An Unnoticed Body-Person Dualism: A Rejoinder to Lawler and Salzman
Michael G. Lawler and Todd A. Salzman argue that same-sex relationships can be genuinely marital in a sacramentally relevant sense. In an earlier critique I argue that their thesis is premised on an implicit dualism which de-personalises the body, and further argue that they fail to take account of...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Irish theological quarterly
Year: 2025, Volume: 90, Issue: 4, Pages: 503-525 |
| Further subjects: | B
Jesus
B one flesh B Same-Sex B Person B Marriage B Body B Dualism |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | Michael G. Lawler and Todd A. Salzman argue that same-sex relationships can be genuinely marital in a sacramentally relevant sense. In an earlier critique I argue that their thesis is premised on an implicit dualism which de-personalises the body, and further argue that they fail to take account of “one flesh union” as key to Catholic-Christian marriage. In reply Lawler and Salzman claim that their thesis makes no appeal to a dualistic account of human embodiment; they also propose an understanding of “one flesh union” that can accommodate same-sex marriage. The present paper illustrates how an unnoticed body-person dualism continues to misdirect Lawler and Salzman’s understanding of marriage, in particular, now, by skewing their appropriation of the “one flesh union” idea. Lawler and Salzman’s dualist version of “one flesh union” is alien to the scriptural and hylomorphic meaning of that key moral principle. Through their revisionist version they advance an un-somatic account of marriage divorced both from the human person as a bodily being sexed as male/female, and from the personal significance of sexual-bodily union. Their implicit body-person dualism prevents them from recognizing that “one flesh union,” properly understood, involves a real somatic union of a male-female couple through sexual intercourse. Such bodily union is inherently marital-personal in significance and is thus a necessary condition for the multi-levelled, comprehensive union that is marriage. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1752-4989 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Irish theological quarterly
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/00211400251378758 |
