Demonic Dangers
One popular writer within certain Catholic circles is Gabriele Amorth. He is an exorcist — not the “chief exorcist” that some people make him out to be — and he has used his work as an exorcist to judge and condemn many things from Harry Potter to unnamed Cardinals at the Vatican. He sees a Satanic conspiracy at work in the Church, and many people are quick to believe what he has to say. This is probably because they want to believe there is some sort of Satanic cult which makes the Vatican act contrary to their own ideas of how the Vatican should act.[1]
Thankfully, another exorcist has taken up Gabriele Amorth and his claims. Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull, who is not only an exorcist, but a theologian trained in the area of demonology, has pointed out in an article on Catholic Online that Amorth’s sources of knowledge are not credible because they rely upon two things: private, untested revelations and demons. The second to me is very telling.
Demons are going to be tricky. One of the first things an exorcist should know is not to trust them, not to believe them, not to let them get into your head. They can tell the truth, but they do not have to. And of course, they can take a little truth and distort it to make it into a lie. Indeed, as Fr. Fortea puts it in the Catholic Online article:
We can know with great confidence when a demon tells the truth in the subject directly related with the exorcism. That is, the number of demons, their name and similar things. But we cannot be confident in what regards concrete news relating to people.
When Fr. Amorth starts relying upon the evidence of demons to construct a Satanic conspiracy in the Vatican, I think we have evidence that Fr. Amorth has forgotten how dangerous it is to interact with demons and to believe whatever it is they have to say. Indeed, the more one talks with them to get knowledge from them, the more warped one is likely to become, and the more likely one is oneself going to be demon possessed. And even if one is not, one is at least playing around with demonic-magic.
As it stands, I really can’t tell what difference there is between Fr. Amorth’s knowledge from demons with that of John Dee. Fr. Amorth is playing with fire. I suggest we stand away and not get burned.
[1] This is not to deny the demonic — but such influences can happen without cults.
Comments are closed.
I read an interview with Father Amorth, and here’s a brief excerpt:
I don’t understand how this is consistent with the idea that Jesus defeated Satan. If Satan was defeated, how can he infiltrate the Church? Does God permit it? Why in the world?
We had an extended discussion on dotCommonweal about Archbishop Chaput’s remarks on Satan, in which he is asked where he sees the work of the Devil, and he answers, “Well, one of the most obvious things in the United States is internet pornography which is pervasive, and subtle, and attractive and totally destructive of peoples’ lives and there’s very little talk about fighting it. If you talk about fighting pornography in the media you’re somehow seen as anti-American, anti-freedom of speech. … things that are so obviously destructive to society…”
The question I raised is exactly how is Satan responsible for Internet porn, and in general, how does Satan influence events in the world? Can he cloud a person’s intellect? Weaken a person’s will? Prevent a person from catching a plane to an important meeting? There were no answers that I found plausible.
David,
The question is one of free will and its limits, and how much of what we do creates those limits and allows others to influence us. The demonic, to me, is connected to the question of socialization, which we do know affects us. Here, however, it is spiritual socialization, and if we have not been awakened to that dimension, it is easy for us to be manipulated with our limited freedom. And the habits we create for ourselves, the thoughts which we ponder, can be used against us in the subconsious realm, which is where I think “Satan’s temptations” are at the most, because they are the hardest to spot. Some of course, in such socialization, go further — there are some strange things I’ve seen and friends of mine have seen — but for the most part, such deeper levels of control are rare and develop out of many issues as well.
However, I also think the “exorcist” here really has gone paranoid, and probably because he himself has been influenced by the very demons he confronted.
Are any of you old enough to remember comedian Flip Wilson? One of his signature gag lines was “The devil made me do it.” It was a joke then, and it’s a joke now.
Rodak
Yes, I’m familiar — remember, I’m not a young man (alas!).
If you have not read it, I recommend “The Rite” by Matt Baglio about an American priest sent to Rome to train as an exorcist. In doing so, he apprentices with a number of Italian exorcists. The book is gripping and disturbing at the same time. And yes, one of the first thing exorcists are taught is never to talk to a demon, beyond asking its name.
MM
There is a lot I know about exorcism and demons from behind the scenes, including a few of my own experiences and not just the narratives of friends. It’s disturbing. But I do think the rather-popular exorcist under discussion here really has gone on and been seduced, unwittingly of course, by the demons. It seems they might have got to him with pride.
Back in my days in the seminary, the rumor was the Fr. Eberhardt, C.M., was the exorcist for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. I have no way to know if that claim was true at the time. One student, having a research project to do, decided to pursue the area of demonic possession and exorcism. He went to Fr. Eberhardt to ask for his advice as to where he should begin his research. The response? “Change your subject. Don’t be interested.” It’s one thing to focus on human evils and correct them. It’s another thing altogether to be interested in the supernatural.
Fr. J. Patrick Mullen,
Yes, the research is very dangerous. I know people who have been given conditional approval for dissertations on the topic of demonology and told — if supernatural things happen around them, they must change their topic. And some did change their topic.
Interesting… While doing my masters degree in theology I did a bit of research on possession and exorcisms for a sacraments course. The professor was quite encouraging, as was the high-ranking priest (now a monsignor) in my home diocese who I interviewed about it. What is one to make of that enthusiasm?! :) I must say, I don’t believe in “demons,” but I do believe in some kind of “possession” by deep evil. The research I did was pretty disturbing.
Michael I.
I believe in demons (I’ve had some weird experiences), but I also think there are many types — some are self-created demons, and indeed, the normal kind, though I also know there are other things out there. Some of the things I’ve seen is enough, and what others I know have experienced further highlight the reality of this spiritual world. But it is a spiritual world which we are in tune with and socialized in, but don’t know it and I think the influence, for most, is like the influence of society in general. Real possession, though, is real. And yes things are disturbing — which is why I think Fr. Amorth has himself fallen for the seduction of the dark side through his pride and is being used to cause scandal through the suggestions he has received through the years — and in doing so, has influenced many in a bad way.
Michael, you don’t believe in demons? Fallen angels?
Jesus Christ believed in demons. In fact he took them very seriously.
And the Church believes in demons.
Do you believe in angels?
Jesus Christ *believes* in demons.
Man, I’m awful.
Good Lord, Zach.
Jesus Christ *believes* in demons.
Is there any evidence to show that Jesus believed in the story of Satan as a fallen angel? My references say Luke 10:18 is not to be taken as such. The idea doesn’t come from the Old Testament.
Are angels, like God, beings outside of time? And if so, how can they rebel or fall? Doesn’t that imply a decision point — a before and after?
David,
Angels are not like God in relation to time. There are different theories one can use to deal with them, of course, but I myself see them connected to the temporal order.
What?
Zach – I am surprised by the silliness of your argument re: Jesus and demons.
Why is it silly? It’s very clear from the Bible that Jesus took demons very seriously.
Yes indeed. But perhaps it is more complicated than that. Perhaps “demons” are much more serious than the little goblins we imagine.
Right.. I don’t imagine demons to be goblins. Do you?
Demons are fallen angels.
It is my impression that many “fundamentalist” Christians have more faith in satan than in God. See, for example, the “does satan exist” debate in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b-9fKKDSfs. Notice the animated response to Chopra’s insistence that satan is not something external to self.
Is belief in satan’s power and separateness from “self” a form of fundmentalism (Christian or otherwise), or is it intrinsic to Christianity?
Frank,
It is traditional for Christianity. I know some view Satan/demons more as manifestations of internal psychological conflicts, but imo, though their influence is there, I do think it is because we are socialized in an unseen spiritual world with fallen spiritual beings (demons). And the internal psychological conflict comes out of our interdependent social relations in this unseen world — unseen because our spiritual senses have been hindered due to sin.
