What's the Point of Theology of the Body? Dr. Scott Hahn Explains

Today, Dr. Hahn talks about the central theme of Theology of the Body by Pope St. John Paul II. Thanks for watching, and don't forget to subscribe to our channel and hit the notification bell!
Learn more about Dr. Hahn's new book here:
bit.ly/39ZAvtL

[@ThanksStJoseph]

Thanks for sharing. As someone who grew up in America without Christ or a Christian tradition, I was immersed in sexual filth from a young age. After converting in my early 20s, JPII’s theology of the body has been a tremendous source of healing/renewal of my mind. There’s such a danger for those with backgrounds like mine to take our sexuality that has been so abused and close it away from the light because it’s so wretched. But through JPIIs TOTB I have a means to distinguish good nature and fallen nature when emotions and desires arise. I’ve experienced not only healing but the ability to appreciate authentic feminine beauty in a non possessive way and an ideal to strive for in my marriage. John Paul the Great ora pro nobis!

[@TheologyoftheBodyInstitute]

Beautifully said with great nuance! Loving these videos.

[@nonfecittaliter4361]

"When Christ came into the world, he said: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me" (Hebrews 10:5), I see in the Theology of the Body a reference to the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit received from God in St. Paul's 1st to Corinthians 6:19, refers us to our body as a sacred place for God's grace and a pure offering to God in chastity.

[@curadepueblo]

So, so happy to hear your words. Thank God for your luminous life, in Christ

[@grandisonantondejesus8825]

Thank you for your wonderful thoughts Dr. Scott Hann!

[@roberth.9558]

Thank you Dr. Hahn for using your tremendous intellect in His service and for opening these deeper topics in a way a layman can understand.

[@theclapaolini4322]

How profound yet so well explained it became simply understandable!!!Scott you are a gift to the world of churches.THANK YOU .LOVING ST PAUL CENTERS BRILLIANT PROS.

[@divinemercy3740]

Good stuff. Thank you Dr Hahn.

[@christopherconey732]

The other key 20th century figure on the body in Catholicism is Dietrich von Hildebrand. Believe it or not, his wife Alice is still alive :) :)

[@caribaez5711]

Very well spoken. Beautiful 😻

[@loiscarrillo4058]

I have so many of your CD’S, thanks for your teaching!

[@flaviofreitas4357]

Obrigado Professor Hahn , 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

[@elaineigoe3286]

BEAUTIFUL

[@katkat2340]

So much to delve into here, slowly , slowly break it apart and down. Thanks

[@melodie9109]

I just started studing this. My mind is blown.

[@WEREADTravellingwithJesus]

Thank you so much for your wounderful service to God, Christ and God's people- ALL OF US.

[@marissamendoza6846]

Thank you for speaking on this topic. This teaching of St. John Paul II has been tugging at my heart. Can’t wait to dig deeper into it.

[@Elena-Immaculata]

I thank you so much for your wounderful service to God, Christ and God's people- ALL OF US.

[@jamiejaegel7962]

I wonder if you would have a conversation with “Theology of the Body: John Paul II and the Genesis of Confusion” (Ann Marie Temple) on KZbin?

[@chaplainmattsanders4884]

Brilliant guy. Very well stated.

[@katem6589]

I am a bit confused about whether there's any significance to the distinction between marriage and the marital act. At about 4:15, you seem to switch from talking about marriage to the marital act, and you explain the primacy of offspring as an end only with respect to the marital act. But then you go back to marriage at around the 8 minute mark to elaborate on the theology of the body and the gift of the person. Is there any significance in this switch? I'm not too familiar with the debates about the theology of the body, but if I understand correctly, the concern is that the theology of the body puts the unitive end on the same level as the procreative (which some I believe argue gives leverage to arguments against indissolubility), and I wonder if a sleight-of-hand is accomplished by talking about the procreative with respect to the marital act and the unitive with respect to marriage. When you seem to dismiss one end, two meanings, three goods as a the difference between vanilla and chocolate, it seems you just muddy (avoid) the question of whether there's a conflict between the scholastic and personalistic analyses. Am I misreading this? And I'm uncertain about your treatment (in a different video, I think St. Paul Center) of St. Paul's teaching that wives should obey husbands. You recognize the hierarchical nature of the universe, and of marriage as part of that, but you seem to undermine the husband's leadership by emphasizing that to be a leader means to serve. Well, that's true, but not to the extent that it guts the idea of leadership.

[@iqgustavo]

Please enable subtitles

[@ge7454]

Wow!!!!

[@feaokautai7354]

Praise God Dr Hanh for his TRUTH in you for accepting the book Theology of the body of St Pope John Paul 11. Beautiful faith in the profound meaning of the Body! I like listening to your beautiful mind the work of the Holy Spitit.

[@matrxmax]

Examining TOT, I am critically studying it. I find it a bit troubling that it is approximated very closely to Kabbalistic system of belief.

[@pslobodnik]

The more I read the Fathers of the Church on the issue (especially St Augustine) the more sense they make to me.

[@joemelpomarca3857]

The Christian world is shaken because of the scandal of Ravi Zacharias. Let us pray for our Catholic leaders including our theologians, like Scott Hahn, that God will give them courage and strength to ‘fight’ temptations.

[@JJoseph]

Amazing insight.

[@colleens3507]

Maggie Schoessling

[@jeffreydsouza7273]

brother can i get your teaching in Google ( not video but in writing

[@kjvail]

Given that most lack basic catechesis, the purpose is for eggheads to debate the meaning of Latin words

[@AnnulmentProof]

TOB hinges on the lie that "love" is not a secondary end of marriage.

