Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Body God Gave Us Doesn’t Lie – A Meditation on the Sexual Confusion of Our Day
Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 06-02-15 | Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on 06/03/2015 7:39:01 AM PDT by Salvation

The Body God Gave Us Doesn’t Lie – A Meditation on the Sexual Confusion of Our Day

By: Msgr. Charles Pope

mind body

The latest tragic twist in the “Bruce Jenner saga” (more on that below) illustrates yet again one of the great errors of our day: the rejection of the truth that our bodies have something to tell us about who we are and what we are called to do and be. Most moderns see the body as merely a tool of sorts. Assertions are made that one can do as one pleases with one’s own body, and that a person’s sex (male or female) is purely incidental—merely an arbitrary quality one “happens to have.” Many say that our sex should not speak to anything deeper than genitals and that other “mere” physical differences are to be set aside to one degree or another. In effect, it would seem that our bodies have little or nothing to say to us. According to modern culture they are incidental.

The rejection of the body as instructive or in any way determinative has reached its zenith in the attempted normalization of homosexual activity, the redefinition of marriage, and now, sexual “reassignment” surgery.

As regards homosexual acts, any non-ideological analysis of the body will indicate that the man was not made for the man, nor the woman for the woman. Rather, the man is made for the woman and the woman for the man. This is set forth quite clearly in the pure physicality of things. St. Paul calls homosexual acts παρὰ φύσιν (para physin), meaning “contrary to the nature of things.”

As regards so-called sex “reassignment” surgery, I must point out that the soul is the form of the body. Now of course I can hear the objection that somehow we are not only physical beings and thus to use simply physical arguments is not proper. While this is true, but the body cannot be ignored. The soul is the form of the body. That is to say, our soul, its essence and abilities, gives rise to the structure and physical attributes of the body.

What is meant by saying that the soul is the form of the body? Consider for a moment a glove. What is the form of a glove? What determines how a glove is formed, shaped, and designed? Well, of course, it is the hand. It is both the shape of the hand and its capacities that give rise to the design and function of the glove. A glove with only three fingers or one with eight fingers would be a poor glove indeed. The proper form of the glove is the hand. And it is not just the shape of the hand that dictates the design of the glove, it is also the required functioning of the hand. Fingers need to move and work together for the hand to achieve its purpose. A glove that was extremely stiff and permitted the fingers no movement would be a poor glove. A good glove protects the hand but also permits it to achieve its proper end. Thus the fully functioning hand is the form (or blueprint) of the glove.

In the same way, the soul is the form (or blueprint) of the body. Our bodies have the design they do because of the capacities of our souls. We are able to talk because our souls have something to say. Our fingers are nimble yet strong because our souls have the capacity to work at tasks that require both strength and agility. We have highly developed brains because our souls have the capacity to think and reason. Animals have less of all this because their souls have little capacity in any of these regards. My cat, Daniel, does not speak.  This is not just because he has no larynx; Daniel has no larynx because he has nothing to say. The lack of capacity in his animal soul (or life-giving principle) is reflected in the design of his body.

Sexuality is more than skin-deep. When it comes to sexuality in the human person, our sex (or as some incorrectly call it, gender, (gender is a grammatical term that refers to the classification of nouns and pronouns))  is not just a coin toss. Our soul is either male or female and our body reflects that fact. I don’t just “happen” to be male; I am male. My soul is male; my spirit is male; hence, my body is male. So called “sex-change” operations are a lie. Cross-dressing is a lie. “Transgender” and other made-up and confused assertions cannot change the truth of what the soul is. You can adapt the body but you cannot adapt the soul. The soul simply says, “Sum quod sum” (I am what I am).

The modern age has chosen simply to set all this aside and to see the body as incidental or arbitrary. This is a key error and has led to a lot of confusion. We have already seen how the widespread approval of homosexual acts has stemmed from this, but there are other confusions that have arisen as well.

