Showing posts with label theology of the body. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology of the body. Show all posts

December 8, 2011

MOVIES: "HUGO"



"Hugo" is Martin Scorsese's engaging adaptation of the children's book by the same name. What's it about? Get this: It's an elaborate introduction to a slice of film history. Yup.

The book was written by Brian Selznick—no doubt to pass on his own love of film history to a new generation. http://theinventionofhugocabret.com/about_brian_bio.htm It’s interesting to note that Selznick has written other children’s books, including a book about Houdini (you’ll get the connection if you see “Hugo.”)

The threads in “Hugo” are: tinkering with machines, fixing things, everything having a purpose, magician’s tricks, dreams, imagination, film. I would say that another theme is that of children coming too soon and unbeckoned into our lives to mess up our tidy little frameworks, neat little plans. To pry into our secrets and closed boxes and expose us. And in doing so, they save us.

The all-British cast plays out the story set in a 1930’s train station in Paris. At first, the story seems to be a misfortunate orphan-urchin tale in the line of “Oliver,” but we can’t help noting this is no ordinary orphan. Hugo is very good at fixing things because his deceased father was a watch/clockmaker (horologist) and taught Hugo the tricks of the trade. Hugo lives in the train station unbeknownst to anyone and keeps all its clocks running like, well, clockwork. “Hugo” is a total nod to steampunk. There are puffing trains, vents, pipes, chimneys, sewers, as well as plenty of ticking and undulating gears in almost every shot. Even things like a mechanical toy store and live musicians with their instruments play into the “moving parts” theme. Bygones such as horses and (quel horreur!) mounds of hardcover books seem to be meant to make us yearn for a return to them.

Steampunk (see also the newest “Sherlock Holmes” movies) is a movement that celebrates the mechanical age of actual, physical, clanking, whirring parts—hardware—that kept everything going, as opposed to our digital world of software and intangible “cloud computing.” The iPod is the ultimate anti-steampunk: impossible to break into, take apart and put together again, mysterious, internal, unseen.

Hugo (Asa Butterfield) has an unpleasant run-in with a bitter old toy shop keeper (Ben Kingsley) who recognizes the boy’s genius and eventually takes him under his wing, but Hugo doesn’t seem to be able to keep himself from unintentionally betraying and hurting the already-wounded man. Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) is the shopkeeper’s goddaughter—also an orphan—who befriends Hugo.

There are some interesting but inchoate thoughts (Robin Hood, “time is all we have,” Hugo and Isabelle’s parents, etc.) that could have been continued or woven in to the story more. There are quick breaks from one action to another to move the story ahead, without each reveal and development flowing out of/being the outcome of another action (bad screen-storytelling).

The editing (Scorsese’s long time editor, Thelma Schoonmaker) really needed to be tighter and faster-paced (with a few disjointed scene-cuts sticking out like sore thumbs). There could have been more camera angles and cuts in general, but on the whole, it’s an eminently watchable film, especially when the film history is delved into and recreated.

Strong THEOLOGY OF THE BODY theme: “Everything has a purpose, even a machine. They do what they’re meant to do.” “If you lose your purpose, you’re broken.” “When something can’t do its work, it’s sad.” (Hugo and Isabelle wonder out loud what THEIR purpose is. Being young, they realize they haven’t found it yet. Isabelle wonders if she WOULD know what her purpose is if she had known her parents!)

OTHER STUFF:

--For the first time in my life, the 3D glasses worked! I wonder why. Usually they do nothing—I put them on and see them same blurry mess as without. I actually loved the use of 3D for real human beings (rather than animation). It was like Ben Kingsley was hovering over our seats in the middle of the cinema like a hologram. Kewl.

--The usually crude Sacha Baron Cohen does an amazing job playing a bumbling station inspector who has a particular dislike of little orphan-urchin types. I would love to see him in more performances like this. He seizes the role in a very alive and generous way, twinkling with kid-friendly mischief.

--Great film-within-a film.

--Great build-up to the film-within-a-film!

--I gasped aloud in the theater when they told the fate of certain precious old celluloid films (among the first films in the world)! You will too, I hope!


Bookmark and Share

September 11, 2011

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY STUDY GROUP


THEOLOGY OF THE BODY – FR. THOMAS LOYA – SEPTEMBER 10, 2011
“LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY” by Karol Wojtyla
[intrusive comments by Sr. Helena in brackets]

p. 174—“The Metaphysics of Shame”—We want to grasp at things we love, at things that promise us satisfaction, etc. We want them immediately. It’s only natural because we are made in the image of God and we tend toward God. The highest understanding of the concept of “eros” is our striving for God Himself.

Although masculinity and femininity are found outside of human persons, it is not in any way as highly “developed” as it is in human persons.

Q: Can we even SAY that animals have “masculinity and femininity” or only maleness and femaleness?

There is one fundamental reality of all reality: the spousal mystery—God going out of Himself to all Creation.

So many faithful Catholics can’t bear to think/speak of God or divine things in terms of SPOUSALITY. [We are DEEPLY, DEEPLY CONVINCED THAT SEX IS DIRTY, UNHOLY AND WE’RE SO USED TO THE TWO THINGS BEING SEPARATED IN OUR CULTURE. Satan divides. Satan has convinced us that sex is HIS. Why wouldn’t he confuse us about the MOST important thing of all? Why wouldn’t he appropriate to himself the MOST vital thing of all?]

Abstract art, rock music, etc., is minimalizing/reducing everything down to its raw materials and treating those raw materials as though they were the thing itself, the end/goal/ultimate. [There’s nothing more.]

A “contraceptive mentality” is actually a “contraceptive worldview” about EVERYTHING.

p. 88 BJP2G explains “sympathy”—“experiencing together,” mutuality

“friendship”—sharing life together

“goodwill”—(we should do this to everyone and for everyone) couples need to always treat each other this way—it’s a basic level. IF WE DO WHAT’S BEST FOR THE OTHER, IT’S ALWAYS THE BEST FOR ME, TOO. Is this one-sided? What if the other person isn’t doing what’s best for me? It doesn’t mean that you’re a victim, because letting someone abuse you IS NOT GOOD FOR THE OTHER PERSON! Enabling others in their bad habits, evil behavior, etc., is never a good thing. [So, it’s kind of foolproof: If you are truly doing what’s good for the other person, you are helping them become a better person, which MEANS FOR THEM TO PRACTICE GOODWILL TOWARD YOU ALSO.]

THE SEVEN STAGES OF TRUE LOVE

1. Attraction
2. Desire
3. Sympathy
4. Friendship
5. Goodwill
6. True Love
7. Betrothed Love

“Betrothed love”—is totally integrated love (body and soul). It is the highest form of love. It is the highest virtue, lived according to the primary elements of the human spirit: freedom and truth.

[Cohabitating couples STILL NEED to CONSUMMATE their MARRIAGE once they get married!! (No matter how much sex they’ve already had.) It IS new for them. It is ontologically different. This is a way to put it in a positive light!]

Living together is NOT a total gift. [I think those living together would be the first to admit this, also.] Living together is often out of fear of wanting to forecast the future. There is no way to “try” marriage. [No test drive! You “buy the car” sight unseen.] Young people actually think they are being responsible by “trying” marriage, because we have given them nothing else, no religious instruction on this issue at all.

