The Mystic Rose

Investigating a feminine perspective in Theology in complete submission to the Magisterium.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Exam 1: Theology of the Body Midterm

"Marriage is good and holy, holy continence is better, virginity is best of all." Explain the reasoning behind Augustine's defense of this hierarchy, with particular focus on his views regarding sexuality. How would you criticize Augustine's theology of the body from your own standpoint? Does anything in Augustine's theology ofthe body retain relevance today?

Augustine's view of holy continence, or voluntarily refraining from sexual union while in the married state as a great "gift of God" is an understanding originating from Saint Paul. Augustine phrases his view as such, "(Paul) tells us that this gift (of continence in marriage) is from God; although he classes it below that continence in which he would have all men be like himself... When these are shown to be gifts of God, it is meant that they must be sought from him if they are not already possesed." In this we see a construction of Augustine's hierarchy of goods and that he understands it as best for those already married to pursue this marital state. He takes Paul's view that living without a spouse in virginity in the sole pursuit of God as the highest good. As Paul says, "I would that all men were even as I myself."

posted by Velvet @ 6:15 PM  

32 Comments:

  • At 4:39 AM, Blogger Silabella said…

    I like their arguments because they certainly show a great respect for chastity, a characteristic just tossed aside as antiquated and unnatural in modernity.

    I do not like their arguments, however, for imposing a hierarchy on the choices of vocation. We are all called to serve the Lord in different, sometimes extremely challenging ways, in and out of the continent life. By emphasizing virginity as the highest state, they are disregarding the irreplacable sanctity of the nuptial meaning of the body.

    Not only that, they are acting as only God does as judges of those on earth. They are judging that the choices they made for themselves are greater than those of others who, by nature of our design, must succumb to what they seem to see as a materialistic, animalistic state of procreation.

    This reinforces the hierarchy of spirit over matter, and completely doesn't take into account the physical nature of our bodies as reflective of the sanctity and glory of God. I find this view dangerous and highly destructive in all of its implications for the dignity of women.

     

  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Velvet said…

    To view chastity as the objectively higher call does seem to assume alot. For example, what of the challenges of the marital life and family that those living a life of virginal continence face? Are these challenges any "lower" or take any less power of will? It seems to me we are dealing with an equal level of trial in the spiritual life, no matter where we are. To go about measuring the objective good of specific vocations, this perspective of the spiritual life seems dangerous in itself, for each calling is unique and each cross specific to the person. It seems one should only measure the higher call by the level of sanctity one reaches, or by that capcity in the soul to union with God that has been reached. This I see as the highest good; the highest call, and each person comes to this sanctity in different manners.
    It should also be noted that if one enters into a single, chaste state and it is NOT the specific call of God for ones life (as many have attempted), what would it matter then to consider the objectively "higher" calling, for one is not doing the will of God? IF all WERE as St. Paul is (as he implies all should be adn as would be best, he thinks), then some would be rejecting their call to the married state, which itself is good and holy, and how then would it be the higher calling to reject God?

     

  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    I completely agree

     

  • At 4:32 AM, Blogger Silabella said…

    I completely see your argument, ergo sum, but you're still operating under the traditional premise that having one highest value, God, means that there's one highest way of connecting to God. This to me is counter to the revelation of God as he created us not one being with one highest way of serving, but two sexed forms with different vocations. Also, you're speaking as if material pursuits are destructive of this path to God instead of being a better or at least other just as good way of leading you towards it than even asceticism. I completely see your view, especially since, you're right, that is the view of the vast tradition of the Catholic Church.

    As an opposing viewpoint, I think Semperviva and I are perhaps positing that this supposed link is ignoring the immense potentiality of the traditionally inferior material world to be a true focus of God. Your premise assumes that praise of God is its highest in immaterial, chaste forms, that other things detract from this highest value, the praise of God. I do not necessarily think that the case. Notably, Catholic dogma does not state that “the pursuit of God as your highest value can ONLY BE achieved in the utter negation of ALL OTHER PURSUITS”. That is a (little ‘t’) tradition of wise, but fallible beings and is not closed to discussion.

    Also notably, it IS Catholic dogma that at the end of time we will not be merely souls in heaven, we will be reunited with a glorified version of our bodies. To what does an purely ascetic life glorify that image of a physical and material creation of God as ultimately elevated to the highest way of being? We are Man and Woman. Soul AND Body.

    The hierarchy of values I don’t think applies in the way that you necessarily think about it. We could then place in the hierarchy from most God-like to least based on your preconditioned qualities of ‘asceticism’ and ‘prayer’, all the way down to gluttons and atheists. But Jesus didn’t do that – God didn’t do that. He called all people, in all professions, in all ways they were called to live their lives for him, not necessarily to renounce everything else. God did not value man over woman or woman over man because one was better at serving him than the other. God does not prioritize who is serving him in the best way, only that whatever we all called to we praise and worship him in the best way we can in whatever way.

