Search results for: 'theological anthropology 101'

5 min read

Saints

Theological Anthropology 101: St. Joseph Reveals the Masculine Heart

Father Harrison Ayre

February 15, 2021 8:29 am February 15, 2021

5 min read

7437 views

Comments Off

5 min read

What does it mean to be male? When answering such questions, we turn to doctrine as mirrored in the lives of the saints. And so, the saints are incarnations, lived…

What does it mean to be male?

When answering such questions, we turn to doctrine as mirrored in the lives of the saints. And so, the saints are incarnations, lived ideals, who can themselves reveal what it means to be male and female. In the case of masculinity, one of the great models to emulate after our Lord is St. Joseph.

St. Joseph reveals the masculine heart and in him we can see three aspects that are essential to masculinity: obedience, self-sacrifice and silence. While these aspects are not exclusive to men, they are more closely associated with masculine identity.

Obedience

When danger was about to befall Jesus from King Herod, St. Joseph protected his entire family by bringing them to Egypt until it was safe to return home. The theme of protecting the family is an important and strong theme for men. This is why St. Joseph is invoked as protector and guide for the entire Church. To look after your loved ones is deeply innate for men, but it can be twisted. Because we have sinned, we can manipulate these goods into evils. Hence, this role of protector must always be lived out through a heart of obedience. Obedience recognizes a mission greater than oneself and is willing even to put one’s own will and security to the side in order that others may live and flourish. In St. Joseph’s case, his ability to obey the command of the angels enables his protective heart to be lived out rightly. It requires humility, self-sacrifice and listening in order to understand what God asks. Obedience, too, recognizes that one is not the ultimate authority.

Self-sacrifice

One of the more interesting insights into St. Joseph is that his desire to reject Mary as his wife had nothing to do with her pregnancy outside marriage. As Fr. John Saward notes in his book, “Redeemer in the Womb,” St. Joseph’s desire to leave Mary results from his recognition of the mystery that is at work in her life, and his feeling too sinful to be close to such a mystery.

The angel comes to affirm that St. Joseph’s intuition is right, but reiterates that God is asking this of him anyways. Here the call of God comes once again and places the demand of love on St. Joseph. He could reject God, he could say “no,” he could say “my life’s plans do not include this” and simply run away. But his being a just man means that he would never want to disobey God, even if he didn’t feel like he understood what God’s call meant for him. The “yes” of St. Joseph, then — and all that it implies with the constant moving around to find new means to provide for this family that is almost thrusted upon him — is a sacrificial “yes.” He puts to the side his own plans, desires and pleasures in order to say “yes” to God. This involves a death to all he had planned, because saying “yes” to God always implies a death. For St. Joseph, though, the death always carries the promise of hope and new life with it. Thus all he does results from his knowing that in the call of God he has life, and that to say “no” to his plans in this life is, mysteriously, the way to say “yes” to life with God.

Silence

This characteristic is well known in St. Joseph, but is often ignored when talking about the masculine identity. It is true, within the realm of anthropology, that the masculine is often a more “active” archetype. Silence implies receptivity, humility and a certain passiveness. Thus, such a virtue can be dismissed as unimportant for men. Yet one of the purposes of the saints is that they, like grace, always interrupt our fallen vision to reveal what is real, what is of great importance. The silence of St. Joseph in Scripture is a testament that this virtue is deeply attached to the masculine heart.

The silence of St. Joseph reveals that men must always be creatures who listen to God: in order to be obedient to God’s call in their mission, to determine the right moment to act and to fulfill their nature as men. This listening quality of St. Joseph is most certainly one of the great qualities our Lord observed. His need to always listen to the voice of His Father reveals that St. Joseph’s silence and receptivity are not contrary to the masculine heart, but, rather, the core out of which a man acts. A life immersed in prayer is the secret for any man. While to act and to do is in man’s heart, it becomes a lifeless activism if it is not fed by a communion with God.