Consider for example how the body speaks to the question of marriage. That the body has a nuptial (i.e., marital) meaning is literally inscribed in our bodies. God observed of Adam “It is not good for the man to be alone.”  This fact is also evident in our bodies. I do not wish to be too explicit here but it is clear that the woman has physical aspects that are designed to find completion in union with a man, her husband. Likewise the man has physical aspects that are designed to find completion with a woman, his wife. The body has a “nuptial” meaning. It is our destiny; it is written in our nature to be in a complementary relationship with “the other.” But the complementarity is not just a physical one. Remember, the soul is the form (or blueprint) of the body. Hence, the intended complementarity extends beyond the physical, to the soul. We are made to find completion in the complementarity of the other. A man brings things to the relationship (physical and spiritual) that a woman cannot. A woman brings things to the relationship (physical and spiritual) that a man cannot. It is literally written in our bodies that we are generally meant to be completed and complemented by someone of the “opposite” (i.e., complementary) sex. And this complementarity is meant to bear fruit. The physical complementarity of spouses is fertile, fruitful. Here, too, the body reflects the soul. The fruitfulness is more than merely physical; it is spiritual and soulful as well.

It is true that not everyone finds a suitable marriage partner. But, from the standpoint of the nuptial meaning of the body, this is seen as less than ideal rather than as merely a neutral “alternative” lifestyle called the “single life.”  (Uh-oh, there I go again.) If one is single with little possibility of this changing, then the nuptial meaning of the body is lived through some call of love and service to the Church (understood as the Bride of Christ or the Body of Christ), and by extension to the community.

Another consideration in this has to be the question of celibacy in the Church and of the male priesthood. If the body has, among other things, a nuptial meaning, whence do celibacy and virginity for the sake of the Kingdom find their place? Simply in this: priests and religious sisters are not single. A religious sister is a bride of Christ. She weds her soul to Christ and is a beautiful image of the Church as bride (cf Eph 5:21ff). Fully professed sisters even wear the ring. As a priest, I  do not consider myself a bachelor. I have a bride, the Church. She is a beautiful, though demanding, bride! And do you know how many people call me “Father”?  The religious in my parish are usually called “Sister,” but the Superior is called “Mother” by all of us. And here, too, our bodies reflect the reality of our call. A woman images the Church as bride. A man images Christ as groom.

It is another error of modern times to say that a woman can be a priest. Jesus Christ didn’t just “happen” to be a man. He is the Groom of the Church; the Church is His Bride. The maleness of the Messiah, Jesus, was not just the result of a coin toss. Nor was it rooted merely in the “sociological requirements of the patriarchal culture of his time.”  It is not merely incidental to His mission. He is male because He is groom. The priests who are configured to Him are also male because the body has a nuptial meaning and the Church is in a nuptial relationship to Christ. Christ is the groom; the priests through whom He ministers to His bride are thus male. To say that a female can image the groom is, frankly, silly. It demonstrates how far our culture has gone in thinking of the body as merely incidental, rather than essential and nuptial.

The body does not lie. Our culture lies and distorts, but the body does not. Many today choose to consider the body incidental, a mere tool that can be refashioned at will. But the Church is heir to a well-tested and far longer understanding that the body is essential, not incidental, to who we are. Our differences are more than skin deep. The soul is the form (or blueprint) of the body and thus our differences and our complementarity are deep and essential. Our dignity is equal, but our complementarity cannot and should not be denied. God himself has made this distinction and intends it for our instruction. The body does not lie and we must once again choose to learn from it.

Bruce Jenner needs our concern, not our applause. He cannot undo his maleness by amputation and silicone bags. There is something deeply sad here in him and those like him. They need real help to accept themselves as God made them. Some years ago, Johns Hopkins Hospital stopped doing these surgeries since many of the staff there were uncomfortable cutting off healthy organs and mutilating bodies. Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins explained recently why it is better to understand this issue as one of mental illness that deserves care not affirmation:

This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken–it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.” [Elsewhere in the article he notes the high suicide rates, etc.]

The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh. [**]

We are in a time of grave distortion and even the loss of simple common sense. It doesn’t seem that things can get much more confused than “gender reassignment.” I am sure, however, that things are going to get a lot more confused. But this confusion is not for us, fellow Christians. Our bodies are not ours to do with as we please. They are not canvases to be tattooed with slogans or endlessly pierced; they are not to be used for fornication, adultery, or homosexual acts. Neither are they to be mutilated or carved up into apparently new forms.

