Friday, April 24, 2009

BECAUSE IT SHOWS

A Brief Consideration of Pornography

in light of “The Theology of the Body”

February 2004

In a course examining John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body,” each student was to designate the following statement as being true or false:  “Pornography is wrong because it shows too much of people.”  

The following essay is a brief consideration of my initial response to that statement, with further discussion regarding how the whole course affected that response and how some pertinent concepts in the Theology of the Body shed light on the question.

The question, as posed, immediately elicited two responses when I first read the statement.  The statement begins, “Pornography is wrong”, then continues “because it shows too much of people.”  Responding initially to the beginning portion of the statement, I thought, “True, pornography is wrong.”  After reading on, I figured this response was intentionally provoked by how the statement was framed rhetorically.  I immediately had to revise my initial response in order to consider whether I agreed with the reason given for why pornography is wrong; that is, was showing “too much of people” the reason why pornography is wrong?  My response changed due to obscurity of the phrase “it shows too much of people.”  I could no longer consider the whole statement to be true.  That phrase provoked further consideration.

Having already considered the question of pornography prior to taking this course, I would immediately agree with the statement, “pornography is wrong.” Having been raised in a family for whom Scripture was the moral compass, I have an inbred aversion to anything condemned in Scripture.  If one defines pornography as “the graphic representation of fornication,” then I am led to conclude that pornography is to be condemned because it involves one imaginatively in fornication, filling one’s mind with lustful thoughts.  Rather than being “transformed by the renewal of [one’s] mind,” one becomes “conformed to the world” as it is portrayed pornographically (cf Romans 12:1-2;. Ephesians 5:1-5).

But how was I to interpret the phrase “it shows too much of people”?  Regarding pornography, I had to first ask what “it” is.  And again, what does it mean to say “it” “shows” something?  The statement presumes that pornography “shows” something “of people” and merely declares that what pornography “shows . . . of people” is “too much.”  What is it that is being shown? Is one assumed to already know what pornography is?  One recalls the man who, when asked to define pornography, said, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it!” 

My initial response, therefore, was to disagree with the whole statement as it was worded.  Called upon to elaborate on that response, one could very well venture the following counter-statement, “Pornography is wrong because it shows too little of people.”  In other words, pornography is deceptive because it conceals rather than reveals; pornography is a superficial showing of people, hiding what is deeper than the skin, disguising what is below the surface of sexual activity with a manipulative masquerade of explicit, and even illicit, bodily behavior.  There is more to what is shown in pornography than what meets any of the senses being titillated.  Pornography is wicked on account of its denial of there being more to one’s body than mere sensation.  That denial perversely imitates the wickedness of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, wickedness that led, and continues to lead, to deadly shame (cf Genesis 3:1-8).

Further study of the “Theology of the Body” reinforced my initial response.  I discovered that the “Theology of the Body” presents a vision of the human person that integrates body, soul, and spirit.  This integration is a much-needed corrective to the disintegrating influence of pornography, influence that has adversely affected me, as a person in community with others, and society, as a whole.  During the course, class discussion and reading assignments provoked me to consider how I need to integrate my own thinking so that it is consistently conformed to the revelation of God’s creative order, especially in relation to Jesus Christ.  God is love and expressed his love bodily in Christ Jesus (cf 1st John 4:7-11), being born of a woman, living as a man, suffering and dying, then rising again, showing himself alive to his followers.  Showing himself, Christ showed God’s love.  Such graphic expression of love is the essence of Christianity.

Pornography intentionally confuses love with concupiscence. Christopher West discusses the source of this confusion in his Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II’s “Gospel of the Body” (Boston: Pauline, 2003; pp 183-186, “The Grave Error of Manichaeism”):

Manichaenism particularly devalues all things sexual. . . . Hence, [John Paul II] firmly and repeatedly stresses that “the Manichaen way of understanding and evaluating man’s body and sexuality is essentially alien to the Gospel.” . . . This assignment of the Manichaen “anti-value” to the body can be seen in the tendency to describe sex or certain body parts as “dirty.” . . . While it may be unconscious or unintentional on the part of [one scolding another viewing pornography for looking at “dirty pictures”], the assignment of evil is [put] on the body . . . instead of on the evil of lust behind the production and the viewing of pornography.  As John Paul says, pornographic portrayals of the body “arouse objection . . . not because of their object, since the human body in itself always has its inalienable dignity – but because of the quality or way of its reproduction,” which is intended to incite lust.

