The theology of the body which is famously linked to John Paul II is best understood as his codification and explication of the subject.  It is not new theology.  It is what the Church uses to argue against LGBT, contraception and divorce etc.

Its core idea is that "I love you can mean you are you and the other is the other and love is connecting you both.  But you remain different people. Real love in the Christian view is unity and union. There is no me first and then loving you. It's fusion."  This is most obviously going to be applied in matters such as sexual morality and marriage.


Rational arguments against contraception do not work. But that does not stop the learned philosophers and theologians from employing them.

It is said that it is better to let God plan your family for he is so wise instead of trying to prevent conception. (Those who say this then deny that God has planned it when a girl gets pregnant out of marriage! Oh the hypocrisy!) But you could tell a sick man on this logic that it is wiser for him to keep away from doctors and hospitals and to trust in God than to get medical attention. If we should trust in God alone concerning family planning then we should do it in everything else. It is no use to object that God would not let a baby be conceived unless he had a purpose for it and that that makes a difference for he is supposed to have a purpose for everybody who has life in them. If Catholics trust God to plan their families then what are they using the natural method of birth prevention for? They don’t believe their argument at all! Some might reply that they are using a period in the month when God has no desire to produce a child and he lets them have sex so they don’t trust God any less. But if that is true, then why can’t somebody using condoms say that condoms are gifts from God for he has no desire to produce a child? If using condoms is mistrust then so is the natural method.
The Church says that contraception contradicts the whole body language of the sex act and turns it into a lie. The man gives his body to the woman expressing that he gives himself selflessly to her and she does the same when she gives him her body. To use contraception implies holding back. But there has to be limitations. Even the rule of love your neighbour as yourself says that. The man and woman therefore would be doing wrong if they give all and keep nothing for themselves. The man loves the woman as himself and the woman loves the man as herself. Because everybody has different lives, different needs and tastes you can’t serve everybody the same way. Because of differing circumstances sometimes the couple will only be loving one another as themselves if they use contraception. The body language of sex is that the man and woman seek pleasure through one another and in a way that will enhance their lives and do no harm. It is ridiculous to say that a man and woman having sex who do not want a child should have sex that is open to life, that is not self-giving but abuse. The body language of sex requires contraception in such cases. The body language implies the people should want to be together and to find joy in the sex. There won’t be much joy if the sex is open to an unwanted child or a child that will be destined to inherit some awful genetic disease!
The Catholic doctrine that sex that is open to bringing children into the world when it is known the children will not live or die of AIDS or the birth will kill the mother is holy is horrendous. That is not self-giving or love but hatred and evil and irresponsible.
If sex is the body language of eternal self-giving then why didn’t God program animals to tend towards monogamy?
A lot of things could be interpreted as the language of self-giving not just sex. When you give your time and your body and yourself to work for an employer you are giving yourself. If sex means you are giving yourself this means it even more for work can be worse than marriage and you can’t have a marriage without work and money.
The Church allows you to remarry if your spouse dies. If sex implies the legitimacy of the extreme and puritanical self-giving misery that the Church wants for those who have sex then it is clear that if a man has sex with his wife and she dies he should never marry again because in the body-language of sex he gave his entire self to his dead wife. “But she is dead”, you might say. But that is not the point. She could be nearly completely brain dead and the man wouldn’t be allowed another chance for there is still life in her. But the point is, he gave her himself absolutely to the exclusion of all others. He gave her the most valuable thing he had: himself indicating complete sacrifice. This implicitly means that he cannot legitimately remarry if she dies!
It is tragic that even some people who disagree with the Church on contraception still praise the ideals behind the Church’s thinking. This is worrying because such neurotic and unnatural self-sacrifice could never be praiseworthy.
To claim as the Church does, that contracepting sex is a lie is to accuse all who use it of bad faith. But Catholics may object that they do not judge. When they say that, they mean they judge the act not the person who commits it. So they are accusing them of lying for only persons can lie. Nobody could possibly agree that people have a right to lie to one another through sex so logically it is quite right for the Catholic Church to manipulate the law of the land to outlaw contraception just like it did in Ireland until recently. It would imply that a wife has a duty to separate from her husband on the grounds that he can’t be trusted if he has a stronger belief in contraception than she has or if he wants contraception to be used. Then to say we must be tolerant about contraception is to say we must be tolerant and accepting of people who lie to us which makes a laughing stock of belief in right and wrong.

