Soul Gender?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 6 2005, 11:08 AM']You are saying things that Aquinas is not saying.  I see nowhere in any of his writings a distinction between "male appetites" and "female appetites," where in the Summa is this distinction made?
[right][snapback]633210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
...um, sounds like Thomist Fundamentalism being concieved... if its not in the Summa, it can't be true...

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 6 2005, 12:08 PM']...um, sounds like Thomist Fundamentalism being concieved... if its not in the Summa, it can't be true...
[right][snapback]633262[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In Todd's defense, I don't think that this is what he is saying. I think his argument is that you should have a good reason to assert something, and there is no reason provided by St. Thomas to assert such a division of appetites.

Personally, I would be even more strong in my retort: If you are going to assert something that Aquinas doesn't explicitly assert, you should have some kind of [i]prima facie[/i] evidence for the belief. Scardella hasn't provided any reason for us to think that division of the sexes is reasonable from a thomistic theology.

[Apotheoun]

The appetites are simply the natural inclinations of a being to a particular end or good. I think that some people are reading things into the philosophical language used by the Church in order to serve a modern agenda.

Moreover, as I've made clear before, I am not a Thomist; but nevertheless, when reading a man's writings, you cannot give them any meaning that may please you personally. That is why I asked for evidence that Thomas' use of the term "appetite" was the same as that of Scardella.

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 6 2005, 02:34 PM']The appetites are simply the seeking of the end or goal of a natural inclination.  I think that some people are reading things into the philosophical language used by the Church in order to serve a modern agenda.

Moreover, as I've made clear before, I am not a Thomist; but nevertheless, when reading a man's writings, you cannot give them any meaning that may please you personally.  That is why I asked for evidence that Thomas' use of the term "appetite" was the same as that of Scardella.
[right][snapback]633474[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Is JPII's understanding of appetite the same as Thomas? I'm a lot more familiar w/ JPII's thought than Aquinas. I don't think I'm a Thomist, really. I've just been trying to respond to him being brought up. It's been a while since I read Love and Responsibilty, but that's where I'm getting my understanding of appetite.

As far as I know, the sexual appetite is different in men and women. Hence, men being attracted to women and vice versa. Not only that, but the [b]way[/b] that men and women apprehend the good is different. That's why homosexual relationships between men are different than homosexual relationships between women, and those relationships are different than a heterosexual relationship.

The only kind of agenda that I've got is that your responses don't seem to add up to me, and that's bothering me. I've responded with my understanding of things, and I don't see how they're contrary to any teachings of the Church. If there's one thing I [b]don't[/b] want to be, it's heretical.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 6 2005, 01:45 PM']In Todd's defense, I don't think that this is what he is saying. I think his argument is that you should have a good reason to assert something, and there is[b] no reason provided by St. Thomas[/b] to assert such a division of appetites.

Personally, I would be even more strong in my retort: If you are going to assert something that Aquinas doesn't explicitly assert, you should have some kind of [i]prima facie[/i] evidence for the belief. Scardella hasn't provided any reason for us to think that division of the sexes is reasonable from a thomistic theology.
[right][snapback]633420[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i agree with your last sentence, but why are we stopping at thomas? john paul diden't..... btw, was kidding about todd being fundamentalist (i know yer not todd ) just becuz some actually [i]think[/i] that way about Thomas, or at least act as if Thomas=infallible and center their ideologies around him and not Christ--of course you need good reasons for an assertion.......just [i]saaaayin[/i]' that one[i] very likely could [/i]have a good reason for an assertion, even if its[b] not[/b] explicetly Thomistic. yeah its safe to stick with him, but what do you lose by not branching out from him either? you lose alot...even thomas had assertions...they came to him from a study and grace...yes, his assetions make sense, there was reason behind his assertions...he had good reason to make them...although scardella may not be able to express his reasons with thomistic texts he is not ipso facto in error... i am not at this point agreeing with scardella's point per se, but more with his way of thinking ... going outside the thomistic box...

just as something (somewhat) irrelevent--- I'm not saying we should be against Thomas, but we can't say generally well "there's no good reason from Thomas to assert that. debate over." i think Thomas would be disappointed in us if we stopped with him.....when going towards a destination---the path being towards God ultimetely...you come to a place where you[i] seee [/i]more clearly what your destination is and you woulden't just stay there...you get a small glimpse of it...this is what thomas in his greatness does...he's just a small road sign pointing us further, closer to our destiny of deep and fuller union with jesus christ..seeing more clearly through him, it would spur you on to keep going on that road, into deeper knowledge...progression in grace and then wisdom...always go further...don't end your thinking with Thomas...he's a roadsign not a destination...this is exactly what john paul did as he developed his ideas in continuation with and combination of thomas, john of the cross and the phenomenoligists...[color=red]i'm sure[/color] you all know this already so feel free to disregard the rambling...

