Soul Gender?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 1 2005, 09:51 AM']I misunderstood Irenaeus.  I thought he was talking about some sort of natural human spirit apart from the soul.  See my earlier post.
I don't understand your argument.  You're saying that something I've said implies that man would somehow be God?  Does this have anything to do w/ what I said about the soul containing memories, etc.?
[right][snapback]629351[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Masculinity and femininity are vital operations of the composite being. If you identify these, or any of the operations of the composite being, with its substantial form (soul), you are basically saying that man is God, because in the Western tradition only God is identical with His operations.

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 1 2005, 11:56 AM']Masculinity and femininity are vital operations of the composite being. [/quote]

Don't you mean attributes of the person? or am I just lacking in my philosophy training (which, I admit, isn't extensive by any means)

To go way back in the discussion...
The fullness of masculinity or femininity only exists in the composite person. However, I am maintaining that the immaterial components of masculinity are present in the soul, and that the material components are present in the body. When they are united in the person, those components combine to create masculinity or feminity [i]per se[/i], as a part of the person.

[quote]If you identify these, or any of the operations of the composite being, with its substantial form (soul), you are basically saying that man is God, because in the Western tradition only God is identical with His operations.
[right][snapback]629352[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are you saying that God is God because He is identical to his attributes? (And you mean in the sense of "God is Love" etc.)

Well, nothing I've said, as far as I can tell, implied that man was omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent, nor has it implied that man is "that which nothing greater can be concieved", nor has it implied that man is the cause of himself. As a result, I don't see how anything I've said equates man with God.

Edited July 1, 2005 by scardella

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 1 2005, 10:16 AM']Don't you mean attributes of the person?  or am I just lacking in my philosophy training (which, I admit, isn't extensive by any means)
[right][snapback]629371[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[i]Operations[/i], [i]energies[/i], and [i]attributes[/i] are often used interchangeably, but I avoid the word [i]attributes[/i] normally, because it can be use in a nominalist sense.

As far as masculinity and femininity are concerned, there is no such thing as a male or female soul, and so you continue to confuse the vital operations of the being with its substantial form.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 1 2005, 10:16 AM'][. . .]
Are you saying that God is God because He is identical to his attributes?  (And you mean in the sense of "God is Love" etc.)
[. . .]
[right][snapback]629371[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
First I should point out that I am not a Westerner, and so I am no longer a Thomist, but the Western tradition holds that only God is identical with His operations. So what I am trying to point out to you is that you are basically speaking about man in a way that is reserved in the West to God.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 1 2005, 10:16 AM']Well, nothing I've said, as far as I can tell, implied that man was omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent, nor has it implied that man is "that which nothing greater can be concieved", nor has it implied that man is the cause of himself.  As a result, I don't see how anything I've said equates man with God.
[right][snapback]629371[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm not accusing you of saying that man is omniscient, or omnipotent, etc., what I'm saying is that, in the Western tradition, only God is identical with His operations; thus, the human soul, as man's substantial form, is distinct from the vital operations of his composite being. To identify the different operations, including masculinity and femininity, with the substantial form (soul) is to basically ascribe to man a type of existence that is only experienced by God.

[scardella]

Erm...I'm starting to grow weary of this debate, quite frankly, so here's a question and we can then at least get to a point where I'm willing to say "well, dangit, let's just agree to disagree":
Has anything I said been inconsistent with itself, or against Church doctrine or dogma, or been significantly lacking?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 1 2005, 11:04 AM']Erm...I'm starting to grow weary of this debate, quite frankly, so here's a question and we can then at least get to a point where I'm willing to say "well, dangit, let's just agree to disagree":
Has anything I said been inconsistent with itself, or against Church doctrine or dogma, or been significantly lacking?
[right][snapback]629408[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I have never seen or heard of any Church document that ascribes sexuality to the soul; in other words, I've never seen anything that supports the idea that there are "male souls" and "female souls." In fact this idea seems to be contrary to the doctrine of the simplicity of the soul and the distinction that exists between the soul, as a substantial form, and the operations of the composite being that it informs.

