Category: Church Teaching

At the core of many debates and conflicts emerging today is how we understand the body. Relatedly, self-expression and self-determination are strong principles in our age.

And so we are left wrestling with questions such as these: Is marriage just for the self-expression of love or are there biological aspects to marriage? Is my sexuality and its orientation really tied to the nature and purpose of the body?

In the end, almost all of our moral issues surround the view of the body. Many prevalent ideas existing today contra Church teaching are rooted in the thought of French philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650), among others. Over the last 500 years, we have seen the devastating effects of Descartes and other modern philosophers. Thus, we must understand such thought, as well as the Christian understanding of the body, in order to properly respond to the issues of the day.

Descartes’ philosophy of the human person is popularly known as dualism. This means that there is no real integration between the body and the soul. They are not only two distinct entities, they are two separate entities that, while interacting with each other, are not ultimately dependent on each other. This leads to all sorts of logical consequences in human thought, action and culture that begins to slowly impact the way we experience the body. Most fundamentally, Descartes’ idea leads to treating the body as extension: by this is meant that the body is only expressive of my true inner self. Personhood becomes detached from the body, and the body begins to be seen as both a tool and canvas for self-expression. This is part of the reason technology has skyrocketed in our age. It is not bad per se, but, especially with internet technology, the culture surrounding human interaction online very quickly misses the dignity of the person behind the screen and sees only their output. It is all seen as extension and self-expression, and the body is merely a tool to be used in this regard. We tend to forget, then, in digital interactions, that this is an embodied encounter between persons.

The Christian vision is different. As Pope St. John Paul II said, “the body, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible, the spiritual and the divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world the invisible mystery hidden in God from time immemorial, and thus to be a sign of it.” In other words, the body is integral to the human person: that the body both is integrated in and reveals the spiritual dimension of man to others. The soul, then, is not separate from the human body. Yes, it is true, at death the soul is separated from the body. But this is the ultimate and devastating effect of sin. That separation is fundamentally unnatural. The soul needs the body and the body needs the soul.

It is better to look at the body-soul distinction as a real unity. Yes, there is an obvious distinction — we have a body like the animals, but we are able to reason and will, totally unlike them — but there is no real separation. Thus, the body actually has data to tell us about what it means to be human. There is the obvious extensive teaching around what it means to be male and female. The body, if integrated and not separated, is no longer malleable according to our whims, but it requires an interiority and receptivity within the self to be humble and listen to the body, if you will, to reveal the self not only to others, but even to ourselves. If the body is a sign that points to a spiritual reality, then it, too, can even point us to our own spiritual reality, always seen through the lens and mediated through the body. The body, then, no longer becomes something that can change to adapt to my “true self,” but, rather, is essential to my personality and personhood.

The issue with the modern approach to self and body is always going to have an impossible opposition to overcome: the self always needs the body in order to be. It cannot ignore the body. It is integral to personhood. The task of promoting a proper relationship between body and soul seems large and is perhaps, still, at the level of philosophy and theology. Yet it is vital to rediscover this proper relationship and understand how the relationship between body and self has implications beyond the self. It is why we struggle to understand the Church’s teaching on the sacraments, why we do not see the need for mediation between God and creation, etc. For the Church to underpin the vision of herself and of our sacramental reality in how we relate to God, we are going to need to continue to fight the battle to reclaim a more integrated view of body and self.

Father Harrison Ayre is a priest of the Diocese of Victoria, British Columbia. Follow him on Twitter at @FrHarrison. Read more from his Theological Anthropology 101 series here.

One of the more difficult truths about Christianity that we must navigate today is one of the most basic: the truth about what God has intended for marriage. The familiar Genesis story explains how God established man and woman to be together in a covenant and how that covenant is affected in a negative fashion through the fall (see Genesis 1-3). We read in Matthew’s Gospel about Jesus’ reference to the beginning (Mt 19:8) and how marriage is not meant to end in divorce. Even in this context, Jesus is clear that marriage is constituted in a lifelong bond between one man and one woman.

While the permanence of marriage is something worthy of discussion all on its own, it is just as essential to uphold marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. The covenant of marriage reveals certain truths about our humanity that would be lost if marriage were open to different definitions such as homosexual marriage, polyamorous marriage, etc.

Marriage reveals to us is that man is by his nature a communion of persons. So often we are inundated with the idea that we are atomized individuals in a society. That’s a fancy way to say that we often see life in very individualistic terms and that we determine our own vision of humanity. But marriage shows us that we aren’t created for isolation, but for communion. Even in the movements for the redefinition of marriage we see this implicit desire played out: we find our meaning only in communion with another.

The reason the Church insists on marriage between one man and one woman, though, is that communion has a goal, a mission, a purpose. The Church teaches that marriage is for the mutual enrichment of the spouses and the procreation of children. The term mutual enrichment is enlightening in and of itself: it is not about self-enrichment. Rather, enrichment only comes through and with another. Thus the communion of persons in marriage is only possible through self-gift, not self-fulfillment. To phrase it differently: marriage is not about seeking a personal, selfish fulfillment, nor is it about simple companionship. But it comes by the principle that the only way to gain life is the give it away for another. This is a fundamental truth revealed through marriage and one of the purposes marriage has: to be witnesses to love. To reveal that this form of love, which builds up communion, is what fulfills the humanity of every person.

This communion through self-gift is expressed sexually in marriage. Scripture is clear that procreation is a central purpose for the sexual act. It thereby follows, quite simply, that marriage must be between a man and a woman because only the conjugal act between the two can have as its end the possible procreation of a child. Indeed, the Church teaches what she does about the exclusivity of marriage to being between a man and a woman for two reasons. One is simple: it is how God has constituted things and revelation clearly states this. Second: we can see from nature that man and woman are made for each other. Our biology reveals that this communion only makes sense between a man and a woman. In this communion, too, the complementarity of man and woman fulfills and completes each other through the distinctive characteristics of their genders.

This is a hard teaching for the world to understand. The reasons are manifold why people often misunderstand the Church’s teaching. The moral character of her teaching on marriage depends on a moral framework that sees the purpose of things to be constitutive of moral action. The sexual biology of man and woman have specific ends or purposes that can only be completed in the context of a union with each other. Or the world does not see procreation as a necessary outcome of marriage. Here we often see that marriage is about companionship or that how one “feels” is what really matters. This is the line of argumentation often used by people who are pursuing the same-sex marriage agenda. Yet they’re ignoring the fundamental character of marriage that sex is both integral to it and has a specific purpose, even if that outcome is not always achieved, namely, both the enrichment of the spouses through self-gift and the related possibility of bringing about new life.

The Church’s understanding of this depends on a moral framework that is, at best, foreign to the mindset of most people. It is why we must not only witness with greater fervency to the life-giving nature of marriage, but show how it reveals what it means to be truly human, and thereby call the world back to this truth that is both inscribed in nature and revealed by God.

Father Harrison Ayre is a priest of the Diocese of Victoria, British Columbia. Follow him on Twitter at @FrHarrison. Read more from his Theological Anthropology 101 series here.