So what about overpopulation?

[luvmykids]

I am also following Aquinas in my confidence in the reason God gave us and in my belief that all actions by creatures involve the direct action of God or they could not happen at all (and indeed nothing could exist). If that’s true, your and Brendan’s argument from the infusion of the soul goes up in smoke. That is not the unique occasion when God actively involves Himself. He does it all the time, even when our contribution is wicked or foolish.

Ediwn

You need to explain this a little better, what you are saying makes no sense to me. It sounds like you are saying everything we do involves direct action by God. This means everything we do is directed by God, so we have no free will? So using your explaination then, when we decide to have sex, God is FORCED to infuse a soul or did He plan and in fact decide for the good of the rest of creation to create a new human being. I understand what you are saying when you say that we need to act with prudence. For example, a person decides to stand in the middle of the street, saying that if God doesn’t mean for him to get killed then he won’t get hit by a car. That is different, because in that sense, I think God would allow the man to get hit, rather than directly act to hit the man. With conception it is a different story. God is the only one that can create a human soul. No one else, by any action, can do this. And every act of sex does not occur in a pregnancy. Do you think there is ever a person that was conceived, out your definition of imprudence, that shouldn’t have been conceived, but God just did it, because the person made a stupid mistake?

 

[Contarini]

You need to explain this a little better, what you are saying makes no sense to me. It sounds like you are saying everything we do involves direct action by God. This means everything we do is directed by God, so we have no free will?

No. That’s not how it works. God’s action does not violate our freedom–at least not according to Aquinas. Some later theologians decided that it did. This does allow for better solutions to the problem of evil, but at the cost of radically weakening our doctrine of providence and indeed of creation.

For a good defense of Aquinas’s position (or one interpretation thereof), see the work of David Burrell.

God is the one who causes us to exist. God does not cause us to do evil.

So using your explaination then, when we decide to have sex, God is FORCED to infuse a soul or did He plan and in fact decide for the good of the rest of creation to create a new human being.

I’m going to have to hold you to the rape/adultery example, which you still haven’t addressed adequately. In the case of conception resulting from rape or adultery, we have wicked human action on the one hand, and a good action by God on the other. The one doesn’t cancel out the other. We wouldn’t say to the rapist or adulterer: “Go ahead,” even if we knew for certain that conception would result. In fact, I dare to say that at least in the case of rape we would see conception as making the situation worse. (I want to repeat that I don’t defend abortion under any circumstances, but if you have ever debated this particular issue with a prochoice person you know that it is a very difficult one, and I am certainly happy to concede to the prochoice person that it would better if conception in those circumstances could have been prevented.)

That example makes your position untenable, because it’s a case where clearly before conception we would say “please don’t do this” (or in the case of rape try with any means at our disposal to prevent the rapist from performing the action), while after conception we would say “Rejoice! God has brought new life into the world!” If we can do this in such an extreme case, we can surely also do much less extreme things, like saying “maybe in some cases it might be wise to have only a few children” while also rejoicing that God has created the children who *have *been conceived.

If you believe that even NFP shouldn’t be used to space births, then it may be hard to get through to you on this one. But the vast majority of prolife people (including your fellow Catholics) who do try to space births nonetheless rejoice at the coming of new life, even if that life was an “accident.” Indeed, in a sense that is a particular joy because it reminds us that (as you and Brooklyn have been rightly insisting) our prudential decisions do not have the last word and God may often choose to surprise and confound our best-laid plans.

Some friends of mine (my wife and I are godparents to three of their children) have five children, of whom the last was an “accident.” A secular colleague of mine (we were all in grad school at the time) expressed disapproval that my friends were having a fifth child. I wish I had simply told her how inappropriate I found that comment. Instead, I told her (which probably wasn’t my right to tell) that I knew that the fifth child was not planned. (I’m afraid I was often a coward with regard to my secular colleagues.) She at least had the good taste (I would like to think also the morality, but I don’t know for sure) not to mention abortion.