The Church says that artificial birth control is evil for it is unnatural. But so are glasses and clothes. She says that Jesus was born unnaturally from a virgin. The Church then responds that birth control is an unnatural sin and is not like wearing glasses for you wear glasses for there is something wrong with you but birth control is for preventing things from working as they should. But when nature makes your body want sex when it is not the time to have a child there is something wrong with you and you need the contraception. Why isn’t it an unnatural sin to wear glasses when you don’t need to, say when you are just pottering round the house? We come before nature so we have to go against it all the time to live.
It is against natural law to cut your finger nails. It is against nature to cut your throat. The Church says that the first is neither immoral or moral. It says the second is immoral. It may be forced to admit that something cannot be condemned as morally wrong just because it is against physical nature. So if it wants to condemn birth control it has to argue that it is an unnatural sin on the basis that it is natural law to exercise some self-control. This idea denies that sexual love in marriage is good. It can't be that loving when it needs to be controlled. If the sex is loving then the more sex the better.
The failing to cut your finger nails and keep them tidy can indicate disrespect for yourself and those who see them. The Church lies in making it neither immoral or moral.
Even if birth control were a sin, there is no justification or reason in the insistence of the Church that it is as bad as murder and you will go to Hell forever if you die unrepentant of the sin of birth control just like you would for murder. The stance of the Church is extremism and bigotry. The Church could teach that it is venial sin - this is sin that you have to pay for by suffering in Purgatory not a sin so serious that you would suffer punishment for it that never ends and which can never end.
Natural family planning treats your fertility as if it were something bad or dangerous which is why it lets the couple have sex when the fertility is out of the way. It has that in common with contraception. The Church again is condemning contraception though natural family planning should be condemned too.

You cannot condemn birth control for being unnatural for we have to go against nature all the time to live. Potatoes are for growing. Stones are for lying about and not for making into houses. Those who say that birth control is evil because it is unnatural are stating that natural law is more important than human welfare. We come first.

The Church says that birth control makes men use women for their own pleasure and presumably it makes women use men for pleasure too. So, she wants men to use women to have unwanted children instead. It is worse to treat a woman as a baby-making machine than as a sex object. Nothing makes men use women – they don’t have to have this manipulative attitude. So the Church is partly forbidding birth control because it is abused that that is unfair. When the Church allows barren couples some of whom wouldn’t want children anyway to have sex it is impossible to see how it can argue that sterilised couples are abusing one another when they are having sex.

The Church says that artificial birth control leads to abortion and that makes birth control and even indirectly murderous. The pope, who has to know from his philosophy and training in logic and from his critics that he is wrong, sees the fight against abortion and birth control as one and the same battle. They obviously are not. Birth-control using barrier methods does not mean abortion will be more likely if they fail for you are trying to prevent conception and that does not mean you would want to get rid of a baby if you get pregnant. Birth-control using pills which prevent the embryo implanting should not lead to abortion either if they fail. Why? Because there is a difference between killing some cells by a birth control pill and killing an embryo that is more advanced. Many people who would not have an abortion use the pill. At this point the Church will use statistics to back up her allegations. But no matter what the statistics say it is not the fault of belief in birth-control if people using it will be more inclined to abortion. There would have to be another explanation for the figures. And there are many statistics from research organisations that give a totally different picture from the one the Church wants to give. If people were more careful abortion would not be necessary. People are going to have sex anyway and not allowing them to use contraception is forcing them to use abortion for they will panic if conception results. There would be more abortions and regrets without it. Even if there isn’t there shouldn’t be and it is still right to encourage contraception for you can’t ban things just because people misuse them. The rates of misuse fall and climb all the time anyway so you can’t determine morality by looking at the rates.

Using the safe period will lead to abortion the woman does not want but which she will have out of desperation for it is only permitted to be used for grave reasons meaning that if it fails the woman will panic. It should lead to abortion and it does. The fear the woman will feel while using it can only be alleviated by intending to use abortion to rectify the situation. She must secretly intend to abort for there is no other way she can cope.
Some Catholics assert that birth control makes people see the children they have a result of its failure as unfortunate accidents. But seeing children that way would be the fault of the parents and not of contraception. The children would be accidents but once the pregnancies are discovered the parents would start to love and accept the children. They should think that the child is a fortunate accident who was born at the wrong time but who is still welcome. If people really believe that birth control degrades children then they should never allow it and should make the pope oppose the natural method. The natural method is allowed to fail a bit. After all, it is supposed to be open to life should God so will to create life. Anybody trying to avoid children even by contraception could resolve to welcome any baby that comes as a result of the contraception failing.