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:19-20).

Do not be deceived. Do not be confused. God was not “mistaken” in the sex He made you. Whatever internal drives, temptations, or disturbing thoughts one might have, the body was not made for sexual immorality or to be mutilated based on any internal rejection of our self. The call for every human being is to be chaste and to love our body as from God.

Here is a quirky and clever video that turns the table on the question of ordination. It also goes a long way to say that we cannot, in the end, simply pretend to be what we are not. Our bodies do not lie, even if we try to.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: body; catholic; charlespope; godsimage; homosexualagenda; msgrcharlespope; sex; sexualconfusion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
Could link the video -- Get it here:

http://blog.adw.org/2015/06/the-body-god-gave-us-doesnt-lie-a-meditation-on-the-sexual-confusion-of-our-day/

1 posted on 06/03/2015 7:39:01 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ArrogantBustard; Catholicguy; RobbyS; marshmallow; ...

Monsignor Pope Ping!


2 posted on 06/03/2015 7:39:59 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Gd was not mistaken. But people are born with dysfunction ALL THE TIME. Gd has created children with infinite birth differences. Without limbs, even without heart or brain. Why?

Why has He created children who won’t live for hours, or children whose faces will never be the norm?

We won’t know until we join Him, but some clergy believe it is to have us prove Love and Compassion.

Babies are born with this dysfunction where their brain’s gender doesn’t match their body’s. This is one of the hardest dysfunction for Christian and other FReepers to feel compassion about. It’s “icky.” There is only one given (and poor, with low success rate) treatment and that means changing their societal gender. Disruptive to families and everyone. But this is the only treatment available and it sometimes does work (brings contentment in ones skin).

My hope is that people will take a stand and be brave in the face of all the jokes and feel compassion for the cast outs, those just trying to be normal, when they can’t quite.


3 posted on 06/03/2015 7:46:57 AM PDT by Yaelle ("You're gonna fly away, Glad you're going my way... I love it when we're Cruzin together")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

[They need real help to accept themselves as God made them.]

Laws are being proposed and passed to prevent any student under the age of 18 to seek counseling to guide them to accept who are at birth - a male or female.


4 posted on 06/03/2015 7:55:31 AM PDT by stars & stripes forever ( Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Psalm 33:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; NYer

Msgr Pope said: “The Body God Gave Us Doesn’t Lie.”

Unfortunately the secular humanist anti-Christian’s don’t recognize God as being our creator, thus they can “decide” that the body, their ‘primoridal ape’ ancestors gave them does lie. And/or, that our bodies are occassionally have a mis-fire due to the original ‘big bang.’

my personal preference is aligned with Msgr Pope.


5 posted on 06/03/2015 7:58:52 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Mr. Dough

Very fine introduction.

Mr. Dough, I thought you might be interested.


6 posted on 06/03/2015 8:01:47 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (In te, Domine, speravi: non confundar in aeternum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Here is a great article by Mark Mallet that can only add to the discussion:

http://www.markmallett.com/blog/human-sexuality-and-freedom-part-i

An excerpt:

“... what would happen if the animal and plant kingdom disobeyed the laws by which they are governed? What if they ceased to follow the instincts by which they are driven? What would happen to those species? What would happen if the moon ceased to follow its orbit around the earth, and the earth its orbit around the sun? What consequences would unfold? Clearly, it would endanger the existence of those species; it would endanger life on earth. The “harmony” of creation would be broken.

Likewise, what would happen if man and woman ceased to follow the natural laws which are written into their very own bodies? What would happen if they purposely interfered with these functions? The consequences would be the same: a break in harmony that brings disorder, negates life, and even produces death.”


7 posted on 06/03/2015 8:05:55 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Good points from Charles here.


8 posted on 06/03/2015 8:13:53 AM PDT by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
In the spirit of God, the examples of those you mentioned who have no choice in their lives don't match your later others. In these there are choices that are made. Choices similar to whether to break certain laws, for example; whether to live with (Godly) conventions or not.

Jenner has opted for a dark role in his life. Biochemically, he'll never be what he seeks whether he likes it or not. But he made that choice.

