Aquinas, Computer Nerd?
Don’t get me wrong. I love and admire Thomas Aquinas. Nevertheless, on reading your excerpt from Aquinas on “Human Happiness” (“Classic Apologetics,” July/August, 1999), I must alert you to the growing realization in Catholic phenomenological philosophy that Thomas’ little treatise, although correct on some points, is a little off the mark.
Thomas says that what really makes man happy is the “contemplation of truth” (p. 41). Consequently, Thomas categorizes things like “table and sex” as mere biological functions in which “happiness does not consist,” which then leads him to correlate our human appetites to those of animals (p. 40). As a result, in Thomas’ view, anything that has to do with human sensuality should be done quickly and without much ado, else we will lose sight of true happiness, the pursuit of knowledge.
With all due respect to Thomas, his emphasis on the attainment of knowledge as the ultimate source of happiness makes him a little like the computer nerd who feels comfortable with books and floppy disks but has never dated, married, enjoyed a sunset, or even smelled a rose.
I don’t want to put the whole blame in Thomas’ lap, but I will say this: The lack of a true and adequate philosophy of sex has been instrumental in causing tremendous gaps in our psychosexual thinking, resulting in numerous neurotic sexual problems in ours and previous generations.
If sex is reduced to a mere biological function — something that we perform merely out of necessity to “beget children,” as Thomas says — we shouldn’t be surprised when the culture starts judging sex by mere biological standards. The lack of a proper philosophical understanding of sex leads to all kinds of sexual aberrations, including the belittling of women, homosexuality, pornography, contraception, and abortion. In fact, the world now believes the latter two to be mere “biological” remedies for an unwanted “biological” process. In short, if we reduce sex to biology, then biology will rule sex.
Lacking an adequate philosophy of sex, we have had the “sex is dirty” mentality of the Manichean/Puritan/Victorian ages at one extreme and at the other the voluptuous gyrations of the pop singer Madonna. In between, we have diocesan-sponsored Catholic “sex education” programs, which too often teach the mechanics of procreation in a way that causes our children to think about human sexuality the same way they think of the mating of male and female tree frogs in National Geographic.
Unfortunately, Thomas’ philosophy does the same with emotions such as joy and love, or aesthetic qualities such as the appreciation of beauty: They are intellectualized rather than felt and appreciated for what they are. To Thomas, sensual manifestations are merely products of our human gene pool, not our human soul.
“Table and sex” are much more than biological functions, and happiness does not consist merely in the intellectual “contemplation of truth.” Sex, in its proper confines, is one of the most beautiful expressions of love, and as such leads to godly happiness, a paradigm that even God himself uses for his relationship with the Church (Eph. 5:31-32; Rev. 21:2; Song 4:1-15; cf, Ezk. 23:20-21). Moreover, St. Paul says that love is man’s greatest happiness, not knowledge (I Cor. 13:1-13). As for “table,” well, Jesus does not describe heaven as attainment of knowledge; the imagery he chooses is an endless feast at the table of Abraham, Isaac and, Jacob (Matt. 8:11; Rev. 19:9).
For further study, may I suggest the works of Dietrich von Hildebrand — Purity: The Mystery of Human Sexuality; What is Philosophy?; The Heart; and The New Tower of Babel — and William Marra’s Happiness and Christian Hope: A Phenomenological Analysis. There you will find that sex understood as an expression of love, the sense of beauty, the emotions, et cetera, are divinely created aspects of the eternal soul of man (not animals), and their biological counterparts are actually windows to and expressions of that soul
Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics International
Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. Shanks Loses Touch with John 2, 3, and 4
The main problem with Mr. Shanks’ article (“This Is A Hard Teaching,” September 1999) is that it is taken entirely out of context from prior passages contained within the Gospel of John. Mr. Shanks insists that our understanding of “this is a hard teachng” is to be centered on a literal interpretation of “eat my flesh.” He reaches this conclusion because some individuals who are present with Christ walk away from him, and Christ says nothing to insist that their literal interpretation is incorrect.
It is assumed that if what Christ said needed to be interpreted figuratively he would have corrested any immediate misunderstanding and that the saying is only difficult if it is to be interpreted literally. In other words, a figurative interpretation of “eat my flesh” is easier to make than a literal one.
This is where Mr. Shanks loses touch with John 2, 3, and 4. These chapters contain three specific instances where we are shown that the easiest and most earthly interpretation is always the literal. Christ speaks of his physical body and not the literal stone temple in chapter two. In chapter three, Christ speaks of spiritual rebirth, not the literal rebirth that Nicodemus focuses on. And in John 4, the woman at the well cannot get past the literal water and misses Christ’s whole meaning about spiritual water. Here we have three clear examples of how the easiest interpretation that one can slip into is the literal one.
In contrast, we are shown that the spiritual interpretation is one that is the most difficult because, in Christ’s own words,”This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (John 6:65). Only those who have been regenerated in Christ can make a true spiritual interpretation.
In closing, what Mr. Shanks aims to do in proving that the literal interpretation of “eat my flesh” is difficult only when taken literally is not supported by prior literal/figurative passages in John.
