Soul=Body's Form?

[tjmiller]

What exactly is meant by the Catholic dogma that “the rational soul is, per se, the essential form of the human body”? Moreover, WHY (rationally) is it necessarily so?

(I know this thread doesn’t seem to fit “Spirituality” very well, but I don’t see any Forum really designed to handle it. And it’s too esoteric for “Ask an Apologist”, I reckon…)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

tj,

Ask complicated questions much?

I venture a reply only because I hate to see such a thoughtful and interesting post go unanswered. Please, if any of our fellow forum members are more comfortable with Aristotle and St. Thomas, do jump in and refine my rough sketch.

I think the best (and simplest) way to understand St. Thomas’ teaching on the soul/form (and hence the dogma, which is based upon the scholastic understanding) is to conceive of a progression from the less perfect to the more perfect.

Note: here I am only discussing substantial forms of material beings. (non-substantial, or accidental, forms and the forms of non-material beings I leave for another time. . .but please note the distinction).

Now:

• The substantial form is what gives “formless” matter (prime matter) a specific nature or essence. It informs it.
• Thus every material being has a form, which makes its matter into a that specific thing. A distinct classification can be made between inanimate and animate beings.
• Inanimate beings: rocks, minerals, electrons, etc have simply a corporeal (bodily) form.
• Animate beings: (latin: anima, soul, breath) have a forms which also are their life-principal and give them certain powers (nutritive powers, reproductive powers, sensation, mobility, etc.) Thus their forms are their souls.
• Thus plants have a vegatative soul and animals have a sensitive soul (each with their respective powers) and these two types of souls are the forms of their bodies.
• Human beings also have a form, but it is the intellective (rational) soul. Furthermore it is not material but spiritual and immortal.

So by way of explanation of the wording of the dogma, the New Catholic Dictionary says:

Pius IX declared it to be Catholic doctrine that in man “the rational soul is the true, per se, and immediate form of the body”; “per se” indicates, naturally and essentially destined for this union; and “immediate” signifies, with nothing intervening between body and soul.

So, in an attempt to answer your question, the reason that the human soul is necessarily the form of the human body is because it is our form which makes a material being what it is, and since we are rational by nature (and have various other powers) our form (or in this case soul since we are animate) must possess the power of rationality.

For further info please see: Catholic Encyclopedia on Form; the New Catholic Dictionary entry on Matter and Form; and for some very interesting and edifying discussion of how our essential form invites us to understand our own personhood and moral acts see John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 48:

the *Church’s teachings on the unity of the human person, *whose rational soul is *per se et essentialiter *the form of his body.The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a whole — corpore et anima unus — as a person. These definitions not only point out that the body, which has been promised the resurrection, will also share in glory. They also remind us that reason and free will are linked with all the bodily and sense faculties. The person, including the body, is completely entrusted to himself, and it is in the unity of body and soul that the person is the subject of his own moral acts.

I hope that helps a bit, and at least makes a start of an answer.
God Bless,
VC

 

[tjmiller]

Thank you, VC!
That is a great, thorough answer.

Might one say, then, that we humans have not so much a soul in a body, but - as it were - a body in a soul?

So the Church in this dogma is making the point that it is the rational soul that is the form - but is she doing this to counter an error proposing that something else is the form?
Likewise, in teaching that the rational soul is per se and immediately the body’s form, is she correcting an error proposing it to be rather a *mediate * form?

(As with most defined dogmas, I think I would understand the doctrine better, if I were to understand something of the heresy which it opposes.)

Pax et bonum!

 

[JimG]

It’s been a long time since I studied metaphysics; I think VC gave a pretty comprehensive reply.

With respect to whether a human being consists of a body in a soul, or a soul or a soul in a body, I think the reply is that body and soul are so intimately united as to form a single entity. They cannot be separated except by death, death being the only thing that can rip apart that body/soul unity.

Since the (human) soul is immaterial, it would be improper to think of the soul as somehow being “spread out” through the body. A spirit does not occupy space, and can only be said to be where it acts.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

JimG:

It’s been a long time since I studied metaphysics; I think VC gave a pretty comprehensive reply.

With respect to whether a human being consists of a body in a soul, or a soul or a soul in a body, I think the reply is that body and soul are so intimately united as to form a single entity. They cannot be separated except by death, death being the only thing that can rip apart that body/soul unity.

Since the (human) soul is immaterial, it would be improper to think of the soul as somehow being “spread out” through the body. A spirit does not occupy space, and can only be said to be where it acts.

I like this answer, though I’m a bit lost with the terminology of some of the posts.

If the soul is “essentially” the form, then that is the essence; the underlying theme of what it is behind the “scenes” of a human body experience. The body as we see it, the soul’s accompaniment during this dance on planet earth, is temporal. The body takes on characteristics and behavior that the soul drives. Therefore the body is a temporal window into this soul that lasts, and serves as its display and external interface for other such soul-bodies.

Alan

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi again TJ, thanks for the compliment and the follow up!

tjmiller:

Might one say, then, that we humans have not so much a soul in a body, but - as it were - a body in a soul?

Ah, definitely NOT a soul in a body, like a man(soul) wearing a coat(body). I think I understand what you are getting at by your alternative formulation (body in a soul), something like the idea that our bodies are the physical manifestation of our souls. But that’s not quite it either. Both formulations (soul in a body, body in a soul) fail for the same reason: The soul is the form of the body.

So, when you look at a rock, do you say that this rock’s form is “in” the matter, or that the matter is “in” the form? No, we see that “a rock” is that specific kind of thing (matter+form) which makes it a rock.

Likewise WE are that specific kind of thing (matter+form) which make us a Human Being.

I think the best shorthand formula for our body/soul nature (remember they are a complete unity – one whole “being”) is that we are “ensouled flesh” and “enfleshed souls”. But remember that animals also *have *ensouled flesh and enfleshed souls, but there is no personhood there for animals to say “we are”. The personhood that we have is the RATIONAL (and immortal and spiritual) soul. So an even better shorthand (distinguishing us from animals) is that we are MATTER-SPIRIT COMPOSITES. Animals do not have a spiritual component (their souls are material and corruptible).

tjmiller:

So the Church in this dogma is making the point that it is the rational soul that is the form - but is she doing this to counter an error proposing that something else is the form?

GOOD question! I wish I knew a complete answer to this. I will however point you again to the Catholic Encylopedia article on form. There you see a discussion of Blessed John Duns Scotus, and his view of a plurality of forms in one being. Thus, according to Scotus we have a coporeal form (which gives us a body, just like a rock has a coporeal form) and a vegetative soul (giving us nutritive powers, etc) and a animal soul (giving us mobility, etc) and finally a rational soul (giving us personhood: intellect and will). Each of these succesive forms is “superadded” upon the other.

The scholastic concept seems to be that the soul is the ONE substantial form of the Body, and we are what we are (a bodily, living, moving, and rational person) in virtue of that one soul (form).

So, perhaps the dogma is protecting against the notion of the plurality of forms. (For info, see this excellent Catholic Encylopedia article on Blessed Duns Scotus)

Interesting discussion! Thanks TJ,
God Bless,
VC