[There are now “stayovers”—just living together 3 or 4 days a week because the “couple” still wants their solitude, their own apartments, bank accounts, “separate life,” and are not necessarily heading toward living together or marriage at all.]

In the media, the steamiest, most enjoyable sex scenes are almost always between non-married people. We have to make MARRIAGE attractive and desirable (as it is)—it’s just not easy!!!

Women accept all this stuff more than men because they know they will benefit the most!!! Unless they have bought the lie that to benefit the most they must be like a man. OR take care of themselves without any reference to any man. But both men and women are interdependent.

Why did Satan go for woman? Our receptivity, our centrality to love and life. [And our lust for male power. “Eve saw that the fruit was beautiful and good for knowledge.”]

Satan inseminated Eve with bad seed.

SHAME can actually be a positive thing because is protects what is most precious.

p. 175—BJP2G talks about cultures that go about almost naked (but have no shame about it). But they would have shame in other contexts regarding their bodies. European cultures have come in to these cultures and told them they were bad to show their bodies, to put on more clothes, which caused a whole new set of problems.

Our culture today could never go around naked because we are so lustful (not because our BODIES THEMSELVES are actually bad)! We do not encounter sexual shame in children because their minds have not grasped sexual values yet. They develop (healthy) sexual shame as part of their developing personality. They realize these body parts are special, they watch how people react, they are taught to protect themselves.

p. 176 Women need to realize that men are hard-wired to visual sensuality. Women are more hard-wired to emotionality.

HOW DOES BJP2G know MORE about sexuality than those who are sexually active? Because sex is of God and he was a man of God. AND a mystic. AND he counseled young married couples (his students/friends)! AND he had a body. AND an imagination. AND he was an actor, a poet, a writer. He was immersed in life, in the human drama. [There’s a great saying: “I am human, and nothing human is truly foreign to me.” Humans have the great ability of vicariousness.]

p. 177 “THE EVOLUTION OF MODESTY IN A WOMAN REQUIRES SOME INSIGHT INTO MALE PSYCHOLOGY.” --BJP2G We’re different.

Fr. David Knight—for women to dress provocatively is like a reverse rape. You entered into his psyche uninvited and now he has to deal with it.

[Men could tell women: “help us (help you).” OR women could insist on dressing any way they want (and be unfair to men and tempt men to abuse them or worse). A man can NEVER excuse himself that he was provoked if he abuses a woman, but women are playing a dangerous game, putting themselves in danger if they DO provoke.]

[ “SURE, YOU CAN DRESS ANY WAY YOU WANT, BUT YOU SHOULDN’T.” –This was said by a French man to a sweatsuited American woman on the streets of Paris. The French ALWAYS dress up when they go out. The men for the women and the women for the men. It’s like a courtesy.]

“The future of civilization depends on what he will be for her, and what she will be for him.”
--BJP2G

Bookmark and Share

June 11, 2011

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: "LOVE & RESPONSIBILITY"



FR. THOMAS LOYA – “LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY” –CHAPTER 3—



“THE PERSON & CHASTITY”
JUNE 11, 2011
[indispensable comments by Sr. Helena in brackets]



(going back a little): P. 138—Lust wants to take over a person to use them. Love wants to create happiness and the other person’s good. “Happiness” isn’t like what we normally think of as happiness. It isn’t that one person is making the other person happy in the moment so that that person’s happiness relies on the other person. It’s willing/working toward the ultimate good of the other. And it has to be “reciprocal”—BJP2G’s concept of “reciprocity.” We have to will GOD for the other person because only God can truly fulfill us. “Only people of faith can state quite clearly that the ultimate good is God.” –BJP2G


Couples need to will getting to heaven for each other!


It’s the awareness of a person’s total value—not just their sexual value. Love is the highest of values, but one needs to know how to transfer that to everyday life. It’s called “the education to love.” Love is a task, it’s not just a given. Love never “is,” it’s always a becoming and depends on the depth of the commitment of the persons involved.


Emotion, sensual desire, attraction is not wrong! It’s the raw material! You MUST have it! We should be attracted, aroused, inspired by the opposite sex, but not just by the visible, but the whole body-person! The invisible as well as the visible dimension of the person. This is very important because there’s a lot of misunderstanding about TOB here. [Like some Muslims think it’s wrong to have any reaction at all to a woman, so she needs to put a bag over her head.] There’s an error being made here. The desire is not wrong in itself. It is good. [It’s what you do with it.] The WILL must take that raw material and develop it into love of the whole person in an integrated way. The task! [The raw material is a starting point!] I choose to love ALL of you and will the good for all of you. Most of our culture just stops at he /sensual and leaves it there. This can fool a couple into thinking they actually LOVE each other. That’s why the relationship sours. There is so much MISSING in the relationship. [Society probably helped the love-task-process by making sexual relations outside of marriage taboo, so they HAD to get to know each other first before any physical relationship, and then, in marriage.] Premature physical relationships confuse, cloud and blind the person as to where the relationship should or should not go. They are no longer free or free to truly choose and choose well. CHASTITY is good for practical reasons because it helps us to perceive, see clearly and be truly free.


Movie “SPANGLISH”—is a good illustration because the couple goes to the brink, but they knew it wasn’t right, right for them (it would have been adulterous), and don’t go any further.


CHAPTER 3—p. 143
“Chastity” is resented because of weakness of will. It demands a higher resolution of will. The Catholic Church, by saying “no” to the wrong and “yes” to the good, becomes the conscience of the world. We all absolutely RESENT saying “no” to ourselves. The Catholic Church is one of the singular voices in the world that knows and sticks to the truth.


When Clinton got into sexual trouble, it was like permission for the rest of us. Someone in this lofty position came down, so that means we don’t have to “go up.” Chastity/virginity is even seen as an evil! Do NOT discount “sloth”! M. Scott Peck’s take on original sin was that it was “sloth,” Adam and Eve didn’t make the effort, they took a shortcut. [All 7 capital sins are connected, superimposed on each other!] Aquinas defines sloth (acedia) as a sadness that the good is so difficult!


Emotions can conceal the lack of true love or egoism even.


[We need to tell people: JUST KEEP GOING in their relationships! Affirm their feelings! But tell them they can have SO MUCH MORE! It can be SO MUCH BETTER! Isn’t that what we all want?]


Father wants a billboard to help people: “To hell with your feelings!” (Our feelings can be leading us to hell, too!) Feelings are like indicators on our dashboard. The greater reality is WHAT they’re indicating. “I feel angry!” Why? Because of thought processes and convictions you have.
In the sexual revolution, people actually thought they WERE being HONEST by FOLLOWING THEIR FEELINGS outside of chastity, outside of marriage, leading them out of religious life/priesthood. [Blessed James Alberione’s JESUS TRUTH, WAY, LIFE spirituality is about developing MIND, WILL, HEART equally. Wow. I never thought of applying his spirituality to TOB!]


We need to tell same-sex attracted people: We’re not denying what you FEEL [it’s real], but what are you going to do with it?


