One must recall the details of natural law in order to understand the deviations now common in print.
Without this understanding, a Catholic can only say, "Because the Church teaches such and such is immoral...", a rather immature response both for convincing the skeptic and for evangelization.
But, most importantly, the confusion surrounding modern churchmen's interpretations of natural law affect the views at the Synod.
Therefore, in this last mini-series of this blog, I shall review the main tenets of natural law philosophy and point out the dangerous, misleading concepts flowing about the Catholic world, and among Synod members.
This introduction includes some of the reasons why natural law philosophy has fallen by the wayside, not only ignored by some Catholic universities, but taught against as outdated, when this philosophy underpins the morality of the Catholic Church's teaching.
Natural law philosophy must be seen like an entire web of connected strings or dots, binding together moral decision making processes, the formation of character, the interpretation of moral issues, and even the teachings on purgatory and purgation.
A few re-posts to begin with today and tomorrow:
Sunday, 2 September 2012
To build a society where God does not exist...musings on politics and reason
After discussing the GOP convention with some Europeans, I realized that many people here have fallen into two errors. The first is a great cynicism towards all forms of governance, which is dangerous. The second error is that Catholicism cannot deal with the complex questions of politics. But, we must and shall. One of our strengths is natural law philosophy.
The lack of natural law philosophy and the relativism of ethics, as well as the emphasis on individualism have created many nations which are now created to exist as if God is not real.
This did not happen overnight. And, as I read Gramsci, who recognized that the only group which realized what was happening were the Popes from 1848 on, I realize that most people in both the East and the West now truly believe that a nation, governments can exist outside of natural law or a recognition of the existence of God.
The Church under Blessed John Paul II moved away from Thomistic Philosophy which emphasized the relationship between God and the State to a philosophy based on relationships. The only problem with this switch is that we must still realize that the power of the people is limited even in relationship. Relationship among people is not infallible.
People, leaders, governments cannot determine law. If law is determined only by people, it remains grounded on relativism and subjectivism.
Tyrannies thrive on relationships of small cabals who decide what law is or is not.
If a small group has power, this power can determine anything. This has been the movement of law in Europe and in America.
That Cardinal Dolan and Congressmen Ryan AND Governor Romney referred to natural law is significant.
The law which is written on the hearts of men and women because we are human is called natural law and this must be recognized not as an old-fashioned concept but a sacred realization of our being.
Relativism and individualism ignore God or any absolutes. Many conversations regarding politics no longer include any idea of absolutes.
I am unabashedly a Thomist. I do believe we can apply the basic ideas of Aquinas and Augustine to modern politics and the relationship to the polis, the city, the State.
If a political party or government denies natural law, we have chaos or totalitarianism.
I am all for States' Rights. I am for small government. I think that the family, the local community, the polis should deal with most of the problems of governance. I am against large government as it takes away from subsidiarity and personal responsibility. To be continued...
Think, pray, act. Read Thomas Aquinas. Read Pope Benedict XVI.
The lack of natural law philosophy and the relativism of ethics, as well as the emphasis on individualism have created many nations which are now created to exist as if God is not real.
This did not happen overnight. And, as I read Gramsci, who recognized that the only group which realized what was happening were the Popes from 1848 on, I realize that most people in both the East and the West now truly believe that a nation, governments can exist outside of natural law or a recognition of the existence of God.
The Church under Blessed John Paul II moved away from Thomistic Philosophy which emphasized the relationship between God and the State to a philosophy based on relationships. The only problem with this switch is that we must still realize that the power of the people is limited even in relationship. Relationship among people is not infallible.
People, leaders, governments cannot determine law. If law is determined only by people, it remains grounded on relativism and subjectivism.
Tyrannies thrive on relationships of small cabals who decide what law is or is not.
If a small group has power, this power can determine anything. This has been the movement of law in Europe and in America.
That Cardinal Dolan and Congressmen Ryan AND Governor Romney referred to natural law is significant.
The law which is written on the hearts of men and women because we are human is called natural law and this must be recognized not as an old-fashioned concept but a sacred realization of our being.
Relativism and individualism ignore God or any absolutes. Many conversations regarding politics no longer include any idea of absolutes.
