We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
A Comparison Between Karl Barth and John Paul II
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
Both Karl Barth and John Paul II have written extensively on marriage and procreation. Coming from different traditions, they have of course different things to say. The aim of this paper is to show that the differences between them highlight theologically important questions relating to the symbolism of marriage, the value of procreation and the parental mission. Both theologians share the view that as Christians we must see the world and human relationships in the light of the Gospel News, and so from an eschatological perspective. Both of them, therefore, hold that under the New Covenant in Christ the relationship between mankind and God and also between man and woman in marriage take on a new meaning. But, nevertheless, they differ on the importance of procreation and also on the question of the God-given parental mission. The exploration of these differences will bring to the fore the question of what moral obligations are entailed by the concept of the child as a gift, a concept espoused by both theologians. It will also bring to the fore the question of the basis of the fourth commandment.
The paper starts with a comparison between the two theologians’ views on marriage and procreation. Here it is shown why Barth considers procreation relativised under the New Covenant in Christ and so why he attaches less importance to procreation than John Paul II does. In the second part of the paper the two theologians’ views on the main role and mission of parents are discussed and it is shown why John Paul II puts the emphasis on the evangelising role of parents as Christian educators, whereas Barth stresses the symbolical role of parents as representatives of God.
1 Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics (CD), ed. Bromiley, G. W. and Torrance, T. F. (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1936-1977) III/4, p. 124Google Scholar.
2 John, Paul II, Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem (The Dignity of Women), (Dublin, Veritas, 1988), para. 7, pp. 22-23Google Scholar.
3 Karl Barth, Op. cit., p. 153.
4 Ibid,. p.197.
5 See John, Paul II, The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan (TB), (Boston, Pauline Books & Media, 1997), p.312Google Scholar. This work consists of a series of lectures dating between 1979 and 1984.
6 Cf. St Augustine, De Bono Conjugali, (on the Good of Marriage), trans. C. L. Cornish, in ed. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 3 (Edinburgh, 1993).
7 See TB, p. 389. Here John Paul II writes: ‘Even if the moral law, formulated in Humanae Vitae, is not found literally in the Sacred Scripture, nonetheless, from the fact that it is contained in tradition and, as Pope Paul VI writes, has been “very often expounded by the magisterium” (HV, para. 12) to the faithful, it follows that this norm is in accordance with the sum total of revealed doctrine contained in biblical sources (cf. HV para.4).
8 John, Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation (FC), Familiaris Consortia Regarding the Role of the Family in the Modern World), (London, St Paul’s, 1981)Google Scholar
9 John, Paul II, Letter to Families (LF), (Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994)Google Scholar.
10 See John Paul II, TB, August 22,1984.
11 In Gaudium et Spes it is stated that marriage and conjugal love are ordained to procreation and education of children. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes (Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), trans,. Ronan Lennon (with the exception of Part 1, cpt 1, trans Ambrose McNicholl), in Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (Flannery VII), para. 50, p. 953.
12 See St Thomas, Summa contra Gentiles, IV, 58.
13 Cf., Gerard, Loughlin, ‘The Want of Family in Postmodernity’, in ed. Stephen, C Barton, The Family in Theological Perspective. (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1996), pp. 307-327Google Scholar. Loughlin compares John Paul II’s and Barth’s understandings of marriage and procreation, emphasising that while for Barth procreation is now (under the New Covenant) relativised, and the main end of marriage is the unitive one, procreation for John Paul II remains the important end of marriage.
14 See especially, John Paul II, TB, September 15 and September 22, October 13, October 20, 1982, pp. 327-341..
15 See John Paul II, TB, August 1980, pp. 135-138. Cf. Karl Barth, CD, III, 4, pp. 142-143.
16 See John Paul II, TB, August 1,1984, pp. 393-394.
17 See John Paul II, TB, September 5,1984, pp. 401-403.
18 John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), (Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1995), para. 12.
19 John Paul II says little about the parent-child relationship in his Theology of the Body. The emphasis in the first and main part of that work is on the man-woman relationship and the emphasis in the last part is on contraception.
20 Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles (On the truth of the Catholic Faith), IV, 58.
21 Cf.. Michael Banner, “‘Who are My Mother and My Brothers?’: Marx, Bonhoeffer and Benedict and the Redemption of the Family”, Studies in Christian Ethics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 22. Banner is also arguing for the supreme importance of spiritual kinship in Christ and showing in what that kinship consists]. That is to say, the Christian kinship is established through sisterhood and brotherhood in faith.
22 The Second Vatican reference is to the Declaration on Christian Education, Gravissimum Education—as well as to the passage in Gaudium et Spes, para. 50, quoted in footnote 4.