It is pornographic to present lust as love.  Pornography is a concupiscent contradiction to the nakedness without shame that is expressly intended by God (cf Genesis 2:25) to be experienced uniquely by husband and wife: “the concupiscence of the flesh . . . distorts the truth of the ‘language of the body’ ” (quoted by West in Theology of the Body Explained, p 446).  The word “pornography” was derived from the Greek, pornea, which is also the root of the English word “fornication.”  One particularly pertinent text can be found in Ephesians 5:1-5 (New King James Version):

Therefore be imitators of God as beloved children.  And walk in love, as Christ also has love us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.

 

But fornication and all uncleaness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints: neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.  For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of God.  Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.  Therefore do not be partakers with them.

Jesus Christ “is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15, NAB); yet, embodied in flesh, God in Christ did not despise the body:  “though he was in the form of God, . . . he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave” (Philippians 2:6-7, NAB).  He then lived just as humans must live, suffering the limitations of the body yet still able to please God.  Those who follow Him are called to do likewise: “I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do” (John 12:15, NAB).  Having such a graphic role model, Christians must become “imitators of God” by living their lives as Christ did, as “an offering and a sacrifice to God.” (Ephesians 5:1-2, NKJV). Rather than walking in lust, as do those who “are alienated from God” (Ephesians 4:17-20, NAB), Christians are to “walk in love, as Christ also has loved us” (Ephesians 5:2, NAB).

What pornography shows is not merely too much or too little of people; pornography deceitfully shows an image of the human body that is indubitably false.  It is this false showing that is wrong, making pornography have no place in the theater of Christianity: “we have become a spectacle [Greek theatron] to the world . . .” (1 Corinthians 4:9, New American Bible).  The Christian show must not be pornographic, but philographic, or rather agapographic, showing in how we live with one another, not the lust of man or woman, but the love of God in Christ.   Others, seeing our witness, can then come to know God’s love in which we share through Jesus Christ, because it shows: “For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily” (Colossians 2:9-10, NAB, italics mine). 

 

THE PROTECTION OF CONSCIENCE

Cardinal Francis George met with President Obama to discuss some of the current ways that the Church can help promote the good of the people of America … as well as some of the serious “challenges” the current administration is presenting. 

The effort to “remove” the protection of "conscience” is a matter of consequence for everyone.   

This is Cardinal George’s brief “you tube”   clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NoCRwMqVzQ    

Notes re MORAL THEOLOGY according to VERITATIS SPLENDOR

Christian Ethics

Moral Theology
 
The moral life, has an essentially teleological character,
since it consists in the deliberate ordering of human acts to God,
the supreme good and ultimate end (telos)of man.
(n. 73)                                         cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10 re: "Last Judgment"
 
Moral action concerns human will, the act of free choice.
moral object is the object of human will.
 
Moral actions are those freely chosen acts that are ordered to the goods of human persons.
Human actions  have an existential and religious significance
                  and  are primarily specified by the object chosen.
 
The morality of the human act
depends primariliy and fundamentally on
the 'object' rationally chosen by the deliberate will.
(n. 78)
 
In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally,
it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. 
The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behavior.
To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason,
it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally....
By the object of a given moral act ... one cannot mean
a process or an event in the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of
its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world.
Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision                                                               cf. Romans 3:8
which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person
(n. 78).
 
The "object" primarily specifying an act morally is precisely
what one "chooses."
It is                                                         the "object"  of one's choice,                                              
of what one freely wills to do                        
and,                               by freely willing to do  this specific deed,
one makes oneself to be the kind of person willing to do this.
Thus,       if the object of my choice is knowingly to have intercourse with someone other than my spouse,
                I freely choose to commit adultery and make myself to be an adulterer.
 