Father Harrison Ayre is a priest of the Diocese of Victoria, British Columbia. Follow him on Twitter at @FrHarrison. Read more from his Theological Anthropology 101 series here.

Comments Off

5 min read

Church Teaching

Theological Anthropology 101: The Church’s View on Gender Ideology

Father Harrison Ayre

January 23, 2021 10:29 am January 23, 2021

5 min read

16729 views

Comments Off

5 min read

A massive issue in the Western world at the moment concerns the question of gender. It is becoming increasingly in vogue to say that while your body may demonstrate you…

A massive issue in the Western world at the moment concerns the question of gender. It is becoming increasingly in vogue to say that while your body may demonstrate you are male or female, it is rather your interior experience that truly determines whether you are a man or a woman.

While there isn’t anything specific to this issue within the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a summary of various magisterial documents and theological reflection can give us some insight into how a person of faith should respond when confronted with this increasingly prevalent viewpoint.

While the Church can — and does — hold that the concept of “gender” and one’s biological sex can be distinct, they are by no means separate from one another. The Church teaches that the body is both instructive and integral to our identity as male and female. This means that while some aspects of masculinity and femininity can find roots in culture more so than nature, there are essential qualities possessed specifically by a man and specifically by a woman. Gender, then, is rooted in the giftedness of our body. What it means to be man and woman — as distinct from the biological difference of male and female — is deeply rooted in the gift of the body. To put this more simply: gender is only properly integrated when it takes its starting point in the gift of the body and its sexual difference.

Gender theories that exist today attempt to undermine this basic fact of the unity between gender and biological sexual difference. While the Church and these theories would agree on the distinction between gender and biological sexual difference, that is about the only common thread between the two. The issue arises when these theories attempt to move the distinction into a real separation: bodily sexual difference (male and female) and gender identity (man and woman) are not really related to each other at all. Rather, they will attempt to argue that the interior experience of a person has no real connection with the body. Thus while the body may be classified as male or female — and this can be altered if they see fit to coincide with interior experience — the interior experience is different to the experience of the body and therefore it is acceptable to change the identifying gender.

This is a simple overview of the position. But this is a complex topic with many varying extremes that is rooted in many false ideological positions. For one, it is rooted in a philosophical position known as dualism, which sees the body and the soul as separated and not really integrated with each other. Thus the body becomes a means of the true interior self’s expression rather than integrated with the inner, spiritual self. It is also of interest that the varying trends in gender ideology keep the “traditional” roles of male and female, but simply allow them to be appropriated by people according to experience. In other words, these theories actually depend on the integrated view of gender and biological sexual difference: without these masculine and feminine aspects, there is nothing for gender ideology to root itself in.

This all being said, there is one other aspect that contains a seed of truth when it comes to gender ideology. It is true that some men will integrate some feminine characteristics and vice versa. Some men may be more inclined, for example, toward receptivity than a lot of other men. This, however, does not negate their fundamental masculinity and femininity; rather, they incorporate these masculine and feminine characteristics according to the sexual difference with which they are gifted.

These ideologies have massive impact on culture and personal experience. And that is the nature of ideologies: they are intentionally forceful. It must also be recognized, though, that things such as gender dysphoria are real afflictions that some have to endure.

The roots of our culture’s focus on gender ideology are many, and it can be argued that there are symbolic and cultural influences that have brought about this issue with greater rapidity than ever before. Regardless, those who struggle with gender identity still require the patient love of Christians to help them bear their cross and to encourage them to find the giftedness of being male and female. This is found through their body and sexual difference.

Real freedom can be found in the Church’s teaching on sexual difference and gender. Seeing them as integrated but also malleable in terms of appropriating certain characteristics of the opposite sex, always respects the gifted nature of existence and of the body: who I am is fundamentally received as a gift, not determined by my own whims and desires. Only in the law of the gift is freedom found.

Father Harrison Ayre is a priest of the Diocese of Victoria, British Columbia. Follow him on Twitter at @FrHarrison. Read more from his Theological Anthropology 101 series here.