Egoism precludes LOVE and any shared/common good. Concupiscence is the habit of seeing people only sexually. It’s the constant temptation of humans to INVERT the order of values! [It doesn’t mean the spiritual is higher than the physical, it means that because we don’t SEE RIGHTLY, we keep separating out values that belong together: e.g., sexual pleasure and a person’s character. What we should be seeing, the real value, the highest value is the TOTAL INTEGRATED BODY-PERSON.


Neither sensuality or carnal desire is a sin. It’s just the raw material for sin or grace! Wojtyla is careful to base all this stuff on Aquinas, “Captain Catholic” himself! It BECOMES sin when YOU IN YOUR MIND [it’s not the other person’s body out there that’s at fault/to blame!!] DISINTEGRATE the body-person. It starts inside. [And that’s why Jesus said you can commit adultery in your heart.]


P. 162
PROCESS:
I see something…


I have a non-sinful reaction…


and then I either feel shame (but don’t need to!) OR I give in to lust (by willing the arousal to be an end itself—and usually it will be outside the context of a loving marriage!)…


and because I want to be justified/refuse to admit I’m not perfect/I’m proud, not humble…
I wallow in shame/guilt OR I blame the person/image/thing outside of me…


and


become discouraged/despair OR give up trying OR live in denial/double-life OR affirm sin as good
(see p. 170!—results: hypocrisy, unchastity!)
INSTEAD: WE HAVE TO ADMIT THAT WE ARE ALL SCREWED UP. NOT BECAUSE I’M SUCH A BAD PERSON, BUT BECAUSE OF THE FALL. THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE IS SCREWED UP.
WELCOME TO THE HUMAN RACE.
BUT WE ARE ALSO REDEEMED. WE CAN OVERCOME LUST WITH THE GRACE OF GOD.
BUT IT’S NOT EASY. LIFE-LONG TASK/CHALLENGE/BATTLE.


[We have to realize that our interior life is sooo important. Everything starts there. We need purity of heart. We need to will what God wills. Love what God wills. Monica Ashour, TOB evangelizer, puts it this way: We need to work on our purity of heart and then figure out how we will express that through our bodies.]


p. 162—Even if we strongly will not to lust, we CAN’T will not to feel!! And the body will RESIST your attempts to quell/channel arousal!


Being ASEXUAL is NOT purity of heart! We ARE sexual beings, and it’s good and it’s the way we’re made and what God wants for us. It’s how we “are,” how we “be.”


Women tend to put the emotional feelings first. But feelings CAN even be INIMICAL to truth in behavior. “What is pleasant must always be good” is not true! Is your will intent on unconditional pleasure? What’s your goal?
[So what should we be pursuing? Truth, Goodness, Beauty: JESUS TRUTH, WAY, LIFE.]


p. 170--“To be chaste means having a transparent attitude toward the person of the other sex.” “Chastity is often understood as blind inhibition of sex….so we push sex drive down into the subconscious where it’s going to EXPLODE.” –BJP2G (BJP2G uses the word "explode" and "explosion" TWICE.)


“This is when we see chastity as primarily negative! But it’s primarily a positive YES of which some ‘no’s’ are a consequence.” “Sex alone is allowed to reign supreme as the highest value.”

“Chastity is a long term integration of, not denial, of body-sex.”


Chastity=integration of body and soul.
Purity=seeing the glory of God in the human body.


In Eastern Church, they pray over and over during the marriage ceremony for “a chaste marriage.” What this means is: see each other as persons always!!!


[70-year-old woman in class: “But our lives our wasted now! I’m so jealous of these younger people! I can’t create a beautiful marriage!” Everyone encouraged her that she always has her interior life, is heading to the heavenly marriage, can pray for younger people, help them with TOB now.]


Men can get very frustrated by provocatively-dressed women. They are being “sexually assaulted” visually. It can be a form of “reverse rape.” Men are trying to respect women or they wouldn’t be angry about provocatively-dressed women. Women sometimes want that power over men to make them lust, make them fall, even though they deny it. Why make it harder for men to respect you? Why put men “in the occasions of sin”? Many women are also just clueless or in denial about the effect that the sight of women’s bodies have on men.


Comedian David Chappelle said: When women dress provocatively but pretend they don’t want men to look at them or say anything to them or approach them, it’s like dressing up like a cop and then telling people when they come to you for help: “Oh, but I’m not a cop.”


Q: Does virtue get easier?
A: There should be less effort of the will, but there’s always new levels and challenges, and we can’t let our guard down. But it all starts with understanding what’s happening (TRUTH) and willing (WAY) our goal (LIFE)!


The New Evangelization is telling people who they are, what God wants to give them, what He is giving them, what they can have, what God wants them to have AND HOW TO GET THERE.


PICKING UP SECOND SATURDAY IN SEPTEMBER: page 174

Bookmark and Share




May 25, 2011

MOVIES: "TREE OF LIFE"







Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life” is unlike any other movie you’ve ever seen. In a good way. A very good way. If you’ve seen the transcendent, intriguing trailer, you probably thinking: “I hope the movie is as good.” Well it’s very in keeping with the trailer and way better than it. “Tree of Life” is simply one of the most extraordinary films ever made. Or maybe you were thinking: “I still don’t know what it’s about!” You’re in for a rare, rare treat. A film of this stratospheric caliber comes along every, oh, twenty years or so. Malick has broken some kind of film barrier. He has found away to substantially un-limit, un-fetter, and set film free.

[By the way, “Tree of Life” is a perfect Father’s Day film.]

Terrence Malick portrays a family of three boys (the story is narrated by the eldest, Jack, played with preternatural talent by newcomer Hunter McCracken) growing up in the 1950’s with a so-many-people-can-relate-to stern father (Brad Pitt), and a sweet, loving mother (Jessica Chastain). I wouldn’t call her submissive, because she is very aware of her husband’s harshness, and keeps what peace there is by not crossing him more, and makes up for his hardness with her softness.

Dad is not a monster, however. There are many loving moments with the boys and we can understand where the Dad is coming from. But nevertheless, his sons are still watching and listening to his shortcomings, small and large. Brad Pitt is just spot-on as this flawed father who claims to be loving his sons while often still putting himself, his own ambitions and fragile self-image first.

One smallish gripe with the movie is that the mother almost borders on the girlish, the “idealized feminine,” and she never seems to be terribly busy. But of course, perhaps this is how young Jack saw her, things did move at a slower pace in those days, and perhaps even Moms had more leisure time, or perhaps the point WAS to focus on her playfulness in contrast to Dad.

When I say the eldest boy “narrates”—it’s not your typical voiceover. There are whispered prayers to God. God is “You,” or sometimes that “you” might be interchangeable with a family member. Snatches of daydreams and wishes. We hear his mother’s internal dialogue as well, and once in a while his Dad’s. Fox Searchlight has described the movie as “impressionistic,” and it is, but it’s also more solid than that. Although told in a beyond-brilliant kaleidoscope of small scenes, the story is very strong and unmistakable. These small scenes are so lifelike, so filled with the constant motion of childhood and boyhood and real life, you just give up trying to figure out how Malick did it, how he planned it, how he shot it, how he pieced it all together.

