as the theology of the body explains, demonstrates that both man and woman saw each other as gifts, and through this lens, discovered two inter-related principles for their own lives.
Communion of Persons
That they are persons made for communion.
If you are Catholic, the word Communion evokes intimacy and awe. We speak of receiving “Holy Communion” when we receive the Eucharist. If we were to break down this word, we will see why. There is a “common” “union” between persons. They are united in mind and spirit, and yet each is their own person. They are nevertheless united, because they are in love.
As Saint John Paul II teaches, “Communion of persons means living in a relationship of reciprocal gift.” (TOB 14:2)
And besides discovering the call to friendship, they make a simultaneous discovery when they look at the bodies of each other with “the peace of the interior gaze”. (TOB 13:1)
Spousal Meaning of the Body
They discover that their bodies are made in a different yet complementary way.
Yet the theology of the body does not describe the physical bodies of man and woman as having simply a sexual meaning. (TOB 15:4)
But in evocative language, describes their bodies as having a spousal meaning.
Pope St. John Paul II explains that the body has a spousal meaning because the human person is a creature that God willed for his own sake and that at the same time, cannot fully find himself except through the gift of self (TOB 15:5).
In other words, it is not simply the ability to become “one flesh” in the sexual intercourse that makes their bodies “spousal”. Rather it is the promise to become “one flesh” in the context of forming a covenantal bond in marriage (leaving his father and mother and clinging to his wife) which makes their bodies spousal and ensures that their sexual relationship is an extension of them remaining a communion of persons.
A Vision of Paradise
With the last verse of Genesis chapter 2 (verse 25 quoted above), a complete vision of what constitutes paradise for the human being is complete.
Human beings are rational creatures; hence they find fulfilment in intellectual work by naming the animals.
They were also rational animals, whose physical dimension cannot be ignored or downplayed. Hence, they find fulfilment in physical endeavours by tilling the garden.
They were worshipping creatures, hence they strolled with God in the garden.
Finally, they were relational creatures. An animal might be a companion. But another human person is a “communion.” Hence their mutually ecstatic response in the presence of each other.
Part Two: Applying the Corrective Vision to Male-Female Relationships
John Paul II notes that the answer that Christ gave to the Pharisees possess a timeless quality as “human beings of all times raise the question about the same topic.”(TOB 23:2)Today especially, they often attempt answers that are built on “partial truths” (TOB 23:3) that reject an “integral vision of man.” (TOB 23:2)
In other words, it’s not just a blurred vison but a blocked one.
I would argue that our vision is blocked because we are viewing sexuality through “condomized glasses” [3].
This was brought home to me in a tragi-comedic fashion in an episode of Friends featuring Ross and Rachel. In a moment of passion, both, who considered each other as “just good friends”, had a one-night stand.
In that scene, Ross was seen reassuring Rachel sometime after the incident that what happened was just a one-off and that they could remain good friends. Rachel nods along and asks Ross, “can I talk now?” “Sure”, said Ross. “I am pregnant” deadpanned Rachel, “And you’re the father.”
A stunned Ross blurted out “but I thought we used a condom?” Rachel replied, “I know but condoms only work 97 percent of the time.” The rest of the sketch had Ross demanding to call the condom company to ask for a refund as he was “indignant as a consumer.” When Rachel replied that this was on the packaging, Ross screamed, “THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT IN HUGE BLOCK LETTERS!”
At the heart of the comic sketch is Ross’ incredulous reaction to the “discovery” that sex and the possibility of babies are two sides of the same coin.
But what really cements this skit as an illustration of a “condomized” vision of sexuality were two other incidents.
Firstly, Rachel, to her credit, decides to keep her baby but reassures Ross that “he can be as involved or not as you want,” implying that Fathers are an optional extra.
Secondly, in the lead up to Rachel’s bombshell announcement, Ross casually shares that he was open to doing it “one more time” with Rachel if she really wants, implying that the sexual act, in and of itself, can be considered no more significant than a handshake or a warm hug between friends, if both parties agree to a shared meaning.
While Ross might be incredulous, Saint John Paul II says that “Christ would not be surprised by any of these situations, and… he would continue to refer above all to the beginning… all the more decidedly and essentially [4].”
What would Jesus say? (To Ross and Rachel)
If Christ would refer to the beginning, what would he say to Ross and Rachel? I imagine, in the light of what was shared so far, that it might go something along these lines.
