John Paul II
The Theology of the Body
A New Translation Based on the John Paul II Archives
Translation, Index, and Introduction by Michael Waldstein
Pauline BOOKS & MEDIA
Boston
In the rightly highly touted introduction of the definitive English translation of John Paul II's writings on gender issues, popularly termed "Theology of the Body," the translator and author, Michael Waldstein, dedicates a page to a position I take in my essay Karol Wojtyla and the Patriarchal Hierarchy of the Family: His Exegetical Comment on Ephesians 5:21-33 and Genesis 3:16. Dr. Waldstein writes on p. 16 of the Introduction:
"One must measure the authority of TOB in accord with these findings about office, genre, and content: the authority of a text is
high if (1) the Pope speaks as pastor of the universal Church, (2) in a form of teaching central to his office of bishop, and (3) on a topic central to the faith. All three of these indicators are high in TOB.
Contrary to this evidence, some authors have dismissed the authority of TOB. In the traditionalist publication Christian Order, for
example, G. C. Dilsaver argues that TOB should be considered a private theological work by Karol Wojtyla, not part of the papal magisterium of John Paul II.
Pope John Paul II has used his Wednesday catechesis conference to read much of his private theological
works. Among these is The Theology of Marriage and Celibacy. In this work, Karol Wojtyla (as a private
theologian, since this work was completed prior to his ascending to the papacy) introduces the novel
concept of "mutual submission" in his exegesis of Ephesians 5.24.
All the signs that surround the Wednesday catecheses and that express John Paul II's intention make it quite clear that John Paul II
intended the Wednesday catecheses to be precisely this: catecheses, not the recitation of private theological works. Dilsaver simply sidesteps the plain intention of John Paul II. The only argument he offers is that this work was completed prior to his ascending to the papacy. This argument is irrelevant. The first publication of the text was its delivery by the Bishop of Rome as a cycle of catecheses. The original or authentic text of TOB is the Italian text as delivered by Pope John Paul II and published in the official Insegnamenti series.
A position similar to Dilsaver's is proposed by Charles Curran, who likewise ignores the genre of catechesis and limits himself to the
more external genre "General Audience" used by the Insegnamenti series. [The Theology of the Body belongs to] a particular genre of teaching in the speeches given at the weekly audiences.... As such, talks to general audiences have little or no authoritative character. They are often just greetings to the various people in attendance and exhortations.... These talks...have little or no importance from the point of view of authoritative teaching. Against both Dilsaver and Curran, one should insist that TOB is a catechesis proposed by the Bishop of Rome for the universal Church on the center of Christian faith, the "great mystery" of love (Eph 5)." (for the entire Introduction see http://www.realist.org/files/misc/Waldstein_Introduction_to_TOB.pdf )
While I appreciate Dr. Waldstein's attempt to discern the authoritative status of this particular selection of the late Holy Father's writings, he nonetheless fails to address the actual hypothesis of my essay, even the specific point of the quote he uses; viz., the novelty of the concept of "mutual submission." Indeed, my construal of John Paul II writings on The Original Unity of Man and Woman, or his Theology of the Body as those of a private theologian stem from my desire to downplay thepossibly misleading or controverted elements contained therein. In identifying these elements I painstakingly sought to employ a tone and form that was highly respectful of both the papacy in general and the pontificate of His Holiness John Paul II in particular. In addition, justice requires that any comparison between the notorious dissenter Rev. Charles Curran's theological writings and my own requires notice that there is no implication that my writings are in any way heterodoxy. However, Dr. Waldstein's presentation is apt to give the impression that both Fr. Curran's and my positions are equally unorthodox, albeit on polar ends of the spectrum. Indeed, as will become apparent, my position is the only posssible orthodox position.