Comments Off

5 min read

Church Teaching

Theological Anthropology 101: How do we see the Body?

Father Harrison Ayre

July 21, 2020 7:57 am July 21, 2020

5 min read

2680 views

Comments Off

5 min read

At the core of many debates and conflicts emerging today is how we understand the body. Relatedly, self-expression and self-determination are strong principles in our age. And so we are…

At the core of many debates and conflicts emerging today is how we understand the body. Relatedly, self-expression and self-determination are strong principles in our age.

And so we are left wrestling with questions such as these: Is marriage just for the self-expression of love or are there biological aspects to marriage? Is my sexuality and its orientation really tied to the nature and purpose of the body?

In the end, almost all of our moral issues surround the view of the body. Many prevalent ideas existing today contra Church teaching are rooted in the thought of French philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650), among others. Over the last 500 years, we have seen the devastating effects of Descartes and other modern philosophers. Thus, we must understand such thought, as well as the Christian understanding of the body, in order to properly respond to the issues of the day.

Descartes’ philosophy of the human person is popularly known as dualism. This means that there is no real integration between the body and the soul. They are not only two distinct entities, they are two separate entities that, while interacting with each other, are not ultimately dependent on each other. This leads to all sorts of logical consequences in human thought, action and culture that begins to slowly impact the way we experience the body. Most fundamentally, Descartes’ idea leads to treating the body as extension: by this is meant that the body is only expressive of my true inner self. Personhood becomes detached from the body, and the body begins to be seen as both a tool and canvas for self-expression. This is part of the reason technology has skyrocketed in our age. It is not bad per se, but, especially with internet technology, the culture surrounding human interaction online very quickly misses the dignity of the person behind the screen and sees only their output. It is all seen as extension and self-expression, and the body is merely a tool to be used in this regard. We tend to forget, then, in digital interactions, that this is an embodied encounter between persons.

The Christian vision is different. As Pope St. John Paul II said, “the body, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible, the spiritual and the divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world the invisible mystery hidden in God from time immemorial, and thus to be a sign of it.” In other words, the body is integral to the human person: that the body both is integrated in and reveals the spiritual dimension of man to others. The soul, then, is not separate from the human body. Yes, it is true, at death the soul is separated from the body. But this is the ultimate and devastating effect of sin. That separation is fundamentally unnatural. The soul needs the body and the body needs the soul.

It is better to look at the body-soul distinction as a real unity. Yes, there is an obvious distinction — we have a body like the animals, but we are able to reason and will, totally unlike them — but there is no real separation. Thus, the body actually has data to tell us about what it means to be human. There is the obvious extensive teaching around what it means to be male and female. The body, if integrated and not separated, is no longer malleable according to our whims, but it requires an interiority and receptivity within the self to be humble and listen to the body, if you will, to reveal the self not only to others, but even to ourselves. If the body is a sign that points to a spiritual reality, then it, too, can even point us to our own spiritual reality, always seen through the lens and mediated through the body. The body, then, no longer becomes something that can change to adapt to my “true self,” but, rather, is essential to my personality and personhood.

The issue with the modern approach to self and body is always going to have an impossible opposition to overcome: the self always needs the body in order to be. It cannot ignore the body. It is integral to personhood. The task of promoting a proper relationship between body and soul seems large and is perhaps, still, at the level of philosophy and theology. Yet it is vital to rediscover this proper relationship and understand how the relationship between body and self has implications beyond the self. It is why we struggle to understand the Church’s teaching on the sacraments, why we do not see the need for mediation between God and creation, etc. For the Church to underpin the vision of herself and of our sacramental reality in how we relate to God, we are going to need to continue to fight the battle to reclaim a more integrated view of body and self.

Father Harrison Ayre is a priest of the Diocese of Victoria, British Columbia. Follow him on Twitter at @FrHarrison. Read more from his Theological Anthropology 101 series here.

Comments Off

5 min read

Church Teaching

Theological Anthropology 101: Why the Church is adamant on the male-female nature of marriage

Father Harrison Ayre

July 10, 2020 6:45 am July 10, 2020

5 min read

6575 views

Comments Off

5 min read

Sometimes it appears that the only thing modernity is obsessed with is sexuality. From the debates surrounding pronouns to the question of sexual orientation, there is a deeper truth that…

Sometimes it appears that the only thing modernity is obsessed with is sexuality. From the debates surrounding pronouns to the question of sexual orientation, there is a deeper truth that the contemporary world reveals: human sexuality touches the core of our humanity.

It is important to understand that human sexuality is a much deeper and richer reality than human sexual expression between husband and wife. By sexuality, the Church means that “in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman” (CCC No. 2337). In short, it is an expression of our bodiliness – and therefore is something we share with the animals. But, the Catechism goes on to talk about how sexuality becomes “personal and truly human” when it is expressed in relationships. That is: this purely physical aspect of human sexuality also has a spiritual and personal character to it that also separates us from the animals.

The Catechism also states that sexuality “affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others” (No. 2332). It also says that “everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out” (No. 2333).

What the Catechism attempts to make clear here is that human sexuality is essential to human life and identity and is a good given us by God that brings about human flourishing.

Human Sexuality as Essential

If human sexuality is a personal living out of being embodied creatures, then a few necessary things follow. The first is that being male and female is essential to our human condition, and, more fundamentally, is a gift from God. This implies its goodness. But since it is a gift, meaning sexuality is something that is given, it is not something we make on our own. Our bodies determine our sexual expression and orientations.

This last claim is a difficult pill to swallow for contemporary society. The issues around gender and our given sex as male and female demonstrate, first, that the issue of sexual identity digs deep into our core as human beings. The fact that there are strong voices for different gender ideologies is a sign that human sexuality is a strong part of who we are. But the Church will always defend the givenness of our humanity. While it will not doubt the suffering of people who struggle with things like same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria, it will always defend the fact that humanity is male and female and that the two sexes are created to be in communion with each other through the bond of marriage. These are the ends or purposes of our human sexuality. Only by living these given purposes by God do we find our identity and live more perfectly our humanity.

Human Sexuality and Human Flourishing

Human sexuality is the means by which bonds of communion are formed. This is expressed most perfectly in the bond of marriage between a man and a woman, but is not reserved to it. Human sexuality, again, is not reserved to the conjugal act. The bonds of friendship and the complementarity of the sexes are means by which the communion of persons is built up. In short, in as much as men and woman see the gift of being man and woman as core to their humanity, then society itself will flourish because of the essential character of the relationship between man and woman in the social nature of humanity. It is so essential that its disorientation can lead to the disintegration of communion in society.

This is why the Church is adamant on the male-female nature of marriage. The covenant of marriage is the “first society” and the “domestic Church.” As the relationship between the sexes is lived out in marriage, it trickles down and impacts the way the same relationship is lived out on a larger scale in society. The more the home is in harmony, the more society will grow to be in harmony, and this is all rooted in the male-female relationship that completes the total expression of being human. As Pope St. John Paul II once said, “As the family goes, so goes the nation, and so goes the whole world in which we live.”

Father Harrison Ayre is a priest of the Diocese of Victoria, British Columbia. Follow him on Twitter at @FrHarrison. Read more from his Theological Anthropology 101 series here.

Comments Off

5 min read

Church Teaching

Theological Anthropology 101: Three lessons from the feminine heart of Mary for the whole Church

Father Harrison Ayre

March 24, 2020 7:05 am March 24, 2020

5 min read

2991 views

Comments Off

5 min read

What does it mean to be female? In the life of the Church, our teachings often are illuminated by the lives of the saints. Regarding femininity, the preeminent person to…

What does it mean to be female?