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 2 2005, 01:51 AM']I have never seen or heard of any Church document that ascribes sexuality to the soul; in other words, I've never seen anything that supports the idea that there are "male souls" and "female souls." In fact this idea seems to be contrary to the doctrine of the simplicity of the soul and the distinction that exists between the soul, as a substantial form, and the operations of the composite being that it informs.
[right][snapback]629796[/snapback][/right]
[/quote] [color=purple]I believe you Apotheoun, but then (I think I asked this a bit back in the thread) why does the Catholic Encylopedia make it seem like souls are gendered in their article on women?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm[/url]

[quote]The female sex is in some respects inferior to the male sex, [b][i]both as regards body and soul[/i]. [/b]On the other hand, woman has qualities which man lacks[...]
[/quote]

Further descriptions in the article support the arguments used in favor of souls not having a sex in our conversations. Can you help me understand what the Catholic Encyclopedia means by that statement then? I know you said you didn't know of any documents that supported the idea of male and female souls, but If they said that, where would they get their authority for that statement from? [/color]

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jul 2 2005, 11:54 AM'][color=purple]Further descriptions in the article support the arguments used in favor of souls not having a sex in our conversations. [/color]
[right][snapback]629962[/snapback][/right]
[/quote][color=purple]Souls don't have sex at all!! Especially not in conversation!!! lol! I'm sorry... I worded that [i]really[/i] badly I meant...shows that souls are sexless...that there are no sexual characteristics in souls. *slip of the tongue* [/color]

[Apotheoun]

Let me begin by pointing out the obvious: the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a magisterial document, and thus it is not something that should be used necessarily in formulating a doctrinal position.

That being said, let me try and explain the sentence that you have highlighted (without of course endorsing what the author is asserting).

The sentence itself reads as follows: "The female sex is in some respects inferior to the male sex, both as regards body and soul." Now in the paragraph just before the one in which the above sentence occurs, the following is said: "The same essentially identical human nature appears in the male and female sex in two-fold [b]personal[/b] form; [i]there are, consequently, male and female persons[/i]." This sentence clarifies the nature of the sentence you have focused upon, because it shows that sexual characteristics are personal ([i]hypostatic[/i]) characteristics, i.e., they are characteristic of the hylomorphic being.

Taking the personal nature of sexuality into account, the sentence that concerns you can be read in the following way, "The female sex ([i]which is a personal reality[/i]) is in some respects inferior to the male sex ([i]which is a personal reality[/i]), both as regards body and soul." Now with that correction added, one is not required to assent to the sentences overall assertion, because clearly the soul, which is the substantial form of the human person (male and female), is wholly simple and is equal in dignity in both men and women, because it is a spiritual and immaterial reality, and is not a physical or bodily reality.

With that clarification in mind, one can argue that a man possesses a bodily superiority to a woman, because a man tends to be physically stronger than a woman, but of course that is not an objective assertion that holds in every case, because clearly in some cases a woman will be physically stronger than a man, or she may be able to endure physical stress longer than a man. In either case, the statements are relative in relation to each individual person, and as such they have very little value, except as generalizations.

In any case, I do not subscribe to the authors contention that women are weaker than men, and no Catholic is required to agree with the author of this Catholic Encyclopedia article. As far as where the author may have gotten this idea is concerned, it is most likely founded, at least in part, upon the very thing that the author criticized in the paragraph the occurs right before the one with the sentence you highlighted. Thus, it is most likely a residual philosophical element of Aristotelian chauvinism.

I will end by simply pointing out once again that although the old Catholic Encyclopedia is a good resource for many things, that is not always the case, and so it is not wise to necessarily formulate Catholic doctrine based upon what it says.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 1 2005, 11:09 AM']Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.  Is there a problem with that?
[i]Pun unintentional, but appreciated[/i]
[right][snapback]629318[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hahaha, its ok, I like puns, and you can't possibly be worse than one of my friends at school (Snowcat knows who I'm talking about) - he is just a constant flow of horrid puns.

But on a more serious note, yes, I do think there is a problem with that, precisely because the soul cannot "contain" anything within it, such as an aspect of masculinity or feminimity. If it "contained" anything, then we would have to assert that the soul is more complex than its component parts. But the soul is simple. Therefore, the soul cannot contain aspects of sex.