The essence of my essays Patriarchal Hierarchy of the Family; A Constant Teaching of the Church, and Karol Wojtyla and the Patriarchal Hierarchy of the Family: His Exegetical Comment on Ephesians 5:21-33 and Genesis 3:16., were first presented as a double lecture at the John Paul II Pontifical Institute on Marriage and Family in the Spring of 1991. At the time I was in the last months of my master degree and taking a class on Original Unity of Man and Woman by a co-founder of the Institute, Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete. During an earlier lecture being given by Msgr. Albacete I raised a question about the apparent conflict between what was said in the Pope's writings and what I believed to be the teaching of the Church on patriarchal hierarchy of the family. Msgr. Albacete graciously offered to let me take the next week's double lectures to present my findings. I accepted and would further research the issue during the ensuing week.
By accessing scriptual and magisterial writings it was quickly discernible that John Paul I's writings on the subject of patriarchal hierarchy did indeed appear to contradict previous magisterial teachings. Immediately my head began to spin, how could this be? Pope John Paul II, like many of my generation, had been the touchstone of orthodoxy (as Peter should be) amidst a sea of heterdoxy, a sea especially turbulent in my own home Archdiocese of Los Angeles. What now?
I gave the lecture the following week and my findings were not challenged by either students nor professor. Indeed, at the end of the lecture Msgr. Albacete, the erudite champion of Vatican II and expert on the writings of John Paul II, thanked me and, shrugging his massive shoulders, said, "All I can say is that these writings are the writings of a private theologian, therefore do not partake of the papal charism." This solution left the papal authority unscathed while still allowing the truth to prevail; a solution I hence used in my published essay.
The authority Dr. Waldstein wishes to imbue these writings with is based on discerning what Pope John Paul II's inner intent was in the abscence of any stated intent. Thus Dr. Waldstein's recourse to the interpretation of "signs": "All the signs that surround the Wednesday catecheses and that express John Paul II’s intention make it quite clear that John Paul II intended the Wednesday catecheses to be precisely this: catecheses, not the recitation of private theological works." Of course catechesis broadly varies in authority from mere theological opinion to de fide statements. But Dr. Waldstein's view of these writings as "a catechesis proposed by the Bishop of Rome for the universal Church on the center of Christian faith" imbues them with an authority that is as close to ex cathedra as possible (though specific words that express intent are required for ex cathedra teachings).
Though Dr. Waldstein is surely an able and well intended defender of the papacy, the position he advocates of imbuing a very high degree of authority to these writings issued by Pope John Paul II during his pontificate may have the eventual effect of undermining that particular pontificate, the papacy as a whole, and the general teaching authority of the Church. For Dr. Waldstein's position presents the faithful with an quandary: the rejection of a constant authoritative teaching of the Church in favor of contradictory teachings of controverted authority. Indeed, his position could be used to justify those who dismiss or reject modern pontificates (such as sedevacantists or other schismatic traditionalists) because they expect a pope to be too infallible, as well as by those who reject all pontificates (such as modernists and assorted dissenting progressives) because they accept no infallibility.
In light of the fact that the familial patriarchal hierarchy is an infallible teaching it seems prudent to construe private writings of John Paul II that in some way seem to contradict this infallible teaching as those of a private theologian in order to uphold the very authority of the papacy the Church was graced to have John Paul II hold. Such a position not only maintains the constant teachings of the Church but surely brings out the stated intent of the Holy Father's writings on the subject. As I write in my conclusion to the essay,
"When John Paul II's writings on patriarchy are read in the contextual harmony with previous magisterial pronouncements on the subject they must needs be viewed as having the primary intent of eradicating that which has in the past masqueraded as a Christian patriarchy. John Paul II’s writings, then, can be seen as paving the way for the establishment of an authentic Christian patriarchy, a patriarchy purified of all brutish dominance and worldly power and based firmly on Christ and his commission of authority as per traditional exegesis and teaching."
