.jpg)
Quaeritur: I was at a youth group meeting last month and something came up that I did not really understand. I was hoping that if you have a spare moment you might be able to help me. The subject we are discussing in the youth group for the whole year is Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body,which seems like a good thing to be studying. We were reviewing what we had learned so far and one of the questions that was asked was confusing to me: Human beings are created "in the image of God." This refers to a) soul only, or b) soul and body.
Now, the answer that was given was b), a soul and a body. These two CCC paragraphs were cited in the answer as well:
364 The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.233
1004 In expectation of that day, the believer's body and soul already participate in the dignity of belonging to Christ. This dignity entails the demand that he should treat with respect his own body, but also the body of every other person, especially the suffering: The body [is meant] for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? . . . You are not your own; . . . So glorify God in your body.563
It is obvious that the human body is different from any other animal's body, but how could it possibly be made in God's image when He has no body? It seems to me that the catechism is saying that because humans have a soul their bodies are also made in God's image, which just doesn't make sense. All animals are animated by something spiritual, whether or not it is formally called a soul; when any animal dies the body stays but something leaves, the life-giving element that cannot be seen. Is it because humans have a rational soul that their bodies are in the image of God? If all animals are body-soul composites then there must be a distinguishing feature of the human soul for that to be the case.
The catechism says something else about how humans are made for God (I suppose the animals and plants are made for man?) and this makes both the human body and soul made in God's image. Could this be because God's essence and existence are identical, that is to say that His only reason for existing is Himself and the only way He can exist is in Himself? I had just always thought that being made in God's image meant having an intellect and free will and had nothing to do with the body, so this was quite a curveball.
Thank you for your time!
Respondeo: You are right. And you saw it because you have a metaphysical mind. God is not a body, so our image and likeness of God consists in our incorporeal soul, and in particular in our having intellect and will, not in our bodies. Our bodies are not made in the image and likeness of God, but are only 'vestiges' or 'traces' of the Blessed Trinity. Aquinas explains it succinctly in Summa theologiae I.93.6c:
While in all creatures there is some kind of likeness to God, in the rational creature alone we find a likeness of "image" as we have explained above (1,2); whereas in other creatures we find a likeness by way of a "trace." Now the intellect or mind is that whereby the rational creature excels other creatures; wherefore this image of God is not found even in the rational creature except in the mind; while in the other parts, which the rational creature may happen to possess, we find the likeness of a "trace," as in other creatures to which, in reference to such parts, the rational creature can be likened. We may easily understand the reason of this if we consider the way in which a "trace," and the way in which an "image," represents anything. An "image" represents something by likeness in species, as we have said; while a "trace" represents something by way of an effect, which represents the cause in such a way as not to attain to the likeness of species. For imprints which are left by the movements of animals are called "traces": so also ashes are a trace of fire, and desolation of the land a trace of a hostile army.
Therefore we may observe this difference between rational creatures and others, both as to the representation of the likeness of the Divine Nature in creatures, and as to the representation in them of the uncreated Trinity. For as to the likeness of the Divine Nature, rational creatures seem to attain, after a fashion, to the representation of the species, inasmuch as they imitate God, not only in being and life, but also in intelligence, as above explained (2); whereas other creatures do not understand, although we observe in them a certain trace of the Intellect that created them, if we consider their disposition. Likewise as the uncreated Trinity is distinguished by the procession of the Word from the Speaker, and of Love from both of these, as we have seen (28, 3); so we may say that in rational creatures wherein we find a procession of the word in the intellect, and a procession of the love in the will, there exists an image of the uncreated Trinity, by a certain representation of the species. In other creatures, however, we do not find the principle of the word, and the word and love; but we do see in them a certain trace of the existence of these in the Cause that produced them. For in the fact that a creature has a modified and finite nature, proves that it proceeds from a principle; while its species points to the (mental) word of the maker, just as the shape of a house points to the idea of the architect; and order points to the maker's love by reason of which he directs the effect to a good end; as also the use of the house points to the will of the architect. So we find in man a likeness to God by way of an "image" in his mind; but in the other parts of his being by way of a "trace."
You could say that the body participates in the image and likeness of God, insofar as it is informed by a rational soul that itself is made in the image and likeness of God, but because the body is corporeal, it is not essentially the image and likeness of God.
Although this explanation is not a dogma, it is, nonetheless, the traditional doctrine of the Church, especially as explained by the Fathers of the Church. John Paul II, the CCC, and most Catholic "personalists" today are proposing a novel understanding of the concept of the image of God in man: they think that our being the image and likeness of God consists not so much in our having an intellect and a will, but in our being social, that is, in our being "a community of persons." And our social nature is bodily, so they conclude that the image and likeness of God is also found in the body. This view is metaphysically problematic, at least insofar as they do not make the distinction between (a) image and likeness, and (b) vestige/trace, thus making it seem that the soul and the body are the image and likeness of God in the same sense.
N.B.: Remember that the Theology of the Body and the CCC are not binding acts of the Magisterium, so you don't have to take them as the authoritative statement of Catholic doctrine. For the official teachings of the Church, see Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma, which contains the definitive statements of the Magisterium, as well as Jurgens' Faith of the Early Fathers, which contains the main teachings of the Church Fathers on which they reach a morally unanimous consensus. You should also study the consensus of the Doctors of the Church, whose teaching you will find in the manuals of the approved theologians (mainly those prior to the Second Vatican Council, when the Magisterium stopped censuring theologians), such as those by Ludwig Ott and Adophe Tanquerey (among many others, but these two have the advantage of being available in English translation). You can also find many other valuable sources in ITOPL.