In the life of the Church, our teachings often are illuminated by the lives of the saints. Regarding femininity, the preeminent person to look to is Mary, our Blessed Mother. Through her, we see not only essential aspects of what it means to be a woman, but also how she reveals to us the heart of the Church. Her features, while essential to feminine identity, are not exclusive to women. Like Mary, we are all meant to be characterized by receptivity, affectivity and the sharing of ourselves for the good of others.

Receptivity

Mary’s quintessential act of receptivity is found in the Annunciation. Mary’s response to Gabriel is one of pure receptivity since she has a total openness to Gabriel’s message. Unlike Zachariah, she has no fear or doubt at the presence of Gabriel. Mary almost is expecting this moment to come. Here, her receptivity is intertwined with docility and listening: there is a deep trust for God to make whole Mary’s mission and fulfill her needs in life. Even when she struggles to understand the mission given to her, Mary’s questioning does not come from a place of doubt. Rather, it rises from her constant pondering and searching for the deepest fulfillment of her life. This docile listening is embodied in a deep trust by which she responds with total self-giving. She consents with a profound “fiat” to the God who alone fulfills the purpose and meaning for which we are created. This receptivity is vital, is deeply active, is not passive, nor slavish. It comes from a sense of action and personhood which recognizes that I cannot create my own truth, but I must receive it always.

Receptivity is a difficult category to see in a positive light. Receptivity is often seen in modernity as a negative quality. Negative versions of feminism attempt to embrace an activism that is more masculine in character. Equality often promotes femininity in a masculine way, rather than an authentically feminine way. But an authentic Christian view of femininity not only sees receptivity as vital to feminine life, but essential and universal to the Church and to all humanity. The Church Fathers, in fact, see a necessary receptivity for all of humanity: we are only ourselves because we have received our being from God. This can only be known if the feminine characteristic of receptivity is promoted and defended.

Affectivity

In many of Pope Benedict XVI’s writings is found reflections on Mary’s role as the archetype of the Church. In Mary, he says, we see the perfection of the Church personified. Virginal, without sin, receptive, etc. are all prominent themes in these discussions. But these, while embodied in a feminine figure, are obviously categories that are not universal to all women. However, one key element Benedict brings into discussion about Mary and the Church that he sees as universally applicable to women — and, indeed, the Church as well — is affectivity, or the expressing of emotion. For Benedict, Mary embodies this affectivity perfectly, and it is vitally important to the life of faith.

Perhaps that is shocking since often we are told that feelings or emotions are to be ignored in faith. Yet there is a key phrase in Scripture that shows us the importance of affectivity in Mary: “She pondered all these things in her heart” (Lk 2:19).

The heart, in Scripture, is not just the source and center of life, but is the place of affectivity as well. Mary’s affectivity differs from ours since hers is both sinless and fully integrated. Hence, we hear about the action of “pondering.” In the moments of the life of Jesus, Mary does not simply respond with a reflexive emotionality, which is so common in our fallen state. Rather, she ponders the mystery in her heart and discerns the proper response to the mysteries she encounters. This demonstrates not only that affectivity is central to femininity, but it is even central to the act of faith — it has a place in the response to the mystery of Christ. Too often we doubt feelings and even fear them so that we would distrust their ability to help us develop our faith. Mary shows that feelings and affectivity are vital not only to feminine life, but to the life of faith for the whole Church.

Sharing of Self

In Mary, we see a love that not only listens and receives, but also dispossesses all she has. There is a form of gift in her that everything she receives she does not hold for herself: all that is hers she makes property for all.

The receptive, pondering and affective heart of Mary never keeps these experiences for herself. Everything kept in her heart exists for the whole Church. So, too, the feminine heart is never able to hold everything to herself. The motherly need, for example, to provide at all times for her children comes from a deeper sense that all she has received is not for herself: it must be a gift to others. Hence, the feminine principle of dispossession. All that is received is given with a deep and reflective activism that is not only different than masculine activity, but, it could be argued, is more fundamental to the total human condition. When the Church begins to embrace this more fully in her anthropological outlook, not only can she promote the dignity of women, but also can show the great gift the feminine heart is not only for women themselves, but for the Church and, indeed, humanity as a whole.