[See the full essays, Patriarchal Hierarchy of the Family; A Constant Teaching of the Church, and Karol Wojtyla and the Patriarchal Hierarchy of the Family: His Exegetical Comment on Ephesians 5:21-33 and Genesis 3:16., elsewhere on this website, www.dilsaver.org]
The Theology of the Body
A New Translation Based on the John Paul II Archives
Translation, Index, and Introduction by Michael Waldstein
Pauline BOOKS & MEDIA
Boston
In the rightly highly touted introduction of the definitive English translation of John Paul II's writings on gender issues, popularly termed "Theology of the Body," the translator and author, Michael Waldstein, dedicates a page to a position I take in my essay Karol Wojtyla and the Patriarchal Hierarchy of the Family: His Exegetical Comment on Ephesians 5:21-33 and Genesis 3:16. Dr. Waldstein writes on p. 16 of the Introduction:
"One must measure the authority of TOB in accord with these findings about office, genre, and content: the authority of a text is
high if (1) the Pope speaks as pastor of the universal Church, (2) in a form of teaching central to his office of bishop, and (3) on a topic central to the faith. All three of these indicators are high in TOB.
Contrary to this evidence, some authors have dismissed the authority of TOB. In the traditionalist publication Christian Order, for
example, G. C. Dilsaver argues that TOB should be considered a private theological work by Karol Wojtyla, not part of the papal magisterium of John Paul II.
Pope John Paul II has used his Wednesday catechesis conference to read much of his private theological
works. Among these is The Theology of Marriage and Celibacy. In this work, Karol Wojtyla (as a private
theologian, since this work was completed prior to his ascending to the papacy) introduces the novel
concept of "mutual submission" in his exegesis of Ephesians 5.24.
All the signs that surround the Wednesday catecheses and that express John Paul II's intention make it quite clear that John Paul II
intended the Wednesday catecheses to be precisely this: catecheses, not the recitation of private theological works. Dilsaver simply sidesteps the plain intention of John Paul II. The only argument he offers is that this work was completed prior to his ascending to the papacy. This argument is irrelevant. The first publication of the text was its delivery by the Bishop of Rome as a cycle of catecheses. The original or authentic text of TOB is the Italian text as delivered by Pope John Paul II and published in the official Insegnamenti series.
A position similar to Dilsaver's is proposed by Charles Curran, who likewise ignores the genre of catechesis and limits himself to the
more external genre "General Audience" used by the Insegnamenti series. [The Theology of the Body belongs to] a particular genre of teaching in the speeches given at the weekly audiences.... As such, talks to general audiences have little or no authoritative character. They are often just greetings to the various people in attendance and exhortations.... These talks...have little or no importance from the point of view of authoritative teaching. Against both Dilsaver and Curran, one should insist that TOB is a catechesis proposed by the Bishop of Rome for the universal Church on the center of Christian faith, the "great mystery" of love (Eph 5)." (for the entire Introduction see http://www.realist.org/files/misc/Waldstein_Introduction_to_TOB.pdf )
While I appreciate Dr. Waldstein's attempt to discern the authoritative status of this particular selection of the late Holy Father's writings, he nonetheless fails to address the actual hypothesis of my essay, even the specific point of the quote he uses; viz., the novelty of the concept of "mutual submission." Indeed, my construal of John Paul II writings on The Original Unity of Man and Woman, or his Theology of the Body as those of a private theologian stem from my desire to downplay thepossibly misleading or controverted elements contained therein. In identifying these elements I painstakingly sought to employ a tone and form that was highly respectful of both the papacy in general and the pontificate of His Holiness John Paul II in particular. In addition, justice requires that any comparison between the notorious dissenter Rev. Charles Curran's theological writings and my own requires notice that there is no implication that my writings are in any way heterodoxy. However, Dr. Waldstein's presentation is apt to give the impression that both Fr. Curran's and my positions are equally unorthodox, albeit on polar ends of the spectrum. Indeed, as will become apparent, my position is the only posssible orthodox position.