“Could it be….Satan ?” asked the Church Lady on SNL. There is a certain hubris in believing that devil/demons are after one at every turn, the other side of believing that there’s a god highly interested in and supportive of one’s football or hip hop efforts.
A widespread weirdness toward sex resulted in viewing women as the devil’s own, and attributing ill fate and disaster to sexual immorality. Falwell et al blamed 9/11 partly on it.
Since all existence is interconnected, the question of literal versus metaphorical doesn’t seem as crucial. Buddha and Jesus were “visited” by similar characters at similar turning points – Mara and Satan. When thoughts occur, does it matter from whence they came? Since thoughts are immaterial, how would one distinguish to begin with ?
It strikes me as a copout to outsource impulses and thoughts, and thereby responsibility.
To answer your other question, Zach, I don’t believe in literal angels either.
I wouldn’t reduce “demons” to mere internal psychological problems, though, as in the liberal interpretation.
Do you believe in created beings who are purely spiritual?
I don’t see any reason to.
What about the Scriptural references to angels?
Angels are a truth of the faith, their existence to be held de fide. See the Catechism, section 328.
Is this a good reason to believe in them?
See the Catechism, section 328.
And let’s not forget Tess, Monica, and Andrew from the CBS series Touched by an Angel.
Also, let’s not forget the Nephilim (Genesis 6:4):
Happy feast of the Angelic Doctor!
David, is that supposed to be funny?
Is this a good reason to believe in them?
Sure, if you think so. I’m not insisting that they don’t exist; I just don’t believe in them myself. Nor do I find the existence of angels to be all that central to the Catholic faith. It really doesn’t matter to me one way or another.
But it is central. If Jesus Christ believed in angels, why wouldn’t we? Do we know better than God?
I also think the existence of angels is not a belief that we can choose. It must be held by a believing Catholic.
Zach
I will point out that there are all kinds of opinions about angels, demons, etc in tradition. There are some who view demons more as powers than persons, for example.
Not at all Mr. Iafrate! It’s neither here nor there whether you believe in a de fide proposition! As long as it’s not central to the faith, there’s nothing to concern yourself with. You certainly don’t have to justify yourself here.
David, is that supposed to be funny?
Zach,
March 7, 2010 at 3:41 pm (Touched by an Angel) was supposed to be funny. March 7, 2010 at 4:01 pm (Nephilim) was to raise the question of which beings in the Old Testament we are to take as real and which as mythological.
St. Paul seems to have believed the story of Adam and Eve was literally true. Even the Catechism says it is in figurative language. Does the Catechism know better than St. Paul? Jesus seemed to believe the end of the world was very near. It didn’t happen.
John L. McKenzie in Dictionary of the Bible, although he certainly doesn’t deny the existence of angles, says, “In the NT as in the OT the angel is sometimes no more than another word for a divine communication or a divine operation personified.” Angels seem always to be messengers (in fact, the Latin and Greek words for angel literally mean “messenger”). It does not seem important to me if you want to imagine them as looking like Della Reese wearing a white robe or as a message conveyed by unknown means. What is important about any story containing an angel is the message, not the messenger.
What the minimum is that a Catholic “has to believe” about angels, I don’t know. But I don’t think anyone is “required” to take stories of angels so literally that they believe Touched by an Angel was a realistic depiction.
I’m intrigued by Mr. Iafrate not believing that spiritual beings (either angels or demons) actually exist. Michael, what is your explanation of what occurred at the Annunciation?
Thales,
Is it your belief that if one could travel back in a time machine, one would see an angel telling Mary she was to bear a child, and then subsequently you could follow Mary to Elizabeth’s and hear Mary recite the Magnificat? And could you then see wise men from the east following a star and bringing gold, frankincense, and myrrh as gifts for the infant Jesus?
The theologian who denies the existence of angels is like the geometer who denies the existence of squares.
Charles
While I affirm angels, we have to understand angelic theology is not so clear as people assume. The development of our understanding of angels is relatively late. What those beings are have been a matter of debate. The assumption that they are pure spirits is indeed not what all theologians, even in patristic times, think. I myself agree that some entities exist as such. As for demons, there are more complexities — can we really describe them in terms of “persons”? Many say no. Again, I am not saying I agree with Michael, but I am pointing out the questions have been and remain more complex than interpretations people are used to.
I fully acknowledge that there has been debate about their nature, and that theologians are free to speculate on that point. But theologians are not free to deny their existence; at that point, one ceases to be doing catholic theology.
Charles
I think Michael has denied their assumed nature, if what I read is correct.
David,
Yes, it is my belief that if I could travel back to this specific point of time, a spiritual being actually told Mary she was to bear a child. I believe that that literally happened. And I’m confident that the bulk of Catholic Church authority would agree with me. (Now I recognize that the spiritual being might not have been visible to my third-party observer’s naked eye – after all, this is a non-corporeal being who might have appeared to Mary in an apparition form of some type. But yes, I believe the event actually happened.)
This is not to say that the entire Bible must be taken completely literally. To take the obvious example, some of episodes of Genesis most likely did not literally occur just as they are written, such as creation in six 24-hour days. These Bible episodes, while not literally true, do convey truth by means of allegory or symbolism. Again, I’m confident that the bulk of Catholic Church authority would agree with me about the possibility of non-literalness in certain Bible stories.
The question becomes then, what parts of the Bible story are literally true and which aren’t? In my opinion, a Christian must believe some stories as being literally true, or he would cease being a Christian. The most important story to believe is the story that there actually existed a man named Jesus Christ who was crucified in Jerusalem, and he actually came back to life after being dead. (Consider St. Paul in 1Cor 15:14 “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”)
Where does the Annunciation fall on this spectrum of literalness of Bible stories? I think it falls pretty close to the most important story I mention above.
David, let me ask you in turn, just that we understand where we are both coming from: Is it your belief that one could travel back in a time machine, one would see a man named Jesus Christ who was crucified, died, and then came back to life?
Sorry, forgot an “if”. I know that time machines aren’t real…. yet.
“Is it your belief that IF one could travel back in a time machine, one would see a man named Jesus Christ who was crucified, died, and then came back to life?”
Thales,
I believe if you could go back in a time machine, you would find a person named Jesus, and you could witness his crucifixion. There is no description of the resurrection, so it would be difficult to say it was an event that could be witnessed. Could a time traveler witness the event where a crucified and risen Jesus says to Thomas, “”Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe”? I don’t know, but I tend to think not. This is not necessarily to deny the Resurrection, but to wonder exactly what it means to say Jesus rose from the dead.
Thales,
I believe a distinction is made between an apparition and a vision. If an angel “appeared,” then an angel was visible to Mary. If Mary had a vision, then it was an internal experience that could not be witnessed. I take the core message of the Annunciation to be that Mary knew of and accepted the role God had planned for her. Did Mary say the words of the Magnificat to Elizabeth? Almost certainly not. The commentaries I have read believe it to be a hymn that was added to the account, not the actual words of Mary.
David,
I’m afraid you’ll have to describe your concept of the Resurrection to me a little better, because I really have no idea what you could mean. Are you saying that, in your opinion, if you used the time machine and went back to a time 4 days after a person named Jesus was crucified, you don’t think that you would find this same person actually and literally living and breathing in bodily form?
Interesting exchange – it all in the head really ( thus the Holy Spirit will keep gaining in importance IMHO)- since we all live in a pretty hyperbole time we certainly should appreciate the low key nature of biblical miracles.
Imagine Moses coming back into this world reporting that he witnessed God in a burning bush…
LOL He would not make the evening news that’s for sure.