How does God speak? Oh, through everything. He busts out all over, permeates everything, and is as silent as planetary movement. He is known by Jack first through the people of faith who raised him: thanking God with grace at meals, worship at church, courage in tragedy, pointing to the sky “where God lives.” And young Jack struggles to know God, to find reasons to be a good man. The older Jack (Sean Penn) has an adult faith, but keeps going back to his young self to pick up the threads. But his faith is not fragile. It’s beautiful. It’s awakening and blossoming always fuller like God’s revelation of Himself. God who swims with His strangest red creatures in the bluest oceans and belches forth orange and black fire and smoke from a lava pit.

There is an extended (and I do mean extended) sequence of nature scenery intended either to make us gape in wonder, realize that (our) size doesn’t determine our preciousness, or imbibe God through our senses. Or all three.

There are NO gadgets in this movie. None. No phones (wait—there was just one toward the beginning), no TVs, no radios. People are unmediated. People just sit and wait. People look at each other. People read each others’ faces. People talk to each other, but most communication is non-verbal. The eyes have it. People stare. People touch each other. We witness the long thoughts of childhood. These are the days when we did ONE THING AT A TIME.

This is an incredible THEOLOGY OF THE BODY movie. It is the primal, primordial Theology of the Body movie. The masculine and feminine principles are so clearly delineated, and one of the film’s taglines seems to be: “O father, O mother, forever you wrestle within me.” Of course, the principles are witnessed and told from a male perspective (both the writer/director and main character are males). We see that we need both in our lives, in our heads, in our hearts. But it seems like Jack is really trying to understand his mother more than anything. Her pure love. Her telling him that the purpose of life is love and nothing else. His mother seems to be his muse.

"The woman is at the heart of the home. Let us pray that we women realize the reason for our existence: to love and be loved and through this love become instruments of peace in the world."
-- Blessed Mother Teresa

My own Moms totally understood this. If we WOMEN harden our hearts—what will happen to this old world? My Moms used to say over and over: “This earth could be heaven if we’d just love one another.”

After seeing the trailer and hearing the words: “There are two ways: the way of nature and the way of grace. We must choose which way we will follow,” I was concerned. It seemed to be setting up that horrible false dichotomy. Grace BUILDS on nature! These two things are not mutually opposed at all. But what was really meant was “nature without grace,” because the narration goes on to say: “Nature tries to please itself, be noticed, etc., while grace is humble, doesn’t need recognition….” It almost seems like Dad represented nature while Mom represented grace. It’s almost like St. Paul’s “flesh warring against the spirit,” idea—which does NOT mean the body/matter is bad or lowly! It means that there ARE parts of us that are not conformed to God, to God’s way of being and doing things.

Creation is screaming at us. God is screaming at us. Terrence Malick is screaming at us by making God scream at us through Nature/Creation. Terrence isn’t so much shoving God down our throats as he’s shoving God-in-Nature/Creation down our throats. Nature/Creation is a HUGE piece of THEOLOGY OF THE BODY, one that, IMHO, has not yet been developed by TOB scholars and us TOB soapbox vigilantes.

(Vadim Perelman [“House of Sand and Fog,” “The Life Before Her Eyes”] makes SUBTLE use of nature in his movies, also to marvelous ends.)

And yet, and yet, as @conversiondiary (atheist turned Catholic Mommy blogger) says: “God is just so ignorable.” If we have even an inkling to do so, we can shut Him out for our entire lives.

The soundtrack rumbles and church bells toll and operas rage. Nothing is ordinary. We look and look again. The universe is one big cathedral.

“Father,” “Mother,” “Brother” is whispered over and over (no sisters here)—the only “things” that matter. The mother “gives” her son to his wife. Relationships are all that matter, so we can bury our childish trinkets in the backyard before we move on.

Where is God? Well, He’d like to ask you the same question: Job 38:4. (The film begins with this verse.)

OTHER STUFF:

--This film will do a lot for people’s faith in God and/or sense of the metaphysical. It will strengthen them and give them permission to give in to their spiritual ruminations. Especially men. The film illustrates the concept that women just “get it,” while men have to “learn it.”

--As a Dad and lover of kids himself, Brad Pitt is just the perfect choice for the part.

--It was mostly the secular press/media (methinks) at my screening. They kinda sat in awe at the end. Or befuddlement. Time will tell. BUT I kinda think they liked it. Like the secular press/media liked “Into Great Silence,” and “Of Gods and Men.” In fact, I think they appreciate these movies MORE than us churchy people who breathe this God atmosphere all the time and probably take the Most High for granted as much as we try not to.

--Great lines said to God: “You let anything happen.” “Why should I be good if You’re not?”

--"Tree of Life" is about the predominant influence of our families on us. You will not be able to watch this movie without totally reminiscing about your own childhood.

--My posterior was well aware that “Tree” was 138 minutes. This is one long meditation, or as Roger Ebert calls it: "a prayer." You may wish to prepare with push-ups or other blood-circulating activities. Notwithstanding the fact that I was out of sorts, starving, uncomfortable, squished, and in desperate need of a lavatory while screening this film, I absolutely loved it, cannot shake it and don’t want to, and will be singing its praises for years to come.

--The WOWFACTOR and under-your-skin INDELIBILITY of this movie will DOUSE any NAYSAYING.

--Malick externalizes the internal, exteriorizes the interior like no other director.

--God is seeping….

--For further reflection, meditate on the words of one of my fav hymns: “Immortal, Invisible, One Only God” (can be sung in a bombastic OR lightly prancing fashion).

--Golda Meir once said: “Don’t be so humble, you’re not that great.” This movie seems to say: “Don’t be so great, you’re not that humble.”

--Can you say "explicit religious imagery that makes you want to be spiritual AND religious?"

--You will hear the cry of Our Lady of Sorrows: “My son!”

--If I’m not mistaken, the narration at the beginning says: “The nuns always told us….” Was that just wishful hearing????

--Dinosaurs!!!

--The nature cinematography emphasizes both the micro- and macro-level, and sometimes you can’t tell which is which and you can’t tell what the heck you’re looking at (some of ‘em even look like cancer spores) but it doesn’t matter because “everything is beautiful in its own way” and we are going to have aeons to live and appreciate everything.

--Job may be one of the oldest books of the Bible.

--Job didn’t have Jesus.

--Job didn’t have Jesus, so how the helicopter could he understand suffering?

--Malick has Job and Jesus.

--This most unusual of movies appropriately ends with the sound of wood thrushes, the most beautiful birdsong this side of the Promised Land.

PSALM 50
[1] The Mighty One, God the LORD,
speaks and summons the earth
from the rising of the sun to its setting.
[2] Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty,
God shines forth.
[3] Our God comes, he does not keep silence,
before him is a devouring fire,
round about him a mighty tempest.
[4] He calls to the heavens above
and to the earth, that he may judge his people:
[5] "Gather to me my faithful ones,
who made a covenant with me by sacrifice!"
[6] The heavens declare his righteousness,
for God himself is judge! [Selah]
[7] "Hear, O my people, and I will speak,
O Israel, I will testify against you.
I am God, your God.
[8] I do not reprove you for your sacrifices;
your burnt offerings are continually before me.
[9] I will accept no bull from your house,
nor he-goat from your folds.
[10] For every beast of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a thousand hills.
[11] I know all the birds of the air,
and all that moves in the field is mine.
[12] "If I were hungry, I would not tell you;
for the world and all that is in it is mine.
[13] Do I eat the flesh of bulls,
or drink the blood of goats?
[14] Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving,
and pay your vows to the Most High;
[15] and call upon me in the day of trouble;
I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me."
[16] But to the wicked God says:
"What right have you to recite my statutes,
or take my covenant on your lips?
[17] For you hate discipline,
and you cast my words behind you.
[18] If you see a thief, you are a friend of his;
and you keep company with adulterers.
[19] "You give your mouth free rein for evil,
and your tongue frames deceit.
[20] You sit and speak against your brother;
you slander your own mother's son.
[21] These things you have done and I have been silent;
you thought that I was one like yourself.
But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before you.
[22] "Mark this, then, you who never think of God,
lest I rend, and there be none to deliver!
[23] He who brings thanksgiving as his sacrifice honors me;
to him who orders his way aright
I will show the salvation of God!"