I am unabashedly a Thomist. I do believe we can apply the basic ideas of Aquinas and Augustine to modern politics and the relationship to the polis, the city, the State.
If a political party or government denies natural law, we have chaos or totalitarianism.
I am all for States' Rights. I am for small government. I think that the family, the local community, the polis should deal with most of the problems of governance. I am against large government as it takes away from subsidiarity and personal responsibility. To be continued...
Think, pray, act. Read Thomas Aquinas. Read Pope Benedict XVI.
Monday, 5 May 2014
On Evil, Humans And Our Decisions
Recently, I came across the author Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits and was stunned by one phrase of his. I have been reflecting much lately on the nature of evil in the world as part of my thinking of the Goodness of God.
Berkovits noted one thing about the Holocaust which opens the door to our thoughts on evil in the world.
He wrote that we should not be asking "Where was God in the Holocaust?" but, "Where was man?"
To be truly human is to respond to the natural law which is in every human being ever created.
Natural law is the same as the Ten Commandments, that law given to us by God because we are made in His image and likeness.
That millions of people disregard natural law and become sub-human as a result of evil choices forms an anxiety for many Catholics.
Nature and nurture determine evil in a person, but in today's world of psychology and worse, pop-psychology, nurture seems to trump nature in many people's mind.
Education, good housing, and food do not make saints. In fact, many comfortable, wealthy people with loving families do not become saints and many people who are impoverished in so many ways do so.
The two most prevalent heresies are universalism, which holds that all people go to heaven, and Pelagianism, which holds that people get to heaven without grace.
Sadly, too many Catholics cannot see that the divide between those who believe and those who do not believe is growing.
Where is man? Where are the humans who respond to natural law? We need to stop making excuses for those who pass up grace and God, creating strong friendships in the Lord, so that we are not swept away by the waves of trials to come.
Prudence and wisdom dictate that Catholics join together to help each other stay strong. The early Church community was built on friendship, based on common beliefs and goals.
Without this, the Church is weak.
Berkovits noted one thing about the Holocaust which opens the door to our thoughts on evil in the world.
He wrote that we should not be asking "Where was God in the Holocaust?" but, "Where was man?"
To be truly human is to respond to the natural law which is in every human being ever created.
Natural law is the same as the Ten Commandments, that law given to us by God because we are made in His image and likeness.
That millions of people disregard natural law and become sub-human as a result of evil choices forms an anxiety for many Catholics.
Nature and nurture determine evil in a person, but in today's world of psychology and worse, pop-psychology, nurture seems to trump nature in many people's mind.
Education, good housing, and food do not make saints. In fact, many comfortable, wealthy people with loving families do not become saints and many people who are impoverished in so many ways do so.
The two most prevalent heresies are universalism, which holds that all people go to heaven, and Pelagianism, which holds that people get to heaven without grace.
Sadly, too many Catholics cannot see that the divide between those who believe and those who do not believe is growing.
Where is man? Where are the humans who respond to natural law? We need to stop making excuses for those who pass up grace and God, creating strong friendships in the Lord, so that we are not swept away by the waves of trials to come.
Prudence and wisdom dictate that Catholics join together to help each other stay strong. The early Church community was built on friendship, based on common beliefs and goals.
Without this, the Church is weak.
http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-bit-on-natural-law-one.html
Friday, 12 September 2014
On Natural Law And The Predominant Fault
Let me backtrack a bit. Here is Garrigou-Lagrange's definition of the predominant fault.
The predominant fault is the defect in us that tends to prevail over the others, and thereby over our manner of feeling, judging, sympathizing, willing, and acting. It is a defect that has in each of us an intimate relation to our individual temperament.(1) There are temperaments inclined to effeminacy, indolence, sloth, gluttony, and sensuality. Others are inclined especially to anger and pride. We do not all climb the same slope toward the summit of perfection: those who are effeminate by temperament must by prayer, grace, and virtue become strong; and those who are naturally strong, to the point of easily becoming severe, must, by working at themselves and by grace, become gentle.
Before this progressive transformation of our temperament, the predominant defect in the soul often makes itself felt. It is our domestic enemy, dwelling in our interior; for, if it develops, it may succeed in completely ruining the work of grace or the interior life. At times it is like a crack in a wall that seems to be solid but is not so; like a crevice, imperceptible at times but deep, in the beautiful facade of a building, which a vigorous jolt may shake to the foundations. For example, an antipathy, an instinctive aversion to someone, may, if it is not watched over and corrected by right reason, the spirit of faith, and charity, produce disasters in the soul and lead it to grave injustice. By yielding to such an antipathy, it does itself far more harm than it does its neighbor, for it is much more harmful to commit injustice than to be the object of it.
Now Fr. Ripperger does write about the four temperaments. He writes that "Temperament is principally hereditary or natural endowment insofar as we inherit our bodily dispositions from our parents, although environmental factors can also affect disposition or temperament."
So, as Ripperger notes, one's temperament leads one to certain, different vices and virtues. But, a temperament is changeable, and the more holy one becomes, one may find that one changes in temperament.
But, usually, each person has a predominant temperament lending itself to a predominant fault. So, if a person is of a phlegmatic temperament, one has good and bad aspects. Here is Father Aumann quoted by Ripperger.
"The good characteristics of the phlegmatic persons are that they work slowly but assiduously; they are not easily insulted by insults, misfortunes or sickness they usually remain tranquil, discreet, sober; they have a great deal of common sense and mental balance."
Of course, the downside of these patient, hardworking and amiable people is that they "tend to be inclined toward ease and comfort and they tend to be unambitious, procrastinators and disinterested. The predominant faults of phlegmatics are dullness and sloth, " writes Ripperger.
Now, the one thing which temperaments and predominant faults have in common with natural law is that all are "natural". But, is there a connection?
In so far as natural law is given by God to all persons by the fact that they are human, so too, temperaments can be from nature. But, dispositions to both virtue and the predominant faults are proper to the person himself and not to a group, a race or all humans. Herein is a major difference between natural law, which is the same for a persons and temperament, along with the predominant faults, which are unique to a person.
Humans develop their personalities according to their temperaments, and sadly, until purgation, according to the predominant faults.
But, natural law is common to all personalities, underlining the fact that we are all human. The only connection would be that if one is going against natural law by sinning, one is being influenced by the predominant faults in one's person. But, natural law is not affected per se. It is universal, as the Ten Commandments are universal. However, one's predominant faults may turn one against natural law, against revealed law, against grace.
As noted in the perfection series, one must attack one's predominant fault and allow God to purge it from one's temperament, one's personality. Only then can one follow natural law and supernatural law freely.
I hope this answers my friend's question on this subject.
So, as Ripperger notes, one's temperament leads one to certain, different vices and virtues. But, a temperament is changeable, and the more holy one becomes, one may find that one changes in temperament.
But, usually, each person has a predominant temperament lending itself to a predominant fault. So, if a person is of a phlegmatic temperament, one has good and bad aspects. Here is Father Aumann quoted by Ripperger.
"The good characteristics of the phlegmatic persons are that they work slowly but assiduously; they are not easily insulted by insults, misfortunes or sickness they usually remain tranquil, discreet, sober; they have a great deal of common sense and mental balance."
Of course, the downside of these patient, hardworking and amiable people is that they "tend to be inclined toward ease and comfort and they tend to be unambitious, procrastinators and disinterested. The predominant faults of phlegmatics are dullness and sloth, " writes Ripperger.
Now, the one thing which temperaments and predominant faults have in common with natural law is that all are "natural". But, is there a connection?
In so far as natural law is given by God to all persons by the fact that they are human, so too, temperaments can be from nature. But, dispositions to both virtue and the predominant faults are proper to the person himself and not to a group, a race or all humans. Herein is a major difference between natural law, which is the same for a persons and temperament, along with the predominant faults, which are unique to a person.
Humans develop their personalities according to their temperaments, and sadly, until purgation, according to the predominant faults.
But, natural law is common to all personalities, underlining the fact that we are all human. The only connection would be that if one is going against natural law by sinning, one is being influenced by the predominant faults in one's person. But, natural law is not affected per se. It is universal, as the Ten Commandments are universal. However, one's predominant faults may turn one against natural law, against revealed law, against grace.
As noted in the perfection series, one must attack one's predominant fault and allow God to purge it from one's temperament, one's personality. Only then can one follow natural law and supernatural law freely.
I hope this answers my friend's question on this subject.
Friday, 12 September 2014
Aquinas on The Abolition of Natural Law Part One
Some people have met others who act as though they have no natural law in their hearts, and who act contrary to reason. Let me start with Aquinas again.
Objection 2. Further, the law of grace is more efficacious than the law of nature. But the law of grace is blotted out by sin. Much more therefore can the law of nature be blotted out.
Objection 3. Further, that which is established by law is made just. But many things are enacted by men, which are contrary to the law of nature. Therefore the law of nature can be abolished from the heart of man.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. ii): "Thy law is written in the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." But the law which is written in men's hearts is the natural law. Therefore the natural law cannot be blotted out.
I answer that, As stated above (4,5), there belong to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men's hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, in so far as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as stated above (Question 77, Article 2). But as to the other, i.e. the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle states (Romans 1), were not esteemed sinful.
Reply to Objection 1. Sin blots out the law of nature in particular cases, not universally, except perchance in regard to the secondary precepts of the natural law, in the way stated above.
Reply to Objection 2. Although grace is more efficacious than nature, yet nature is more essential to man, and therefore more enduring.
Reply to Objection 3. This argument is true of the secondary precepts of the natural law, against which some legislators have framed certain enactments which are unjust.
Therefore, we see that natural law cannot be abolished in men unless a person sins. In this case, natural law is blocked, blotted out, by the consistent choosing of evil.
These sections from Aquinas as from
Next, I shall return to Father Chad Ripperger on the nature of insanity...
Article 6. Whether the law of nature can be abolished from the heart of man?
Objection 1. It would seem that the natural law can be abolished from the heart of man. Because on Romans 2:14, "When the Gentiles who have not the law," etc. a gloss says that "the law of righteousness, which sin had blotted out, is graven on the heart of man when he is restored by grace." But the law of righteousness is the law of nature. Therefore the law of nature can be blotted out.Objection 2. Further, the law of grace is more efficacious than the law of nature. But the law of grace is blotted out by sin. Much more therefore can the law of nature be blotted out.
Objection 3. Further, that which is established by law is made just. But many things are enacted by men, which are contrary to the law of nature. Therefore the law of nature can be abolished from the heart of man.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. ii): "Thy law is written in the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." But the law which is written in men's hearts is the natural law. Therefore the natural law cannot be blotted out.
I answer that, As stated above (4,5), there belong to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men's hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, in so far as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as stated above (Question 77, Article 2). But as to the other, i.e. the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle states (Romans 1), were not esteemed sinful.
Reply to Objection 1. Sin blots out the law of nature in particular cases, not universally, except perchance in regard to the secondary precepts of the natural law, in the way stated above.
Reply to Objection 2. Although grace is more efficacious than nature, yet nature is more essential to man, and therefore more enduring.
Reply to Objection 3. This argument is true of the secondary precepts of the natural law, against which some legislators have framed certain enactments which are unjust.
Therefore, we see that natural law cannot be abolished in men unless a person sins. In this case, natural law is blocked, blotted out, by the consistent choosing of evil.
These sections from Aquinas as from
Next, I shall return to Father Chad Ripperger on the nature of insanity...
Friday, 12 September 2014
Aquinas on The Abolition of Natural Law Two
.jpg)
Now, I want to move into Fr. Chad Ripperger's book which I have been reading and sharing bits on for this post. Fr. Ripperger's use of Aquinas is beyond the scope of this blog, but I want to write two posts connected to Aquinas and the abolition of natural law, directing attention to insanity as a result of sin, and finishing up with a post on the natural law and one's predominant fault.
"We can say that every vice has the ability to take one out of contract with reality. Every vice, therefore, is accompanied by a concomitant defect in the cognitative power. It appears that when the vice wanes, so does the habituation of the cognitative power. Hence, with each vice in the sensitive appetites, there is a concomitant per accidens mental illness in the passive intellect. But, that does not mean that the person has a concomitant per se mental illness since judgment and volition, if not completely compromised, are able to overrule the operations of the cogitative power and reformulate the image properly."
In other words, repeated sin denies natural law in the person and if one goes against nature over and over, one can lose the sense of reality.
Regarding a mentally ill person, Ripperger notes that, "The more he overcomes the vice, the more the bad habits of the cogitative power will be corrupted and the more he will see reality clearly."
One can see this in those who are narcissists. These people have chosen over and over to put themselves at the center of their worlds, a mindset which is completely out of touch with reality. No human being can be the selfish center of an ego-centric world and be sane, as that is not natural to man, who is made to love and serve God.
I do not want to get into the discussion of the unconscious and consciousness of human being, but Ripperger does, referring to Aquinas regarding actions done by men without the attention of the intellect. Unconscious acts do exist in the Thomistic perspective, states Ripperger, but not in the same way Freud and others define or describe these.
Grace can also give unconscious inclinations and activities. But, for the person who refuses to think, reflect upon and use grace, and consistently choose evil, reality begins to slip away, as the person's end, the person's being are being violated by sin.
The faculties of the soul as defined in Aquinas help one understand human actions on the subconscious and conscious levels more than modern psychology, which denies the soul.
Natural law, therefore, can be abolished by habits which are repeated choices of evil. As a person goes against himself, he becomes warped in his sense of reality. Indeed, gross sin causes insanity.
Without grace, anyone can fall into repeated sin, and with grace one can break the habits of sin. Suffering brings sin to the fore and allows a person time and reasons for examination of lifestyles.
Sadly, we now live in a world where sin is so prevalent that insanity reigns.
to be continued....
Friday, 12 September 2014
Back to Aquinas and Natural Law
Passion or evil habits or an evil disposition,(see next posts on temperaments and predominant faults), can corrupt or block natural law.
Consequently we must say that the natural law, as to general principles, is the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge. But as to certain matters of detail, which are conclusions, as it were, of those general principles, it is the same for all in the majority of cases, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge; and yet in some few cases it may fail, both as to rectitude, by reason of certain obstacles (just as natures subject to generation and corruption fail in some few cases on account of some obstacle), and as to knowledge, since in some the reason is perverted by passion, or evil habit, or an evil disposition of nature; thus formerly, theft, although it is expressly contrary to the natural law, was not considered wrong among the Germans, as Julius Caesar relates (De Bello Gall. vi).
Reply to Objection 1. The meaning of the sentence quoted is not that whatever is contained in the Law and the Gospel belongs to the natural law, since they contain many things that are above nature; but that whatever belongs to the natural law is fully contained in them. Wherefore Gratian, after saying that "the natural law is what is contained in the Law and the Gospel," adds at once, by way of example, "by which everyone is commanded to do to others as he would be done by."
Reply to Objection 2. The saying of the Philosopher is to be understood of things that are naturally just, not as general principles, but as conclusions drawn from them, having rectitude in the majority of cases, but failing in a few.
Reply to Objection 3. As, in man, reason rules and commands the other powers, so all the natural inclinations belonging to the other powers must needs be directed according to reason. Wherefore it is universally right for all men, that all their inclinations should be directed according to reason.
To summarize so far: all men by the fact that they are human have natural law as part of their being.
All men are given reason, the rational ability to be human, to chose God and to chose grace.
No one is not given grace.
All inclinations come from reason. If reason is following its true end, that is God, men will choose God
Supernatural law, such as the Beatitudes, is based on natural law and informed by grace.
The Church dispenses grace through the sacraments.
But, what if one meets people who not only deny natural law, or do not think of it, but are living against reason?
to be continued...
Friday, 12 September 2014
Aquinas on Natural Law Again
I have written on Aquinas and natural law and put the links here, but as there are 203 posts relating to Thomas Aquinas, you may want to use the tags.
http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/01/faith-and-reason-continued.html
http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-disappearance-of-catholic.html
But, let me go back to the idea of "synderesis" highlighted both by Garrigou-Lagrange, which I noted in the long perfection series, and in the talks of Fr. Chad Ripperger.
St. Thomas Aquinas notes this:
"Synderesis" is said to be the law of our mind, because it is a habit containing the precepts of the natural law, which are the first principles of human actions.
In the same section, Aquinas tells us that as man is a rational animal, reason is natural and an inclination. In other words, reason inclines men to do good and avoid evil.
Reason is divided into speculative and practical reason. This divisions are known to all men by the fact that they are human.
I shall refer to another post from quite a while ago in a bit, but here is Aquinas on those two divisions of reason.
For, since the speculative reason is busied chiefly with the necessary things, which cannot be otherwise than they are, its proper conclusions, like the universal principles, contain the truth without fail. The practical reason, on the other hand, is busied with contingent matters, about which human actions are concerned: and consequently, although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects. Accordingly then in speculative matters truth is the same in all men, both as to principles and as to conclusions: although the truth is not known to all as regards the conclusions, but only as regards the principles which are called common notions. But in matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles: and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all. It is therefore evident that, as regards the general principles whether of speculative or of practical reason, truth or rectitude is the same for all, and is equally known by all.
Here is an older post on this topic--to be continued...
http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/01/faith-and-reason-continued.html
http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-disappearance-of-catholic.html
But, let me go back to the idea of "synderesis" highlighted both by Garrigou-Lagrange, which I noted in the long perfection series, and in the talks of Fr. Chad Ripperger.
St. Thomas Aquinas notes this:
"Synderesis" is said to be the law of our mind, because it is a habit containing the precepts of the natural law, which are the first principles of human actions.
In the same section, Aquinas tells us that as man is a rational animal, reason is natural and an inclination. In other words, reason inclines men to do good and avoid evil.
Reason is divided into speculative and practical reason. This divisions are known to all men by the fact that they are human.
I shall refer to another post from quite a while ago in a bit, but here is Aquinas on those two divisions of reason.
For, since the speculative reason is busied chiefly with the necessary things, which cannot be otherwise than they are, its proper conclusions, like the universal principles, contain the truth without fail. The practical reason, on the other hand, is busied with contingent matters, about which human actions are concerned: and consequently, although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects. Accordingly then in speculative matters truth is the same in all men, both as to principles and as to conclusions: although the truth is not known to all as regards the conclusions, but only as regards the principles which are called common notions. But in matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles: and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all. It is therefore evident that, as regards the general principles whether of speculative or of practical reason, truth or rectitude is the same for all, and is equally known by all.
Here is an older post on this topic--to be continued...
Saturday, 22 September 2012
Rectitude of the Will in Thomas Aquinas-One
The entire reason why we are here is to come to know, love and serve God in this world and to praise Him in the next.
That is right out of my childhood catechism.
We need to seek God. If our will is fixed on knowing, loving and serving God, then we are approaching Rectitude of the Will.
Purification leads to Rectitude of the Will. And Rectitude of the Will leads to holiness...............
.jpg)
Part II.1, Question 3, Article 8: Whether man's happiness consists in the vision of the divine essence?
Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness does not consist in the vision of the Divine Essence. For Dionysius says (Myst. Theol. i) that by that which is highest in his intellect, man is united to God as to something altogether unknown. But that which is seen in its essence is not altogether unknown. Therefore the final perfection of the intellect, namely, happiness, does not consist in God being seen in His Essence.
Objection 2: Further, the higher the perfection belongs to the higher nature. But to see His own Essence is the perfection proper to the Divine intellect. Therefore the final perfection of the human intellect does not reach to this, but consists in something less.
On the contrary: It is written (1 Jn. 3:2): "When He shall appear, we shall be like to Him; and we shall see Him as He is."
I answer that: Final and perfect happiness can consist in nothing else than the vision of the Divine Essence. To make this clear, two points must be observed. First, that man is not perfectly happy, so long as something remains for him to desire and seek: secondly, that the perfection of any power is determined by the nature of its object. Now the object of the intellect is "what a thing is," i.e. the essence of a thing, according to De Anima iii, 6. Wherefore the intellect attains perfection, in so far as it knows the essence of a thing. If therefore an intellect knows the essence of some effect, whereby it is not possible to know the essence of the cause, i.e. to know of the cause "what it is"; that intellect cannot be said to reach that cause simply, although it may be able to gather from the effect the knowledge of that the cause is. Consequently, when man knows an effect, and knows that it has a cause, there naturally remains in the man the desire to know about the cause, "what it is." And this desire is one of wonder, and causes inquiry, as is stated in the beginning of the Metaphysics (i, 2). For instance, if a man, knowing the eclipse of the sun, consider that it must be due to some cause, and know not what that cause is, he wonders about it, and from wondering proceeds to inquire. Nor does this inquiry cease until he arrive at a knowledge of the essence of the cause.
