I was stunned by this work. I usually do not read works based on Carmelite spirituality and the philosophy of phenomenology. I knew of the latter propensity of Pope John Paul II but not the first. The book is lengthy, really lengthy and I speed read it. But the farther I got into it, the more I realized that here was someone who was trying to bring holiness into the world, not in the words of scholastic philosophy, which he knows, but in the words of his spiritual and intellectual development.
I will try to type out my reactions by quotes from the book before having to take it back to the library.
MAN AND WOMAN HE CREATED THEM. A THEOLOGY OF THE BODY.
Trans… by Michael Waldstein. Pauline Books & Media Boston. 2006 c 1986, 2006. 735 pp.
128 p. Introduction. 665-735, Biblio, index.
167-8 2. The unity about which Genesis 2:24 speaks (“and the two will be one flesh”) is without doubt the unity that is expressed and realized in the conjugal act. The biblical formulation, so extremely concise and simple, indicates sex, that is, masculinity and femininity, as that characteristic of man—male and female—that allows them, whey become one flesh, to place their whole humanity at the same time under the blessing of fruitfulness. …
The fact that they become “one flesh” is a powerful bond established by the Creator through which they discover their own humanity, both in its original unit and in the duality of a mysterious reciprocal attraction. Sex, however, is something more than the mysterious power of human bodiliness, which acts, as it were, by virtue of instinct. On the level of man and in the reciprocal relationship of persons, sex expresses an ever-new surpassing of the limit of man’s solitude, which lies within the makeup of his body and determines its original meaning. This surpassing always/ implies that in a certain way one takes upon oneself the solitude of the body of the second “I” as one’s own.
203-4 5. In man, created in the image of God, the very sacramentality of creation, the sacramentality of the world, was thus in some way revealed In fact, through his bodiliness, his masculinity and femininity, man becomes a visible sign of the economy of Truth and Love, which has its source in God himself and was revealed already in the mystery of creation. Against this vast background, we fully understand the words in Genesis 2:24 that are constitutive of the sacrament of Marriage: “For this reason a man will leaved his father and his mother and unite with his wife, and the two will be one flesh.” Against this vast background we also understand that, through the whole depth of their anthropological meaning, the words of Genesis 2:25 (“Both were naked, the man and his wife, but they did not feel shame”) express the fact that, together with man, holiness has entered the/ visible world, the world created for man. The sacrament of the world, and the sacrament of man in the world, comes forth from the divine source of holiness and is instituted, at the same time, for holiness. Original innocence, connected with the experience of the spousal meaning of the body, is holiness itself, which permits man to express himself deeply with his own body, precisely through the “sincere gift” of self [Gaudium et Spes, 24:3].
221 And it is exactly here that reflection on the ancient text of Genesis proves to be irreplaceable. It constitutes really the “beginning” of the theology of the body. The fact that theology also includes the body should not astonish or surprise anyone who is conscious of the mystery and reality of the Incarnation. Through the fact that the Word of God became flesh, the body entered theology—that is, the science that has divinity for its object—I would say, through the main door. The Incarnation—and the redemption that flows from it—has also become the definitive source of the sacramentality of marriage, which we will deal with more extensively at a suitable time [see TOB 87-117b].
259-60 6. Concupiscence brings with it the loss of the interior freedom of the gift. The spousal meaning of the human body is linked exactly to this freedom. Man can become a gift—that is, man and woman can exist in the relationship of the reciprocal gift of self—if each of them/masters himself. Concupiscence, which manifests itself as a “constraint ‘sui generis’ of the body,” limits and restricts self-mastery from within, and thereby in some sense makes the interior freedom of the gift impossible. At the same time, also the beauty that the human body possesses in its male and female appearance, as an expression of the spirit, is obscured. The body is left as an object of concupiscence and this as a ‘terrain of appropriation” of the other human being. Concupiscence as such is not able to promote union as a communion of persons. By itself, it does not unite, but appropriates to itself. The relationship of the gift changes into a relationship of appropriation.