SINCE I WAS EMBARGOED FROM PUBLISHING THIS REVIEW TILL NOW—I COULDN’T STOP MYSELF FROM TWEETING ABOUT “TREE OF LIFE”:

"Tree of Life" is a grateful celebration of life!about 5 hours ago via web

"Tree of Life" is like a living, filmic scrapbook of one person's life....about 5 hours ago via web

We go to heaven together: “Tree of Life”

"Tree of Life"--the cream rises to the top. http://t.co/pbVieFK4:15 PM May 22nd via web

"Tree of Life"--From boo-ing to top prize (Palme d'Or) at Cannes!!!http://t.co/pbVieFK

Feel need to reconnect with self, past, God, nature, family, people? http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife

2011 is the Year of the God Film: "Soul Surfer," "Tree of Life," "Courageous." 11:16 PM May 18th via web

Great review of "Tree of Life" Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips http://t.co/5ykt1DD


We don't need to fantasize TOO much cuz our reality really is fantastical. http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
20 minutes ago

"Cave of Forgotten Dreams" and "Tree of Life": art, images, and memories.
20 minutes ago

"Tree of Life": wicked awesome.
21 minutes ago

"Tree of Life": you'll never be the same.
21 minutes ago

What are some of the ways humans "know"? See "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" and "Tree of Life." Just remember: "Cave" and "Tree."
22 minutes ago

"Tree of Life" has changed filmmaking forever.
22 minutes ago

"Tree of Life" will knock your socks off.
7 hours ago

Get your Godflow on: http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife

@ebertchicago Roger Ebert VIA SrHelenaBurns
"Tree of Life" is a form of prayer. My new blog entry, just posted:http://bit.ly/iMWLTr
23 hours ago

Film is evolving.... http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
17 May

This film has made me very, very happy. http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLif

Got God? http://Foxsearchlight.com/TreeofLife

Another awesome and accurate review of "Tree of Life" (Variety Mag) variety.com/review/VE11179…

"Tree of Life" was booed AND cheered at Cannes! Oooooooh, controversial!!
"Tree of Life" got booed at Cannes. Now you HAVE to go see it. http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

Why we need Moms AND Dads: http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

Why we need Dads AND Moms: http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

How do you "get back" to God? http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

It's not your imagination. God really is talking to you. All the time. http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

Looking for a Theology of the Body movie? http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

There is no body/soul split in http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

Can you tell I like this movie? http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

Ladies--wondering how men relate to God? http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

Magnifique: Brad Pitt in http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

Job 38:4 http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

Indescribable. http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

Is God looking for you? http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

Looking for God? http://FoxSearchlight.com/TreeofLife
1 hour ago

"Tree of Life" is a big, fat unabashed God movie.
3 hours ago


The perfect Father's Day movie:http://FoxSearchlight.com/TheTreeofLife
6 hours ago

Our earthly fathers weren't perfect, but our heavenly Father is.
http://FoxSearchlight.com/TheTreeofLife



Bookmark and Share














April 9, 2011

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY--FR. THOMAS LOYA--"LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY" STUDY GROUP NOTES, APRIL 9, 2011


THEOLOGY OF THE BODY – FR. THOMAS LOYA – APRIL 9, 2011 “LOVE & RESPONSIBILITY” [Sr. Helena’s invaluable comments in brackets]


GOOD NEWS, CHICAGO! FR. LOYA WILL NOW BE ON “RADIO MARIA”

(an international Catholic radio network) on 1450AM Tuesdays from 4-6pm. It will be a TOB show, and eventually become a TOB call-in show!

(Love and relationship advice from a Catholic perspective!)

SENSES—COGNITION—IMPRESSION—EMOTION—VALUE

SENSUALITY—SENTIMENTALITY—INTEGRATED LOVE

Men are attracted to the “value” of femininity in a woman first of all, and vice-versa. Femininity and masculinity come “through” us, and if there is goodness there, it’s very attractive. But then a choice is involved: to love this person AS a person (whether the attraction grows or disappoints).

In a marriage in crisis, ask first of all: Who are you as persons? You are brother and sister in Christ. (There’s a need to put all the emotional hurt aside and recall this.) It doesn’t matter what this person did to me. They are still persons. How does a Christian-person respond to another Christian-person? Then as Catholic persons? If we relate on this level, then anything can be resolved/redeemed.


The only honest reaction to any person is love. If you don’t keep it at this level, it will just be a mess. We can’t stay at the sensuality (often guys start here more than girls) or sentimentality (often girls start here more than guys) level. We have to get to the integrated level [which means coming out of myself and not always seeking self]. Father knows an older couple (one is a deacon) who started out in their relationship very strongly all about the physical, but it grew and grew to an integrated love. [Today, people are terrified of the sacrifice involved in the “coming out of myself.” Terrified that “the other” won’t reciprocate or will eventually abandon us. That’s why we need to be rooted and grounded in Christ’s sacrificial love, so that it’s not ONLY human love that we are clinging to, that’s holding us up.]


p. 115: BJP2G sez “love is a drama” which involves our inner life very deeply. Man is free, otherwise we’d be determined by every movement, emotion, instinct.


Q: What caused the sexual revolution?

A: So many factors! The Pill, the World Wars (which dehumanized) and also separated men and women, and sent women into the work place, [junk sexual science (Masters & Johnson, Kinsey), and some Freudian understandings]. BJP2G: We need truth AND freedom! Sexual revolution=freedom without truth. “Repressed Catholics”=truth without freedom. When love ceases to be interior, it ceases to be love. For humans, it can’t JUST be physical.


p. 117—“That which is not free, that which is a compulsion is not love.”

p. 120--The world today only listens to its own experience, what is “real to me.” [The world no longer believes in what it cannot see, what authority tells it, what it has not experienced.] This is why BJP2G decided to use the phenomenological approach to philosophy: going through experience to the truth. Going through what can be One should not look to psychology for direction in love, but in ethics! The duty/morality here is the PERSONALISTIC NORM. We treat things according to what they ARE.


Without virtue, there is no love. BJP2G: VIRTUE first, then full flowering of LOVE. WORLD: LOVE-EXPERIENCE first, and we’ll figure out our own VIRTUE. [But it’s not working! AOL article on widespread depression after sex: Sad in the Sack: Do You Have Post-Sex Depression? - Sexual Health - Everyday Health ]


We shouldn’t say: “I love you because….” It’s simply, “I love you because you’re a person.” That’s why we don’t accept: “I’m gay.” No, you’re a person.


