Showing posts with label Body. Show all posts

Sunday, June 28, 2015

TOB: What is original nakedness?

Time for the Family 6/28/2015 , , , , , No comments :
We continue here our explorations into St. John Paul II’s series of Wednesday Catecheses, which eventually became known as Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body (TOB, for short). To see other posts on this topic, click here.

I will admit upfront that original nakedness, the third of the original experiences that John Paul II explains in the TOB, has always been the least clear to me: we have seen man alone, in front of God and the rest of the world, understanding both his created nature and his unique place in creation; and we have seen Adam and Eve together, understanding that man does not live or know himself in isolation, that his finitude and bodiliness are in fact good. What more does original nakedness “bring to the table,” so to speak?

Let’s first recall the context of original nakedness: the three original experiences are a meditation by the saint on the subjective experience of Adam and Eve in the state of original innocence. The experiences are not step-wise or successive, but in fact a circumencession: all three are present in the beginning in some sense, albeit in more or less explicit ways at different points. Original nakedness is intrinsically related to original solitude and original unity insofar as it is part of the human experience, and insofar as it too, like the other experiences opens up another dimension of what it means to be imago dei.

"Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden" by Lucas Cranach the Elder is in the Public Domain.
Which dimension is that? Our first clue is the word John Paul II uses to name this experience: nakedness brings the body almost immediately to mind and thus should be a clue that it may have something to do with the immanent experience of man as embodied. Once again, we are being reminded that the body is not something “other” than myself, that in fact I am my body, and my lived experience occurs, so to speak, nowhere else. Original nakedness, then, reminds us of a certain transparency the human being should properly have (even if it has been now distorted) to himself, to others, and to the world.

This does not however mean that in original nakedness we’re laid completely bare to one another, such that there could be no interiority in either Adam or Eve that the other did not see. This would be a violation of man’s integrity, and a violation of his freedom: though there is a proper transparency in original innocence, there is also a proper boundary with the other, such that Adam and Eve can choose to reveal themselves to each other in time. We must not mistake the exteriorization of things for original nakedness; rather it seems to me that original nakedness is another way to look at what intimacy really means.

Though intimacy has become a bit of an epithet for sex or other physical closeness, I think we all know that one can be physically close to someone and not be truly intimate. That’s because intimacy is in fact first a kind of knowing. It is a knowing that sees the other person not just for his body—or for any one-dimensional aspect—but rather sees him as a whole, in all of his humanity—that is to say, as a subjective/objective whole. Intimacy is also, as we know, something that takes time. This temporal aspect is, it seems to me, intrinsic to intimacy because to see and treat someone holistically means to acknowledge that there is an interiority about him that I cannot know unless he reveals it to me himself. Human beings are not machines whose parts can be separated and (literally) objectified—we are persons whose experience is expressed in and through the body in modes we can choose to share.

The intimacy that the experience of original nakedness is, then, helps us understand what knowledge truly is—it is not a running list of facts and figures, but the space in which we can let someone reveal himself and in which we can reveal ourselves. Obviously the bodily aspect of intimacy has a great deal to do with this, but physical intimacy is not the entire telos of original nakedness, and we risk abridging John Paul II’s vision if we cut it off at that point. We must remember that the original experiences, and the Theology of the Body itself is not simply about the relationship (conjugal or otherwise) between male and female, but about man in the world as incarnated imago dei.


Original nakedness is then a way of knowing and being known as God knows and is known. It is God who respects the wholeness of creature so much that he allows him the freedom to say yes to God or not. And it is God who reveals himself to his creature gently and appropriately, such that his creature can come to know him—in time—intimately. If God gives the gift of identity in original solitude and community in original unity, then he gives the gift of his vision and care for his creation in original nakedness.


Wednesday, March 11, 2015

What is sexual difference? Part III

Time for the Family 3/11/2015 , , , , , , 1 comment :
In seeking to define sexual difference and to understand its significance, we have discussed the Trinity and the metaphysics of form and matter.  Though in many senses “invisible,” we can now begin to see how the logic of love and gift are made visible in the human body.