357 When we carried out the analyses of this topic, [The Gospel of Purity of Heart, adultery committed in the heart] we tried at the same time to grasp what the meaning Christ’s words had for his immediate listeners, educated in the tradition of the Old Testament, that is, in the tradition of the legislative texts, as well as Prophetic and Wisdom literature, and finally what meaning Christ’s words can have for human beings of every other epoch and in particular for contemporary man, considering the various ways in which he is culturally conditioned.
419 Continence “for” the kingdom of heaven is certainly related to the revelation of the fact that “in” the kingdom of heaven “they take neither wife nor husband” (Mt 22:30). It is a charismatic sign.
429 The “superiority” of continence to marriage never means, in the authentic tradition of the Church, a disparagement of marriage or a belittling of its essential value. It does not even imply sliding, even merely implicitly, toward Manichean positions, or a support for ways of evaluating or acting based on a Manichean understanding of the body and of sex, of marriage and procreation.
438 5. Now, it is precisely in relation to this concept, to this truth about the spousal meaning of the human body, that one must reread and understand the words of Christ about continence “for the kingdom of heaven,” which he spoke in the immediate context of that appeal to the “beginning,” on which he based his teaching about the unity and indissolubility of marriage. At the basis of Christ’s call to continence there stands not only “sexual drive” as a category of, I would say, naturalistic necessity, but also the awareness of the freedom of the gift, which is organically connected with the deep and mature consciousness of the spousal meaning of the body in the structure of man’s and woman’s personal subjectivity as a whole.
462 8. When it penetrates into daily life with the dimension of human morality, the redemption of the body helps man, above all, to discover the whole good in which he achieves the victory over sin and over concupiscence. Christ’s words, which flow from the divine depth of the mystery of redemption, allow us to discover and strengthen the bond that exists between the dignity of the human being (of the man or the woman) and the spousal meaning of his body.
466 Therefore, if one wishes to interpret this passage, [Eph 5:21-33, Wives be subject to your husbands as to the Lord…] one must do so in in the light of what Christ has told us about the human body. By his words he not only appealed to “historical” man (to his “heart”)—and by this very fact to the man of concupiscence, who is always “contemporary”—but he also highlighted, on the one hand, the perspective of the “beginning”, or of original innocence and justice, and, on the other hand, the eschatological perspective of the resurrection of the body when “hey will take neither wife nor husband” (Lk 20:35).
474 Christ is the source and at the same time the model of that submission—which, being reciprocal “in the fear of Christ,” confers on the conjugal union a deep and mature character. …
5. The author of Ephesians is not afraid to accept the concepts that were characteristic of the mentality and customs of that time; he is not afraid of speaking about the submission of the wife to the husband; he is, in addition, not afraid (also in the last verse of the text quoted by us) of recommending to the wife “to have reverence toward her husband” ….
6. Certainly, our contemporary sensibility is different, mentality and customs are different, and the social position of women in comparison with men is different. Nevertheless, the underlying parenetic principle that we find in Ephesians remains the same and bears the same fruits. Reciprocal submission “in the fear of Christ” … always forms the deep and firm supporting structure of the community of the spouses, in which the true “communion” of persons is realized.
7. By the term “sign” we mean here simply the “visibility of the Invisible.” The mystery hidden from ages isn God, that is, the Invisible, became visible first of all in the historical event itself of Christ.
pp. 617-639 Humanae Vitae
632 5. Man is person precisely because he possesses himself and has dominion over himself. Indeed, inasmuch as he is master over himself he can “give himself” to another.
pp. 639-58 Humanae Vitae
640-1 4. “We do ot at all intend to hide the sometimes serious difficulties inherent in the life of Christian married persons for them as for everyone else, ‘the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life.’ …HV 25
646 4. When we analyze continence in this way, in the (anthropological, ethical, and theological) dynamics proper to this virtue, we realize that the apparent “contradiction”—often brought in as an objection against Humanae Vitae and the Church's teaching about conjugal morality—disappears. That is, according to those who raise this objection, there would be a “contradiction” between the two meanings of the conjugal act, the unitive and the procreative meaning (see HV 12) such that, if it were not licit to separate them, the spouses would be deprived of the right to conjugal union when they cannot responsibly allow themselves to procreate.