P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t believe, of course, that the soul preexists the life of the body.
But it’s entirely possible for a newly created soul to be anomalously matched to a human body.
- Status
But it’s entirely possible for a newly created soul to be anomalously matched to a human body.
G
GEddie
Guest
Nope, I don’t buy that.
The only reason to entertain such a hypothesis is in accepting the argument of transsexualism. I don’t (which doesn’t matter); neither does the Church.
Our bodies can have “anomalies” because they, we, are biological beings subject to the law entropy; however, the soul can have no entropy, but is spiritual and perfect, in all aspects, including the junction to the body.
Or alternatively, each soul is infused directly by God into an otherwise natural human body; for the soul and body to be “mismatched” it would follow that God erred.
ICXC NIKA
P
PRmerger
Guest
Or, because it’s true…
I’ve not read anything in Church teaching that says that the soul is “spiritual and perfect, in all aspects, including the junction to the body.”
It would no more follow that God erred in this mismatch than it would be to say that in creating a blind human being God erred.
G
GEddie
Guest
So do you then accept the theory of transsexualism?Or, because it’s true…
Not really. Blindness and other physiological defects arise from the law of entropy as it affects our solid bodies and/or the DNA. God for whatever reason allowed those laws to operate unimpeded in the formation of the body.
The soul has no DNA and no material substance to be subjected to heat and therefore entropy.
ICXC NIKA
P
PRmerger
Guest
I dunno.
I think it’s entirely possible for a soul to be mismatched with a body.
Our femininity and masculinity is CLEARLY not only a biological or physical thing.
It does appear that, at our essence, ontologically, we are male or female.
(BTW, the Church hasn’t made any teachings, AFAIK, on whether “the theory of transexualism” is true or false.)
And entropy of our physical being comes from Original Sin.
So perhaps Original Sin is also to blame for a mismatch of body/soul.
N
neophyte
Guest
No. The soul is the principle that animates the body.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nope. :nope:
God creates each soul immediately – that is, without mediation – and therefore, if you’re claiming an error in the context of the creation of the soul, then you’re claiming that God creates in error. That just doesn’t fly.
(On the other hand, physical imperfections that bodies experience – such as your example of blindness – proceed from a mediated creation: human bodies are created through the mediation of human parents. Therefore, human bodies are subject to imperfection in a way that’s not directly attributable to God.)
A
Aloysium
Guest
If this about transsexualism, it is a psychological phenomenon, a disorder in some societies and times, a variation of normal in others. If someone with that condition fears having the body they were given at birth again in the resurrection, I would reassure them that all will be made right. They will be then be themselves body and soul with no conflict. I don’t see how that condition can be attributed in any way to the soul being in conflict with the body. I imagine that it is not that different from anorexia nervosa where emaciated people see themselves as being obese, in this culture, and impure/less spiritual in others, less interested in appearance.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, the question isn’t about transexualism, but it is certainly part of consideration of the question and part of the answer.
Yes!
I don’t see why not.
Why couldn’t it be viewed in the same manner as some individuals who are actually female, at their essence, but were given, anomalously, male genitalia?
T
Tomyris
Guest
Hi PR,
I’ve just been reading STA on this issue (Summa I,75) in Peter Kreeft’s ‘Summa of the Summa’, and this thread caught my eye. I looked through the thread to see if this had been addressed and I did not see it. Pardon me if I missed it.
Footnote 4 p 245:
Is the soul sinless? I don’t think so. People get thrown into hell body and soul - both are judged - so it is possible both flaws and sins of the body are reflected in the soul. If the body is male and the person thinks he is a she, the conflict may also appear in the soul.
But the idea that the soul is female and the body is male is to be rejected - the legitimacy of ‘gender issues’ must be found elsewhere. They are legitimate issues in that people are having issues with their own gender. But the solution to their problem cannot be based in “I look like a guy but I am a girl in soul”.
Then there is the argument: say a man gets all the surgery he wants to become a woman, and retrains his brain, making changes that we cannot make now so that he is now an XX not an XY with the full complement of plumbing and the individual re-socializes as a woman, changing legal status, etc… Does he now have a female soul? Did his male soul change gender? The Church replies no. For a Catholic that is enough, except to understand the WHY is important for full intellectual assent, especially to help those afflicted with this.
I’ve just been reading STA on this issue (Summa I,75) in Peter Kreeft’s ‘Summa of the Summa’, and this thread caught my eye. I looked through the thread to see if this had been addressed and I did not see it. Pardon me if I missed it.
Footnote 4 p 245:
This leads to the argument, in my mind at least, that the body is the exact representation of the soul: if you could visualize a soul, it would look like the body it is matched with. Matched with. Meaning that whatever gender the body has the soul has likewise.
Is the soul sinless? I don’t think so. People get thrown into hell body and soul - both are judged - so it is possible both flaws and sins of the body are reflected in the soul. If the body is male and the person thinks he is a she, the conflict may also appear in the soul.