Our call to love, our being as gift, and our invitation to fruitfulness are reflected and made visible through our bodies, which are either masculine or feminine.  In his apostolic letter, Mulieris dignitatem St. John Paul II explains that our masculinity and femininity are not incidental to our being created in God’s image and likeness.  He writes, “To say that man is created in the image and likeness of God means that man is called to exist ‘for’ others, to become a gift” (#7).

Together, masculinity and femininity reveal that who the human person is involves giving and receiving, and therefore, love.  To be in the image and likeness of God involves our capacity for intellect and will, but also our call to love.

Gender, therefore, is not a social construct.  It is not arbitrary.  Neither is it following the sheer dictates of biology.  Rather, sexual difference is a visible sign of what is invisible.

Although there is not gender in God, there is something about love and fruitfulness in God, that when embodied, takes the form of gender/sexual difference.  We began these reflections by looking at God as eternal Gift, eternal relationship of love, eternal fruitfulness.  From God’s love, generosity and fruitfulness, in His creation, through metaphysics and becoming visible in our bodies, we see a glimmer of who He is. 

Image by kristin_a is licensed under C.C. by SA 2.0
Our culture, however, has begun to look at the body as a blank canvas with no inherent meaning.  Whatever meaning I choose in my “freedom” to give to my body (or lack of meaning) I may assign to it.  One concrete demonstration of this logic is the severing of sex and gender – sex as whatever reproductive organs I happen to have and gender as a social construct by which certain stereotypes have been linked with particular reproductive organs.  In defiance of these “stereotypes,” gender becomes something I choose, not something I am given.  Therefore, gender is seen as arbitrary and meaningless.  (Its only meaning is that which I choose to give it.) 

But the body is not some “dumb matter,” a meaningless collection of cells and DNA.  Rather, the body is a gift whose origin is Love.  Because the body was created by God who is Love, every fiber, cell and strand of DNA is inscribed with love, and therefore with an inherent meaning.  The way the body is expressed in a masculine or feminine form profoundly manifests the call to love.

1)      My male or female body is a beautiful reminder that I was created.  I am not God.  I am a child of God.  I did not create myself.  I come from another.  My life is such a radical gift that there are some things I did not choose for myself -- my gender, my birthday, my name, my family, etc.  Since there is another way of being that is different from me (male or female), I also realize that I cannot encompass the whole of reality.

2) My male or female body is a beautiful reminder that I am called to love.  In seeing that there is another with whom I have unity (the same gift of humanity) and difference (masculinity or femininity), I see that it is possible for me to give and to receive from another.  I am called to live "for" another.  I am then able to see that love is possible, that love is good and that love is the meaning of life.

3) My male or female body is a beautiful reminder that I am called to love fruitfully.  When I realize that I did not create myself, that I come from God, and when I realize that I can love another with whom I share a unity (humanity) and a difference (male or female), I can see that my love can be fruitful.  It can grow and be more.  It doesn't have to collapse in upon itself.  It can open me up to new experiences, new wonder, new gratitude as I watch love unfolded as something I am given and not as something I create, dominate or master.

In short, my sexual identity, which I discover in my body, is a constant reminder of who I am as a human person -- a gift from God, called to give in love, fruitfully.  So, embracing this gift of our masculinity and femininity, which is revealed in and through our bodies is key to understanding who God created us to be and what He is calling us to (ultimately, eternal communion with Him in heaven).

In our desperation to promote equality, we have reduced equality to sameness.  And by rendering the body and gender as devoid of meaning, we are ironically uprooting the very foundation of the absolute dignity of both men and women.  Our bodies reveal that we did not create ourselves.  Our masculinity and femininity make us aware that we come from another and are created for another.  Our life is a gift. 

If our engendered bodies reveal that we are created and that we are gift, then it is precisely this truth – that we were loved into existence by God who is Love – that gives us the dignity that we are desperately trying to enshrine.  If we want to receive this gift, appreciate our dignity, and look at others as people to love and not as objects to use, then it starts with receiving our masculinity and femininity and realizing that love indeed requires gender (sexual difference).  And that gender reminds us of our unique call to love. 



Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )