Questo articolo è disponibile anche in: Italian English

Question

Dearest Father Angelo,

Thank you for the invaluable help that you give us all with this column.

Recently one of my professors has supported some theses on soul and body that have made me put myself some questions. I therefore ask you to tell me whether they are according to the Christian doctrine or not, and possibly to correct them in a well-supported way to be able to do so too in the future.

1) The soul does not exist in the Old and in the New Testament tradition.  

2) In Genesis 2 God does not ensoul men as people think.

3) By soul, in his opinion, we only mean a Platonic conception, taken up by Augustine, of an uncontaminated essence of God present in every man until death, which then returns to God still preserving its purity.  Believing that only this part, which stays uncontaminated in us, is saved would be unsustainable with the biblical Christian vision of the human person. Otherwise the historical conception that Christianity has of the resurrection of bodies would be altered.

4) The Church does not believe in the immortality of the soul but only in the resurrection of bodies.

5) The body should not be understood in a material sense (saying that according to this wrong conception it was believed that bodies could not be cremated) but as a dramatization of the human event throughout history with the person who grows during the evolution of his human life and who reaches God through a maturation that begins with birth and ends with death. This vision therefore cannot be reconciled with the immortality of the soul.

6) The translations that render the Greek psychè into soul are wrong, instead it must be translated with psyche or at most with life to help simplify.

7) The Book of Wisdom is not influenced by Hellenism and does not mention the beginning of the idea of the immortality of the soul in the Jewish world, which will then develop with the idea of resurrection being supplanted. In fact, the original Greek speaks of psychè which therefore has the above mentioned meaning.

8) Furthermore I also ask if a similar exegesis is acceptable: the recurring expression in the Gospels “there will be wailing and grinding of teeth” is part of the apocalyptic literary genre and therefore does not in any way indicate hell. And in general, all references to hell and the devil should not be read literally, because they must be contextualized in parables or in the apocalyptic literary genre.

9) The reading of Genesis 3 to introduce the concept of original sin is Augustinian and is influenced by his apocalyptic readings (which negatively see the deed as irrecoverable and therefore invoke and indicate with symbols the next coming of God’s justice). The Church until then and the Jewish tradition did not see in this chapter a reference to the original sin.

Now, I am no expert in dogmatics but a quick reading of the CCC makes me realize that something in this explanation is wrong…

Could you confirm or refute these concepts in an organic and systematic way?

I thank you and pray for you and your brothers.

May God bless and always protect you.

Answer from the priest

Dearest,

the professor you are talking about, whose discipline you do not mention, has made some mistakes.

In brief, I will try to answer all your questions by rewriting his statements in italics to which I reply in normal font:

1) The soul does not exist in the Old and in the New Testament tradition.  

Well, in the Old Testament is written: “But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them. They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their passing away was thought an affliction and their going forth from us, utter destruction. But they are in peace.” (Wis 3:2-3).

In the New Testament: “May the God of peace himself make you perfectly holy and may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thess 5:23)

2) In Genesis 2 God does not ensoul men as people think.

Gen 2 regards the creation of Eve. I am aware that there is no mention of ensoulment, but has God given Eve to Adam dead or alive?

Now, what distinguishes a living body from a dead body if not the presence of the vital principle, which is what is commonly called soul?

As I have said on other occasions, plants and animals also have souls.

But in plants the souls are only vegetative and in animals (which are called so since the noun animal, based on Latin animalis that means ‘having breath, soul’, comes from anima ‘breath, soul’) they are sensory, while in humans they are rational.

3) By soul, in his opinion, we only mean a Platonic conception, taken up by Augustine, of an uncontaminated essence of God present in every man until death, which then returns to God still preserving its purity. Believing that only this part, which stays uncontaminated in us, is saved would be unsustainable with the biblical Christian vision of the human person. Otherwise, the historical conception that Christianity has of the resurrection of bodies would be altered.

This is bewildering. Nothing similar ever appears in the Holy Scripture.

Especially since souls do not necessarily return to God in their purity because their ending can be the eternal damnation.

Furthermore, even the bodies resurrect, following their soul’s destiny, which is not always that of salvation. Jesus said: “Do not be amazed at this, because the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.” (Jn 5:28-29).

 4) The Church does not believe in the immortality of the soul but only in the resurrection of bodies.

Jesus says: “To you my friends, I say: do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more. I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna” (Lk 12:4-5).

And again: “’I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”(Mt 22:32).

As Jesus spoke these words the bodies of the patriarchs were there, dead, he therefore was talking about their soul which was alive, that is why he called them alive.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31) it is clear that the body died, while their souls had another destiny (Abraham’s bosom and the underworld).

The fact that the Church believes in the immortality of the soul is then supported by the cult for the deceased and by the veneration for the Saints, who are alive.

Furthermore, the Fifth Council of the Lateran said: “We condemn and reject all those who insist that the intellectual soul is mortal” (DS 1440).

5) The body should not be understood in a material sense (saying that according to this wrong conception it was believed that bodies could not be cremated) but as a dramatization of the human event throughout history with the person growing during the evolution of his human life and who reaches God through a maturation that begins with birth and ends with death. This vision therefore cannot be reconciled with the immortality of the soul.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the distinction between soul and body is clearly assumed, since the former ended up in hell, while his body had the funeral.

6) The translations that make the Greek psychè into soul are wrong, instead it must be translated with psyche or at most with life to help simplify.

But it is Saint Paul who speaks of psychè (1 Thess 5:23).

It is therefore the language of the Scripture.

7) The Book of Wisdom is not influenced by Hellenism and does not mention the beginning of the idea of the immortality of the soul in the Jewish world, which will then develop with the idea of resurrection being supplanted. In fact, the original Greek speaks of psychè which therefore has the above mentioned meaning.

It does not matter whether it is influenced by Hellenism or not.

It is about the soul that is separated from the body.

8) Furthermore, I also ask if a similar exegesis is acceptable: the recurring expression in the Gospels “there will be wailing and grinding of teeth” is part of the apocalyptic literary genre and therefore does not in any way show hell. And in general, all references to hell and the devil should not be read literally, because they must be contextualized in parables or in the apocalyptic literature.

The Jerusalem Bible, which, for biblical competence, is certainly the most reliable, about wailing and grinding of teeth notes: “Biblical image of the wrath and spite of the wicked towards the just (cf. Ps 35:16, 37:12, 112:10, Job 16:9).

In Matthew it describes damnation”.

 9) The reading of Genesis 3 to introduce the concept of original sin is Augustinian and is influenced by its apocalyptic readings (which negatively see the deed as irrecoverable and therefore invoke and indicate with symbols the next coming of God’s justice). The Church until then and the Jewish tradition did not see in this chapter a reference to the original sin.

Except that God, and not St. Augustine, says: “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned”(Rom 5:12).

Equally: “just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.”(Rom 5:18-19).

Thank you very much for your prayers for me and for my brothers.

I gladly reciprocate and bless you.

Father Angelo