The "object" is not a mere physical event, a "piece" of behavior in the external world.
It is a moral object 
only because
it is the object of human will,
the act of choice.
A human act is not a "thing" having a nature of its own independent of how any human will act.
A human act, precisely as human and moral, flows    from a person's "heart,"
                                                                                    from a person's will.
How do moral norms protect human rights?                                      cf. n. 96
Moral norms prescribe the free choice of acts ordered to the goods of human persons.
Human personhood holds inherent human dignity which is upheld by human rights.
Human rights are inviolable; if it is absolutely wrong to violate a person’s human rights,
than it is apparent that some objects of human choice are intrinsically evil.
Thus, the moral norms proscribing intrinsically evil acts must be absolute and without exception.                          cf.  n. 80
Were there no absolute moral norms proscribing intrinsically evil acts, there would be no inviolable human rights
 
How does the Crucified Christ provide the answer to
why we must obey “universal and unchanging norms”?
Through His Crucifixion, Christ Jesus suffered evil rather than do it. 
As Christians, we must be willing to be witnesses of His perfect example in our own lives. 
Such witness can very well lead to martyrdom (martyr being the Greek word for witness). 
Martyrdom is senseless unless there are absolute moral norms prohibiting evil acts.
 
It is false and illusory to attribute “human meaning” to an act morally evil in itself, even in exceptional circumstances. 
To do so is a violation of any person’s “humanity.”                                                                                     cf. nn. 90-94
 
It seems humanly impossible, at times, to avoid doing evil to prevent some alleged greater evil.
At such times, what the Church teaches may appear to be harshly rigoristic.
How is the Church's teaching on human dignity and on moral absolutes NOT rigoristic or harsh?
The grace of God which has been made available to us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
 
The Church's teaching on human dignity and, precisely because of the inviolable dignity of the human person, on moral absolutes always and everywhere prohibiting the free choice of acts intentionally opposed to the goods of human persons is not, as some maintain, rigoristic or harsh.
 
God never abandons us and will give us the grace to resist any temptation.            cf. nn. 84-87
 
We are called to imitate Christ through faithful Christian witness.
Christ Jesus suffered evil rather than do it.
The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ makes the grace of God available to us.
God promises that He will give us the grace to resist the temptation to do evil 
even when doing so is intended to prevent some alleged greater evil.
 cf. nn. 102-105
 
Evangelization ... involves the proclamation and presentation of morality.        

DON'T BE UNBELIEVING. BELIEVE.

In class I read from THE MESSAGE, Eugene H. Peterson's translation of the Bible in contemporary language.  In explaining why he had undertaken this task, Peterson, a long-time pastor and teacher, said, "I had taken on as my life work the responsibility of getting these very people [in the congregation] to listen, really listen to the message in this book."  The passage I read came from the Gospel of John, beginning at 5:19 through the end of chapter 6, then 20:18 through the end of that chapter.

See http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=65 for Peterson's full answer and also for links to the actual passage in THE MESSAGE.

The following is the last part of what I read in chapter 20: 

 

 24-25But Thomas, sometimes called the Twin, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples told him, "We saw the Master."

   But he said, "Unless I see the nail holes in his hands, put my finger in the nail holes, and stick my hand in his side, I won't believe it."

 26Eight days later, his disciples were again in the room. This time Thomas was with them. Jesus came through the locked doors, stood among them, and said, "Peace to you."

 27Then he focused his attention on Thomas. "Take your finger and examine my hands. Take your hand and stick it in my side. Don't be unbelieving. Believe."

 28Thomas said, "My Master! My God!"

 29Jesus said, "So, you believe because you've seen with your own eyes. Even better blessings are in store for those who believe without seeing."

 30-31Jesus provided far more God-revealing signs than are written down in this book. These are written down so you will believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and in the act of believing, have real and eternal life in the way he personally revealed it.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

A VIEW TO ACHIEVING SOMETHING ... GOOD

I recently read the following quote from Aristotle's POLITICS:
"Men do all their acts 
with a view to achieving something 
which is, in their view, good." 