So I do understand where you and Brooklyn are coming from. I know that there are a lot of folks out there who really think that having more than a couple of children is some sort of crime. I want you to understand that I’m not saying anything of the sort. Clearly once a child is conceived, he or she is a good gift of God. What I am trying to show is that we cannot logically or morally speak of conception *before *it has happened in the same way that we do *afterwards. *And the case of conception resulting from rape or adultery is my clearest example.

That is different, because in that sense, I think God would allow the man to get hit, rather than directly act to hit the man.

But God is the one causing the man to exist. God is the one sustaining all things in existence. God is the one whose primary agency allows second causes (not just human wills, but the laws that make combustion engines work and wheels turn) to operate. It’s true that God is not *causing *the act of the car hitting the man. God is causing what is good in that situation–the existence of the driver, his agency as a free being, the physical materials that make up the car and the laws that allow it to function.

Similarly, God is not forcing two human beings to have intercourse at a time when the woman is fertile. God is not causing the violence of rape, or the unfaithfulness of adultery, or even the much milder and more questionable foolishness that might in some cases be involved in a decision to conceive another child. What God is causing is, again, what is good. You are right that this is much more prominent and easy to point to in the case of conception. But I don’t see that the principle is different.

With conception it is a different story. God is the only one that can create a human soul. No one else, by any action, can do this.

No one except God can create or sustain in being anything at all. No one except God can create the physical laws that allow cars to operate.

And every act of sex does not occur in a pregnancy. Do you think there is ever a person that was conceived, out your definition of imprudence, that shouldn’t have been conceived, but God just did it, because the person made a stupid mistake?

I think that this isn’t a meaningful way of speaking when we are in time and God is in eternity. I don’t think we can go beyond saying that what is good in any human action is ultimately caused by God (in such a way as not to violate our freedom), but what is evil or foolish or just imperfect derives only from creatures. I will grant that the creation of the human soul is a more direct action by God (in the creationist view which triumphed over traducianism in the early Church–I do not have strong views either way on that issue, not being a Catholic). But again, I think the same principle applies.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I really have to disagree with this. God is limitless, and his eternal family will be limitless as well.

Have you studied what Augustine and Anselm and Aquinas have to say about this? Have you talked to a learned and pious Catholic theologian about it? Don’t just dismiss what the greatest minds of your tradition have said on this subject, even if it goes against the modern taste for vastness and dislike of limitation.

Actually, there’s a good case to be made that what you are saying is heretical. To say that creation is limitless as God is limitless is to say that creation is equal to the Creator.

You don’t “have” to disagree with this. You choose to. And to be honest, you don’t seem to have fully informed yourself with regard to what the Catholic theological tradition teaches on this point.

I can’t see anything in His creation that says he “likes limitation.” In fact, I see just the opposite. The universe is constantly expanding.

According to modern scientists, who may or may not be right. Some say that the universe is contracting–or at least they used to. And creation as we know it is limited temporally not only by its beginning but by its consummation. It’s true that that won’t destroy creation finally but will transform it.

I think that is a great metaphor for God himself.

God is continually expanding? So God is not unchangeable?

What do they teach you in CCD or RCIA or whatever you went to? Actually that’s a rhetorical question. I’ve been partway through RCIA and it was pretty awful.

You may choose to dissent from the traditional teaching of your Church. But you show no evidence that you know what that teaching is in the first place.

Edwin

 

[Brooklyn]

Have you studied what Augustine and Anselm and Aquinas have to say about this? Have you talked to a learned and pious Catholic theologian about it? Don’t just dismiss what the greatest minds of your tradition have said on this subject, even if it goes against the modern taste for vastness and dislike of limitation.

Actually, there’s a good case to be made that what you are saying is heretical. To say that creation is limitless as God is limitless is to say that creation is equal to the Creator.

You don’t “have” to disagree with this. You choose to. And to be honest, you don’t seem to have fully informed yourself with regard to what the Catholic theological tradition teaches on this point.

According to modern scientists, who may or may not be right. Some say that the universe is contracting–or at least they used to. And creation as we know it is limited temporally not only by its beginning but by its consummation. It’s true that that won’t destroy creation finally but will transform it.

God is continually expanding? So God is not unchangeable?