DATING TODAY: I like, I see, I appropriate, I take. Then I dump when I don’t like any more. It’s like “mock marriage”—rush into intimacy immediately. A lot of young women are hurting today, because women get more serious right away, but they shouldn’t! [STDs also damage women MORE than men!] They treat their boyfriend like a husband. Especially the girls will say: “he cheated on me,” “my ex.” Girls set themselves up for this hurt! And then they want to commit suicide. He never belonged to you in the first place! Were you engaged? [Dating can also be mutual “fun,” but how can you “play” with something so serious?]


Sr. Anne: my 20 yr old niece sez when they date, it’s exclusive right away. One young woman didn’t want any girls talking to her boyfriend: “Don’t they know he’s not single?” Wait! He is!

Fr. Loya: We should wipe out dating, only do courting OR go back to the old way of wholesome dating which was really opportunities to meet people. [We need mentoring in dating from older generations before the “tradition” is completely lost!] [Some women heading to divorce will say: he’s the only man I ever dated…. ]

Comment from class: Women feel possessed by a man, he can come on very strong. [Which women both hate and love!]


Men can’t be ordained unless his sexual organs are functioning. [This would explain why “gay” men shouldn’t be ordained. We are ONE person, body and soul and the body is a theology, and the priest is a father and must be such in potentiality, body and soul.]


Q: What about older couples getting married?

A: They must be able to have sexual intercourse. Because marriage is sex and sex is marriage. The marriage is not consummated without sexual intercourse, at least once.

ONLINE COMMENT: A couple even after the wife’s hysterectomy continue to practice the NFP lifestyle in order for the husband to “show that he loves his wife”!!! (So they abstain 7-10 days a month)!

p. 129—RECIPROCITY: “I get what I need only by giving to you.” Love is, of its nature, reciprocal. Only those who know how to give love know how to receive love and vice versa. [Even though it may seem that some people know how to GIVE love but not receive, it’s not true. The giving might be a compulsion, or even a form of self-hatred, low self-esteem, etc.]


Love has to maintain the inner structure of friendship. We find ourselves by giving ourselves away, but it’s not a reckless giving away. We can’t make a gift of self unless we have a self to possess, which means we mean we KNOW who we are as persons, as men or women, in Christ. Love is a skill and art that we can develop no matter what our background has been (abuse, lovelessness, no good models of love).

Comment: Loving is not an inbred quality that only certain people have!


p. 131—The greater the feeling of responsibility for the person, the greater love there is. It’s a weighty matter when choosing what person to bestow the gift of self on! It’s like choosing another “I”! We have to make sure that objectively you should be together (at least no glaring objective impediments).


NEXT MONTH: CHAPTER 3. Starts p. 143.


Bookmark and Share

November 13, 2010

"LOVE & RESPONSIBILITY"

“LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY”—FR. THOMAS LOYA—10/13/2010



p. 45--“Instinct”and “urge” mean the same thing more or less.

Man is capable of rising above sexual “instinct” and other “instincts.” The sexual urge is the strongest of all urges because it has to do with our very EXISTENCE.

The sexual “urge” is a "vector of aspiration from which the human person grows and perfects themselves from within." When we live according to the sexual order, it orders our whole being and we progress and grow. E.g., a man becomes fully a man only in relation to woman (not just an individual woman, but, e.g., a priest toward the Church, the feminine). A priest’s relationship to the Church perfects both himself and the Church. IT MUST BE COMPLEMENTARY IN NATURE for the perfecting to happen. A man cannot fully perfect another man.

That’s why our sexual drive is so strong—because it’s what perfects us in every way! People attack Christopher West for being “too sexual” in his presentations, but actually, we are not “sexual” enough! We have to be like God, more like God. How? Through love and life which is what our sexuality is all about.

We are not responsible for what occurs independent of our will in the sexual sphere (senses and emotions), but we are fully responsible for what we do with it (sense and emotions and will).
To understand ourselves in terms of the spousal element of our being is to understand everything about ourselves. Gender has a revelatory nature. Our genders reveal God!
What about hermaphrodites? (Who prefer to be called “intersex” today.) Doesn’t change anything. Even though it’s a kind of departure from the norm, it doesn’t change anything about the fundamental order of creation or human nature. The fact that we talk about it as an exception also shows this. But hermaphrodites are also sexual/spousal beings! They too, need to make a gift of self! (And receive the gift that others are.) Everything “TOB” applies to them, too. Even if our bodies/sexual organs, etc., aren’t perfect, it doesn’t matter, because sexuality isn’t just physical, it’s also spiritual/emotional/psychological/social!

A human male is attracted to the whole value of what is feminine, not just her body for “reproduction” like the animals. Same for the woman attracted to a man. We each have a value that completes the other. It’s not just about mating and sexual satisfaction.

To talk about sexual “orientation” is amorphous/too generic, we are attracted to a specific PERSON (or should be). It’s personal. [Sr. Anne: A woman who was in a lesbian relationship for many years eventually married a man and had kids. She says she is still not attracted to men. She is only attracted to her husband.]

LOVE is a phenomenon of people only, not animals. It’s fundamentally different FROM the sexual urge. It involves the whole person. Love is given its definitive shape by acts of the will at the level of the person.

What should couples do/not do when dating? BE HONEST TO THE SITUATION. Are you really going to get married? Don’t treat dating like mock-marriage, marriage-lite. It’s not. Only marriage is exclusive. Don’t treat dating like it’s marriage. Maybe not even call it dating, call it “friendship,” and once it’s a solid Christian friendship/brothers & sisters in Christ [“Today I marry my best friend” is a great marriage-sentiment!], you can advance to “courtship” because you’re purposefully heading toward marriage. If you’re not thinking about marriage, don’t get so intimate (of course not sex, but also not the other intimate demands that marriage would put on each other: call me every hour, don’t even look at other women/men or talk to them, etc.). Don’t put each other in an either/or situation: Either this leads to marriage or I’ll be heartbroken. This is also why too much physicality will BOND you to each other and make it very, very difficult to break up even when you should!

Our world says: If you don’t act on all your urges, it’s unnatural! But the truth is the opposite! AS HUMANS, it’s unnatural just to follow our urges! It’s natural to HUMANS to regulate our lives according to our WILL, exercising our WILLPOWER.

[Our culture is both BLINDLY SUBMITTING TO NATURE (but only in our sexual instincts), and REBELLING AGAINST NATURE (in things like contraception and natural conception), and CRUSHING/CONTROLLING/MANIPULATING NATURE (genetic engineering, pollution, raping natural resources). Why do we have to treat Nature as Sacred? Cause it’s all we got! God made it and is working through it. The invisible—the spiritual and divine--is made visible through the physical.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. –Romans 1:20

Through faith we perceive that the worlds were created by the word of God, and that what is visible came into being through the invisible. –Hebrews 11:3

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. –Colossians 1:15]

NFP—to use unnatural means to contracept damages the love-relationship between persons and that’s why it’s wrong. [Because it’s going against the nature of the act, the nature of love which is SACRIFICIAL. It must start with our love of/TRUST in God, otherwise we’re NOT going to trust Him with this huge area of our lives. We need to make room for God!]