It reminded me of what I have said after one of the many times I did something incredibly foolish: 
"It seemed like a good idea at the time."

WORSHIP & ETHICS

Worship is absolutely essential to a proper understanding of Christian Ethics.

Worship is what Christians do - faith is worked out in worship; worship is the work of our faith. 

Without worship, one’s conduct will not please God.

Christian ethics describes conduct pleasing to God.

Thus, the conduct of Christianity, Christian ethics, is worship. 

 

The Catholic understanding of worship is described by the word “liturgy.”

Liturgy refers to more than mere ritual.  [This is often how the word is misunderstood, as it was in my own upbringing.]

The word comes from the Greek word λειτουργία (leitourgia) meaning "public work".

It is derived from two Greek words,          leitos ,    the word from which we get “laity”, i.e., people or public,

        and                                               ergo      the word from which we get “urge”, working power to do.

The word had a different sense in the Greek city-states:

some public good which a citizen arranged (at his own expense, if wealthy), either voluntarily or by law.

Through Christian theological development, liturgy became associated with worship.

Liturgy – the work of the Church, the people of God – is our worship before God.

cf. .Romans 12  “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship.” latreian

Let us define worship as that which one finds worth doing.  What then, is worth doing?  Doing that which is pleasing to God is always worth doing.  Those who do not worship cannot please God in that what they find worthy falls short of what is worthy in the sight of God [see discussion of THE LAST JUDGMENT].

Being free to choose what to do, we need to decide which of many options can be considered worthy of our time and energy.  Others judge us by what we do; if we are observed doing something, others will assume that we consider that which we do as worth doing.  

Perhaps this why we are exhorted as follows in Colossians 3:17: "And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

Read the whole chapter from Colossians here: http://usccb.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians3.htm 

All we do is proper worship as it brings glory to God in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.  This is the primary claim of Christian Ethics!

DISCUSSING ETHICAL ISSUES

As part of our class discussion, the following items were listed on the board as being ethical issues:

abortion; stem cell research; environmentalism; capital punishment; rendition ;gay marriage / same-sex marriage; racism; separation of church and state; pre-marital sex / cohabitation; evolution vs creation(ism); abstinence only education; education; nationalism; institutionalism

In reviewing all these items, the class discussion became quite energetic.  Once again the question of opinion was raised.  This led to the larger question of authority.  We then considered the question of authoritative teaching in the Roman Catholic Church:

MAGESTERIUM = SACRED SCRIPTURE (being the Word of God) & SACRED TRADITION (being apostolic teaching)

We began to review Willam May's consideration of VERITATIS SPLENDOR (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/may.html)

 

CUTTING THROUGH THE SPIN

A video was shown in class, entitled "CUTTING THROUGH THE SPIN: on Stem Cells and Cloning."  It is available in the Gabriel Library as DVD 205.64957 P116 2005.  According to the presenter in the video, the Rev. Dr. Tadeusz Pacholcyk, this presentation is summarized in a brochure: for more information, visit http://www.donumvitaecenter.org

HOW TO THINK ETHICALLY ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH

In class our discussion focused on how to think ethically about stem cell research. The following notes are taken from what appeared on the board by the end of the class:

STEM CELL RESEARCH     
[proponents highlight possible benefits: tissue regeneration through “genetic imitation” (?)]
What is stem cell research?
Stem cells – developmental term describing undifferentiated cells [these are living cells]
Some ethical issues focus on where these stems are found:
-         umbilical cords
-         embryonic cells
-         adult cells [problematic because of differentiation possiblities]
 
Questions to be answered?
Some discussion considered the role propaganda plays in presenting issues.
-         What is propaganda?
-         Can propaganda be used ethically?
 
 A major question is “Where/when does life begin?” [define “life”]
 
How is an embryo alive? 
Donated eggs and sperm are used to develop embryos outside of a mother’s womb.
How is “embryo related to “child”? [Does this constitute human life? a human person?]
 