What do they teach you in CCD or RCIA or whatever you went to? Actually that’s a rhetorical question. I’ve been partway through RCIA and it was pretty awful.

You may choose to dissent from the traditional teaching of your Church. But you show no evidence that you know what that teaching is in the first place.

Edwin

I would never even pretend to understand God in any way. As I once heard someone say, if you understand God, then he is not God. Does God grow, does he change? The Bible says he is the same yesterday, today and forever. But does change mean something different for him than for us? That’s way beyond me. I wouldn’t begin to hesitate a guess, and I certainly am not able to argue that point.

I am not saying that physical creation is limitless, but then again who knows? We keep finding smaller and smaller particles of creation, and scientists have absolutely proved that the universe is expanding. But I am not a scientist, and I will not argue that point one way or another.

What I am saying is that Jesus Christ came to this earth and died for mankind so that everyone, if he so chooses, can become part of the Kingdom of God. I am saying that there is no limit to the number who can do that. God told Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars in the sky, unlimitless as far as Abraham could see. Was God being heretical?

You are not a Catholic, so I really don’t you think you have a right to judge me in any way in regard to the teachings of the Catholic Church. You have obviously rejected those teachings, so please don’t tell me what my standing is in the Church.

I was starting to really give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems to me that you just want to argue, and you aren’t being very pleasant about it.

This is my last word on the subject. I’m sure you’ll be glad to know that, but then again, maybe not, since you enjoy arguing and making accusations.

Mary

 

[Contarini]

Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from, and without my Catholic beliefs, I would probably agree with you. You certainly don’t see man as the enemy of the earth, as so many left wing environmentalists and animal rights people do (e.g. PETA).

I don’t want to pick an unnecessary fight, but I do wish you would reconsider painting with such a broad brush. One of the tools that folks use on both sides of our current ideological conflicts is to paint a picture of the other side based on the most extreme examples they can find–and sometimes even these are not represented fairly. For instance, a lot of folks on the left genuinely think that prolife people don’t really care about life at all and have no desire to help children once they are born, but are just using abortion to repress women and to whip up people’s emotions for a right-wing agenda. You and I know how ridiculously unfair that picture is. I certainly grant that I’m hardly an extreme environmentalist, and my prolife convictions with regard to abortion do separate me from a lot of left-wing environmentalists. But if you tried to understand where even the really left-wing folks are coming from you might find that they are not as demonic as you think.

You do believe that the earth can only hold a certain amount of people, though, and if we pass that number, we are doomed. You look at the earth and see it as finite. Is that correct?

Basically, but I wouldn’t put it this way. I don’t think it’s that rigid. I think that increasing numbers cause problems (even as, at least to a certain point, they create dynamism and cultural/economic growth), and as we get nearer to the limits of earth’s resources these problems are going to get more and more severe. I don’t think so much in terms of a “tipping point” past which we are “doomed” (I tend to agree that this is deliberately paranoid language used to scare people into action), but simply of increasing strains and increasing human suffering and ecological devastation.

You are of course right that we can do a lot more than we are doing to use earth’s resources well, and that those resources are likely to be a lot more flexible and resilient than the doomsayers claim. That’s why from my perspective the best way to deal with ecological problems is by practicing traditional virtues like temperance rather than by huge experiments in social engineering. I’m all in favor of walking or riding a bike rather than driving, for instance (though in the interests of honesty I should admit that my wife and I own a minivan–it was given us by her parents when they bought a new one, and we try not to use it unnecessarily). I think that most of the folks on this forum who have large families actually practice these virtues and should not be made scapegoats by people who want to go on living a decadent life and so find it convenient to blame folks with large families for the damage being done to the earth. I also think that we absolutely should *not *go down the road of trying to coerce or even put societal pressure on people to have fewer children.

Where I disagree with you is in the theological assumptions that underlie your position. And the more we talk, the more I realize how deep those disagreements go–and ironically, I am the one maintaining the more traditional Catholic position on this metaphysical level!

My argument is that God knew exactly what he was doing when he created man and put him on this earth. If he wanted to limit our ability to procreate, he certainly could have done it. But he has made it possible for the average woman, if she wants to, to have almost any number of kids. Why did he do that if the earth couldn’t handle it?

Why did He make it possible for the average *man *to (as C. S. Lewis put it) populate a small village in about a month if he just followed his sexual instincts? The male capacity to procreate is much greater than the female, because we don’t have to wait at least nine months after each procreative act! Granted, the human sexual instinct is warped by sin. But that just underlines the fact that you cannot argue directly back from the way things work in our world to a claim about God’s purposes. Who knows what would have happened if humans had not sinned? But we did, and we live in a world shaped by sin in all sorts of ways.

We do live in a world that is very anti-life, there is no doubt of that. But God is completely and totally pro-life, and as I’ve written, he wants as many in his Kingdom as he can get. There is no limit on that number, for sure.

Why are you so sure that the greatest Catholic theologians were wrong? Isn’t part of what it means to be a Catholic that you show a certain humility toward the Doctors of the Church, even though they are not infallible? Shouldn’t you at least make some effort to understand why they taught (unanimously, as far as I know) that the number of the elect is limited?

As far as God deciding he doesn’t want us to exist anymore - well, he tells us after the flood in Genesis that he will never destroy mankind. Certainly there will be a time when Christ will return, but he will never destroy us. And he will never allow us to totally destroy ourselves either, although I do fear that we might get pretty close, as we’ve seen in the wars of the 20th Century.

Another poster had suggested this. The Book of Revelation looks a lot like a description of destruction to me. Admittedly it is very hard to interpret and of course nto literal.

 

[Contarini]

Not sure of your argument about the not-yet-as-existent people.

I have tried to put it as clearly as possible. I recognize that it’s tricky and confusing–all questions about hypothetical and potential reality are! But in essence my point is simple: a person who does not yet exist does not yet exist, and we should try to avoid language (from our limited, temporal perspective) that implies that such a person does exist or even will exist. We should not speak of respecting such a person or valuing them or defending their rights. That confuses the existent with the nonexistent, and it undercuts the prolife position, playing into the hands of the prochoice rhetoric about “potential life.”

In accordance with Catholic belief, I believe that contraception is evil, and therefore should never be used. But certainly abstinence can be used to space children, or Natural Family Planning.

OK, that makes things clearer. Some of what you have said had made me wonder if you thought that even abstinence or NFP shouldn’t be used to space children. Given that admission, I urge you to reconsider your rhetoric about God wanting “as many children as possible.” It doesn’t fit. Clearly you see a huge difference between spacing children and deciding not to have any more. I don’t see it, myself (though I do see a huge difference between spacing/limiting conceptions and deciding not to have any children at all). If you space conceptions you are causing fewer children to be conceived than would otherwise have been the case. In which case all the arguments you have made come crashing down on your own position.

By the way, you do not need to apologize for “offending” me. I understand that this is a very important and emotional issue, and I respect your zeal. In turn, I apologize for my own aggressive tone. I often push what I think to be a logical argument in ways that people find offensive. But I do wish that you would reconsider the metaphysical and theological assumptions that you’re using to defend your position. My problem isn’t with your position itself but with the rhetoric you used, which it seemed to me shortcircuited a reasonable discussion of the issue. I just don’t think it’s tenable to say things like “we should have as many children as possible, because God wants as many people as possible in His kingdom.” It’s not theologically defensible.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I would never even pretend to understand God in any way. As I once heard someone say, if you understand God, then he is not God. Does God grow, does he change? The Bible says he is the same yesterday, today and forever. But does change mean something different for him than for us? That’s way beyond me. I wouldn’t begin to hesitate a guess, and I certainly am not able to argue that point.

But shouldn’t you pay some attention to the theological tradition of your own Church?

I am not saying that physical creation is limitless, but then again who knows?

Aren’t you interested in what your own Church has to say?

I am saying that there is no limit to the number who can do that. God told Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars in the sky, unlimitless as far as Abraham could see.

But not as far as God could see.

You are not a Catholic, so I really don’t you think you have a right to judge me in any way in regard to the teachings of the Catholic Church. You have obviously rejected those teachings, so please don’t tell me what my standing is in the Church.

I haven’t rejected those teachings. I question some of them. I am very interested in all of them. I dismiss none of them out of hand. I wish you would also not dismiss the theological wisdom of the Doctors of your own Church. I cannot accept your claim that a non-Catholic has no right to hold a Catholic accountable to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I suspect that if I were arguing with an unorthodox Catholic about abortion or some similar topic and defending the teachings of the Church, you would be cheering me on.

This is a discussion board that attracts a lot of non-Catholics, and it is a place where Catholics explain and defend their faith. I recognize that this is not the 'non-Catholic" forum (where I do most of my posting), and if the moderators say that I have no business here, I’ll accept that. But you need to ask yourself how persuasive arguments in defense of the Church’s *moral *teaching are going to be if you base them on assumptions that contradict the Catholic theological tradition in some rather major ways.

I was starting to really give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems to me that you just want to argue, and you aren’t being very pleasant about it.

I’m sorry. I’m not trying to be unpleasant. I’m probably not trying very hard to be pleasant, but I’m more interested in discussing the *issues. *I certainly want to argue. In my vocabulary “argue” is not a dirty word. It’s a very helpful way of challenging one another as to why we believe what we believe. I am trying to challenge you to dig more deeply into the tradition of your own Church with regard to some of these rather dubious claims you have made. Many of the things that you say you “can’t know” are things on which the great theologians of the Church would be happy to inform you if you would only listen to them. You may disagree with them (I am certainly not going to try to tell you which of these teachings is infallible–check with another Catholic for that!), but don’t dismiss them just because you don’t like the messenger

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[chain]

Overpopulation is a lie created by society to excuse their actions. Over consumption however is a problem - that could easily be addressed by living our faith.

Our society encourages consumption, is based upon an every growing cycle of consumption. Our population is not our problem, it is our lifestyle. However, if we murder enough of the population, we will be able to continue our current path.​

Humans produce goods and services, we also consume them. The problem is our society encourages consumption in excess of production. If we encouraged production rather than consumption we would not have a population problem.

 

[WillieWonka]

Oh, yes! I heard about you! You’re circular man! :hypno:
God’s love is all that makes sense to me…and He’s all I need.

Consider how dependent we are on all those people who lack common sense. They design airlplanes, fly them, develop drugs, perform surgery, and even make the computer you are using. But you and a small group have commn sense and they don’t.

 

[luvmykids]

Consider how dependent we are on all those people who lack common sense. They design airlplanes, fly them, develop drugs, perform surgery, and even make the computer you are using. But you and a small group have commn sense and they don’t.

Some very intelligent people can lack common sense…that doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent or that we don’t need them. They are just lacking common sense.

 

[WillieWonka]

Some very intelligent people can lack common sense…that doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent or that we don’t need them. They are just lacking common sense.

So, I suppose we can choose to side with you and have common sense, or side with everyone else and have no common sense. Is it possible you lack the common sense, and the majority of Catholics plus the rest of the people in the world do have common sense?

 

[luvmykids]

No. That’s not how it works. God’s action does not violate our freedom–at least not according to Aquinas. Some later theologians decided that it did. This does allow for better solutions to the problem of evil, but at the cost of radically weakening our doctrine of providence and indeed of creation.

For a good defense of Aquinas’s position (or one interpretation thereof), see the work of David Burrell.

God is the one who causes us to exist. God does not cause us to do evil.

I’m going to have to hold you to the rape/adultery example, which you still haven’t addressed adequately. In the case of conception resulting from rape or adultery, we have wicked human action on the one hand, and a good action by God on the other. The one doesn’t cancel out the other. We wouldn’t say to the rapist or adulterer: “Go ahead,” even if we knew for certain that conception would result. In fact, I dare to say that at least in the case of rape we would see conception as making the situation worse. (I want to repeat that I don’t defend abortion under any circumstances, but if you have ever debated this particular issue with a prochoice person you know that it is a very difficult one, and I am certainly happy to concede to the prochoice person that it would better if conception in those circumstances could have been prevented.)

That example makes your position untenable, because it’s a case where clearly before conception we would say “please don’t do this” (or in the case of rape try with any means at our disposal to prevent the rapist from performing the action), while after conception we would say “Rejoice! God has brought new life into the world!” If we can do this in such an extreme case, we can surely also do much less extreme things, like saying “maybe in some cases it might be wise to have only a few children” while also rejoicing that God has created the children who *have *been conceived.

If you believe that even NFP shouldn’t be used to space births, then it may be hard to get through to you on this one. But the vast majority of prolife people (including your fellow Catholics) who do try to space births nonetheless rejoice at the coming of new life, even if that life was an “accident.” Indeed, in a sense that is a particular joy because it reminds us that (as you and Brooklyn have been rightly insisting) our prudential decisions do not have the last word and God may often choose to surprise and confound our best-laid plans.

Some friends of mine (my wife and I are godparents to three of their children) have five children, of whom the last was an “accident.” A secular colleague of mine (we were all in grad school at the time) expressed disapproval that my friends were having a fifth child. I wish I had simply told her how inappropriate I found that comment. Instead, I told her (which probably wasn’t my right to tell) that I knew that the fifth child was not planned. (I’m afraid I was often a coward with regard to my secular colleagues.) She at least had the good taste (I would like to think also the morality, but I don’t know for sure) not to mention abortion.

So I do understand where you and Brooklyn are coming from. I know that there are a lot of folks out there who really think that having more than a couple of children is some sort of crime. I want you to understand that I’m not saying anything of the sort. Clearly once a child is conceived, he or she is a good gift of God. What I am trying to show is that we cannot logically or morally speak of conception *before *it has happened in the same way that we do *afterwards. *And the case of conception resulting from rape or adultery is my clearest example.

But God is the one causing the man to exist. God is the one sustaining all things in existence. God is the one whose primary agency allows second causes (not just human wills, but the laws that make combustion engines work and wheels turn) to operate. It’s true that God is not *causing *the act of the car hitting the man. God is causing what is good in that situation–the existence of the driver, his agency as a free being, the physical materials that make up the car and the laws that allow it to function.

Similarly, God is not forcing two human beings to have intercourse at a time when the woman is fertile. God is not causing the violence of rape, or the unfaithfulness of adultery, or even the much milder and more questionable foolishness that might in some cases be involved in a decision to conceive another child. What God is causing is, again, what is good. You are right that this is much more prominent and easy to point to in the case of conception. But I don’t see that the principle is different.

No one except God can create or sustain in being anything at all. No one except God can create the physical laws that allow cars to operate.

I think that this isn’t a meaningful way of speaking when we are in time and God is in eternity. I don’t think we can go beyond saying that what is good in any human action is ultimately caused by God (in such a way as not to violate our freedom), but what is evil or foolish or just imperfect derives only from creatures. I will grant that the creation of the human soul is a more direct action by God (in the creationist view which triumphed over traducianism in the early Church–I do not have strong views either way on that issue, not being a Catholic). But again, I think the same principle applies.

Edwin

O.K., after reading your posts over the last couple days, I am beginning to think there is no point in our argument, because when we began the discussion, I was arguing with you about something that apparently you aren’t arguing. So there is really no need for our discussion anymore. I don’t believe there is ever anything wrong with a married couple who decides not to use NFP and apparently that is what you also believe. My original problem was with those who believe that we need to use population control methods due to the danger of overpopulation and those who look down upon people who have large families and think they are doing something horrible. Apparently you don’t believe that either. So there is no more need for this discussion, because I feel it has gone off on a tangent from what I had originally began the discussion for.

I appreciate all of your time and effort in this discussion. Thanks.

 

[luvmykids]

So, I suppose we can choose to side with you and have common sense, or side with everyone else and have no common sense. Is it possible you lack the common sense, and the majority of Catholics plus the rest of the people in the world do have common sense?

I guess it is possible, but highly unlikely, because the Church has taught against contraception for over 2000 years now, and I do not think they are doing it just to be tyrants.

 

[WillieWonka]

I guess it is possible, but highly unlikely, because the Church has taught against contraception for over 2000 years now, and I do not think they are doing it just to be tyrants.