It is feared by opponents of artificial birth control that it will lead to people losing restraint in sexual matters. God is supposed to help you fight temptation so don’t blame birth control. It is true that a person might use contraception to have sex whenever and with whoever he or she wants but that would be abusing contraception. You cannot condemn anything because it is abused. Why don’t they complain to God that some people who are not suited to partners have huge sex drives?

The Church says that birth control loosens the marriage bond – it makes partners less afraid of going to bed with someone else. But what about the fact that the Church says that Jesus is there to keep marriage together so he can handle that possibility? And when people can do lots of things in bed besides intercourse we see the silliness of the allegation. If there were no contraception there might be loads of married people having oral sex with their extra-marital lovers. If that became the norm and it could, there would be more cheating than there would be with contraception being common. The Church does not condemn oral sex and masturbation and anal sex with the vehemence and vigour that it uses against contraception. They pick on the one sexual sin, contraception. Nobody dies from oral sex or anal sex or masturbation. But people do die from there been no contraception or not using it properly. How warped is this Church?
So the Church wants people to be scared of pregnancy and disease to put them off having forbidden sex. The Church wants people to be afraid to break God’s law, nice. People should do right because they want to and not because pregnancy or something else scares them. What if women use the natural method to have more lovers? They could.
If contraception were used properly and enhanced marriage and prevented disease the Church would still forbid it. Yet it has the nerve to try and cite the failure of contraception at times to prevent pregnancy and to prevent disease to scare people off using it or allowing it or advising it!

It is said that contraception makes illicit sex more likely but the fact is that the fear of pregnancy does not always stop sex happening. The Church believes that sex should be genital to genital and that oral sex and other things are perversions. It prefers unprotected vaginal sex to oral sex for the latter is “unnatural”. If the Church does not want such “perversion” then why does it force it to happen by banning birth control?

The Church says that pregnancy should be avoided out of the love of God and not out of the fear of pregnancy or what comes after so it cannot forbid birth control on the grounds of deterring people. God only wants what is done for his own sake.

Religious morality only leads to lies and unfairness. Catholicism tries to turn people against the pill with arguments such as what follows. "The pill causes havoc with a woman's body. It could damage her fertility forever. It kills any baby she conceives by preventing implantation. It increases the risk of breast cancer." This conniving cult purposely ignores the fact that there are risks with everything we do. If Catholicism was not trying to manipulate women and society to turn against the pill it would condemn driving a car with a petrol engine and would certainly condemn smoking which does far more harm than the pill ever could. In reality the reasons given have nothing to do with Catholicism banning birth control at all. It is because they won't admit that their faith is wrong. They are trying to make it seem that they prohibit because they care. They are insecure about the reasons for their prohibiting and so they have to use subterfuge.

Is the fact that if you can control people’s sexuality you can control them in all things, the real reason why the Church bans birth control? The fact that Roman Catholicism allows people who cannot have children to wed says the answer is yes. It does not tell barren or old couples to refrain from sex except when the urge is uncontrollable and may result in adultery as St Augustine would have done.

The Church doesn't mind sex within and babies resulting in a marriage which may not last or one that WILL not last even when the husband and wife know it. It pretends to care. 

The doctrine that contraception is wrong may be dressed up in the robes of charity. But it is actually a woman-hating and dangerous doctrine that gives men the right to procreate through rape. It plainly gives husbands carrying killer sex diseases the right to pass on the disease to their wives and future children by forbidding condoms even then. Contraception like all things human has had some bad results. But the results would be totally horrendous if the Catholic doctrine were followed consistently and in bigger numbers.  Catholicism should believe that birth control is evil - its part of its identity as a religion. Catholicism can't be the true religion if it is wrong about how sinful birth control is. But people should separate from it so that there will be no Catholicism left to believe it. If you belong to or claim to belong to a religion that should believe evil things, then even if it doesn't, you are being evil and supporting evil. A religion that doesn't understand or admit or see how evil it is meant to be is a religion that is being praised for going against itself. It is no compliment to praise it for you are praising ignorance and disobedience. Separate from it.
The pope knows fine well that if you believe in morality there are only two options: This being so, he has no right to order people and must leave them to decide. Instead, without compromise he orders all to believe on God's authority that birth control and using spermicides is always wrong. Though it leads to contradiction, he accepts one when it suits him and when it doesn't he accepts two. He has no right to expect people to believe he condemns in good faith.
The options in any case are:
One, the legalistic idea that actions are wrong in all circumstances, eg changing religion or using contraception.
Two, the idea that it all depends on the situation and the consequences so a woman can use spermicide if she is about to be raped even if contraception is generally wrong etc.
Inhumanly, he chooses one. His true followers do the same. Their duplicity is proven and they must be exposed.