PARALLEL BETWEEN THE VISION OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS and THE VISION OF THE NETWORK OF THE UNCONSCIOUS. WHEN THE FORM IS IN FETAL BRAIN, THAT BECOMES PART OF THE NETWORK OF THE UNCONSCIOUS HUMANITY ', WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO RECEIVE THE RATIONAL SOUL OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS.
remember, to this end, a packet of MINERVA 2005:
Espresso Umberto Eco: Embryos at the gate of Paradise.
is curious reversal of the Church's position on human life than the doctrine of St. Thomas In recent days, Giovanni Sartori, the 'Corriere della Sera' spoke in philosophical terms the question of embryos and the beginning of life, citing the widely position called 'creation' of St. Thomas Aquinas. This is a position already mentioned recently by some authors lay people (for example, I had spoken in a sachet of September 2000) but curiously, was never taken up in the Catholic fundamentalist circles.
The position of Thomas (which over the centuries the Church has never explicitly denied, condemning even the opposite of Tertullian) is as follows: the plants have vegetative soul, which is absorbed by the soul in animals sensitive, while in humans these two functions are absorbed by the rational, which is what makes a man endowed with intelligence and makes a person as 'individual substance of a rational nature'. Thomas has a very biological formation of the fetus: God introduces the soul only when the fetus acquires, by degrees before the vegetative soul, then sensitive soul. Only then, in a body already formed, the rational soul is created ('Summa Theologiae', I, 90). The embryo has only the sensitive soul ('Summa Theologiae', I, 76, 2 and I, 118, 2). In the 'Summa Contra Gentiles' (II, 89) says that there is a gradation in the generation, "because of the intermediate forms which come with the fetus from the beginning to its final form." And that is why in the Supplement to the 'Summa Theologiae' (80, 4) reads this statement, which today sounds revolutionary: after the Last Judgement, when the bodies of the dead will be raised so that even our flesh partakers of the heavenly glory (when it already says Augustine relive the beauty of a full and complete adult not only those born morti ma, in forma umanamente perfetta, anche gli scherzi di natura, i mutilati, i concepiti senza braccia o senza occhi), a quella 'risurrezione della carne' non parteciperanno gli embrioni. In loro non era stata ancora infusa l'anima razionale, e pertanto non sono esseri umani.
Si può dire che la Chiesa, spesso in modo lento e sotterraneo, ha cambiato tante posizioni nel corso della sua storia che potrebbe avere cambiato anche questa. Ma è singolare che qui siamo di fronte alla tacita sconfessione non di una autorità qualsiasi, ma dell'Autorità per eccellenza, della colonna portante della teologia cattolica.
Le riflessioni che nascono a questo proposito portano a conclusioni curiose. Noi sappiamo che a lungo la stessa chiesa cattolica ha resistito alla teoria dell'evoluzione, non tanto perché sembrava contrastare col racconto biblico dei sette giorni della creazione (su questo erano già d'accordo i commentatori antichi, la Bibbia parla per metafore ed espressioni poetiche, e sette giorni potrebbero anche voler dire sette milioni di anni) ma perché cancellava il salto radicale, la differenza miracolosa tra forme di vita pre-umane e l'apparizione dell'Uomo, annullava la differenza tra una scimmia, che è animale bruto, e un uomo che ha ricevuto un'anima razionale. Poi lentamente la chiesa ha non dico sostenuto ma ammesso il darwinismo purché si riconoscesse che, nella continuità della catena della vita dal primo unicellulare ad Adamo, s'inseriva una Split, when a living being is given an immortal soul. Only the Protestant fundamentalists (and some unfortunate adviser of our Ministry of Education) continued to have horror evolutionary hypothesis. Now the battle
certainly neo-fundamentalist on the alleged defense of life, so the embryo is already a human being because in future it could become one, seems to lead believers to the same stricter border of the old materialistic evolutionists of the past: there ' is broken (the one defined by St. Thomas) during evolution from plants to animals and man, life has all the same value. In fact, in his polemic Sartori wonders whether it is do some confusion between the defense of life and the defense of human life, defend at all costs because the life everywhere where it occurs, in whatever form it occurs, would be defined as a murder not only spread their seed for non- fertilization, but also eat chickens and kill mosquitoes, not to mention the respect due to the plants.
Conclusion: The current positions are not just neofondamentalistiche Catholic Protestant origin (who would not) but lead to a flattening of Christianity up positions along the materialistic and pantheistic, and those forms of Eastern panpsychism sure that the gauze on the travel guru mouth breathing does not kill micro-organisms. I'm not saying value judgments on a very delicate matter indeed. I'm pointing out a curiosity of cultural history, a curious reversal of positions. Must be the influence of New Age. L'Espresso
03/15/2005 16:00 Author: Umberto Eco
0 comments:
Post a Comment