    I believe we too quickly look over ‘ALL OTHER PURSUITS’ as not being a full complete worship of God. That there are multiple ways of serving God in the highest extent and that comes in different vocations. If there were only one true way to do so (prayerful asceticism), the necessity of our different sexes and different vocations according to each would not be necessary. We would be unisexual or hermaphroditic beings whose sole highest objective was the ascetic, immaterial, unworldly pursuit of the praise and glory of God that only comes through prayer and worship.

    I think that when you put that order of hierarchy of praise (as we were referring to it before, the hierarchy of vocations) you’re debasing the fact that we were created sexual, beings on a world of God’s creation, male and female, with different vocations. And any attempt to define as *the highest* (and the ONLY highest) vocation that which ignores and rejects the greatest gifts God gave us to understand him (the mirror image of him in ourselves as sexed beings, in the trinity through our act of union, of his beauty through this ‘material’ world) I think is an elitist and weak claim that is harmful to both men and women as they attempt to find their places as God’s children.

    *NB - I'm excited you're engaging us in debate though :D*

     

  • At 6:07 AM, Blogger Velvet said…

    To quote John Zoscack (while in discussion with a male peer who viewed women from a purely Aristotelian perspective):

    "...Have you ever...
    engaaaaged a woman?"

    ')

     

  • At 6:18 AM, Blogger Velvet said…

    I see a problem in Augustine in this sense:

    He seems to be implying the following:

    If I imagine myself as a cloistered discalced Carmelite (one of the most rigorous or extreme orders) I choose to give my entire heart, mind, soul and body to Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom of my soul and say yes to His love.

    Augustine seems to say that this love is LOWER then the love I would give to a real flesh and blood husband, to whom I would also give myself heart, mind, body and soul, saying yes to his love, and seeing Jesus in and through my husband.

    Although they are differnt manifestations of love, how is one higher, for both have God as their end. Yes, in marriage, their is more STEPS involved in turning towards God, but the end is the same, and if ordered correctly, marriage would be not a gazing of one into the eyes of the lover, but a turning together in the same direction towards the eyes of the Divine and Infinite Lover (to paraphrase C. S. Lewis).

     

  • At 6:20 AM, Blogger Velvet said…

    ~*OOPSie*~

    I meant to say Augustine implies virginal love as HIGHER up ^there^. I do not see how this follows. Both involve embracing of sacrifice.

     

  • At 6:29 AM, Blogger Velvet said…

    LOL, Jerry is defending Augustine!

    Oh, the irony!

    ;)

     

  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    Ahhh, yes, you are right indeed on some of your points, but that does not make them necessarily exclusive of mine.

    For example, you mention the exclusive vocation of service to God through the priesthood or nunnery. You discuss how priests have the special power and access to spiritual matters not allowed to the lay person, etc. The priest’s fundamental position and calling are to act, however, ‘in persona Christi’. And Christ on earth lived a celibate life, so priests are called to as well. [note again: Christ lived a celibate life, affirming its dignity and value; but God the father made us different sexes, thereby confirming the need for differentiation of vocations, both in the mirror image of him; human beings are called to all three] The virgin Mary lived a holy virgin life, so those called to the vocation of a nun are as well, to be the ‘Spouse of Christ’.

    Access to a priest’s particular spiritual graces are not allowed to the layperson…but you said it yourself… the particular spiritual graces of matrimony are not allowed to the consecrated person! (meaning the act of consummation) It’s not a hierarchy here – it’s an and/or. You can’t have both. It is not because a lay person is inherently unworthy as a human being that he does not transmit the sacraments, it is because he has chosen a different vocation with access to its own spiritual graces that the priest and nun cannot. And vice versa.

    I have never seen an ordering of the “hierarchy of value” of the sacraments, as each are distinct and bestow their own supernatural graces of inestimable value. If the Church doctrine does explicitly say that one is ‘better’ or ‘higher in value’ than the other, I would really like to see where so that I may examine that in its proper context.

     

  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    [There are priests in rites of the Church, for example the Melkites, who traditionally can both, be married and licitly give the sacraments. It is more a particularly Western tradition to have celibate priests. And, I think you know, Jerry, and I shoulden't have to say this, that celibacy has nothing to do with a priest having had sex with his wife and becoming somehow "dirty" and hence not able to handle the Eucharist. I only bring that up because I KNOW that YOU KNOW the irrelevency of that absurd statement.]

     

  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    You’re also examining Catholic beliefs and traditions with the mindset that: if everyone were equal than everyone would be allowed to do everything. You could then make the argument that married people are better because they can receive the graces through sex that priests can’t.