12 comments:
Don Paco, I must take issue with this statement of yours: "Remember that the Theology of the Body and the CCC are not binding acts of the Magisterium, so you don't have to take them as the authoritative statement of Catholic doctrine."
While I do not adhere to the Vatican II church or any of its doctrines, nonetheless, those who do so cannot dismiss the New Catechism as somehow "not binding." Why not? Here's what John Paul II said in his "Apostolic Constitution" Fidei Depositum, promulgating the New Catechism:
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith." (section 3)
Likewise: "This catechism is given . . . that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Jn 8:32). . . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes." (ibid.)
Ironically, this very document is printed in the very New Catechism, pp. 1-6 (first edition, 1994).
You have a problem, Don Paco: Either the New Catechism contains no error - or the "authority" which promulgated it is not legitimate.
Once again I have been edified by your site. These are perilous times in which we try to believe, understand and practice the Faith, especially when many in leadership seem bent on reinventing what has been settled and taught for centuries. Am trying to become more acquainted with St. Thomas because of my admiration for Pope Leo XIII and the many writers since, especially the English converts, who were galvanized by Aquinas through Leo. My wife and I, both converts, in no small part because of St. Thomas and Pope Leo, have recently begun to attend a diocesan parish where the traditional Latin liturgy is celebrated. The burning question then becomes, why would any Catholic, if at all inclined to study philosophy and theology, not want to embrace Thomism? Have recently been reading Alisdair MacIntyre and he makes it fairly plain that he doesn't believe we can do moral theology without St. Thomas. And yet, as your byline suggests, "Novel Notions of the Image of God in Man" will keep being constructed. Christendom and the Church are demonstrating what happens when the Faith is reinvented. Thank you for your work and your teaching.
In full disclosure, you should mention that the Summa Theologica is not a binding work of the Magisterium either. (not to imply that I disagree with Thomas your yourself)
Quite interesting, on the other hand, mmm... well i'll have to look for the scripture, i recall there said something about Adan (man) being created in the model of Jesus. So, there may be more to say on it maybe?
You say that the Catechism of the C.C. are not binding acts of the magisterium. Could you explain this please ? and do you have any comments, maybe written some time ago, about the CCC.
Thanks so much. Alan Robinson
The New Catechism doesn't claim infallibility, and thus is not strictly binding. Yes, it claims to be a "sure" (the latin word is more correctly translated as "reliable") and "accurate" norm, and that is, in fact, quite a true claim. But that is not the same as infallible. The New Catechism is, in general, reliable.
The Summa Theologica, though it is not in itself binding either, does acquire a very great status of authority because of its place in the Church. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, which is more authoritative than the current Catechism, takes a huge amount of its doctrines straight from the Summa.
That's my understanding of it. If Don Paco would like to correct and clarify anything, I would appreciate it.
Dear Maestro,
You said: "The New Catechism doesn't claim infallibility, and thus is not strictly binding."
Please show me an authoritative Church document (I would prefer pre-V2) which says that if something does not possess the theological note of infallibility, then it is not binding on the layman's conscience or does not require our assent or submission of intellect.
Thank you.
KSJ, the summa is not a work of the Magisterium, obviously. But the consensus of Fathers and Theologians is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Insofar as the Summa is a representative of this consensus, it is authoritative. The Catechism does not pretend to express this consensus, insofar as its intention is to express a novel interpretation or expression of the faith, one according to the Nouvelle theologie.
M.T. Chair, neither the Catechism nor what the Pope says about the catechism is infallible because neither claims to be infallible. So, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Catechism has a false statement; that would not mean that I have to reject the authority of the Pope, because the Pope is not guaranteeing that there are no false statements in it.
Anonymous, for an act of the Magisterium to be binding on the faithful, one of the requirements is that the Magisterium *intend* it as binding. The Catechism was not intended as a binding statement. Therefore, it is not binding.
Dear Maestro and M.T. Chair,
M.T. Chair is right in pointing out (rather irritatingly by asking a rhetorical question, I must remark) that there is no basis for equating "binding" with "infallible." The reason for this is that "binding" is broader: there are some things that we are bound to assent to with "religious submission of mind and will" which the Church does not propose with infallible authority. This is the case, for example, with the documents of Vatican II. This assent does not mean, however, that we are not allowed to ask, wonder, question, etc., respectfully--not with a spirit of schism--how they are compatible with traditional doctrine. This is what we, at Ite ad Thomam, do regarding some novel, post-conciliar teachings: we wonder how it is possible for them to be compatible with the Church's teaching, and we await further clarification from the Church.
Finally, I encourage you both to continue this conversation in Quaestiones disputatae, the Ite ad Thomam Forum. If you decide to join (it's completely free), just send in a membership request, and after I give you access, start a new topic and submit your question/comment/issue, etc.
Do you think there is anyway in which we can apply "image of God" to the human bod as distinct from other bodies? I certainly agree that man's being made in the image of God properly refers to his inellect and will, but if the soul is the form of the body-- not some generic consciousness which could be placed in any body as eastern teaching on reincarnation-- is there not some special sense in which the term could be applied to the human body? Clarification would be helpful on this point.
Post a Comment