David,
Certainly, there is a difference between apparition and vision. I think we can probably agree on our definitions: an apparition is something that you see when you are awake with your eyes; a vision is something you see in your mind while asleep or in a trance (or perhaps awake). The Bible has stories of God interacting with people in both ways (eg, apparition as fire to Moses, vision to some of the prophets). The Bible also has stories of angels interacting with people in both ways (eg., to Mary apparently in an apparition, and to Joseph in a vision in a dream). I read the Bible story of the Annunciation as describing a situation where Mary had an apparition of an angel. And yes, I tend to think that this actually happened in the past: that there was a specific person named Mary, in a specific room, who saw an angel.
Now it could be possible that the Annunciation did not literally happen as described, but that Mary had some kind of personal revelation from God, as you seem to suggest. And I agree with you and recognize that it is possible that Mary did not literally say the words of the Magnificat to Elizabeth.
But all of this goes back to my earlier point about the spectrum of literalness that exists in Bible stories. The question of which stories are more literally true than others is a subject that Bible scholars have studied, and can study, for a long time. At one end of the spectrum is the Genesis account of creation, at the other end is the existence of Christ, in my opinion.
Why do I tend to believe that the Annunciation occurred similar to how it is described in the New Testament? Because (in my opinion) I tend to think that the New Testament is a more historical account of what actually happened (in contrast with much of the Old Testament), largely because the NT authors for the most part were trying to record historical events for later readers, and I don’t have any good reason to doubt the historical truth of the Annunciation story.
So do I think that Mary actually said the Magnificat words to Elizabeth when she visited her? Probably not. But do I think that there actually existed a woman named Mary who actually gave birth to a baby boy without having had prior intercourse with a man? Yes, I do.
Now I don’t have any problem at all if someone doesn’t believe in the literal truth of the Virgin birth or the bodily Resurrection of Christ; I just wonder, if someone doesn’t believe in the literal truths of such fundamental events, why be a Christian in the first place?
There are some who view demons more as powers than persons, for example.
Like, you know, Saint Paul for example!
But theologians are not free to deny their existence; at that point, one ceases to be doing catholic theology.
Yeah, maybe the CDF will hunt down theologians who don’t believe in angels next. What a hoot that will be.
I, in fact, did not “deny their existence.” All I said is that I don’t believe in them myself. Then I added:
I’m not insisting that they don’t exist; I just don’t believe in them myself. Nor do I find the existence of angels to be all that central to the Catholic faith. It really doesn’t matter to me one way or another.
I also distanced myself from the liberal merely “psychological” depiction of demons, saying: I wouldn’t reduce “demons” to mere internal psychological problems, though, as in the liberal interpretation.
As for the Annunciation, its pretty clear that the infancy narratives as a whole are not literal accounts.
Keep in mind that these are not controversial positions to take in real life, but only in the Catholic blogosphere.
Also, Charles Robertson, if you could please let me know when to expect my letter from the CDF, that would be great. I’d like to book my flight to Rome as early as possible.
In other words, you don’t really know what you believe personally about angels?
“Keep in mind that these are not controversial positions to take in real life, but only in the Catholic blogosphere.”
Is that because in real life, people don’t give a ratz about the truth?
In other words, you don’t really know what you believe personally about angels?
I know precisely what I believe about angels. I do not personally believe in them. If other Catholics want to believe in them, cool. I don’t think it’s a stupid belief by any means, nor is it particularly harmful. Unless of course fascination with the “spiritual world” becomes one’s religion, in which case we’re dealing with a kind of angelic gnosticism. I encountered this sort of thing in high school and college all the time — learning how to pray novenas so that you can learn the name of your guardian angel, stuff like that. As long as one’s belief in angels and demons is not turning one into a heretic, or worse, a human being ungrounded from reality and other human persons, then belief in angels can probably be a good thing. I just have no need for that kind of thing in my life of discipleship.
Is that because in real life, people don’t give a ratz about the truth?
I “give a ratz” about the truth. That’s why I have come to disbelieve in angels.
Are you missing something, and if so, what? How can I be more clear for you?
Michael,
Okay, you don’t believe in angels. That’s fine. And granted, in the grand scheme of Catholic Church teachings, angels aren’t that high on the list.
But the fact that angels exist is a well-established item of Catholic doctrine. I think that a few commenters were just surprised that you don’t believe this particular Catholic teaching.
Fair enough. Now they know. “And knowing is half the battle.”
I just wonder, if someone doesn’t believe in the literal truths of such fundamental events, why be a Christian in the first place?
Thales,
It wasn’t all that long ago that you could have asked the same question about the creation of the world in seven days and the historical truth of the story of Adam and Eve.
It seems very, very difficult to me to me, when reading the Gospels, to separate “history” from theology. I am sure it would offend many Christians today to hear that you believe Mary may not have uttered the words of the Magnificat. Reading any good work of contemporary mainstream Catholic Biblical criticism today is still somewhat of a shock to someone like me, who went to Catholic school in the 1950s and graduated from a Catholic high school in 1965. The Gospels were taught basically as historical accounts, with some discrepancies being inevitable because no two historians or journalists or contemporary observers would describe the same events in exactly the same way. This is, of course, far from the view of mainstream Catholic Biblical scholars today.
My difficulty is that in catholic theology, the actual existence of angels is received as a principle, not deduced from a principle. In other words, the theologian who says that angels do not exist is making a claim that is “above his paygrade,” so to speak. Further, as a believer, it is not up to me to decide whether or not I believe in angels; they are part of revelation.
Now, as a philosopher, I may question the existence of angels, and come to the position that their existence cannot be indubitably demonstrated. Much like the argument about the eternity of the world, it’s a dialectical proof. Unlike that argument, however, there is a certain “convenience” about the existence of a separate spiritual substance.
Charles
The phenomena of angels is a given, the interpretation is varied.
Michael, yours will be the first auto-da-fe’ in Toronto’s history. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
I know precisely what I believe about angels. I do not personally believe in them.
Michael,
Let’s get down to probably the one practical consequence of this whole discussion. Does this mean when a religious charity sends you an appeal for money that includes a “free gift” of a cheap plastic angel on a cheap metal key ring that you can throw it in the trash without feeling guilty?
interpretation does not include the denial of their existence
Charles
He did not deny their existence. More importantly, the question must also include: what exactly is meant by the term angel which is being denied. I will grant, as I said, I am strong in my belief, and think philosophically and theologically, all kinds of entities can be shown to exist. But we must understand that Catholic theology has all kinds of engagement with the question of angels, and people might be talking past each other because of it.
Michael,
Of course, you know you’re inviting a natural follow-up question for you, an author on a Catholic blog: If you don’t believe in this particular well-established item of Catholic doctrine, what other well-established items of Catholic doctrine do you not believe in?
But I suggest that we leave those debates for another day and another comment thread.
And by the by, while heretic burning is jolly good fun, I’m interested in intellectual honesty, so cut the rudeness.
Further, as a believer, it is not up to me to decide whether or not I believe in angels; they are part of revelation.
Charles,
In other words, one is obliged to believe in angels in order to be a good Catholic, whether one actually believes in them or not. I won’t tell the whole story, but in high school one of my teachers made a case for something and the class raised all kinds of objections (it was a very bright group, and we were always encouraged to discuss things). The teacher said he would do more research. He came back to the topic a week or so later with his new research, and the class again raised all kinds of objections. And he said, “Well, okay, I can’t explain it, but this is what you have to believe.”
David,
I’m not sure what the argument is you’re making with the Alice in Wonderland quote. The existence of angels is not an “impossible” or “illogical” thing (like the existence of a square circle). Also, though it can’t be scientifically proven to be the case, it is also not something which is contrary to reason (like the existence of God). There is plenty of scholarship on the topic, and I suspect that many Church Fathers have already developed many valid responses to the objections you or your class might raise.
Let’s get down to probably the one practical consequence of this whole discussion. Does this mean when a religious charity sends you an appeal for money that includes a “free gift” of a cheap plastic angel on a cheap metal key ring that you can throw it in the trash without feeling guilty?