Everything rises and falls on what goes on in the bedroom, that’s why we WANT God and the Church in the bedroom! The bedroom is the sanctuary of the human race. The woman’s womb is a tabernacle which the man must approach as a priest approaches the tabernable.

If we’re contracepting, you’re not just doing it in the bedroom, we’re doing it everywhere else: “contraceptive mentality.” [Closed to God, closed to "the other," closed to anything I don't tightly plan in my own life.] Soooo…one can practice NFP with a “contraceptive mentality” if one is totally closed to life.

It’s not biological determinism…it’s God’s Creation/Order working through “biology.”

Q: Do you have to accept God to accept the natural order/natural law?A: No, but it helps.

National Catholic Bio-ethics Center shows all the science that is being suppressed (e.g., the contraception/abortion/breast cancer link)! The National Cancer Institute is adamantly suppressing this stuff!

Q: How define natural law?A: Our objective and subjective interaction with Nature. [And we ARE Nature, too!] VJP2G said: We are subject and object at the same time! We are subject to Nature, and object IN Nature, but we can also step back and reflect on our existence as the acting person/subjective subject that we are.

[VJP2G does use human experience as a starting point—the phenomenological method--(but AUTHENTIC experience). This is how VJP2G purified Kant! We can do things wrong for years and then say: “But this is my experience.”]
Fr. Loya: That’s what’s meant by a totally, totally HONEST and thorough examination of our experience….


Bookmark and Share

November 8, 2010

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY & THE NEW EVANGELIZATION

“The New Evangelization” is a term coined by Ven. John Paul II the Great to describe the current-day need for the evangelization and re-evangelization of countries and areas of the world that are historically Christian, but for various reasons are no longer so, or are Christian in name only. Pope Benedict XVI has taken up this clarion call with regard to Europe in particular, as he witnesses Europe’s attempts to deny even the factuality of its Christian roots. Pope Benedict even instituted a “Pontifical Council for New Evangelization” this year.

The “re-evangelization” of countries is not new. There are precedents wherein a country/people received the “kerygma” (the initial proclamation of the Gospel) from early missionaries, but the local Church was: left without pastors, lacked a systematic structural development, reverted back to native religions, fell into heresy, fell away, converted to other religions due to invasions, etc. The parable of the Sower and the Seeds is very applicable here! India claims to have received its kerygma from the Apostle Thomas himself. England received the Faith early on but was in need of re-evangelization soon after. The Potawatomi Indians in Michigan were baptized by a missionary priest and taught the Our Father in Latin, but did not see another priest for many years (their recitation of the Our Father was proof of their baptism to subsequent missionaries!)

What does John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” have to do with his “New Evangelization”? Everything. Although he did not connect the dots himself --most likely out of modesty*—the correlation is vital, at least for Western civilization. How so? There is no evangelization without the evangelization of culture. Individuals belong to cultures, and the Gospel must not only transform the individual but the culture through “inculturation.”

Why the need to evangelize cultures? “Culture” is everything that makes us human: art, work, recreation, leisure, athletics, family life, rites of passage, social networks, politics, food, dance, literature, drama, rituals, and above all, worship. For the Gospel to “stick” and be effective, it must permeate all these areas.

Today, “pop culture” is the dominant culture. Some would call it “American culture” or “media culture.” Some disdain pop culture as “low culture” versus the “high culture” of classical music, the “great books,” etc., but the fact is, the pop culture has all the earmarks of a bonafide culture. And it’s the ONLY culture many young and not-so-young people claim allegiance to.








I was just in Milan/Rome, and guess whose face is EVERYWHERE: on billboards, T-shirts, calendars, even in religious shops? Marilyn Monroe. Everywhere. (Pop culture can also be retro-chic!) As VJP2G also said: “Man is the way of the Church” (Redemptor Hominis). We do not have the luxury to hang back, stand aloof from the roads that the masses travel on. We must “duc in altum,” “put out into the deep,” put out into the wild and wooly watering holes of the pop culture if we are to bring and be Christ, Way, Truth and Life to souls.

As Vatican II taught us, there are “seeds of the Gospel” present in every culture. There is a need to “baptize” what is already good in a culture and “purify” what is not. What are the “seeds of the Gospel” present in today’s Western, so-called “post-Christian” and pop culture? A fascination, obsession, and unswerving commitment to the body, the sensuous, the material, the beautiful, what can be seen, felt and experienced. And John Paul II said: Fine. We can start there. This was VJP2G’s genius in his Theology of the Body. Instead of STARTING with the spiritual, the soul, the mind, consciousness, i.e., what CANNOT be seen, he said: Let’s START with what we CAN see. The physical. The body. As VJP2G’s official biographer, George Weigel, notes, the Theology of the Body has and will continue to turn the entire theological and philosophical world (secular and religious) upside down (or right-side up!) by giving it a new starting point. A universally verifiable starting point. And this starting point cannot be divorced from God because it is Creation and Creation is a doctrine and now we are squarely in the lap of God.

But didn’t we always start our catechesis with Creation? “God made the world”? Yes. However, we Western Catholics are card-carrying members of our particular Western culture which is “Cartesian,” that is, which espouses and lives out of a mind-body split at its very core (see Waldstein’s Introduction to the new edition of the Theology of the Body, “Male and Female He Created Them”). This flawed philosophical underpinning undermines and overrides whatever we are taught by the Bible and the Church, and guides our everyday choices.




The fact of that matter is: We do not HAVE bodies, we ARE bodies. We are embodied spirits and spiritualized bodies. The definition of the human person IS body and soul, together forever.


Is Theology of the Body something new or something old, then? It’s both. It’s a new synthesis of eternal truths. John Paul II, a master catechist, has arranged the deposit of the Faith in such a way that it is immediately accessible to all, because he starts where we all live: our bodies, love, relationships. Jeff Cavins says that what we learn about our Faith through the years often amounts to a “pile of Catholicism” that might even seem like a bunch of true, but unrelated facts. John Paul II has taken the jigsaw puzzle box of the Catholic Faith and assembled the pieces together so that we can see the beautiful complete picture and plan of God for the human body, the human person, centered around Creation/Incarnation/New Creation. Now we can see how everything is interconnected: how the Eucharist connects to Marriage, how the Magisterium connects to the Church’s social teaching, how the Liturgical Year connects to our cycles of fertility, etc. As Fr. Thomas Loya says, “The Theology of the Body is the delivery system for the sum-total of the Church’s wisdom.”

Perhaps we could even say that the Theology of the Body IS the New Evangelization—both content and method.

__________
*Although modesty is a virtue WITHIN the Theology of the Body, there is no need to be modest ABOUT the Theology of the Body. :]




Bookmark and Share

October 13, 2010

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY--IN THE FIELD


So I'm at Mundelein Seminary, Chicago, this past weekend at a wonderful Marian Day arranged by some seminarians (http://www.materfidelium.org/) giving a talk on "The Handmaid of the Lord and the Feminine Genius." There's about 50 women attending the talk and 7 guys.


Ten minutes into my talk, this little old guy, all bent over, shuffles in with his walker (wife behind him). He turns to me and says: "You were waiting for the king." He sits in the front. I began talking about John Paul II and he calls out: "What does he know?" I ask him if he's my private heckler and he pipes down.