    You write: “[the Church] ain't gonna allow married priests and nuns to serve God's vocation because it does not believe (as you do) that marriage and/or continence are merely different routes or means to reach the same end of God, and therefore have EQUAL assessment in value... and therefore is WORTHY equally to handle the eucharist, consecrate the bread, or forgive sins, etc. etc.”

    This is untrue. The Church does indeed believe that marriage and continence are different routes and vocations to God, you said it yourself. But you are arguing that only one can be the highest, which I already expressed why I disagreed. “Equal assessment in value” does NOT mean that you can do the same things. That’s why there are different vocations! Not everyone is called to handle the Eucharist, and not everyone is called to live a married life. That is a huge leap to link those – that being equal means everyone can do everything. Both are different vocations and extremely spiritual in and of themselves, but just because you are called to one and not the other does not make your choice lower in value.

     

  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    CASSIE ARE YOU ON RIGHT NOW???? HOW IS ENGLAND???

     

  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    I never denied that asceticism is a right and holy vocation towards God. However, I repeat: IT IS NOT Church Doctrine that the “highest and purest state of grace is the one led in chaste, continence, self-denial, asceticism, etc.” That has been the ‘t’radition of believing it such. NOT dogma. NOT infalliable and NOT unquestionable. You may find many saints, scholars, and popes who happen to believe as such, but you will not find this declared ex cathedra to be infallible, because that is a moral judgement that God alone makes or does not make. This is not, as you assert, a fundamental (or infallible) teaching. Again, if Church doctrine explicitly says this somewhere, I would like to see that too to examine it in its proper context and reassess my own arguments.

    It is a ‘t’radition to practice the ascetic life and renounce the worldly as bad in anticipation of other worldly…I would imagine because most of the Church fathers’ and mothers’ focuses were on the spiritual aspect of this other worldliness to the exclusion or denigration of the glorified body aspect of eternal life. Both Soul and Body are to be focused on God, and that occurs in different ways in different vocations.

     

  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    As a last note, by critiquing and analyzing the traditions of the Catholic Church, both Semperviva and I in no way mean any disrespect to those who are infinitely wiser than us and more full of grace, in all walks of life, in all traditions of the Church. Both Semperviva and I are orthodox Catholics who are trying to learn more about our faith and question assumptions about it that are not part of revelation but part of an Aristotelian patriarchal tradition. Credo ut intelligam - “I believe so that I may understand.”

    Searching for understanding through questioning and critique is not heretical, and I assure you, if the Pope were to tell us we were both infallibly wrong on these points both Semper and I would retract our statements and endeavour to understand this Truth through his infallible moral judgement from the Chair of Peter. A questioning or rejection of a tradition of the Catholic Church from an orthodox view does not make us Protestant, it makes us Catholics trying to learn and understand our faith. Some things we’ll probably get wrong, and some we’ll get right. It’s all part of the process…and the process… is the point; it is the proof of our faith.

     

  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    Ahhh!!! Yes I am!!! I can't get on IM though....cause AIM express sucks here, the public computer can't take it..... go on phatmass? I dont know!!!

     

  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    YOU ARE ON!!!!!!!! CASSANDRA :D
    what time is it there across the ocean lol

     

  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    OH NO!!!!!!!!!!! I WANNA TALK TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    OH OH OH WHAT DO WE DO??????????????????????? LOL

     

  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    PS- Jerry can you get me one of those and I'll pay you back :D

     

  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    I'm going to TRY to do AIM express... but normally it just freezes up everyth8ing and doens't work :( :( :(. HEY! I should CALL YOU!

     

  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    OH YEAH!!! but won't that be expensive?????

     

  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    Still trying to sign on to IM... it might take a minute....

    yeah! but it'll be worth it! dude, we've NEVER talked. But... if AIM works... then I'm not calling cause it is expensive :p But i have a mobile phone with an ok international rate, so it's not as bad for me to call you as it would be for you ot call me

     

  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    LOL well I actually have theology of the body in 30 minutes but YOU CAN CALL hmmmmmmmmmm... in 2 hours??? is that too late for you over there?

     

  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    haha...well...it's 8:30pm now. I can call at 10:30 but I can only talk for like 20 minutes (cause that's all money i'd have on my phone, it's all pay as you go here)

    Does that sound good?

     

  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    thats FINE!!!!!!! YEAY!!

    i emailed you my cell!!!!!!!!!!!

    yeay TTYL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gtg to clase de teologia

     

  • At 12:34 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    Silly girl! Why do you want a crucified Mary? ;)

     

  • At 12:34 PM, Blogger Silabella said…

    BYE!!! :D

     

  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    HAHAHAH nono hehehhe its mary AND a crucifix seperate but on the same chain, i think... lol otherwise no thanks LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    Jerry: Here's another approach to support Augustine's argument...