I cannot bring myself to pray God for the happiness of such individuals, but to simply leave them to their own in His providence, and not to constantly invade mine by their obvious need for endorsement through the media.

9 posted on 06/03/2015 8:22:00 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Is there scientific evidence that children’s sex (as an English major, I won’t use the word gender) doesn’t match their brain? Or is it a psychological problem, as I believe? Certainly the medical community always thought it was up until recently.

Katherine Hepburn, Truman Capote, Willa Cather all thought they were the opposite sex as children. All of them grew out of it and went on to be great artists. What we may have here is a confusion with the artistic gene not some gay gene.


10 posted on 06/03/2015 8:32:31 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: "I should like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Shame on the doctors providing this “treatment.” Isn’t there something in their oath about “doing no harm”? They have “literally” destroyed the man who was Bruce Jenner.


11 posted on 06/03/2015 8:40:43 AM PDT by mlizzy ("Tell your troubles to Jesus," my wisecracking father used to say, and now I do.......at adoration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Great insight!


12 posted on 06/03/2015 9:09:35 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein
What we may have here is a confusion with the artistic gene not some gay gene.

Or maybe it's something to do with the way they were brought up.

13 posted on 06/03/2015 9:43:20 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Rant off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Well, yes, environment has something to do with it.

Why are so many gay men artistic? Because of some gay gene or because they were shunted in that direction because of their love of art, fashion, sewing, opera, acting, etc.? Their fathers perhaps mocked them and the gay lobby said “You like fashion, kid? You’re gay!” So the artistic boy adapts into the homosexual world where he is understood. (Sort of like finding a good corner in hell.)This also connects with my fears about the conservative community rejecting the arts and culture and leaving the door open to leftists and homosexuals into taking it over.


14 posted on 06/03/2015 10:00:47 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: "I should like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

It’s a good question. There’s some evidence that people are drawn into a homosexual culture because of propinquity (British public schools, for example) or because of other interests, rather than because of an overwhelming urge for buggery.

I think it’s likely that the percentage of people who engage in homosexual acts is increasing and will continue to increase in our present culture, regardless of how many “self-identify” as “gay.” To believe that there’s a fixed limit on the percentage of homosexuals in a population is (1) practically to accept the “gay gene” theory and (2) to adopt of definition of “homosexual” other than “engages in sex acts with people of the same sex.”


15 posted on 06/03/2015 1:33:06 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Rant off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

It’s interesting to question the definition of homosexuality. Until recently, it meant people who engage in homosexual acts - not people who had fantasies or urges in that direction. And, let’s face it, many licentious people engage in these acts while being heterosexual.

Amusingly, I’ve been reading Freud’s book on sexual deviancy and he mentions homosexuals who were “turned” in prison. Just as Ben Carson said. Carson was accused of being stupid and the good doctor was probably reading the very serious tomes of Freud, lol!


16 posted on 06/03/2015 1:48:13 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: "I should like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein
Suggested edit:

And, let’s face it, many licentious people engage in these acts while being calling themselves heterosexual.

Ben Carson didn't make his point as clear as he might have, but he seemed to be speaking from basic statistics. A lot more men engage in same-sex sodomy in prison than declare themselves "gay" in the general population. So either we're incarcerating an insane concentration of the nation's total "gays," or a lot are willing to bugger a man when that's the only human being available.

17 posted on 06/03/2015 1:52:25 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Rant off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

My own definition at this point is that being a homosexual requires a lot more than sodomy. Unless the male is doing it exclusively. Of course, it’s often situational - my God, think of the Royal Navy in the 18th century!

I have no doubt that Carson, who is not particularly articulate, was dipping into Freud. A genius who has been run down by the left and the right for political reasons.


18 posted on 06/03/2015 1:55:32 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard the Third: "I should like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Your definition seems to be the one in most general use.

My experience is limited to a few guys in college and a programmer at the insurance company where I worked ... as far as I know!


19 posted on 06/03/2015 2:01:04 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Rant off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; Salvation; ...

Ping!


20 posted on 06/03/2015 2:03:11 PM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson