• Conclusion: Being naked and not ashamed "helps us somehow to discover the extraordinary side of what is ordinary."! This is nudism!
ToB is naturalistic. Man is mentioned far more frequently than God, too.
TOB is founded on a rejection of the disorder caused by Original Sin in terms of concupiscence.precisely
In encouraging lack of shame vis-a-vis concupiscence, JP2's TOB actually inflames concupiscence by encouraging people to behave as if they didn't have any.concisely and well said
To show the level at which his mind operates, he claimed, for instance, that the immersion of the Pascal candle into the Baptismal water during the Easter Liturgy was a conjugal / copulative symbol.That is true. Read this (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=6674.msg137313#msg137313). The Novus (dis)Ordo's Easter Vigil is puritan.
Hermeneutics of the sacrament [of marriage]There is nothing about grace helping a husband and wife overcome their concupiscence. The sacrament, according to him, just helps the husband and wife see each other differently while remaining a "man of concupiscence." He also makes it seem like the husband and wife have the sacrament only when they "self-determine" themselves to interpret the sacramental sign they "co-authored" in the correct way. This justifies annulment because if they stop "self-determining" themselves to be husbands and wives, well, then maybe the marriage didn't exist!
5. By means of the dimension of the sign proper to marriage as a sacrament there is confirmed the specific theological anthropology, the specific hermeneutics of man. In this case it could also be called the hermeneutics of the sacrament, because it permits us to understand man on the basis of the analysis of the sacramental sign. Man—male and female—as the minister of the sacrament, the author (co-author) of the sacramental sign, is a conscious and capable subject of self-determination. Only on this basis can he be the author of the language of the body, the author (co-author) of marriage as a sign—a sign of the divine creation and redemption of the body. The fact that man (male and female) is the man of concupiscence does not prejudice his capacity to reread the language of the body in truth. He is the man of concupiscence. But at the same time he is capable of discerning truth from falsity in the language of the body. He can be the author of the meanings of that language, whether true or false.
Fr. Luigi Villa says in "John Paul II Beatified? (http://www.chiesaviva.com/430%20mensile%20ing.pdf)" that "the masculinity and femininity of the naked body, are for him [John Paul II] the greatest revelations of the human being for themselves and for others."However, Fr. Villa is wrong when he claims (PDF p. 82):
Speaking of the resurrection of the body, he [JP2] said that human beings would rise still retaining its attribute of masculinity and femininity, each with their own sex.This is true:
according to St. Thomas: Summa suppl. q. 80 a. 1 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/XP/XP080.html#XPQ80A1THEP1) arg/ad 1:So Fr. Villa's conclusion doesn't follow:Quote from: Whether all the members of the human body will rise again?Objection 1: It would seem that not all the members of the human body will rise again. For if the end be done away it is useless to repair the means. Now the end of each member is its act. Since then nothing useless is done in the Divine works, and since the use of certain members is not fitting to man after the resurrection, especially the use of the genital members, for then they "shall neither marry, nor be married" (Mt. 22:30 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?b=drl&q=Mt++22%3A30)), it would seem that not all the members shall rise again.
…
Reply to Objection 1: The members may be considered in two ways in relation to the soul: either according to the relation of matter to form, or according to the relation of instrument to agent, since "the whole body is compared to the whole soul in the same way as one part is to another" (De Anima ii, 1). If then the members be considered in the light of the first relationship, their end is not operation, but rather the perfect being of the species, and this is also required after the resurrection: but if they be considered in the light of the second relationship, then their end is operation. And yet it does not follow that when the operation fails the instrument is useless, because an instrument serves not only to accomplish the operation of the agent, but also to show its virtue. Hence it will be necessary for the virtue of the soul's powers to be shown in their bodily instruments, even though they never proceed to action, so that the wisdom of God be thereby glorified.
and Summa suppl. q. 81 a. 3 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/XP/XP081.html#XPQ81A3THEP1) c.:Quote from: Whether all will rise again of the male sex?I answer that, Just as, considering the nature of the individual, a different quantity is due to different men, so also, considering the nature of the individual, a different sex is due to different men. Moreover, this same diversity is becoming to the perfection of the species, the different degrees whereof are filled by this very difference of sex and quantity. Wherefore just as men will rise again of various stature, so will they rise again of different sex. And though there be difference of sex there will be no shame in seeing one another, since there will no lust to invite them to shameful deeds which are the cause of shame.
We do not become angels when we obtain our resurrected bodies; we become like the angels.Quote from: Matt 22:30For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as [sicut] the angels of God in heaven.
So, for John Paul II, the new state of eternal life will be in the same line of life that men had in Paradise Lost.
However, Fr. Villa is wrong when he claims (PDF p. 82):This is true:.
and Summa suppl. q. 81 a. 3 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/XP/XP081.html#XPQ81A3THEP1) c.:
We do not become angels when we obtain our resurrected bodies; we become like the angels.
So Fr. Villa's conclusion doesn't follow:
"So, for John Paul II, the new state of eternal life will be in the same line of life that men had in Paradise Lost."
In encouraging lack of shame vis-a-vis concupiscence, JP2's TOB actually inflames concupiscence by encouraging people to behave as if they didn't have any..
I saw a lecture by Christopher West on EWTN where he was mocking and holding in derision people who would keep custody of the eyes; that guy's a pervert who tries to legitimize lust by call it divine and "theological". To show the level at which his mind operates, he claimed, for instance, that the immersion of the Pascal candle into the Baptismal water during the Easter Liturgy was a conjugal / copulative symbol.