Is the essence of a person the sum total of his atoms?

[Vico]

THANK YOU. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia said that is from Aquinas. I’ve been wondering what it meant

You are welcome. It is from Tractatus de verbo incarnato by Cardinal Johannes Baptist Franzelin, (1893), p. 302. It is in the section on De humanitatis Christi existentia propria distincta ab Verbi.

 

[Frankenfurter]

My translation:

It is altogether evident that in reality in setting out of its causes, in the state of actuality, no way a formal existence is possible to be abstracted.

Thanks for that.

Now, what does that mean?

 

[Vico]

My translation:

It is altogether evident that in reality in setting out of its causes, in the state of actuality, no way a formal existence is possible to be abstracted.

The quote above is regarding Suarez that taught that essence and existence of creatures differ as a logical difference only, not really. (Cannot abstract a formal existence.)

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that essence and existence of creatures differ as different entities (except for God). For example, since angels (immaterial substances) are dependent on the divine causality to exist, existing cannot be what they are of their essence.

 

[tonyrey]

Cold-blooded crime isn’t necessarily evil… It may be pathological.

It depends on the motive. It may be the lesser of two evils but if there isn’t a good reason for not having children there is no excuse for interfering with a gift that is generally regarded as a blessing rather than a burden.

 

[Solmyr]

It depends on the motive. It may be the lesser of two evils but if there isn’t a good reason for not having children there is no excuse for interfering with a gift that is generally regarded as a blessing rather than a burden.

The church does not allow “generally”. If one does not want to have children, one must abstain. No excuses. That is the official teaching. Even one instance of deliberate use of artificial birth control is a mortal sin, which will be punished by eternal torture, if not repented. Compared to the possible mitigating circumstances in the case of homicide or even murder - as you pointed out a pathological murderer.

 

[tonyrey]

It depends on the motive. It may be the lesser of two evils but if there isn’t a good reason for not having children there is no excuse for interfering with a gift that is generally regarded as a blessing rather than a burden.

In this world there is a higher authority than the Church or the Pope: our conscience…

 

[Solmyr]

In this world there is a higher authority than the Church or the Pope: our conscience…

Not according to the church.

We must follow our conscience (the church says) - but ONLY if it is well-formed. And a conscience is well-formed if it agrees which the teachings of the church. (I remember the famous words of Henry Ford, who declared that every customer can have a car in whatever color they prefer - IF their preferred color is black). And since the church CLAIMS that it holds the keys for heaven, it also CLAIMS that it is the highest authority, and it CLAIMS that any and all attempts to perform artificial birth control is mortal sin and evil - you cannot appeal to our conscience as a highest authority.

Now I would agree with you that the church’s CLAIMS are not relevant, but you are not in the position to renounce the church, because that would be heresy and another mortal sin.

 

[Frankenfurter]

And since the church CLAIMS that it holds the keys for heaven, it also CLAIMS that it is the highest authority, and it CLAIMS that any and ***all attempts to perform artificial birth control is mortal sin and evil ***- you cannot appeal to our conscience as a highest authority.

Now I would agree with you that the church’s CLAIMS are not relevant, but you are not in the position to renounce the church, because that would be heresy and another mortal sin.

Perhaps a belief in physicalism has influenced you.

It is not true that any act of birth control is a mortal sin. You have your facts wrong about the church. In fact mortal sin cannot be defined by a physical act. Sin cannot be committed by someone who does not understand sin and understand that something they do can separate them from God. Sin is a spiritual matter not a physical one.

Regarding birth control, if someone used birth control but did not understand sin or even how or why it was sinful, they could NOT be committing a sin. The physical act is NOT the sin.

If you read Humanae Vitae, you will see a description of why artificial birth control is sinful. That document is not about the ACT of doing birth control. It is instead about the way that birth control causes young men to see women as sex objects. It is about how that destroys families and leads to divorce which hurts innocent children, it is about how a culture with free sex will eventually use abortion as birth control, it is about how these things all unleash evil into the world and separate us from God.