[@ElizabethDMadison]

Sorry Scott, much as I respect you, this is a bit of spin about the Theology of the Body wednesday audiences. I am a celibate lay woman and have read all the works of St John of the Cross, in fact he has been the very biggest influence on my spiritual life. I approached the Theology of the Body talks in the hopes that they would shed new light on the nuptial analogy for the spiritual life and help me in my own vocation. That is NOT what they are. They are what they are and have value as marriage advice. Karol Wojtyla had tons of experience accompanying young people to get married. That is what this is based on. Not St John of the Cross. Also, you represent the talks as having a focus on reproduction.... one of the surprising things in these talks is actually that he doesn't get much into becoming parents. It's focused on the interpersonal dynamics of the couple. I am utterly supportive of chastity in every vocation. However, I have never personally had an affinity for the "theology of the body" teaching or delved into it too deeply because it is clearly preoccupied with literal sex and literal marriage (exactly as it is officially titled... "Human Love in the Divine Plan") and the behaviors associated with that are not what is chaste for my own vocation. The divine charity of God by which He loves us is really not the same thing, and God's ways are not the ways of human lovers. I can definitely imagine someone creating an illustration of "the nuptial analogy" for the spiritual life by using psychologically realistic and true to life illustrations from the interactions of humans in love, however I don't feel that is the aim of "The Theology of the Body". Yes, I know JPII wrote his doctoral thesis on "Faith According to St John of the Cross" I own it and read most of it, but I think the "Theology of the Body" is more directly about marriage, and based on the same type of experienced spiritual direction of young couples that "Love And Responsibility" is based on, and has a lot less value for shedding light on the nuptial analogy. It really has nearly nothing to do with John of the Cross!

[@andrea9264]

i have an urgent question, please help!! so, there are no traditional Masses around me, I have to attend Novus Ordo, especially as a 16 yr old who is not allowed drive very far. so, is it a sin (mortal or venial) to receive from a lay minister?? i know it’s a terrible sacrilege for the unconsecrated hands of the lay minister to touch that which is consecrated...but, sometimes i am like forced to receive from a lay minister. from now on i promise to work as hard as possible to not receive from a lay minister and to get out of my line and go to the line to the priest...but, is it a sin? please help!!

[@tonicerta686]

No

[@deluge848]

Andrea, I admire your zeal at 16 years of age! How remarkable to be questioning such things, I hope your example sets other young souls on fire!

[@claymcdermott718]

Not strictly a sin, but if you sit at the front of the church and get in the priest's line, you should be good. The whole practice of constant extraordinary ministers sucks though.

[@andrea9264]

@@deluge848 aw thank you:’)

[@andrea9264]

@@claymcdermott718 yeah, i’ve tried doing different things to get in the correct line. i do sit in the front, but when the lay minister goes to the ppl who can’t get up, the priest will give in one line (that’s not on my side) and won’t do two lines..if that makes sense. and my family is huge and our parish has like unwritten assigned seats😂 my dad wouldn’t let me sit elsewhere..

[@mattt.4395]

3+ minute intro. video starts at 3:30.

[@jinokbriones358]

Dr. Scott Hahn , I would like to know about John’s gospel chapter 2 ,19 where Jesus said to his mother call woman and chapter 19 .

[@kath0000]

@@wenshan9101 - I didn’t ask about it, but thank you for that. I love hearing scriptures explained. 🙏🏼✝️

[@jinokbriones358]

Ok and in Genesis above your reply, woman, in Greek or French language they used same as John’s gospel at wedding at Cana and chapter 19 :26 ?

[@joni3503]

My objection against this is, the divinisation of the human body and the human person. The mystification of marriage between a man and a woman, which is a known in the eastern religious traditions as Yin and Yang. The two opposites uniting. JPII taught on many occasions that he believed that we in our human essence, really are Christ. And that is something that St. Thomas and the Church would absolutely disagree with. yes, modernists do agree with that. But man is not divine, man is a creation of God, and will always be that.

[@JohnR.T.B.]

The body, and the soul, are created to fulfill the will of God, know God and you will know yourself better --> Theology of the Body

[@frederickanderson1860]

Consider the teachings of your church fathers, especially saint Augustine of hippo,his allegorical Greek philosophy affected his theology, on his response against the Manichean dogma's,he portrayed the genesis story of cain and Abel, between the jew ( cain) and Abel ( the Catholic church) cain was typed as the god killers in his allegorical style, and they remain blinded and Wanderers forever. This so called dogma is dangerous in extreme. Saint Augustine of hippo influence upon Calvin and luther was the blind leading the blind against the jews as typed in Augustine's teachings. Now this again proves the misuse of church fathers dogma's gone astray and it produced the evil fruit many generations after.

[@ApostoladoPetrino]

I prefer to just stay away from TODB.

[@Grokford]

You say it's biblical, and yet you're comparing it to the works of Greek philosophers and other scholars. None of this appears to have any basis in scripture or the ministry of Jesus. ... The fact that sex is [mostly] the only way to make children doesn't make it the purpose of marriage. You don't need to be married to have sex first of all, and ability is not the same as purpose. I may be the only person who knows how to make a certain recipe, but that doesn't make it my responsibility to do so.

[@johnnyproctor]

So.... the Holy Spirit inspired phenomenology? Come on, Dr. Hahn. It is not a magisterial teaching. And its too dense and opaque for almost anyone. Where it is Catholic, it is not new; where it is new, it is not Catholic.