I hope that makes sense.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 2 2005, 10:58 AM']In any case, I do not subscribe to the authors contention that women are weaker than men, and no Catholic is required to agree with the author of this Catholic Encyclopedia article. [b] As far as where the author may have gotten this idea is concerned, it is most likely founded, at least in part, upon the very thing that the author criticized in the paragraph the occurs right before the one with the sentence you highlighted. Thus, it is most likely a residual philosophical element of Aristotelian chauvinism.  [/b]


[right][snapback]629976[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

wow, amazing amazing amazing-------[b] thank you so much for disagreeing with aristotle[/b] i will love you forever form this moment on....hahaha...ef karisto grazie de nada por favor hahhaa what i mean is thank you........but one more little thing..Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
December 29, 1975

According to contemporary scientific research[b], the human person is so profoundly affected by sexuality that it must be considered as one of the factors which give to each individual's life the principal traits that distinguish it[/b]. In fact it is[i] from sex that the human person receives the characteristics[/i] which, on the biological, psychological [b]and spiritual levels[/b], make that person a man or a woman, and thereby largely condition his or her progress towards maturity and insertion into society.

...etc etc etc..so...i believe it is saying...
in the union of body and soul the connection is so profound that sexuality deeply affects spirituality... savvy?

ok, but, what do you think this means juss wondrin.. the human persan receives [b]from sex[/b]...[i] ok uhm what?...the human person-RECEIVES from sex, THE CHARACTERISTICS which make that person a man or woman[/I person in catholic understanding being a body soul union....... so is this saying sex comes from the body to the soul not the soul to the body....oh nevermind, forget it....my head hurts..back to reading aristotle now!!!!!!

Edited July 3, 2005 by Semperviva

[Semperviva]

[i]Let me begin by pointing out the[I] obvious[/i]: the Catholic Encyclopedia is not something that should be used necessarily in formulating a doctrinal position. [/I]

well obviously,
its not obvious/inherent/infused knowledge in everyone....
because if it [i]was[/i] obvious
there would be no need to point it out.

post scriptum, may i clarify that my initial use of the term "obvious" in the first line was sarcastic and not literal...

Edited July 3, 2005 by Semperviva

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 3 2005, 09:47 AM'][. . .]

...etc etc etc..so...i believe it is saying...
in the union of body and soul the connection is so profound that sexuality deeply affects spirituality... savvy? 

ok, but, what do you think this means juss wondrin.. the human persan receives [b]from sex[/b]... ok uhm what?...the human person-RECEIVES from sex,  THE CHARACTERISTICS which make that person a man or woman person in catholic understanding being a body soul union....... so is this saying sex comes from the body to the soul not the soul to the body....oh nevermind, forget it....my head hurts..back to reading aristotle now!!!!!!
[right][snapback]630649[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The term "spiritual" can used equivocally. In fact in the Eastern Christian tradition that which is "spiritual" in man, is divine. It is God's uncreated energy, or in the theological terminology of St. Maximos, it is the logoi, i.e., the reflection of the Logos in created being.

As Philip Sherrard writes in reference to this Byzantine doctrine: ". . . man is not simply a psychophysical being of the 'natural order, for he possess as well as soul and body a third faculty or power, the uncreated and divine image in him, or spiritual heart, and it is through his 'knowledge' of this latter that he surpasses the natural order, and truly 'knows God', not 'through a glass, darkly,' but 'face to face.' As this threefold entity of spirit, soul, and body, man is superior even to the angels, who lack an earthly body, and who, therefore, cannot be what man is, the natural mediator between God and the world, and the link through which the multiplicity of sensible things participates in the Unity of the Divine." [Philip Sherrard, [u]The Greek East and the Latin West[/u], page 43]

The Eastern tradition normally reserves the word "spirit" or "spiritual" to the divine.

Now, how exactly the CDF intends the word "spiritual" to be understood within the context of its clarification is probably centered more on the notion of "person" or "personal maturity" than upon the "soul" as the substantial form of the composite being. The reason I say that is because of the reference to "modern scientific research," which indicates to me that the CDF is not referring to a metaphysical idea, but simply to that which is within the reach of modern science, i.e., the physical and phenomenal realm. In other words, I don't believe that the CDF is trying to say that sexuality is a component of the soul itself, but is using the term "spiritual" more in the sense of the necessary and proper development of the human person as a mature adult.

[Semperviva]

thats exactly what i was thinking i was hoping it meantmore in reference to the sacramental life etcetc...k, cool