The essence of my essays Patriarchal Hierarchy of the Family; A Constant Teaching of the Church, and Karol Wojtyla and the Patriarchal Hierarchy of the Family: His Exegetical Comment on Ephesians 5:21-33 and Genesis 3:16., were first presented as a double lecture at the John Paul II Pontifical Institute on Marriage and Family in the Spring of 1991. At the time I was in the last months of my master degree and taking a class on Original Unity of Man and Woman by a co-founder of the Institute, Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete. During an earlier lecture being given by Msgr. Albacete I raised a question about the apparent conflict between what was said in the Pope's writings and what I believed to be the teaching of the Church on patriarchal hierarchy of the family. Msgr. Albacete graciously offered to let me take the next week's double lectures to present my findings. I accepted and would further research the issue during the ensuing week.
By accessing scriptual and magisterial writings it was quickly discernible that John Paul I's writings on the subject of patriarchal hierarchy did indeed appear to contradict previous magisterial teachings. Immediately my head began to spin, how could this be? Pope John Paul II, like many of my generation, had been the touchstone of orthodoxy (as Peter should be) amidst a sea of heterdoxy, a sea especially turbulent in my own home Archdiocese of Los Angeles. What now?
I gave the lecture the following week and my findings were not challenged by either students nor professor. Indeed, at the end of the lecture Msgr. Albacete, the erudite champion of Vatican II and expert on the writings of John Paul II, thanked me and, shrugging his massive shoulders, said, "All I can say is that these writings are the writings of a private theologian, therefore do not partake of the papal charism." This solution left the papal authority unscathed while still allowing the truth to prevail; a solution I hence used in my published essay.
The authority Dr. Waldstein wishes to imbue these writings with is based on discerning what Pope John Paul II's inner intent was in the abscence of any stated intent. Thus Dr. Waldstein's recourse to the interpretation of "signs": "All the signs that surround the Wednesday catecheses and that express John Paul II’s intention make it quite clear that John Paul II intended the Wednesday catecheses to be precisely this: catecheses, not the recitation of private theological works." Of course catechesis broadly varies in authority from mere theological opinion to de fide statements. But Dr. Waldstein's view of these writings as "a catechesis proposed by the Bishop of Rome for the universal Church on the center of Christian faith" imbues them with an authority that is as close to ex cathedra as possible (though specific words that express intent are required for ex cathedra teachings).
Though Dr. Waldstein is surely an able and well intended defender of the papacy, the position he advocates of imbuing a very high degree of authority to these writings issued by Pope John Paul II during his pontificate may have the eventual effect of undermining that particular pontificate, the papacy as a whole, and the general teaching authority of the Church. For Dr. Waldstein's position presents the faithful with an quandary: the rejection of a constant authoritative teaching of the Church in favor of contradictory teachings of controverted authority. Indeed, his position could be used to justify those who dismiss or reject modern pontificates (such as sedevacantists or other schismatic traditionalists) because they expect a pope to be too infallible, as well as by those who reject all pontificates (such as modernists and assorted dissenting progressives) because they accept no infallibility.
In light of the fact that the familial patriarchal hierarchy is an infallible teaching it seems prudent to construe private writings of John Paul II that in some way seem to contradict this infallible teaching as those of a private theologian in order to uphold the very authority of the papacy the Church was graced to have John Paul II hold. Such a position not only maintains the constant teachings of the Church but surely brings out the stated intent of the Holy Father's writings on the subject. As I write in my conclusion to the essay,
"When John Paul II's writings on patriarchy are read in the contextual harmony with previous magisterial pronouncements on the subject they must needs be viewed as having the primary intent of eradicating that which has in the past masqueraded as a Christian patriarchy. John Paul II’s writings, then, can be seen as paving the way for the establishment of an authentic Christian patriarchy, a patriarchy purified of all brutish dominance and worldly power and based firmly on Christ and his commission of authority as per traditional exegesis and teaching."
[See the full essays, Patriarchal Hierarchy of the Family; A Constant Teaching of the Church, and Karol Wojtyla and the Patriarchal Hierarchy of the Family: His Exegetical Comment on Ephesians 5:21-33 and Genesis 3:16., elsewhere on this website, www.dilsaver.org]