Once you understand all of that, then the act of doing birth control, being intrinsically evil, becomes sinful. But that is because you know how it separates you from God, but do it anyway.

Sin is when you do something to your spouse on purpose that you know hurts her deeply. The effect of this sin is to destroy your relationship.

These are non-physical notions though I am realizing.

The church simple steps in to help you avoid hurting yourself and your own relationship with God. The rules of the game are for your benefit actually. Most of us fall into sin and can’t get out. That means that we live lives that are separate from God, eventually leading to non even believing in him perhaps.

I thank you for your heartfelt post. I believe it is an example of how a purely physical understanding interferes with one’s ability to understand God and the church.

 

[Solmyr]

Perhaps a belief in physicalism has influenced you.

It is not true that any act of birth control is a mortal sin. You have your facts wrong about the church. In fact mortal sin cannot be defined by a physical act. Sin cannot be committed by someone who does not understand sin and understand that something they do can separate them from God. Sin is a spiritual matter not a physical one.

Very interesting.

I am aware that not attending mass for frivolous reasons is a mortal sin, but only for Catholics. It is not problematic for non-Catholics. Now is this get-out-of-jail-free card pertain to other actions, too? Are we non-Catholics free to commit all sorts of actions which we do NOT consider “sinful”?

As a non-believer I do not even accept the concept of “sin”. As such I do not accept that acts separate me from God. (Unfortunately God plays hard-to-get, even when one asks him to show up.) Therefore engaging in non-procreational sex is perfectly fine by me. But what does the church say about it?

Is there some official writ, which would say: “artificial birth control is forbidden for Catholics, but it is perfectly fine for non-Catholics”? That would be a strong endorsement for what you said. But I rather doubt the existence of such document.

If you read Humanae Vitae, you will see a description of why artificial birth control is sinful.

Reading about something and accepting that “something” are two, very different things. I am aware of what the church asserts, but I reject it. We, with my partner do not consider the other one as “sex” objects, even when we play all sorts of games.

So, where does it leave me in the opinion of the church? Do I commit mortal sin, or don’t I? I am aware of the three “prongs” that define a mortal sin:

1. It must be a grave act.
2. One must be aware that it is a grave act.
3. But one performs the act with full volition.

I deny that ABC is a grave act. So, what now?

Sin is when you do something to your spouse on purpose that you know hurts her deeply. The effect of this sin is to destroy your relationship.

Most people have no objection to doing “things” which others consider “hurtful” or “evil” (Performing acts of love to be declared “evil” - amazing). They are willing and happy participants in all sorts of games. Instead of hurting the relationship, it actually strengthens it. It makes the bonding even stronger.

 

[Vico]

Very interesting.

I am aware that not attending mass for frivolous reasons is a mortal sin, but only for Catholics. It is not problematic for non-Catholics. Now is this get-out-of-jail-free card pertain to other actions, too? Are we non-Catholics free to commit all sorts of actions which we do NOT consider “sinful”?

As a non-believer I do not even accept the concept of “sin”. As such I do not accept that acts separate me from God. (Unfortunately God plays hard-to-get, even when one asks him to show up.) Therefore engaging in non-procreational sex is perfectly fine by me. But what does the church say about it?

Is there some official writ, which would say: “artificial birth control is forbidden for Catholics, but it is perfectly fine for non-Catholics”? That would be a strong endorsement for what you said. But I rather doubt the existence of such document.

Reading about something and accepting that “something” are two, very different things. I am aware of what the church asserts, but I reject it. We, with my partner do not consider the other one as “sex” objects, even when we play all sorts of games.

So, where does it leave me in the opinion of the church? Do I commit mortal sin, or don’t I? I am aware of the three “prongs” that define a mortal sin:

1. It must be a grave act.
2. One must be aware that it is a grave act.
3. But one performs the act with full volition.

I deny that ABC is a grave act. So, what now?

Most people have no objection to doing “things” which others consider “hurtful” or “evil” (Performing acts of love to be declared “evil” - amazing). They are willing and happy participants in all sorts of games. Instead of hurting the relationship, it actually strengthens it. It makes the bonding even stronger.