Define “personhood” = anyone with a random capacity to …[this phrase was left unfinished; see Catholic Church’s definition]
 
Who has authority? [Who has the authority to determine what is true?]
 
What is truth?

Class AGAIN ended up discussing the issue of holding an "opinion" and articulating opposition another's opinion.  One student suggested that one may be offended by such opposition when one may have doubts about one's own opinion.  I modified that to include having long unanswered questions lingering in one's mind (but then again, how is doubt related to questioning?).  The Roman Catholic Church has been careful to articulate what is to be believed by faithful Christians through Magesterial teaching drawn from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. 

Essays related to VERTATIS SPLENDOR

I recommend the following essays:

Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Veritatis Splendor 
 
Pope John Paul II’s encyclical VERITATIS SPLENDOR and Bioethics
 
Charles E. Curran’s Grossly Inaccurate Attack on the Moral Theology of John Paul II
 
The “New” Evangelization, Catholic Moral Life in Light of VERITATIS SPLENDOR, and the Family

DISCUSSING TELEOLOGY

Class discussion focused on how TELEOLOGISM is inconsistent with the Church's teaching on TELEOLOGY? 

The definition given by one student for TELOLOGY was"the study of purpose and design."  I highlighted the word "end" to be significant for understanding TELEOLOGY, in that the teleological doctrine considers THE LAST JUDGMENT which comes at the end of time.  Consider a timeline on which there are three points: the beginning (when God created everything), and the end (when God will judge all creation), and in between the point describing the Incarnation (when God became Man in the Person of Jesus Christ); the OLD AGE describes the time after the Fall of Man, the NEW AGE describes what was intiated because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.  When the END OF TIME comes, the OLD will pass away, and the NEW will continue. 

I read from the Book of Revelation where THE LAST JUDGMENT is described.  See Revelation chapter 20.  There we read about Satan (the name comes from a word meaning "accuser") and about how Satan is finally thrown into the lake of fire, as will be death itself.  We read of two books, one a record of all deeds done by everyone, "both great and small," and the other, "which is the book of life."  According to the last verse, "... if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." 

A question was raised about taking such Scripture "literally."  I answered that, literally or figuratively, the text revealed the concept of final judgement for which each person is to be held accountable.  The focus of Christian Ethics is on our need to critically consider everything we do in light of such judgement, and on the advocacy available to us through the Spirit of Christ Jesus (the One who determines whether or not our name will be found in the book of life). 

I read also from Paul's Epistle to the Romans to describe how everyone will be accountable and why.  See Romans chapter 1.  It bothers some to think that everyone will be judged; I emphasized that we should first be concerned how each of us will be judged.  Having taking this class in Christian Ethics, no one of us has the excuse of not having heard; each one of us must choose belief or disbelief.  Questions of belief may come up even if one chooses to believe, and this is not a bad thing unless one is unwilling to heed true answers (pray that the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth).  Disbelief, however, leads one, not toward Truth, but away; no answer will be found satisfactory to one who disbelieves.

TELEOLOGY deals with the whole truth about the purpose and design of life.  TELEOLOGISM just considers periods of time, each with a particular beginning and end, but without any care given to the END OF TIME when all things will undergo THE LAST JUDGEMENT.

See discussion in section IV of the second chapter in VERITATIS SPLENDOR, especially nos71-75 which specifically addresses Teleology and Teleologism.

ACTING REPONSIBLY

In class, we considered the following:

- intrinsically evil acts: an act that is wrong in itself cannot be justified for any reason (rationalizing why it wasn't really wrong does not make it right!); it takes merciful grace to overcome the guilt of such an act.

- teleology vs. teleolologism: the Last Judgment, not contemporary opinion/expediency, is the end toward which all action must be directed

- the bondage of guilt and the freedom of forgiveness: not acknowleding one's guilt is to lie to oneself; the burden of living such a lie weighs heavily upon the one who is guilty.  Confession unburdens one of guilt by placing one's faith in the work of Christ on the cross; repentance puts one on the path of following the way of life in Christ.