If therefore the human intellect, knowing the essence of some created effect, knows no more of God than "that He is"; the perfection of that intellect does not yet reach simply the First Cause, but there remains in it the natural desire to seek the cause. Wherefore it is not yet perfectly happy. Consequently, for perfect happiness the intellect needs to reach the very Essence of the First Cause. And thus it will have its perfection through union with God as with that object, in which alone man's happiness consists, as stated above (Articles [1],7; Question [2], Article [8]).
Reply to Objection 1: Dionysius speaks of the knowledge of wayfarers journeying towards happiness.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [1], Article [8]), the end has a twofold acceptation. First, as to the thing itself which is desired: and in this way, the same thing is the end of the higher and of the lower nature, and indeed of all things, as stated above (Question [1], Article [8]). Secondly, as to the attainment of this thing; and thus the end of the higher nature is different from that of the lower, according to their respective habitudes to that thing. So then in the happiness of God, Who, in understanding his Essence, comprehends It, is higher than that of a man or angel who sees It indeed, but comprehends It no
That is right out of my childhood catechism.
We need to seek God. If our will is fixed on knowing, loving and serving God, then we are approaching Rectitude of the Will.
Purification leads to Rectitude of the Will. And Rectitude of the Will leads to holiness...............
Part II.1, Question 3, Article 8: Whether man's happiness consists in the vision of the divine essence?
Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness does not consist in the vision of the Divine Essence. For Dionysius says (Myst. Theol. i) that by that which is highest in his intellect, man is united to God as to something altogether unknown. But that which is seen in its essence is not altogether unknown. Therefore the final perfection of the intellect, namely, happiness, does not consist in God being seen in His Essence.
Objection 2: Further, the higher the perfection belongs to the higher nature. But to see His own Essence is the perfection proper to the Divine intellect. Therefore the final perfection of the human intellect does not reach to this, but consists in something less.
On the contrary: It is written (1 Jn. 3:2): "When He shall appear, we shall be like to Him; and we shall see Him as He is."
I answer that: Final and perfect happiness can consist in nothing else than the vision of the Divine Essence. To make this clear, two points must be observed. First, that man is not perfectly happy, so long as something remains for him to desire and seek: secondly, that the perfection of any power is determined by the nature of its object. Now the object of the intellect is "what a thing is," i.e. the essence of a thing, according to De Anima iii, 6. Wherefore the intellect attains perfection, in so far as it knows the essence of a thing. If therefore an intellect knows the essence of some effect, whereby it is not possible to know the essence of the cause, i.e. to know of the cause "what it is"; that intellect cannot be said to reach that cause simply, although it may be able to gather from the effect the knowledge of that the cause is. Consequently, when man knows an effect, and knows that it has a cause, there naturally remains in the man the desire to know about the cause, "what it is." And this desire is one of wonder, and causes inquiry, as is stated in the beginning of the Metaphysics (i, 2). For instance, if a man, knowing the eclipse of the sun, consider that it must be due to some cause, and know not what that cause is, he wonders about it, and from wondering proceeds to inquire. Nor does this inquiry cease until he arrive at a knowledge of the essence of the cause.
If therefore the human intellect, knowing the essence of some created effect, knows no more of God than "that He is"; the perfection of that intellect does not yet reach simply the First Cause, but there remains in it the natural desire to seek the cause. Wherefore it is not yet perfectly happy. Consequently, for perfect happiness the intellect needs to reach the very Essence of the First Cause. And thus it will have its perfection through union with God as with that object, in which alone man's happiness consists, as stated above (Articles [1],7; Question [2], Article [8]).
Reply to Objection 1: Dionysius speaks of the knowledge of wayfarers journeying towards happiness.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [1], Article [8]), the end has a twofold acceptation. First, as to the thing itself which is desired: and in this way, the same thing is the end of the higher and of the lower nature, and indeed of all things, as stated above (Question [1], Article [8]). Secondly, as to the attainment of this thing; and thus the end of the higher nature is different from that of the lower, according to their respective habitudes to that thing. So then in the happiness of God, Who, in understanding his Essence, comprehends It, is higher than that of a man or angel who sees It indeed, but comprehends It no