Edited July 6, 2005 by Semperviva

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 6 2005, 01:10 PM']Is JPII's understanding of appetite the same as Thomas?  I'm a lot more familiar w/ JPII's thought than Aquinas.  I don't think I'm a Thomist, really.  I've just been trying to respond to him being brought up.  It's been a while since I read Love and Responsibilty, but that's where I'm getting my understanding of appetite.

As far as I know, the sexual appetite is different in men and women.  Hence, men being attracted to women and vice versa.  Not only that, but the [b]way[/b] that men and women apprehend the good is different.  That's why homosexual relationships between men are different than homosexual relationships between women, and those relationships are different than a heterosexual relationship.

The only kind of agenda that I've got is that your responses don't seem to add up to me, and that's bothering me.  I've responded with my understanding of things, and I don't see how they're contrary to any teachings of the Church.  If there's one thing I [b]don't[/b] want to be, it's heretical.
[right][snapback]633514[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Pope John Paul II was a phenomenologist.

The appetites in the Thomist sense are not masculine and feminine; instead, they are merely the natural inclination to a good.

There is no such thing as a male or female soul.

The sexual appetite in men and women is identical, because it is simply the seeking of a natural good, and moreover, the soul itself is not reducible to the appetites or any other operations of a being.

You seem to be confusing disordered appetites with natural inclinations.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 6 2005, 01:10 PM'][. . .]

Not only that, but the [b]way[/b] that men and women apprehend the good is different. 

[. . .]
[right][snapback]633514[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That fact that men and women [i]may[/i] apprehend the good in a different way, does not mean that their souls are "masculine" and "feminine." Once again, you seem to be confusing the composite ([i]hylomorphic[/i]) being, i.e., the person, with the substantial form, i.e., the soul. They are not identical.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]don't end your thinking with Thomas[/quote]

I have no set theological/philosophical school at this point. If anything, I am more Anselmian than Thomistic, but even then, I do far too much analytic philosophy to be considered a neo-scholastic. Moreover, I enjoy reading phenomenology, though I am unsure about some of its premises.

Edited July 7, 2005 by JeffCR07

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 6 2005, 09:14 PM']If anything, I am more Anselmian than Thomistic
[right][snapback]633846[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[i]
Well[/i] then, don't end your thinking with Anselm if the "if anything" implies your hesitance as yet subscribe to any [i]one[/i] philosophical school I commend you...cuz ultimetely we're not called to be in a school of anselm, thomas, john paul, its the thought and mind of Jesus Christ which we are to be one with...and when we start getting to into the thought of a man and not the God-man, we will inevitably trip up in our thought...always...uuh, anyways, moving along,
[i]note disclaimer: i know nothing[/i]

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 6 2005, 03:31 PM']Once again, you seem to be confusing the composite ([i]hylomorphic[/i]) being, i.e., the person, with the substantial form, i.e., the soul.  They are not identical.
[right][snapback]633537[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, I don't think I am. However, I do have a problem because any and all characteristics dependent on the hylomorphic composite will necessarily be annihilated (as I understand what you're saying) at the point of death. That is what I have a problem with. There's nothing preventing those characteristics from being completely different at the Resurrection.

Also, the simplicity of the soul seems to preclude perfection or imperfection of it. Thus, Purgatory would make no sense.

As a for instance,
Jeff has a certain "Jeffie-ness" about him, so to speak. One of the particular things about Jeff is that Jeff is a guy. Now, with your understanding, it would seem that he could be given a glorified woman's body and be Jenny at the Resurrection. I'm sure that he wouldn't appreciate that. Furthermore, in the interim period between death and Resurrection, your understanding would seem to imply that Jeff's soul would have no sort of consciousness to be able to think "I am Jeff" or "I had a male body that died; I wonder what my glorified body will be like?" or even revel in the Beatific Vision. It would seem like the interim would be more like an anonymous soul with "Jeff's soul" on it, to make sure that God matched up the right soul with an appropriate glorified body. Then all of a sudden, what would we have? Would that person, who is an apparent new person, be Jeff? How could we know? Would he still have "Jeffie-ness"? Your understanding would seem to leave that in the air.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 07:03 AM']No, I don't think I am.  However, I do have a problem because any and all characteristics dependent on the hylomorphic composite will necessarily be annihilated (as I understand what you're saying) at the point of death.  That is what I have a problem with.  There's nothing preventing those characteristics from being completely different at the Resurrection.