I would throw something like that away, yes.
Of course, you know you’re inviting a natural follow-up question for you, an author on a Catholic blog: If you don’t believe in this particular well-established item of Catholic doctrine, what other well-established items of Catholic doctrine do you not believe in?
Ah yes, the “natural” follow-up question of immediate suspicion. What happened to the Catholic blogosphere’s mantra of “charity, charity”?
Looking back over the earlier part of this angel debate, suspicion and tempers flared when people didn’t understand where you stood on the Church’s teaching about the existence of angels. I always think knowing the premises from which people are arguing is important for having a clear debate, without people talking past each other.
But as I said, let’s leave another debate for another day and another comment thread.
Looking back over the earlier part of this angel debate, suspicion and tempers flared when people didn’t understand where you stood on the Church’s teaching about the existence of angels.
This is a great summary of what I simply “don’t get” about american Catholics. Not understanding something/someone is a reason for tempers to flare? Really? And over the question of angels? Give me a break.
I’m not sure what the argument is you’re making with the Alice in Wonderland quote.
Thales,
It is not my point that angels are logically impossible. I just find it a strange concept to try to believe something that you don’t. Michael doesn’t believe in angels, yet some are insisting he is obliged to. How is one supposed to believe something that one doesn’t believe?
“all kinds of entities can be shown to exist. ”
Sure since most of Philosophy and Theology share the same ‘airy/brainy’ dimension if you are allowed to set your preferred boundary conditions -indeed all kinds of entities can indeed be “shown” to exist.
If you however have to fall back on good old 3D earth, on physical reality, on actual measurable data etc. these sort of lovely theological/philosophical coherent things- even if we imagine them mentally proven – seems not to fare all that well.
Seems to me there are a number of ‘real’ dimension to Angels and Demons. On the negative side these days it seems that they are great cash cows for Hollywood as well as for various Authors and Religions. On a positive side however they do help a large majority of fine human beings to cope with reality.
It certainly is so much easier to actually blame ones inner demons, than to…
David,
How is one supposed to believe something that one doesn’t believe?
That is a great, great question. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough skill to be able to answer it adequately, but I’ll take a stab at it.
For a non-Catholic, the answer is simply, “you don’t believe in it.”
For a Catholic, it is a different situation, because it when it comes to certain areas of faith and morals, there is a Teaching Authority of the Church which has set out (with differing levels of authority and certainty) truths of Catholic teaching. While it is good to wrestle with questions about these items of the Catholic faith, sometimes, in the end, a willing submission of one’s will and intellect to the truth proposed by the Teaching Authority is required.
For example, after much struggling and thinking a person could say “I don’t understand how the consecrated Bread and Wine is the Body and Blood of Christ.” That person could either refuse to believe this truth (which is a valid position – but then this person would stop being a Catholic in a significant way), or the person could say “While I don’t understand, I am going to humbly take what Teaching Authority tells me, by faith, and try to believe in the Transubstantion.”
Much has been written on this topic, and I am no expert. In fact, I’ve probably made huge mistakes here in my attempt at an explanation. And there are so many different levels of authority and different types of statements proposed by the Teaching Authority, that I have no real idea how this all applies to the issue of angels’ existence. But I thought that I’d take a stab at it anyway.
Thales,
I agree that David’s question is great. I think you have provided an outline for an answer, but I wonder if I might try to fill it in a bit?
It is true that there are questions of the sort that a negative answer excludes one from the Church. If one feels one must deny the Trinity, the Incarnation or the Resurrection, one does cease to be Catholic whether they like it or not. I would put belief in Christ’s Real Presence in this category, but not transubstantiation. One could opt for another explanation of Real Presence (or none) without being in the same kind of situation as someone who does not believe Jesus was God.
What happens with a submission of will and intellect is not simply choosing to believe something that one does not believe. The heart of David’s question is that this is actually impossible. To use your example from the Eucharist, one might find it impossible to believe in Christ’s Real Presence. The option then, as I see it, is two-fold. One can stop understanding oneself as a Catholic or one can say something like, “I cannot believe in Christ’s Real Presence as I understand it. But perhaps I have a faulty understanding. I am willing to continue in the Church by saying that I might believe in Christ’s Real Presence if I were to come to a better understanding of it. (Or, I do believe in Christ’s Real Presence because I trust the Church has had this revealed to her even though I can make neither head nor tail of it. Both options are possible, depending on the individual.) In the interim, I will seek answers to my questions with honesty and humility.”
In my view, one can only responsibly leave the Church over disbelief in one of the central doctrines if one has made a very serious attempt to understand their genuine content. Lack of understanding at a given point in time, does not exclude one from the communion of the Church. Approaching such a situation with humility is far better than leaving the Church (or being kicked out!). But Catholics should not be given the impression that they must somehow overrule their own belief in favor of Church teaching as a pure matter of will. The process is much more subtle than that.
I think we actually should be pointing this process out in catechesis. I know many people who left the Church because they were no longer convinced of Christ’s divinity (or some such central issue) when the fact is that they never understood what the claim meant in the first place. We need to teach people that a crisis over the Resurrection or the Incarnation or (very often) the Atonement is not just a reason for anxiety, but an invitation to understand and appreciate an aspect of the faith that perhaps they had not yet genuinely appropriated, but had simply verbally affirmed.
But Catholics should not be given the impression that the must somehow overrule their own belief in favor of Church teaching as a pure matter of will. The process is much more subtle than that.
As I understood what I was taught in Catholic school, the way to deal with doubt (after sufficient study and asking experts where you were going wrong) was to set it aside and humbly acknowledge the Church knew more than you did. The problem with any religion or philosophy or any system of thought that requires this is that you are trapped in the system even if it is wrong and you are right. As I mentioned elsewhere, if I were living, say, in 1800 and concluded that the story of Adam and Eve was not literal but figurative, I would have had to set that conclusion aside and say, “Who am I to conclude Adam and Eve did not eat forbidden fruit and get expelled from the Garden of Eden?”
A friend in high school used to say that the genius of the Catholic Church was that it made you your own “thought police.” If you doubted something, you had to tell yourself you had no right to do so and get back on the reservation.
Why would you not believe in something that exists?
Why would you not believe in something that exists?
Welp, this conversation is officially going nowhere. Sorry, Henry, for the way this thread turned out.
Michael
No need to be sorry — the conversation took its own turn.
[I tried posting a comment like this last night, but I think my computer was glitching, so let me try to type it out again.]
brettsalkeld,
I agree entirely with your comment. Thank you. You did a much better job than me in articulating some of the issues that are found in this very difficult topic. I very much agree with the last part of your comment about the fact that we should be pointing this out more in catechesis.
I also agree that “Catholics should not be given the impression that the must somehow overrule their own belief in favor of Church teaching as a pure matter of will. The process is much more subtle than that.” That is a great way of putting it.
I know I’m biased, being a Catholic myself, but I’ve always thought that Catholicism was more open to questioning and honest inquiry, more willing to let its beliefs be the subject to the strictest of rational scrutiny, in a way that other belief systems or religions weren’t. And it should be this way, because with God being a Trinity, Jesus being 1 person with 2 natures, the Real Presence… there are some very difficult, very strange, and potentially incomprehensible (or to some people, impossible) items of Catholic teaching. Additionally, in my experience, I’ve always thought that the Catholic faith emphasizes a notion of freedom of thought for its members – that its members should freely dispose their minds to accepting difficult teachings, without being ordered or forced to accept them. Unfortunately, I think that too often, this aspect gets ignored or forgotten or misunderstood.
So thanks again for the great comment!
David,
The attitude of the people that you are describing when it comes to grappling with difficult teachings of the Catholic Church – I know that many (maybe even most) people see it in that way. But I disagree with it and I don’t think it is the ideal. brettskalkeld has articulated my point best in his comment.