“Dear Ross and Rachel,
You are friends. This is a noble desire. I planted that desire in your heart. It is not good for human beings to be alone. I created you to experience solitude, so that you would discover, in your solitude, that you are made for friendship with other human beings. In some way, this reflects my relationship with my Father and the Holy Spirit. We are One yes, but we are also three. From the beginning, before the world began, we are in an intimate relationship. And when we created the world, and especially human beings in our image, we stamped this into you. So that you too, in your relationship may mirror the love that we ourselves exchange. Having friends, and even intimate ones, where we can experience unity, or nakedness without shame understood as vulnerability with each other, is part of my design for human beings when they relate to each other.
There is one gesture of intimacy that powerfully expresses this between man and woman. It is the possibility of experiencing a “one flesh” union. In the sexual union, I designed human beings to experience a communion of persons, a unity of hearts and bodies and in this communion of persons, the possibility of communion with a third person, an unborn child.
You can imagine that if you are “one flesh”, you are united in an irrevocable way. It is not the language of the body of mere friends alone. But friends who are supposed to desire to be spouses, who through the language of their bodies expressed through sex, make irrevocable vows to each other, giving the sexual act a unique spousal meaning.
As such Ross, you can’t tell Rachel that you don’t mind doing it “one more time” as if the sexual act is no more significant than a warm handshake. You were one flesh with Rachel. And in a way, with your bodies, you have made spousal vows to each other.
In some way, I recognise that you are also a victim of your culture. You have been scammed. The condom company has falsely promised that it is possible to change the language of the sexual act to whatever meaning you decide that it should be. Hence your shock that you realised that Rachel was pregnant. You are right to be indignant. They have scammed you. The language of the body of a one flesh union is something that cannot be modified. You can choose to express it or refrain from expressing it. But you are not free to modify its language.
Dear Rachel, I commend you for your courage and self-sacrifice to accept your unborn child, and to embrace motherhood. I will walk with you in this journey. You have rightly informed Ross that “he is the father.” But I would want him to be involved, not as an invitation alone, but as a duty. I created human beings “male and female” from the beginning. Your child needs both of you, and the stability of mother and father fully committed to each other in marriage. Ross may find it frightening at first, but his duty will also turn into desire and devotion.
May you grow in your new life as Father and Mother. And know that I love both of you and your child and I am your Redeemer.”
Jesus came to heal our blindness. To “restore creation to the purity of its origins”. (CCC 2236). May the teaching of the Theology of the Body do the same for us.
Concluding Prayer – 1 Cor 6:13-20
“The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
* Is there anything in this session which struck you or any thoughts, experiences or ideas which come to your mind? Please leave a comment below. We would love to hear from you.
** Thank you for joining us on the A-Z of DiscipleSHIP. We look forward to having you with us again next month, as we study the letter “U”, for the Universal Call to Holiness.
Recommended Closing Song
Recommended Reading / Resources
Christopher West, Theology of the Body for Beginners (Saint John Paul II Edition) (2018).
Father Mike Schmitz, “Theology of the Body Crash Course”
John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created them: A Theology of the Body (Boston MA: Pauline Books and Media) 2006.
Sex before Marriage: is the Church outdated, To be Honest Ep 8
Reflection and Sharing Questions
“T” – Man and Woman He Created Them
This month’s podcast considers the human body as a “theology” a way to understand and reach God. In the light of these, the following are possible reflection/sharing questions.
Question 1: When you say the word “human body”, what do you associate it with? Do you associate it with God? Why or why not?
Question 2: Which experiences identified in the book of Genesis do you find yourself resonating with? Which seem at this time, a bit abstract to you?
Question 3: What do you think of the conversation between Ross and Rachel? Would the imaginative response in the podcast be helpful?
After this podcast, is there anything that you might change in thinking and talking about faith? What would remain the same? Why?
© Presented by the Catholic Theology Network (writers / contributors / sound): Nick Chui (MTS, JPII Institute for Marriage and Family, AU), Dominic Chan (M.A., Theology, Augustine Institute), Keenan Tan (M.A., Theology, Augustine Institute), Debra Dass (Diploma in Theology, CTIS), Marcia Vanderstraaten (Diploma in Theology, CTIS); publicity & design: Augustine Koh
Footnotes
1. TOB 23:4.
2. TOB 1:2.
3. The revolutionary nature of the advent of effective contraception on society’s understanding of human sexuality has been explored from a sociological perspective by Mary Eberstadt. See her book “Adam and Eve after the Pill” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012) and Louise Perry, “The Case against the Sexual revolution: A new guide to sex in the 21st century” (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2022). For teaching from a Catholic perspective, one must refer to Pope Paul VI’s prophetic and courageous encyclical Humane Vitae published in 1968. For Eberstadt’s case that the warnings contained in the encyclical have sadly come to pass, see her article “The Vindication of Humane Vitae” published with First Things on the encyclical’s 40th anniversary.
4. TOB 23:3.
Kommentare