So, does disagreement with what the Church teaches mean one lacks common sense?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

So, I suppose we can choose to side with you and have common sense, or side with everyone else and have no common sense. Is it possible you lack the common sense, and the majority of Catholics plus the rest of the people in the world do have common sense?

What do you believe? And would you consider yourself one with common sense?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I get my definition from Aristotle, and it is the one adopted by Aquinas. Indeed, let’s not pull Darwin into this. But you are the one doing that.

By the classical/Thomistic definition, humans are animals–bodies animated by a soul that enables them to move around on their own. Humans also (in contrast to other animals) have a rational soul. Hence, rational animals.

I know this is going to sound snobbish, but part of the problem with this discussion is that I’m assuming some basic Thomistic principles which you are denying or dismissing in your defense of what you think to be the Catholic position. I know that Catholics don’t have to be Thomists. But I tend to proceed from the rather naive assumption that if I assume Thomistic principles what I say will sound at least vaguely familiar to devout, orthodox Catholics. Clearly I need to revise that assumption.

I am also following Aquinas in my confidence in the reason God gave us and in my belief that all actions by creatures involve the direct action of God or they could not happen at all (and indeed nothing could exist). If that’s true, your and Brendan’s argument from the infusion of the soul goes up in smoke. That is not the unique occasion when God actively involves Himself. He does it all the time, even when our contribution is wicked or foolish.

Ediwn

Although, I tried to read some information on Thomistic teachings, it would be better if I could hear exactly what it is that sets apart what you believe and what I believe. I’m sure it isn’t much. (The only thing we really disagree on is the fact that humans have souls and animals don’t, therefore, we are not animals.) Please, enlighten me!

 

[WillieWonka]

What do you believe? And would you consider yourself one with common sense?

Common sense spans a far greater population than the sliver of the Catholic population that accepts Church teachings on contraception. That’s just common sense…

 

[Contarini]

Although, I tried to read some information on Thomistic teachings, it would be better if I could hear exactly what it is that sets apart what you believe and what I believe. I’m sure it isn’t much. (The only thing we really disagree on is the fact that humans have souls and animals don’t, therefore, we are not animals.) Please, enlighten me!

I think you are using “soul” to mean “rational soul.” That’s become the common usage for what I think are very bad reasons.

In Aristotle and Aquinas, a “soul” is anything that makes a body live. There are three kinds of souls:

1. The vegetative soul: the principle that allows plants to take in nutrition and grow.
2. The sensitive soul: the principle that allows animals to respond to stimuli. I misspoke earlier when I identified it with mobility. Aquinas clarifies that some animals (such as oysters) have sensitive souls but don’t have the power of locomotion. I had forgotten that.
3. The rational soul: the principle that allows humans to think and make rational choices.

In Thomistic thought, this last kind of soul is immortal. (Aristotle doesn’t seem to have believed in immortality.)

Aquinas believed that no one has more than one kind of soul. So humans just have a rational soul, but it performs the functions of the other two. Similarly, nonhuman animals just have a sensitive soul, but it performs vegetative functions as well.

Obviously Aquinas’s reason for calling humans “animals” isn’t that they have the same kind of soul–they don’t. It’s that they have bodies animated by a soul that enables them to function biologically like animals (move around, respond to stimuli, etc.). Humans don’t differ from other animals biologically but in their transcendence of the biological through the rational soul. Aquinas was no animal-rights activist (I actually find his teaching quite disturbing and repellent on this score). He thought that animals were not proper objects of moral concern in themselves–it was only wrong to torture them because this would harden one’s heart and make one more likely to hurt other humans. But it did not take Darwin to point out that biologically humans *are *animals. This was obvious to Aquinas. So humans are properly called “rational animals,” which expresses both how they are similar to other animals and how they differ from them.

Edwin

 

[luvmykids]

So, does disagreement with what the Church teaches mean one lacks common sense?

Not necessarily, but I believe the Church teaches objective Truth, which IS common sense when you are living in the Light. Does that make sense?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Common sense spans a far greater population than the sliver of the Catholic population that accepts Church teachings on contraception. That’s just common sense…

And just what is that supposed to mean?