- working to justify oneself vs. working out one's faith: if one senses that one has fallen short of being a good person, one may strive to do things that seem good so that one is accepted as a good person; however, no amount of doing things that seem good can make one good, because only God is good.  God has proven Himself to be willing to overlook one's human shortcomings by becoming human Himself in Christ Jesus and doing what is right in living and dying in a way pleasing to God.  God showed His pleasure by raising Jesus from the dead; this resurrection power is available to every person whose faith is firmly placed in the person and work of Christ.  One then faithfully goes on to do good in living as followers of the Way which is the focus of Christian Ethics. 

- serving others: See John 13:1-17  Teachers are responsible for teaching what is true and hold high status because of this; however, Christian teachers are called, as are all Chrstians, to hold on lightly to their own status and be always ready to lower their status in order to raise the status of others.  Such servanthood was perfectly modeled in the example Jesus set for His disciples when He washed their feet.

BODY & GIFT

All human relationships involve the body in some way.  Those in right relationships take on the responsibility to respect one another’s body.  How then are human beings to act responsibly in such embodied relationships?

• God is the giver of life and gives the Law which guides how life is to be lived.

• God is pleased to give each human being a body for living one’s life.
Each human body is either male or female, created in God’s own image:
God said, “Let Us make humanity in Our image, according to Our likeness …”

• This gift of life is God’s gracious act of love towards all human beings.

• All human beings are called by God to give oneself over to God – this “self” includes one’s body.

• This obedient giving of oneself to God is an act of love exemplified perfectly in the life of Jesus.

• All human life is lived in the context of relationship with God and other human beings.

• The one God, who is Spirit, is revealed as a relationship of three persons: Father, Son, Spirit.

• The Son has been revealed as Jesus Christ:
Having existed in the form of God, Christ Jesus did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself taking on the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of human beings. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason, God highly exalted Him

• In the fullness of time, the Son, begotten of the Father, became embodied through the action of the Spirit in the womb of Mary, a young virgin engaged to the man, Joseph.
[A virgin is a woman who has had no bodily intercourse with a man.] 
Mary and Joseph, obeying the command of God’s angel, Gabriel, named their son Jesus.

• Jesus, anointed by the Holy Spirit, lived wholly submitted to the will of his heavenly Father.

• While Jesus was still a child, His parents carried out for him all that was required of God’s Law; Jesus then continued in obedient subjection to his parents as he kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and other human beings.

• All other human life has been bodily conceived through procreative intercourse between a person’s mother and father 
[in whatever manner possible] 
(except in the case of the first two human beings, both of whom were made directly by God)
– Adam, [called the son of God in the geneology of Luke’ Gospel] into whose nostrils the LORD God breathed the breath of life after forming him from the dust of the ground; and
- Eve, whom the LORD God made from a rib He had taken from the body of Adam.

• All human beings are embodied persons who have been given their body by God.

• All human beings are persons who, at birth, have no other material thing but a body.

• A person’s body is inviolate – no one can take a person’s body against that person’s will.
If a person is not pleased to give one’s body to another, the other cannot take that person’s body
 [this would be rape]

• Marriage is God’s way of giving one’s body to another
(exemplified in Adam’s relationship with Eve).

• The giving of one’s body to another is appropriate only within the context of marriage.

• Sensation is all that a person can experience bodily – one senses either pleasure or pain.

• Any human activity will involve bodily pleasure or pain.

• Sexual activity is sensual experience focused on bodily pleasure.

• The pleasure of giving one’s body to another is open to life as one’s mind conceives what is in the mind of God.

• If one has given over one’s body to God, 
[All human beings are called by God to give oneself over to God – this “self” includes one’s body] 
then masturbation will be transgressive against God; this act takes for oneself that which belongs to God.

• Adultery transgresses the marriage relationship – this may be other than bodily transgression.  

• Fornication is a transgression of the body – i.e., any inappropriate bodily interaction (including unfaithful fantasy).