The knowledge necessary for mortal sin is of the sinful character of an act per the Church teaching. Contraception is clearly grave matter since it is intrinsically evil.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

158 Humanae Vitae 16.
159 Humanae Vitae 14.
160 Familiaris Consortio 32.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).​

 

[Solmyr]

The knowledge necessary for mortal sin is of the sinful character of an act per the Church teaching. Contraception is clearly grave matter since it is intrinsically evil.

My dear friend, as a non-believer I reject what the church says in this matter. Catechism and all…

The idea that one must give oneself TOTALLY is absurd. If I would give myself TOTALLY, then I would disappear. If my spouse would give herself TOTALLY, then she would disappear. Instead of having two loving people we would have NOTHING.

 

[Vico]

My dear friend, as a non-believer I reject what the church says in this matter. Catechism and all…

The idea that one must give oneself TOTALLY is absurd. If I would give myself TOTALLY, then I would disappear. If my spouse would give herself TOTALLY, then she would disappear. Instead of having two loving people we would have NOTHING.

I understand that you do not have the Catholic faith. One point of clarification, however, is that the sexual act signifies total self-giving, so I think you misunderstood. Not giving the proper non contraceptive conjugal act is contrary to the marital contract so it is morally unjust.

 

[Frankenfurter]

My dear friend, as a non-believer I reject what the church says in this matter. Catechism and all…

If one follows his conscious, and believes in the mercy of God then one is just like the rest of us humble sinners who count on God’s mercy.

Rejecting God and his mercy would be a different thing though, and may be the ultimate, and unforgivable sin.

I wonder if a belief in physicalism is an a priori rejection of God since God is not physical? Perhaps that is all that it really means. If this is true the fact that physicalism is now the defacto philosophy is very concerning regarding all those souls who fall into ultimate sin.

The same issue cam up in ancient times between Plato and his ideal forms vs the Atomists and their particles that simply got caught up in vortexes and formed new shapes.

So I am wondering if defacto modern philosophy of physicalism is just atheism in disguise. Especially considering that the physicalist themselves seem to refuse to be pinned down on what is physical. The definition of physicalism is that everything is physical or supervenes on the physical, We have just gone in a circle. Somehow though, in this circular reasoning, God was also removed.

 

[Vico]

If one follows his conscious, and believes in the mercy of God then one is just like the rest of us humble sinners who count on God’s mercy.

Rejecting God and his mercy would be a different thing though, and may be the ultimate, and unforgivable sin.

I wonder if a belief in physicalism is an a priori rejection of God since God is not physical? Perhaps that is all that it really means. If this is true the fact that physicalism is now the defacto philosophy is very concerning regarding all those souls who fall into ultimate sin.

The same issue cam up in ancient times between Plato and his ideal forms vs the Atomists and their particles that simply got caught up in vortexes and formed new shapes.

So I am wondering if defacto modern philosophy of physicalism is just atheism in disguise. Especially considering that the physicalist themselves seem to refuse to be pinned down on what is physical. The definition of physicalism is that everything is physical or supervenes on the physical, We have just gone in a circle. Somehow though, in this circular reasoning, God was also removed.

Vatican I condemned materialism, which is seen in monism, atheism, pantheism.

Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’. Indeed, on one strand to contemporary usage, the terms ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ are interchangeable. But the two terms have very different histories. The word ‘materialism’ is very old, but the word ‘physicalism’ was introduced into philosophy only in the 1930s by Otto Neurath (1931) and Rudolf Carnap (1959/1932), … Since the 1930s, however, the positivist philosophy that under-girded this distinction has for the most part been rejected—for example, physicalism is not a linguistic thesis for contemporary philosophers—and this is one reason why the words ‘materialism’ and ‘physicalism’ are now often interpreted as interchangeable.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#Ter

 

[Frankenfurter]

Vatican I condemned materialism, which is seen in monism, atheism, pantheism.

Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’. Indeed, on one strand to contemporary usage, the terms ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ are interchangeable. But the two terms have very different histories. The word ‘materialism’ is very old, but the word ‘physicalism’ was introduced into philosophy only in the 1930s by Otto Neurath (1931) and Rudolf Carnap (1959/1932), … Since the 1930s, however, the positivist philosophy that under-girded this distinction has for the most part been rejected—for example, physicalism is not a linguistic thesis for contemporary philosophers—and this is one reason why the words ‘materialism’ and ‘physicalism’ are now often interpreted as interchangeable.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#Ter

Thank you very much for that.

 

[Solmyr]

If one follows his conscious, and believes in the mercy of God then one is just like the rest of us humble sinners who count on God’s mercy.

I follow what my conscience dictates, and I am not interested in God’s mercy. It would be enough if God would be just.

Rejecting God and his mercy would be a different thing though, and may be the ultimate, and unforgivable sin.

I don’t reject God, because he did not present evidence for his existence. He is simply NOT THERE to reject.

I wonder if a belief in physicalism is an a priori rejection of God since God is not physical?

What I DO reject is the arguments offered for God’s existence. And I reject them, because they are unconvincing.

 

[Solmyr]

One point of clarification, however, is that the sexual act signifies total self-giving, so I think you misunderstood. Not giving the proper non contraceptive conjugal act is contrary to the marital contract so it is morally unjust.

Sorry. I disagree with this. Sex is a perfectly normal activity, practiced by almost all existing beings (exception being the ones with a-sexual type of reproduction). It has nothing to do with the conjugal act, with marriage or contraception.

For most animals it can only be practiced in the times of estrus. Exceptions are the higher apes, which include the humans. We are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy the act, regardless of the reproductive cycle. And we do, of course. The bonobos actively practice the slogan from the sex revolution: “make love not war”. When they are frustrated, they don’t fight, they engage in sex to alleviate the frustration. How civilized! If only we humans would reach that level of civilization!

I wonder, did you find an official writ which would tell us if only the non-attendance of mass is permissible for non-believers? Or any activity which is asserted by the church, but rejected by the non-Catholics? In other words, to what extent is the church considered to be a “ruler” for non-Catholics?

 

[Vico]

Sorry. I disagree with this. Sex is a perfectly normal activity, practiced by almost all existing beings (exception being the ones with a-sexual type of reproduction). It has nothing to do with the conjugal act, with marriage or contraception.

For most animals it can only be practiced in the times of estrus. Exceptions are the higher apes, which include the humans. We are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy the act, regardless of the reproductive cycle. And we do, of course. The bonobos actively practice the slogan from the sex revolution: “make love not war”. When they are frustrated, they don’t fight, they engage in sex to alleviate the frustration. How civilized! If only we humans would reach that level of civilization!

I wonder, did you find an official writ which would tell us if only the non-attendance of mass is permissible for non-believers? Or any activity which is asserted by the church, but rejected by the non-Catholics? In other words, to what extent is the church considered to be a “ruler” for non-Catholics?

I cannot make any sense out of “Sex … has nothing to do with the conjugal act, with marriage or contraception.”

Sex, noun (Collins Dictionary - British English):
1 the sum of the characteristics that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive function
2 either of the two categories, male or female, into which organisms are placed on this basis
3 short for sexual intercourse
4 feelings or behaviour resulting from the urge to gratify the sexual instinct
5 sexual matters in general

 

[Frankenfurter]

I could wish for a thread on philosophy that is NOT co-opted by the atheist or homosexual agenda.

 

[Solmyr]

I cannot make any sense out of “Sex … has nothing to do with the conjugal act, with marriage or contraception.”

Sex, noun (Collins Dictionary - British English):
1 the sum of the characteristics that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive function
2 either of the two categories, male or female, into which organisms are placed on this basis
3 short for sexual intercourse
4 feelings or behaviour resulting from the urge to gratify the sexual instinct
5 sexual matters in general

Which part of “a perfectly normal activity, practiced by almost all existing beings (exception being the ones with a-sexual type of reproduction)” needs clarification?

I could wish for a thread on philosophy that is NOT co-opted by the atheist or homosexual agenda.

If my memory serves me, it was you who presented some questions to me, which I tried to answer to my best ability.