[. . .]
[right][snapback]634180[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Based upon these comments it appears that you deny the importance of the dogma of the resurrection of the body. The Church has always taught, and continues to teach, that the soul is not complete without the body, and that man is a hylomorphic being composed of both body and soul.

Now if the soul has the "characteristics" that you want to assign to it, three things follow: (1) the body becomes unnecessary and one falls into the heresy of neo-Platonic dualism; (2) the soul and its operations would be identified, and man would no longer possess any potencies, because all of his operations would be simultaneously in act, and in the Western Church this is the heresy of making man divine by nature, because man, like God, would be "pure act"; and (3) the soul would no longer be a pure simple spiritual substance, and there would be as many substantial forms within man as there are operations, and this was condemned as heretical at the Eighth General Council (869-870).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 07:03 AM'][. . .]

Also, the simplicity of the soul seems to preclude perfection or imperfection of it.  Thus, Purgatory would make no sense. 

[. . .]
[right][snapback]634180[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The unity and simplicity of the soul indicates its relative perfection as a created spiritual substance. Sins, both venial and mortal, are not substances, and so purgatory does not involve any kind of substantial change in the soul as venial attachments are removed.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 07:03 AM'][. . .]
As a for instance,
Jeff has a certain "Jeffie-ness" about him, so to speak.  One of the particular things about Jeff is that Jeff is a guy.  Now, with your understanding, it would seem that he could be given a glorified woman's body and be Jenny at the Resurrection.  I'm sure that he wouldn't appreciate that.  Furthermore, in the interim period between death and Resurrection, your understanding would seem to imply that Jeff's soul would have no sort of consciousness to be able to think "I am Jeff" or "I had a male body that died; I wonder what my glorified body will be like?" or even revel in the Beatific Vision.  It would seem like the interim would be more like an anonymous soul with "Jeff's soul" on it, to make sure that God matched up the right soul with an appropriate glorified body.  Then all of a sudden, what would we have?  Would that person, who is an apparent new person, be Jeff?  How could we know?  Would he still have "Jeffie-ness"?  Your understanding would seem to leave that in the air.
[right][snapback]634180[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This example is non-sensical, because the Church teaches that in the resurrection a man (or a woman) receives back the exact same body that he (or she) had in this life. The only difference between now and then is that the resurrected body is glorified.

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 7 2005, 11:14 AM']This example is non-sensical, because the Church teaches that in the resurrection a man (or a woman) receives back the exact same body that he (or she) had in this life.  The only difference between now and then is that the resurrected body is glorified.
[right][snapback]634384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How is it possible to have the exact same body if that which makes up the body (atoms joined together to make molecules, etc.) gets reused? It would be hard to argue from a scientific standpoint that they don't. The most obvious case is a cannibal. If a cannibal became Catholic and then died in the state of grace, would the flesh he ate from someone else's body be his in the Resurrection or the other person's? If so, would one person have a hole in them? Furthermore, if it is the exact same body, then how can it be glorified? Being glorified implies that it is different than before.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 7 2005, 11:19 AM']How is it possible to have the exact same body if that which makes up the body (atoms joined together to make molecules, etc.) gets reused? It would be hard to argue from a scientific standpoint that they don't.  The most obvious case is a cannibal.  If a cannibal became Catholic and then died in the state of grace, would the flesh he ate from someone else's body be his in the Resurrection or the other person's?  If so, would one person have a hole in them?  Furthermore, if it is the exact same body, then how can it be glorified?  Being glorified implies that it is different than before.
[right][snapback]634553[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is called a supernatural miracle, and it is [i]de fide[/i]; thus, to deny it is to fall into heresy (cf. Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, no. 1). Moreover, the glorification of the body does not involve the destruction or alteration of physical matter; instead, it involves a change in the principle of life which animates the body.