Why do modern “philosophers” no longer know what man is? Why do they ignore or even deny the existence of Human Nature?

I’m rereading Saint Gregory’s Moralia… How well Pope Gregory knows the nature of man (much less modern psychology).

Priest’s answer

Dear friend,

1. Not only “philosophers” but also within the Church, some—who present themselves as theologians or biblical scholars—say that there is a new anthropology.

Just recently, someone, speaking about homosexuality, wrote that the biblical texts are very clear, concluding, however, that today there is a new anthropology.

2. It obviously cannot be said that what the Church has always thought about man and his ontological constitution is outdated.

The Magisterium of the Church is, in fact, guaranteed from on high.

The Second Vatican Council reiterated that man is a unity of soul and body (Gaudium et Spes, 14).

3. This constitution of man is evident.

St. Thomas, but there’s no need to bother St. Thomas, says that it’s evident and indubitable that man is constituted by a body.

The same thing must also be said for the soul, keeping in mind that by soul we mean that which gives life.

He writes: “The knowledge concerning the soul is most certain in the sense that everyone experiences within himself that he has a soul and that the soul’s acts are internal to him; however, knowing what the soul is is extremely difficult. Hence Aristotle adds that it is extremely difficult to acquire any certainty regarding it” (De Veritate, X, 8, ad 8). T-N

4. Among other things, the Council of Vienne, in Provence, dogmatically established that the soul is the form of the body, that is, that the soul is that which gives life to the body.

According to Church doctrine, the body is an essential element of the person, so much so that when the body dies, the person also dies. For this reason, we do not speak of the persons of the deceased, but of the souls of the deceased.

5. If the body is an essential element of the person, then even within the body we can discern some indications of the natural moral law through the intrinsic objectives of its functional faculties.

For it is undeniable that the senses have their precise objectives.

And it is by taking these intrinsic objectives into account that we understand God’s plan for human actions.

6. When the function of the body and its functional faculties are not given due consideration, each person ends up creating their own moral law. And thus, whatever each person decides is declared good and sanctifying.

Unbeknownst to one, a dramatic operation is performed: the path to heaven is no longer Jesus with his holy law, but what determines one’s own self, even with one’s own wickedness, declared permissible because it would harm no one. But can such wickedness be proposed as a holy path, to be followed by all?

7. Jesus said that each person speaks from the abundance of his or her own heart (cf. Mt 12:34).

It is inevitable that when we abandon God in the name of a new anthropology, which according to some scholars is currently being developed, we end up justifying everything except not killing (except in the case of abortion) and not stealing.

How much more beautiful it is, instead, to remain faithful to what God suggests we say: “I will ponder your precepts and consider your paths. In your statutes I take delight; I will never forget your word” (Ps 119:15-16).

And then: “Open my eyes to see clearly the wonders of your law” (Ps 119:18).

He does not suggest saying: “I will meditate on my precepts, I will consider my ways… I will consider the wondrous things from my law.”

Thank you for leading me to highlight some innocuous and seemingly authoritative misconceptions, even in Catholic magazines and from priests.

I bless you and remember you in prayer,

Father Angelo

Questo articolo è disponibile anche in: Italian