    God DID NOT create man and woman and bless their union. The UNION of man and woman came AFTER the FALL... after ADAM (presumably) discovered that a "UNION" was now possible with this WOMAN. This came after they had eaten off the tree of knowledge... which should also include the knowledge of the self... self-awareness... as being man and woman.


    Sophia: Oh my Jerry! (Oh my and oh dear!) From the perspective/teaching of the Church, man and woman were always called from to "be fruitful and multiply" in union for the purpose of communion.


    Jerry: Infact, God CONDEMNS such a union when God had said that you have sinned and so you are ashamed now... so you are clothing yourself because you are ASHAMED OF THE CORPA, the BODY... your ATMAN, the SOUL has been defiled by this REALIZATION OF THE BODY.

    Sophia: Oh my Jerry, we must correct your reading/interpretation of Genesis, love. Man and woman DID truly hide themselve, but the Catholic understanding is NOT that they hid themselves because the soul is horrified by the body, or that their is a horror or repulsion to the body, for God declared it to be "very good." They hid their bodies for they lost grace. So what? What did grace do for them? It preserved "Purity of Heart." What is that? Purity of heart was that state in which they were able to see/ preserve by that very presence of grace (ie, the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit) the TRUE beauty and DIGNITY of the other, the man or the woman. When they lost the Holy Spirit they remained with a "fracturing" of vision and a disconnect, for the Spirit of GOd no longer dwelled in his divine energies to fully unify body and soul, and so IN-sight into the body-soul union was lost, hence, Adam looked at Eve and no longer saw her full dignity, but became in the state of lust, rather than LOVE OR SELF DONATION he desired to now TAKE, and Eve saw Adam and lusted rather then gave, and their desires became inverted towards self-gratification and not towards self-donation, hence, they covered their bodies to prevent, NOT UNION or SEX, which was there and always GOOD pre-fall, BUT the denegration of/utilitarian/selfish taking/using of the other.

    Jerry: Man and woman were created as REFLECTED images of God. That reflection was in the soul and personified by the body.

    Sophia: I believe this also is not what the Church understands about our origins. I believe it is in complete UNION AND COMMUNION of body and soul, (not merely the body reflecting the soul) and most specifically, "male and female he created them, in the image of GOd he created them" in which the Body-Soul composite reveals God/the image of God.

    Jerry: Now, after the fall, man realized a DICHOTOMY of IMAGES... that of his ATMAN, being spirit and soul, "God-like" matter... and that of his own BODY... being and looking like other animals.

    Sophia: Yes, this seems to flow from the understanding of the LOSS of the unifying force, the Divine presence, the indwelling, the fall, etc

    Jerry: Thus, the UNION of Man and Woman came AFTER the fall (hence, following the consequence of the fall) following the self-realization of a physicality that was to be hidden, clothed, covered, and at the same time erotically desired (Genesis talks about Adam's attraction to Eve AFTER having eaten the fruit -- thus self-awareness being the consequences of a sinful act)...

    Sophia: I believe it is NOT the UNION that came after the fall. It was the specifically LUSTFUL DESIRE, the new force entering the world, the inclination to gratify oneself at the expense of/indiffernce to the other.

    Jerry: Thus, the material realm necessarily TAINTS all endeavors to reach God, or to pursue the Highest value, with the sin of the Original fall and the sin of the inherent awareness we possess that our souls might be reflections of God's own Spirit, but our bodies are dramatically different...

    Sophia: The material BODY then IN A SENSE loses/lost something...but never its VALUE of goodness... it/WE lose PERFECT UNION OF/REALIZATION OF the UNIONcomplementarity of the body-soul.

     

  • At 6:40 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    OH! I had another thought...

    a celibate person gives their body SOLELY TO GOD.

    That, perhaps, I could see as a higher good.

     

  • At 4:49 AM, Blogger Silabella said…

    Sidenote:

    From Pope Pius XI's encyclical, Rappresentanti, discussing the Christian education of youth:

    "[T]he true Christian is not obliged to renounce the things of this world or to lessen his natural abilities. On the contrary, inasmuch as he incorporates them into his normal life in a disciplined manner, he develops and perfects them; he thereby ennobles the natural life itself, supplying efficacious values to it not only of the spiritual and eternal world but also of the material and earthly word."

    As St. Edith Stein then comments, "In this concise formulation, the natural and supernatural goals have thus been combined according to the principle that grace perfects nature."

    Nature here being referred to is both spiritual and physical nature--as human nature necessarily encorporates both--the soul and the body.

     

  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger Velvet said…

    I finally mailed yah lettah Cassie-bear!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home