Catholic Legal Theory and the Human Body

A few days ago, Rob wrote: 

“Here's the tension, in my view:  Our need for law derives in significant part from our fallen condition.  We are selfish and we need rules to rein in our selfishness.  But the ideal for sexuality (the lifelong coupling of a man and woman) is not in response to our selfishness, but to our incompleteness.  Adam and Eve did not need the criminal law in the Garden of Eden, but they still needed each other.  Corporate management does not need to face punishment for self-dealing because they are incomplete, but because they are selfish.  An authentic view of sexuality allows us to transcend our selfishness; law accounts for our selfishness.  I totally agree that our understanding of the human person must include an articulation of human sexuality.  But I'm still not sure how far the articulation of human sexuality gets us toward a comprehensive theory of law.”

I see the tension Rob proposes if the law is a set of “rules to rein in our selfishness.”  But, doesn’t the tension depend largely upon one’s conception of “a comprehensive theory of law?”  Even if law’s sole function is to provide a set of “rules to rein in our selfishness,” we need a thick enough conception of the human person to understand the category “selfish act.”  Further, if our positive law might legitimately serve in some modest way to promote the common good – to encourage private charitable undertakings might be one example – then it seems to me that our comprehensive theory of law must account for and understand more completely the good of the person and the good of community.  And, if our positive law reflects our participation (or lack of participation) in the eternal law of God through our understanding of the natural law (and possibly revealed law), then we must grasp an even thicker understanding of the person.  Here I suggest that "[r]eflecting on the design of our bodies, our radical incompleteness, our intense desire (especially in males) to ‘use’ another’s body to satisfy our own needs, and a whole host of related topics” might aid in the development of a thick conception of the human person, which, in turn, might aid in the development of a comprehensive theory of law.

For those like me who are interested in reading Margaret Farley's new book, Just Love:   A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics (2006)(at Michael P.’s suggestion), I would encourage a close examination of Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility and John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.  I suspect we will get contrasting visions of human and communal goods from Farley and Wojtyla/JPII. After we read these works, I hope we can have a robust discussion about 1) which author has more complete understanding of the human person and the human community, and 2) whether any of this has currency beyond the narrow (albeit important) arena of sex, sexual ethics, and sexual politics; in other words, whether an understanding of these matters can aid in the development of Catholic Legal Theory.