Thales,
Glad to be of service.
David,
Your critique of the “pop” version of submission of mind and will is, in my view, spot-on.
Your critique of the “pop” version of submission of mind and will is, in my view, spot-on.
Brett,
Thanks! What you say in your post of March 8, 2010 at 5:01 pm makes so much more sense to me than what I was taught. I think I read somewhere that Aquinas said one must follow one’s conscience even if it results in excommunication. That is certainly not what we were taught in Catholic school.
Of course, the people who say you must follow your conscience, but it must be a “properly formed” conscience are giving with one hand and taking back with the other, if by “properly formed conscience” one means you must accept what the Church says no matter what you yourself have concluded.
God has told us that angels exist. Why would you doubt God?
It makes no sense to be pro-choice about angels.
God told us not to kill. Why do you think some kinds of killing are justified? Why do you doubt God?
You pro-choice er something?
That’s not analogous and you know it.
I agree that there is a subtlety to Catholic teaching and that one simply does not magically change their beliefs without thought or question. What I’m confused about is why someone who is putatively a faithful Catholic would dispute or question something so basic to Catholic teaching as the existence of angels.
If you believe in God, and you believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church and teaches with His authority, especially on matters of faith and morals, then why would you deny this simple matter of faith? What reason is there to doubt the existence of angels?
And I very much agree with brett’s comments here:
So you understand “nuance” with regard to killing but not with regard to angels? What bizarro Catholic planet do you come from?
Perhaps he was confused because you simply said, “I don’t believe in them,” rather than something more along the lines of “I don’t think that angels as purely spiritual beings exist, but rather that this belief in purely spiritual created beings was some sort of a simplification of misunderstanding of figurative descriptions used in scripture.” Admittedly, the latter lacks shock value, but if it’s what one means, it probably better to be precise than to attempt the short and punchy version and then be surprised when it draws a reaction.
Perhaps he was confused because you simply said, “I don’t believe in them”…
You haven’t said anything other than that you don’t believe in angels.
Actually, no, I said much more than that if you both actually read (or re-read) the thread above.
Also what is your nuance? You haven’t said anything other than that you don’t believe in angels. can you answer the questions I asked above?
Inform Catholic Answers that they have missed a nonnegotiable Catholic teaching: angels.
This truly might be one of the most stupid discussions we’ve had at VN.
It’s not stupid, it gets at the authority and extent of revealed truth. I’m sorry it upsets you so much. I wish you would think deeply about this.
The 4th Lateran Council defined the existence of angels as a dogma of the faith, and this was reaffirmed by the Vatican Council, “Dei Filius”.
David,
Yes, the question of what the Church requires in terms of “properly forming” one’s conscience is often a convoluted one. I included a chapter on this at the end of “How Far Can We Go?” that might interest you. Basically I argue that there are two imposters on the scene. The one that says following your conscience means doing what you please and the one that says following your conscience means doing exactly what the Church says in any case. Neither of those models actually use the term “conscience” in a meaningful sense.
Michael,
I hope this is not presumptuous, but let me respectfully offer this thought in an attempt to reconcile the dispute with Zach.
I think that perhaps you spoke too quickly and without understanding the full implications of your statement when you said you don’t believe in the Church’s teaching on the existence of angels. I suspect that you have never really thought much about angels; that angels have absolutely no importance for you in your spiritual life; that the existence of angels doesn’t personally draw you closer to God; that devotion to angels seems bizarre to you; that you find the over-the-top angel stuff (angel charms, Touched by an Angel, etc.) to be disgusting and even dangerous to a wholesome spiritual life.
But someone might say the same about another aspect of the Catholic faith, such as the Holy Spirit, or devotion to the saints, or some other aspect.
For example, a person might have not really thought very much about the communion of saints; the existence of saints might offer no real spiritual insight to this person or help this person draw nearer to God; this person might find devotion to a particular saint bizarre, or find over-the-top saint obsession to be disgusting or dangerous to a wholesome spiritual life.
Or someone might have very little appreciation for the Holy Spirit. This person might have no understanding of the Holy Spirit, might have not really thought about Him much, might not receive any kind of insight about the Holy Spirit that helps this person in his spiritual life. This person might find another’s devotion to the Holy Spirit bizarre, or perhaps even obsessive to the detriment of the other 2 persons of the Trinity.
It’s completely fine for these people to not care very much for the saints or the Holy Spirit, but it would be improper for them to say that they don’t accept the Church’s teaching on the existence of the communion of saints or on the existence of the Holy Spirit.
One of the beautiful things about Catholicism is its universality – the fact that there are so many different aspects of the faith, different devotions, different spiritualities, different charisms, and that this offers to the widely diverse group of people and personalities that make up the Church something for everyone to identify with.
1) I actually have thought about angels. Strange for you to presume that I haven’t.
2) Rejection of the communion of the saints or the third person of the Trinity would be the rejection of very central aspects of the faith. Much more central than angels.
3) I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, which is why I say that I personally do not believe in angels but do not oppose others believing in them.
Michael,
I’m trying to give you an out here, so that you can avoid saying something which I don’t think you want to say: namely, that you think the Church is wrong on a well-defined, long-held, definitively-held-as-true item of Catholic doctrine. But maybe you don’t have a problem with saying that.
Thales – Thank you for “trying to give [me] an out.” May I see your badge?
Sorry for perhaps for possibly beating a dead horse of a conversation, but I would like to ask Michael what his views on angels are if they are neither conventional orthodoxy (which is my position, ironically enough), or “liberal” theological interpretation of them as psychological disorders.
Just if anyone is curious why, beyond simple obedience to the Bible and Sacred Tradition, I personally hold to the doctrine of angels, its because I think that the infinite love of God necessitates an infinite variety of creature, including rational creatures. Among these rational creatures, it should, it seem logically, range from purely spiritual rational creatures to purely “in-fleshed” rational creatures, and everything in between; for nothing is impossible with God. And all things that are possible for him, he will do, at one time and place or another.
RedMaistre – I have a more social view of the “spiritual world” that is rooted in the material world. I am skeptical of separating the two. The closest thing to “demons and angels” that I would believe in would be the “powers and principalities” understood as spiritual forces embodied both in communities and only therefore in individual persons. (See Walter Wink and John Howard Yoder.) Some might argue that this view is just as “reductionistic” as the “psychological” view but I don’t think that it is. It just refuses to separate the “spiritual” from the “material.”
On your comment directly above this one, I would be careful with your claim that the love of God “necessitates” or requires God to do anything. I’m not sure that God’s love would require God to create any possible creature that we could dream up.
But would you affirm that God’s creation must be limited to this world, to our particular species of rational creatures ? Do you hold that creation is not an ongoing infinite process, the infinite unfolding of God’s glory, love, and wisdom ? Does it seem consistent with infinite love to make only one world and not and infinite number of worlds, worlds full of creatures ?
As for the language of neccissity in regards to God’s love, the theologians speak of God not being able to do anything contrary to his nature (which is Love,among other things). And the mystics (such a Meister Eckhart and Methild of Magdeburg) are bold enough to say that God is compelled, forced by his Love to express itself in Creation, the Incarnation, and the giving of Divine sonship to those to whom he comes.
I am not opposed to imagining what might be possible. Of course I too would speculate that there might be many “worlds” and that the creatures that inhabit those “worlds” might be very different than what we know in this “world.” But that kind of speculation is very different than insisting that a creature imagined in Hebrew mythology filtered through Christian dualisms and the notion of the hierarchy of being must exist because “it’s in the bible,” as some above are arguing.
I agree with the statements of the theologians you cite, but I do not think speaking of the “necessity” (compulsion is a better word probably) of God creating means we can say that God must have created everything we can think of. And there are also, remember, theologians who insist that God did not have to create anything.
Saying this at the risk of seeming annoying: But if he is compelled by nature to create, and his nature is infinite, does this not imply that ultimately anything possible must be created, if the full range of his Being may be reflected, may be made known ?
I think that is one possible conclusion, sure, but not a necessary one. Being compelled to create and being able to infinitely create still does not require God to do so. And could the “full range” of God’s Being ever be made known in creation? I’m not sure about that.
A question that should be raised is whether or not the act of creating is always an act of love. God could create all kinds of things that would not in fact express God’s love.
“And could the “full range” of God’s Being ever be made known in creation? I’m not sure about that.”
Well, I would say, precisely because the manifestation of his Being in creation is always incomplete, it can never be finished, and thus a never ending making of finite creatures is required. And what requires God to do this is his love.
“A question that should be raised is whether or not the act of creating is always an act of love. God could create all kinds of things that would not in fact express God’s love”
I would strongly affirm that anything that has being from God is good, and can not help but be good because it comes from him. Would you deny the goodness of this world because it contains and will contain many things repugnant to our human minds ?
What would your example of a creation that would be inconsistent with God’s love ?
Also the second quote of yours I commented on seems to imply that the existence of angels would be problematic to reconcile with God’s love. Which, to me is a very eccentric conclusion.
Well, I would say, precisely because the manifestation of his Being in creation is always incomplete, it can never be finished, and thus a never ending making of finite creatures is required. And what requires God to do this is his love.
This is a good point, but again I don’t think it requires the creation of every type of creature that we can imagine.
I would strongly affirm that anything that has being from God is good, and can not help but be good because it comes from him. Would you deny the goodness of this world because it contains and will contain many things repugnant to our human minds ?
You are absolutely right about that. All I am saying is that we could possibly imagine types of creatures that would not be good and thus that God has not created. So when I say “A question that should be raised is whether or not the act of creating is always an act of love” and “God could create all kinds of things that would not in fact express God’s love,” I’m not saying that God does that. I’m just saying that God probably does not create anything that human beings can imagine, because human beings can imagine creations that are wholly evil. What God creates is out of love and expresses that love. God refrains from creating that which would not express God’s love.
What would your example of a creation that would be inconsistent with God’s love ?
These things are difficult to imagine, of course, because all we know is this world. I suppose a creation whose sole purpose was to destroy life but outside of the larger context of God’s giving of life. (Many things in this world, of course, seem be be solely oriented toward the destruction of life: disease, natural disasters, etc., but we find on further reflection that this is not the case. Their existence is ultimately in service of the whole of life.) The only things like this that we can identify in this world are things that human beings have created for such purposes. Do you not think it is possible to conceive of a kind of hypothetical creation that would not be, ultimately, an expression of love?
I hope this is making sense… To me this is all pure speculation and I’m just writing off the top of my head at this point.
Also the second quote of yours I commented on seems to imply that the existence of angels would be problematic to reconcile with God’s love. Which, to me is a very eccentric conclusion.
I’m not trying to argue that at all. I just don’t agree that God needs to create anything we can imagine.
(Sorry to keep obliging you to pursuing this perhaps pointless speculation, but I think we’re touching on vital issues here)
In response to your second comment, I would disagree with your characterization of human made instruments of destruction as being, in the last analysis, inconsistent with God’s love. They, being part of God’s creation,must also ultimately serve the purposes of his love, if they have been permitted to exist.
“Do you not think it is possible to conceive of a kind of hypothetical creation that would not be, ultimately, an expression of love?”
My response is no. I can not conceive of anything that God could not make an instrument of his love. For all things are possible with him.
Michael,
In your other liberation theology thread, you admonish a commenter for not understanding “liberation theology or the church’s stance on it” and you suggest continued research and reflection. Now here, you’re cursorily dismissing the Church’s position on angels because it’s apparently based on the unsatisfying and simplistic argument that they must exist because “it’s in the Bible.” Sigh.
Thales – What is your point? The commenter you referred to does not understand LT such that he describes it and the church’s teaching on it inaccurately. Whether he chooses to think along those lines, he should at least grasp some basic points before speaking about it. I’m not sure how this relates at all to my position on angels. Is my interest in liberation theology in conflict with my disinterest in angelology?
Thales
Just something to consider (and remember, I say this as one who has a strong affirmation of angels):
The question remains how things are in the Bible, and what one gets out of the Bible. Is everything historical in the sense positivism sees history? Obviously not. But that does not mean there is no history close to that sense, and one would say that in the actual ministry of Christ, this is where myth and fact merge the most (as C.S. Lewis would point out). In this way, Christ’s work and words themselves, from his ministry, should be the means by which the rest of Scripture is understood, and it is clear his ministry here is very socially engaged. On the other hand, the question of angels and demons are more complex than the question of social justice, for metaphysics often transcends empirical facts, while social justice is much more concrete.
In response to your second comment, I would disagree with your characterization of human made instruments of destruction as being, in the last analysis, inconsistent with God’s love. They, being part of God’s creation,must also ultimately serve the purposes of his love, if they have been permitted to exist.
I disagree completely. Nuclear weapons, for example, are “part of God’s creation” because they exist, but they were not created by God. Their creation by humans is “consistent with God’s love” in the sense that, out of love, God allows human beings freedom to create things like nuclear weapons. That does not mean that everything human beings create must also “ultimately serve the purposes of God’s love.”
My point is I don’t think you understand the Church’s teaching on angels if you think that the sole basis for angels is the simplistic argument that “it’s in the Bible”. Besides the Bible, the long-standing history of Church teaching, Tradition, the writings of the Church fathers – they all affirm the fact of the existence of spiritual, non-corporeal beings called angels. I’m trying to suggest that your good advice to the commenter on LT might be also useful for your position on angels.
Michael,
I’m curious when you say:
I have a more social view of the “spiritual world” that is rooted in the material world. I am skeptical of separating the two. The closest thing to “demons and angels” that I would believe in would be the “powers and principalities” understood as spiritual forces embodied both in communities and only therefore in individual persons.
and
But that kind of speculation is very different than insisting that a creature imagined in Hebrew mythology filtered through Christian dualisms and the notion of the hierarchy of being must exist because “it’s in the bible,” as some above are arguing.
Would you see the traditional view of the human soul as being an immortal and entirely spiritual part of the human person as being similarly rooted in mythology and dualism? Particular judgment? The “spiritual” destinations of heaven, hell and purgatory? Resurrection and perfection of the body?
I don’t mean this as a “oh you unbeliever” attack or anything, I guess I’m a little unclear, though, how one reasons these things from first principles once one drops the “its in the bible” or “the Church has traditionally taught this” reasoning. Certainly, there seems no reason why angels must necessarily be. People tend to accept their existence on the testament of Tradition and Scripture.
I’m curious, given that you seem to have gone to an effort to reason these things out independently rather than simply accepting this testimony, how you’d see these other issues regarding the soul and the afterlife as similar or different.
Would you see the traditional view of the human soul as being an immortal and entirely spiritual part of the human person as being similarly rooted in mythology and dualism?
I have a problem with the way you use the word “traditional,” and other aspects of the way you have phrased this question are not the way I would phrase them, but these things aside, no, I would not agree with the view that the soul is a “spiritual part” of the human person. The human person in its entirety is a spiritual being. Not just “part” of it. Heaven, hell and purgatory are not “destinations,” not even in the church’s “traditional” teaching. Such views on the soul, heaven, hell, etc. are not “non-traditional.” I’m not sure how your question about dualism pertains to particular judgment or resurrection. If you could rephrase your question on those points, I’d be happy to try to answer it.
Can God do anything that is not love? This would imply His will would have to be directed towards something other than love, and this would be against His nature. God’s will is always the love of the other. It cannot be otherwise because love is all He has to give. All of creation is an expression of love and all created things subsist in love.