Father Harrison Ayre is a priest of the Diocese of Victoria, British Columbia. Follow him on Twitter at @FrHarrison. Read more from his Theological Anthropology 101 series here.

Comments Off

5 min read

Church Teaching

Theological Anthropology 101: What is a Human Being?

Father Harrison Ayre

February 4, 2020 7:00 am February 4, 2020

5 min read

4453 views

Comments Off

5 min read

The human being is described in The Catechism of the Catholic Church as created in God’s image – as both male and female – and is one person with both…

The human being is described in The Catechism of the Catholic Church as created in God’s image – as both male and female – and is one person with both a body and a soul. These are the defining characteristics of who we are and are worthy of our exploration.

Image of God

In the book of Genesis we learn that humanity is set apart from the rest of creation – created in the image of God (see Gen 1:27). This image is given uniquely to man, who is willed by God for his own sake. Animals, on the other hand, are made not for their own sake but for service to man.

God’s image is reflected in each human being and perfected in the communion persons. Just as God is a unity in a diversity of divine Persons, so too does man reach his fulfillment and dignity by entering into communion with others. This purpose was darkened through sin. But, by giving ourselves away for the sake of another in Christ, we find ourselves in the only truly life-giving communion.

Body and Soul

This image of God is also found in man by our composite nature of body and soul. So often today the body is misunderstood as a mode of expression that is easily manipulatable for the expression of one’s spiritual, true, inner self. The body is seen purely as an extension of the self. This is known as dualism, which focuses more on the separation of body and soul rather than their integration. The Christian tradition rejects that view. Rather, man is a singular nature of which the body and the soul are intimately united. Not just our souls, but our bodies manifest being made in God’s image.

The soul gives man two especially unique qualities that distinguishes him from the animals. These are attributes of God Himself and found in no other creatures aside from humanity: intellect and will. Man’s intellect gives him the ability to reason, to judge, and to know the truth. Most importantly, man’s intellect gives him the ability come to know and contemplate God.

The human will is the means by which we have true freedom. Through it we can choose the good and reject evil, and are able to offer our lives in the service of others. It is through the will that man is able to choose virtue over vice, to choose God and his salvation. The human will is the seat of action: the animals act but without the freedom of human beings. Man, through a certain intentionality, is able to give expression to his desires and to seek out the truth.

Male and Female

So often, when discussing our human nature, we look to body and soul, intellect and will as the summation of what it means to be human. Thanks to the magisterium of Pope St. John Paul II, another element was rediscovered and re-emphasized: that man is created in God’s image as male and female.

The Catechism emphasizes the equality between man and woman, created to be a unity “in one flesh.” Thus marriage is instituted from the beginning by which the union of man and woman makes visible the God in whose image man is made. Sexual differentiation is willed by God, and both man and woman make present something unique about Him. In a union through the gift of self in marriage, man and wife bring together their unique qualities to complement each other, and making present a more total vision of the human being in God’s image.

This teaching that man and woman are essential to human nature also reveals a final quality of humanity that is difficult for modern man to comprehend. So often we do not see ourselves as a corporate body, part of something bigger than ourselves. Rather, we see ourselves as atomized and separated from other human beings, focused more readily on “me.” We may speak generically of “the human race,” but practically and experientially – especially due to individualism – we have a hard time understanding the social nature of humanity. By virtue of the fact that God created man as a communion of persons from the beginning, it demonstrates that the individual is not perfected in isolation from others, but that it is built into our nature to seek out communion with others so as to come to our own perfection. This is, again, due to the fact that man is made in God’s image – who in himself is a communion of persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As each person of the Trinity is only themselves in communion with the other persons, so, too, in man is an individual most fully themselves when in communion with others.

Father Harrison Ayre is a priest of the Diocese of Victoria, British Columbia. Follow him on Twitter at @FrHarrison. Read more from his Theological Anthropology 101 series here.

Comments Off

First Name *

Last Name *

Email Address *