But the idea that the soul is female and the body is male is to be rejected - the legitimacy of ‘gender issues’ must be found elsewhere. They are legitimate issues in that people are having issues with their own gender. But the solution to their problem cannot be based in “I look like a guy but I am a girl in soul”.
Then there is the argument: say a man gets all the surgery he wants to become a woman, and retrains his brain, making changes that we cannot make now so that he is now an XX not an XY with the full complement of plumbing and the individual re-socializes as a woman, changing legal status, etc… Does he now have a female soul? Did his male soul change gender? The Church replies no. For a Catholic that is enough, except to understand the WHY is important for full intellectual assent, especially to help those afflicted with this.
G
GEddie
Guest
Because bodies are far more than genitalia, however fiercely our current sex-warped society would argue otherwise.
Ignoring for the moment issues of whether or not a soul resides “in” the body, there is no doubt that each human soul, infused before birth, is associated with and formed by only one body. God does not deliberately create anomalies.
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
Indeed, sin properly resides in the soul; our bodies get all the bum rap.
I am a sinner, but you could examine me from head-dome to toetips and hands without finding any sins. Sin is not part of the anatomy. However, a priest with the same charisms as Padre Pio would readily find them in my soul.
ICXC NIKA
P
Peebo
Guest
The Bible tells us that we will have glorified bodies in heaven…so that appears to mean that we will still have gender…Jesus appeared to his disciples after the resurrection…he even ate with them and told them to touch him…he still appeared as a man although with a glorified body…when we partake of the Eucharist Jesus is present with us…body…blood…soul and divinity…we also will have glorified bodies at the resurrection…so wouldn’t it be possible that our glorified bodies are both body and soul
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. That’s precisely the wrong understanding of what ‘form’ means here. One only makes this leap of logic if he misunderstands what ‘form’ means in this context.
Go back to p. 244 and re-read at the bottom of the page: “the soul, which is the first principle of life, is not a body, but the act of a body.”
Moreover, in the footnote you cite, there’s a description of what it means for the soul to be the form of the body: “it is the very life of the body.”
So, in a philosophical sense, being a ‘form’ of something does not imply that it’s an ‘outline’ or a ‘representation’ of that thing. In this context, it simply means that the soul is what makes a body a human (by virtue of intellect). (In fact, back in post #72 in this thread, I cited ST I.76.1 as a proof that precisely contradicts the ‘form as representation’ idea.
)
G
GEddie
Guest
More to the point, if a human body is deformed or otherwise incomplete owing to the vagaries of the laws of biology or otherwise, the soul is not likewise deformed, and his or her spiritual body will not be affected by the deformation.No. That’s precisely the wrong understanding of what ‘form’ means here. One only makes this leap of logic if he misunderstands what ‘form’ means in this context.
Go back to p. 244 and re-read at the bottom of the page: “the soul, which is the first principle of life, is not a body, but the act of a body.”
Moreover, in the footnote you cite, there’s a description of what it means for the soul to be the form of the body: “it is the very life of the body.”
So, in a philosophical sense, being a ‘form’ of something does not imply that it’s an ‘outline’ or a ‘representation’ of that thing. In this context, it simply means that the soul is what makes a body a human (by virtue of intellect). (In fact, back in post #72 in this thread, I cited ST I.76.1 as a proof that precisely contradicts the ‘form as representation’ idea.
The soul is not just an inner moldline of the body, and is not subject to its anomalies.
ICXC NIKA
E
ethereality
Guest
Given this union, I think the better conclusion is not to say that “souls have gender,” but rather that people have gender.
It is worth noting that our glorified bodies will be different, and it is speculation to suppose the same earthly paradigms will apply in heaven, where St. Paul declares it’ll be greater than what we can suppose.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
And our masculinity/femininity is more than our genitalia.
And it appears that it’s more than our bodies, as well.
Otherwise, the Church wouldn’t speak of it as affecting us in body AND soul. (See references provided previously by Marco Polo).
You are correct.
And yet we* have* anomalies.
It’s not unreasonable to conclude that there are anomalies of both the body AND the soul.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I can go with this. The soul is not subject to the body’s anomalies, but it may have its own anomalies.
G
Gorgias
Guest
"PRmerger:
Yes, it is unreasonable. Since God creates souls immediately (that is, without the mediation of anyone or anything else), then your conclusion is that God directly creates these anomalies. That runs counter to Catholic thought.
Now you’re just making it up as you go.
G
GEddie
Guest
Yes, spiritual bodies (pneumatikon soma) are different, viz. power and movement and deathlessness. But they remain human beings, with head, hands, feet etc.
So it’s not too much a stretch to conjecture that “gender” remains. There is continuity to an extent between bodies.
ICXC NIKA
- Status