I also think that you should not understand distinctions as necessarily being divisive. Traditional Church Teaching as well as classical philosophy describe the distinction between the soul and the body but they do not divide them. The soul and the body are like two dimensions of the same thing. To use an analogy, the body is like the letters on the page of a book, and the soul is like the words themselves. This is what is meant, I think, by expressions like “the soul is the form of the body”.
But it’s also very clear that God does not need to create anything. All of Creation is a superfluity, an overabundance of God’s love.
Henry I don’t understand why you would attempt to dismiss this debate away as something we can not understand. It’s not esoteric. The existence of angels is a very simple matter if one accepts the authority of the Magisterium, Sacred Scripture, or Tradition. Any and all of these testify to the existence of angels and I am bewildered why a Catholic would doubt them.
I can easily see someone having a hard time believing it, saying something like “man I can’t believe angels are real!” But implicit in this comment is faith’s acceptance of the existence of angels.
Let me see if I can rephrase better — and my apologies for the difficulties here, I’m both having difficulty understanding exactly what you’re saying and also mustering the right terminology to express my question clearly.
If I follow the comments I quoted correct, it seemed to me that you found angels (as traditionally described) unbelievable for two reasons:
1) The accounts of angel’s actions in the Old and New Testaments have a certain mythological sound to them, and you conclude that they could either be illustrating some non-literal point or perhaps describing figuratively or mythologically some other form of communication between God and human beings. (I think it’s relatively accurate to say that angels when they actually appear in scripture do so in almost every case as God’s messangers.)
2) You consider the idea of separate “material” and “spiritual” realms of being as being the product of a sort of dualism (material vs. immaterial) and of the Medieval/Aristotelian understandings of the hierarchy of being.
For these reasons (though possibly others as well) the idea of created, immortal, wholly spiritual/immaterial beings (as angels are traditionally described) seems to you to be un-likely or unreasonable.
Now, if I’m remotely right on all this (and I apologize if I’m not — I’m trying) I was curious what your take was on traditional (meaning common over the centuries) Christian understandings of the soul and afterlife. I’ll try to recapitulate what I mean by that as best I can: While Catholicism holds that the human person is an incarnational being, which is only complete when seen as a united physical body and non-physical (immaterial/spiritual) soul, it is understood that at the time of death the body dies. The soul, being immortal, lives on — though it is incomplete so long as it is un-united with the body — and undergoes the particular judgement, after which it is consigned to either hell or heaven (the latter sometimes by way of a period of purgation refered to as purgatory.) [Trying to be good here and speak in general terms, though my tendency is to think of Dante's Divine Comedy, being one of my all time favorite works of literature and theology, as being very nearly a part of Tradition. Sorry if I'm still coming off as too concrete in my language.]
This traditional Christian understanding of the soul is not out of keeping with pre-Christian understandings of the soul as found in Plato, pagan mythologies, etc., though obviously in the Christian context this is seen within the context of God as creator and judge, and also of eternal union with God as being the ultimate telos of the human soul.
I guess my question is: To the extent that you find the idea of wholly non-material, spiritual, created being such as angels unbelievable — would you also have a different view on the soul (it’s nature or existence) and whether it’s possible to talk about the soul, existing independant of the body and “in” heaven, hell or purgatory prior to the second comming, general judgement, and resurrection of the body?
The soul and the body are like two dimensions of the same thing.
Zach,
And yet the Catechism speaks of the soul separating from the body at death.
Can God do anything that is not love? This would imply His will would have to be directed towards something other than love, and this would be against His nature. God’s will is always the love of the other. It cannot be otherwise because love is all He has to give. All of creation is an expression of love and all created things subsist in love.
I think I basically agree to all of this.
I also think that you should not understand distinctions as necessarily being divisive.
I don’t. Distinctions and dualisms are different things.
Traditional Church Teaching as well as classical philosophy describe the distinction between the soul and the body but they do not divide them.
I think at various points in history the church’s traditional teaching in fact moved into dualisms rather than mere distinctions. This is the only possible way the church could have moved into overly individualistic conceptions of salvation, the idea that salvation merely consists of the soul’s union with God, the idea that men model better the image of God than women, the idea that poor people should just be patient and wait for their reward in heaven rather than seeking justice in this world, the primacy of the “spiritual” over the “material,” the notion that the church is sinless, etc. etc.
I guess my question is: To the extent that you find the idea of wholly non-material, spiritual, created being such as angels unbelievable — would you also have a different view on the soul (it’s nature or existence) and whether it’s possible to talk about the soul, existing independant of the body and “in” heaven, hell or purgatory prior to the second comming, general judgement, and resurrection of the body?
Judging from your own terminology and the concerns that you seem to have, I suppose my view of the soul is “different” if by that you mean simply “contemporary.” I believe in souls of course, but souls are not properly described as things. And since heaven is not a location, and since souls are not “things,” I don’t find talk “ensoulment” or of “souls” being “in” heaven very helpful or imaginative. I don’t feel there is much difference between my view on the soul, heaven, hell, purgatory, judgment, resurrection, or the second coming and the general contemporary understanding of the church on these matters. My view differs greatly from, say, the Baltimore Catechism however.
FWIW, I don’t really have “concerns” in all this, I’m just curious as to what your view of all this is. While the “contemporary” view may seem obvious to you, I’m not entirely sure what you’re referring to or if I’m familiar with it.
Admittedly, I haven’t encountered the Baltimore Catechism since I was in grade school, but working from memory I can’t say I recall it’s discussion of these sorts of issues being all that different from, say, the US Catholic Catechism For Adults (the current USCCB book we use teaching in RCIA classes). What would be the correct place to understand a “contemporary” view of these sorts of issues, or is it possible for you to perhaps go into a little more narrative detail on what it is that you mean?
For instance, while I certainly understand and agree that the soul is not a “thing” (if I described it that way, it was most certainly unintentionally) it seems to me clear that the soul is described as being the person, though clearly the soul is not in itself the whole person by any stretch. Thus, even if someone dies and his body is entirely destroyed — broken down into molecules equally scattered around the world — would it be accurate to say that that person still exists in that that person’s soul exists?
Or, since my feeling about in the dark is perhaps rather wordy and counter-productive, could you perhaps explain just briefly what a contemporary understanding of the soul and the afterlife would be?
I’ll have to take a look at the USCCB Catechism for Adults. The main thing I’ve learned over the years with regard to the “last things” is that we really don’t know as much as we once thought we did. I have come to take the way of humility — some might even say an agnostic view — when it comes to the afterlife. I certainly believe in one, but what it’s like, who knows?
If you check out paragraphs 44-47 of Munificentissimus Deus, you find the most emphatic and categorical statement of a Catholic dogma that I can think of — that the Virgin Mary was bodily assumed into heaven (“was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. . . . our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven”). And we are warned:
Yet if heaven is not a place (and a place which is “up” and therefore one must be “assumed” into), it is difficult to understand how this dogma can be taken literally. And if it is not taken literally, it is basically changed.
Now, if such language as in Munificentissimus Deus were found in, say, a Biblical text, we would say it was a truth expressed in terms of ancient cosmology. But Munificentissimus Deus was written in 1950.
David,
The Dormition/Assumption of Mary tells us that she now partakes of eternity, and now experiences the resurrection of the dead. The question of that state and how we would describe is is not defined in the teaching. Assumed into heaven does not have to mean, as you seem to take it, as a question of locality, as if heaven is to be seen as a place as we think of place.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM might help you a bit
It seems to me that any speculation about the soul “leaving the body” and going to Purgatory and then Heaven until the resurrection of the dead must take into account what we know of sensory deprivation. According to Wikipedia, “Short-term sessions of sensory deprivation are described as relaxing and conducive to meditation, if sometimes boring; however, extended or forced sensory deprivation can result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations, bizarre thoughts, depression and death.”