Next I say: "Men, why do you hold open doors for women?" Dead silence. A woman chimes in: "I think it's because they want to be chivalr--"

Me: "MEN."

Dead silence.

The ladies are bursting to fill in. Another woman raises her hand and doesn't wait for me to call on her: "I really think it's because--"

Me: "MEN."

Old guy (the king) in front: "To hold myself up." (I lose it and crumple on the podium laughing.)

Another guy in the back: "To get a better look?"

By now the ladies look very discouraged. "Well, maybe these men DON'T hold open the door for women," one offers.

Me: "John Paul II says it's because we women bear the lion's share of sexuality."
A middle-aged lady wrinkles up her nose like she has no idea what that means. Wow. Need I explain??? Yes. We are so in need of Theology of the Body (myself included). It's "Humanity 101."

Me: "Um, we have monthly cycles, we carry babies in our womb for 9 months, go through childbirth, nursing, nurturing....?"


The conclusion of my talk is that "the feminine genius" is...(drum roll)...MOTHERHOOD! (Whether physical or spiritual.) I cannot tell you the look of relief (and joy) on the women's faces. So many came up to me afterward and said: "I really know this and feel this, but it's so un-PC to talk about it!"


When I told a seminarian about "the king" and his "queen" (easily in their 80's) he said: "Oh yeah! I've been driving them around the campus all day on a golf cart. The wife refused to sit down, but insisted on standing up and hanging off the back of the golf cart. I was so scared she was going to bounce off, I was going 2 mph the whole time!"

Old people are the spice of life.

Bookmark and Share

October 11, 2010

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY


THEOLOGY OF THE BODY—JP2G’s “LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY”
FR. LOYA 10-09-10[Sr. Helena’s superfluous comments in brackets]


p. 24—We are persons. Everything JP2G says is based on this. “Nobody else can want for me.” “I must be independent in my actions.”

PERSONALISM:--We are only persons because God is a Person (we are made in the image of)--a person is always worthy of love, honor, respect, dignity--inalienable--we don’t just have instinct like animals, we can choose--self-determination--the only appropriate response to persons is LOVE. We are made for LOVE—to give and receive love. Anything less than this is dehumanizing, depersonalizing--verb “to use” can be used in different ways: tool, pleasure--The opposite of love is not hate but “use.”

In his marriage prep, marriage counseling, Fr. Loya tries to help couples to examine how they’re relating to each other.

p. 34—JP2G critiques “utilitarianism”“Pleasure must be subordinate to love.” We cannot just “use” someone for our pleasure. Only love can raise pleasure to an interpersonal relationship. Use-pleasure can disguise itself as love.

In vitro fertilization (IVF)—there’s a strain of utilitarianism here that is not readily evident because the desires/objectives are sincere and good in themselves: to have and love a child. But the child is subordinated to a subjective desire of the couple and the MEANS used to create this child are unethical.We are raised in a very utilitarian culture so it’s very hard for people to see this.

Utilitarians believe that the primary good is pleasure and tries to maximize pleasure for the majority. But pleasure is accidental, it’s not the primary aim. It comes about in the process of something else, and if it’s ordered properly, it can be totally legit. We can have pleasure in bad things, too, like revenge!

Pleasure and pain are always connected with a concrete action, so it’s impossible to plan them exactly like the utilitarians want us to do. They are somewhat elusive things.
If I accept utilitarianism, I must see myself as a subject who desires maximum pleasure, and must see myself as an object who must be at the service of the pleasure of others. [It doesn’t acknowledge persons! You can divide all philosophies into those that acknowledge persons and those that don’t. If you don’t, you’re already in trouble.]

A subjective understanding of “the good” leads to egoism. Mutual use, mutual egoism can happen where two agree to use each other (thinking it’s love). But they can’t confront each with anything unpleasant or it all falls apart! “No honor among thieves”—thieves like working together to steal, but when it comes to dividing up the loot….

We can only love God because He first loves us. So even the “need” we have for God comes from him.

Follow the “gift” trail. See what’s twisted and what the real gift is there underneath it.

Q: “Do men ‘use’ more readily than women?”A: “Yes, because they are task-oriented, goal-oriented, and so begin using things as tools to the goal. They also compartmentalize in their brains and can divide a woman’s personhood from her body, for example.” [But this is not what they’re called to be/do or meant to be/do by God. Society often gives men a pass on their “use,” but it shouldn’t.]

[We have to have a sense of OURSELVES as persons first. But people today don’t think they’re that great, that man is that great. There’s a great reductionism, minimalism. So we don’t aspire to anything greater than having some basic needs met, sometimes!]

The world sees things in terms of FUNCTION and POWER.The Church sees things in terms of SIGN and SACRAMENT.
“Empty nest” syndrome—couples didn’t take care of their relationships enough! They—in a utilitarian way—united around running the household and raising the kids.

What kind of gift can you give to another person if you don’t have a sense of yourself as a person? You can’t bring two half-persons together, or expect the other to supply your personhood.

[It has to be this order! 1st—sense of yourself as a person—love thyself 2nd—marriage relationship, person to person—love your spouse3rd—parent/child relationship—love your kids]

Parents feel pressured (by other parents) today to run around and be frantically busy or they’re almost “abusing” their kids! But what does it mean to be a successful human being?

Don’t answer questions for people! Just help people examine the words within the questions!
Why does the Church “go into the bedroom”? Because that’s where God is! AND that’s where all the problems of the world start because it’s so fundamental! It’s the fundamental place of love and life.

Justice—a person’s “due” is always to be treated as an object of love.

Same Sex Attraction (SSA)—is based on need and use because of the intrinsic disorder where the person struggling with SSA is trying first of all to become the complete male or female person that they are, so that they CAN be a gift to “the other.” But it can translate itself into a sexual expression (which goes nowhere). Men DO draw strength from each other’s masculinity (male bonding, etc.) because men are socialized externally, from things outside themselves. [Female SSA operates differently. See book: “The Heart of Female Same-Sex Attraction” by Hallman]

[Sr. Helena had to take over the techie operations here so there will be a gap in notes.]

Fr. Loya’s parting warning: Prudes and sexual libertarians both deny God’s saving power when it comes to lust. Father says that overbearing Catholic families who control and squelch their children are in danger of creating another [sub]sexual revolution that will rebel against this. He sees kids going hogwild for the first time when away from parents, eloping, etc. In confession, he says that these super-Catholic kids who know their faith inside and out are having huge sexual problems because they are completely unintegrated in their sexuality. [I have heard a lot of these stories, too. Yikes!]
Bookmark and Share

May 18, 2010

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY MAGNETS!!! $1.00 EACH

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

TO ORDER:
(magnets are 3.43" x 1.93"--flat vinyl)

--Indicate which magnet(s) you are ordering by the # and how many of each.
--$1.00 per magnet. 1-9 magnets: $1.00 postage. 10+ magnets: $3.00 postage.
--Cash, check ("Daughters of St. Paul"), VISA/MC (with exp. date).
--Your full name, address, phone # and email.
Sr. Helena Burns, fsp
Pauline Books & Media
172 N. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL 60601
cell: 617.850.5584
THANK YOU FOR SPREADING THE GOOD NEWS OF TOB!

Bookmark and Share