Jason Walsh
Scottsdale, Arizona
Editor’s reply: It seems you have misinterpreted the author’s intent. The word “hard” in the sentence “This is a hard teaching” means difficult to accept, not difficult to understand. It was easy to understand on the literal level, which is why Christ’s listeners walked away: They thought he was inviting them to some kind of cannibalism. The earlier passages of John you cite actually support the author’s argument: Christ’s listeners often took his parables and figurative speech literally, and he had to explain things in literal terms. (See John 10:1-9, when our Lord had to explain calling himself the door of the sheepfold.)
You are correct, I think, in saying that the spiritual interpretation is the most difficult. This is why he had to explain his figure of the sheep door to the Pharisees; it was clear that he wasn’t literally a sheep door: The fact that Christ did mean “eat my flesh” literally left him nothing to explain.
Added Insight
To Jason Shanks’ fine article (“This Is a Hard Teaching,” July/August 1999) I would like to add some insight. To emphasize Christ’s literal meaning of the Eucharist, at the Transfiguration, God the Father, who knew the timing and the importance of the impending events leading to the Last Supper and beyond, said: “This is my Son, my chosen one. Listen to him” (Luke 9:35).
Fernando Matro
Via the Internet
Silly Question
It seemed to me I had seen the “wasn’t Jesus really an Ascended Master” question (“Quick Questions,” July/August 1999) before. While I know Mark Shea’s qualifications as an apologist far exceed mine, I think that everything after the first word of the response — “No” — unnecessarily dignified this silly question.
Charles Beachley
Via the Internet
Wow
We share a subscription to This Rock, and we both had the same thoughts about the last two issues of your magazine (June and July/August): Wow! They were outstanding. Every article was better than the last! We wanted you to know that we are very impressed. Keep up the good work!
Leila Miller
Kim Manning
Phoenix, AZ
Falls Short
Though I agree with many things Rachel Fay writes in the article “Wives Do What? ” (June 1999), she makes some problematic statements and glaring omissions.
First, she writes “Not only did [Adam] eat of the forbidden fruit, he also let his wife lead him, something that God finds very displeasing: ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree . . .'”. Yet the whole of Scripture does not bear out that interpretation. When Sarah told Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael into exile, he was hesitant till God told him, “Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you” (Gen. 21:12). God is obviously not displeased when a husband listens to his wife unless she counsels him to sin, as Eve did Adam.
Fay also seems to believe that the Southern Baptists Convention’s statement on submission in marriage is essentially the same as the Catholic Church’s teaching, and quotes various popes to “prove” it. But Fay overlooks a number of quotes from the present Holy Father and the Catechism that do not entirely support her views or those of the SBC.
Fay ignores the biblical and Church teaching that submission in marriage should be mutual (Eph. 5:21). Though she quotes a number of papal encyclicals, including John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio, she never once cites Mulieris Dignitatem, in which he teaches mutual submission. [Ed. For explication of this, see “A Shift of Emphasis in the Appreciation of This Doctrine,” “Letters,” September 1999.]
The Catechism also teaches mutual submission: “Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony. Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens, to ‘be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,’ and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love” (1642).
Why did Rachel Fay leave out this important teaching on the question of submission? I am puzzled and disappointed. I was hoping that her article would show once again how Catholic teaching is more well-developed than Evangelical teaching, since Mother Church takes the whole of Scripture into account rather than just part. She failed to do that, so while much of what she writes is true, the article falls short of truly expressing the mind of the Church on this issue
Rosemarie Scott
Woodhaven, New York
Too Often Emphasize the “Separated” and Not the “Brethren”
I appreciate your recent article that praised Southern Baptists for their strong pro-family, unfeminist stands (Wives Do What?” June 1999). Too often enthusiastic Catholics (myself included) emphasize the “separated” and not the “brethren” when talking about Protestant Christians. What is good, decent, and heroic there deserves our loud praise.
I know Baptist friends who have forfeited hundreds of dollars in trip deposits at Disneyworld rather than patronize the place once they became aware of Disney’s debaucheries. We gladly sent our kids to a Baptist-run vacation Bible school this summer (once our own parish’s VBS was done). We knew that Christ would be held in respect there and that holiness would be the norm among those leading it.
This summer we also attended a Baptist wedding. I could safely wager the deed to my home that sexual purity before marriage had been observed by the bride and groom. In what was probably unusual for a Baptist wedding, one of the first acts of these newlyweds was to walk beneath a large statue of Mary and then feast while seated before a crucifix. (Their reception was held at a nearby Catholic parish hall; their Baptist church was too small.)
Let us be to Protestants as if we were at this wedding: Publically rejoice in the Christian devotion of our friends and then welcome them to the fullness of the Catholic Church once they’re ready.
Thomas Basil
Arnold, Maryland
Editor’s reply: While Catholic children would probably encounter nothing at a Baptist Bible camp their parents would object to, it’s important to emphasize to our kids where the Baptist view of things falls short. We may frame it in the context of, “Look what wonderful people our Baptist friends are. Let’s pray harder than ever that they may one day join the true Church, worship God in the way he intended, and know the actual presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.”
By the same token, we adults must do the same. Publicaly rejoice in their devotion as Protestants, but witness by word – and especially deed – the importance of holding the fullness of faith. True ecumenism never trivializes the importance of the truth. Otherwise, the day they’re ready to join us might never come, and we will share some degree of culpability.