Michael,
Okay, fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.
David,
I’m not sure one would have to assume that the experience of a soul separated from the body would necessarily be the same as that of the body when denied sensation.
Henry,
To put it bluntly, this is what drives me nuts about interpretations of Catholic teachings!
In essence, you are saying that the “bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven” does not mean that the living (or possibly dead) body of Mary was “taken up” into heaven. It means something we cannot actually conceive. If Pope Pius XII was aware when he defined the dogma that heaven was not a place, and it wasn’t “up,” why didn’t he define the dogma in different terms.
If heaven is not a place, where is the body of Mary? Presumably, although what happened is mysterious, if an excavation in Israel uncovered a grave containing the remains of Mary the mother of Jesus, it would raise very serious questions about this dogma.
1950 wasn’t all that long ago, and Pius XII had a reputation for being brilliant and learned. Why did he define this dogma in terms that virtually everyone (except perhaps theologians) would take to mean Mary’s body was assumed into heaven?
David,
What is dogma is what has always been said –that Mary now partakes of the eternal reward. That is the point of the teaching.
I’m not sure one would have to assume that the experience of a soul separated from the body would necessarily be the same as that of the body when denied sensation.
DarwinCatholic,
No, but one would have to assume that the soul acquired some way of perceiving external reality upon separating from the body that it doesn’t possess while within the body. But isn’t the idea of the soul leaving the body a problem, since we don’t believe that a body has a soul “in it”?
I’m not as well read as I should be in this area, but I find Thomas very useful on the body/soul dynamic. In very short terms, the soul is the form of the body. In this system it is feasible to say that the soul and body are separated at death, but in such a way that the body actually stops being a body and starts being a corpse. A body is only a body in the full sense of the term when it is united to a soul. In this sense, it has (tendentious) parallels with Eucharistic theology. The physical can remain unchanged (bodies and corpses are, at least initially, made of the same stuff), but once the substance has passed, you have something quite different.
David,
I think part of the reason why the Church says that there are bodies in heaven is because of the fact of the Resurrection: we know Christ has a body because he became man; we know the bodily Christ came back to life; we know that this bodily Christ ascended into heaven. But we also know that God is outside of 3-dimensional place and time. So how can the resurrected bodily Christ exist in a heavenly life outside of the 3-dimensional place and time that we are familiar with here on earth? Nobody really knows, but there have been theological attempts to describe what it would be like, with speculation based on the fact that the “resurrected” bodies of Christ, Mary, and the rest of us who get bodies after the last Judgment will have different characteristics than our current bodies (like not needing to eat, not feeling pain, etc.)
That is the point of the teaching.
Henry,
I understand what you are saying, but that is not how the dogma is stated by Pope Pius XII. The plain words of Munificentissimus Deus would mean to any reader that the body of Mary was physically taken “up” into the place we call heaven. Is it the case that in 1950 Pius XII believed that heaven was a place that bodies could be taken up into, and our notion of heaven is now more sophisticated so that we must reinterpret Pius’s statements for our own time?
David,
The problem is people misconstrue the pointer (the words used to explain the dogma) with the dogma itself. The two have always differed. St Hilary for example pointed that out in the Creed of Nicea!
Henry,
Perhaps part of the problem is that a great many Catholics get their religious instruction as young people (ad I did), and they are taught the dogma of the Assumption in such a way they believe that if they had been present at the time, they would have seen Mary’s body floating up to heaven. (And of course in the Gospel, Jesus does indeed ascend into the clouds. Is that historical or not?)
And of course I would imagine that in almost every day to day (or Sunday to Sunday) encounter with dogmas such as the Assumption, it is given in terms of Mary rising bodily into heaven. And souls are kind of like ghosts that God puts in your body at birth and that flies away at death and goes to a place called heaven.
It seems to me there is a huge area of “popular religion” that is made up of the way teachers talk about these things in religion classes, and priests talk about them in Church. It is also made up of Gospel accounts taken literally and harmonized (as in nativity scenes with the manger, the shepherds, the star, and the wise men). This constitutes how most people think of Catholicism most of the time. And then they encounter notions like the words of dogmas only being pointers.
I forgot to mention how much i like the word munificentissimus.
David,
I hesititate to head off in such a wide and wandering direction on an already long thread, but one might argue (say, from a Platonic perspective) that the soul even while it is in the body perceives things in the non material world. For instance, we perceive certain things as “good” or “just” even those goodness and justness are not themselves physical things which our bodies experience. When we experience beauty, that experience is stimulated by our senses, but our senses themselves do not experience “beauty”, rather they experience things that our mind or soul or consciousness or something perceives as “beauty”.
If one believes there to be a “spiritual realm” one might certainly hold that the soul was capable of experiencing these sensations through some sort of direct, non-material stimulus as well as through physical stimulus. Indeed, while it’s certainly not in keeping with the material/impirical emphases of our times, I’m not aware of any reason one couldn’t continue to see the same kind of relation between the material and “spiritual” worlds as Plato envisions in his allegory of the cave.
David I think that’s why death is such a great evil; it tears our very being apart.
Michael,
I know that this debate is old, but I thought about you last night at Benediction because one of the lines of the Divine Praises is “Blessed be God in His angels and His saints.” And I then I thought that many of Catholicism’s official prayers invoke the angels and I wondered how you thought about that. I’m not talking about the Guardian Angel prayer or St. Michael the Archangel prayer, which I recognize are examples of personal prayer or devotion which you can validly disregard, I suppose. Instead, I’m thinking about the fact that, off the top of my head, I can think of 3 instances mentioning angels during the Mass – which the most important prayer, the most central prayer to the life of a Catholic and the life of the whole Church. (Off the top of my head, there is the “I confess…”, right before the “Holy, Holy”, and during the Eucharistic prayer, and there may be more.) Obviously, as a Catholic you participate in the prayer that is the Mass. What do you think when you participate in that most solemn and official prayer of the Catholic Church, and the prayer expresses the existence of angels? How do you reconcile this with your current disbelief in the existence of angels? I’m asking, because I’m honestly curious, and I don’t mean to be offensive.
I know that you believe the doctrine of angels is a very minor and unimportant teaching of the Church (unlike the communion of saints, or the Incarnation, etc.), but these thoughts made me think that perhaps angels have a more important and more central role in the life of the Church than you think. At any rate, I encourage you take a second look at the importance of angels in the life of the Catholic Church.
Since today is the solemnity of the Annunciation, I think it would be appropriate if everyone would take a minute and reflect on the significance of that event.
St. Luke begins his gospel by telling us that he will present the truth about Jesus based on eyewitness accounts. Unfortunately, many skeptical postmodern theologians do not believe in angels, the incarnation, or the virgin birth. To them the whole story is a bit of Christian mythology which can be explained in purely natural terms since supernatural miracles simply cannot happen. Who should we believe?
Scholars are right to remind people to read the Bible with a proper critical sense; because, there are stories in the Bible that were intended to make a point rather than be a record of actual historical events. However, the general dismissal of all miracles as fictional stories is itself the result of an unjustified belief in scientific naturalism.
If God exists, then miracles are possible. God does not work miracles randomly or simply to amaze people, but sometimes God must intervene in order to accomplish his plan for creation. For the Incarnation to occur, God had to first tell Mary what was going to happen and seek her consent. To have simply have imposed upon Mary without any explanation would have been an act of violence and disorder inconsistent with the character of any moral being let alone God.
My conclusion is that if Christianity is true at all, then the Annunciation is an essential part of that truth. One need not be naïve or a fundamentalist in order to believe that the Annunciation was an actual historical event. One only has to believe that Jesus truly is the Son of God.