Disorder

[Byzantine]

Again, what do you mean by the word "will"? Do you mean what St. Augustine means by it? Do you identify it with the essence of the being in question and say in some sense that being and will are identical? Or do you mean what St. Maximos means by it, and do you then distinguish between the natural will, which is always ordered to the good, and the gnomic will (i.e., the human mode of willing), which comes about as a consequence of the fall, and which has to deliberate between the different ends / objects?

Let me respond to that with one word:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OUCH.

[Apotheoun]

Did Christ have to deliberate between things in choosing to do the good, or did He simply do the good?

[Apotheoun]

For St. Augustine multiplicity is itself a sign of being created, for there can be no multiplicity in God. St. Augustine conceived God as an absolutely simple essence, and man cannot share at all in God's essence. The fact that human's exist in a world of multiplicity means that they are by definition going to be at odds with God. This idea is foreign to St. Maximos and St. John Damascene, firstly because for them God is both one and many (the Trinity of persons in the Godhead involves real diversity), and secondly, because they do not reduce God to a simple essence. In fact, divine simplicity itself - according to St. Gregory Nazianzen - is a divine energy, and God has many divine energies.

 

As far as the nature of the will is concerned, that - for the Eastern Fathers - is always seen in the light of the incarnation, which means that they (i.e., the Eastern Fathers) must distinguish not only between the two natures, but also the two wills and natural operations, in the one person of Christ. Where Christ differs from the rest of humanity is in the fact that He does not need to deliberate between options, because His divine hypostasis naturally does (and wills) the good. To put it another way, Christ always actualizes His natural wills (both divine and human) and chooses the good. Fallen man, on the other hand, does not always choose the good in that his personal mode of willing (i.e., his gnomic will) may not - for any number of reasons - discover the true good (i.e., the natural good which his natural will moves him toward). As a consequence, fallen man can sin by choice (i.e., voluntarily) or through ignorance (i.e., involuntarily), but in both cases his gnomic will is active, and that is true even in the latter case where he acts contrary to the good of his nature. Of course that is why - in the Byzantine liturgy - we pray that God forgives both our voluntary and involuntary sins.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Not The Philosopher]

Wasn't the doctrine of Divine Simplicity declared to be dogma at the fourth Lateran council and Vatican I?

[Apotheoun]

Wasn't the doctrine of Divine Simplicity declared to be dogma at the fourth Lateran council and Vatican I?

What is meant by the phrase "divine simplicity"?

 

In the East divine simplicity is not identity of essence and attribute in the Scholastic or Augustinian sense, but is instead the coinherence of the divine essence as a whole in each and every divine energy. As. St. Gregory Palamas liked to say, "God is indivisibly divided in all His many energies." In Eastern Christian theology God is simple, but not in the pagan Greek philosophical sense of the term (as used by the medieval Scholastics), because if that were the case the Trinity itself would become a mere pretense, a thing that we believe without being at the same time real.

[Not The Philosopher]

What is meant by the phrase "divine simplicity"?

 

In the East divine simplicity is not identity of essence and attribute in the Scholastic or Augustinian sense, but is instead the coinherence of the divine essence as a whole in each and every divine energy. As. St. Gregory Palamas liked to say, "God is indivisibly divided in all His many energies." In Eastern Christian theology God is simple, but not in the pagan Greek philosophical sense of the term (as used by the medieval Scholastics), because if that were the case the Trinity itself would become a mere pretense, a thing that we believe without being at the same time real.

 

I haven't actually studied those councils, so I can't give an account of exactly what definition of divine simplicity they were operating. But I generally mean the Scholastic notion of God being identical with His attributes. I can't see how to theologically do without it, since complex things require an explanation, but God is the terminus of all explanations. And denying it does also seem to weaken the difference between Creator and creature.

[Apotheoun]

I haven't actually studied those councils, so I can't give an account of exactly what definition of divine simplicity they were operating. But I generally mean the Scholastic notion of God being identical with His attributes. I can't see how to theologically do without it, since complex things require an explanation, but God is the terminus of all explanations. And denying it does also seem to weaken the difference between Creator and creature.

I couldn't see how to do without it either, that is, until I became an Eastern Catholic and I saw that that understanding of divine simplicity was not patristic, and only arose under the impulse of the Aristotelian revival in the West in the medieval period. The pagan Greek notion of simplicity - taken to its logical end - can only lead to a denial of the reality of the persons of the Trinity, or to their reduction to relations of opposition (and that idea involves the difficult notion that there can be opposition in God, who is beyond any form of diastema).

 

The Eastern Christian tradition - following upon the teaching of the Holy Fathers - holds that there can be real distinctions in God (e.g., the three hypostaseis, and the many divine energies) without any separations in God. To put it another way, God's essence - whole and entire - is in each of the three divine hypostaseis, while also - again whole and entire - being in all the many divine energies, and it is in that sense (i.e., in the doctrine of perichoresis) that the divine essence is simple.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Not The Philosopher]

I couldn't see how to do without it either, that is, until I became an Eastern Catholic and I saw that that understanding of divine simplicity was not patristic, and only arose under the impulse of the Aristotelian revival in the West in the medieval period. The pagan Greek notion of simplicity - taken to its logical end - can only lead to a denial of the reality of the persons of the Trinity, or to their reduction to relations of opposition (and that idea involves the difficult notion that there can be opposition in God, who is beyond any form of diastema).

 

The Eastern Christian tradition - following upon the teaching of the Holy Fathers - holds that there can be real distinctions in God (e.g., the three hypostaseis, and the many divine energies) without any separations in God. To put it another way, God's essence - whole and entire - is in each of the three divine hypostaseis, while also - again whole and entire - being in all the many divine energies, and it is in that sense (i.e., in the doctrine of perichoresis) that the divine essence is simple.

 

This could be the start of an interesting discussion, but I am honestly too sleep deprived to dare to dig further into this right now.

[Apotheoun]

This could be the start of an interesting discussion, but I am honestly too sleep deprived to dare to dig further into this right now.

Feel free to continue when you are rested.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Although that is the Western take on things, the Eastern Fathers does speak of sins, voluntary and involuntary, and so I don't necessarily agree with the will solely determining the character of an act or thought.

I guess it is my Western perspective, but involuntary sin strikes me as a clear contradiction in terms.

 

I should also point out that the phrase "sins, voluntary and involuntary" is commonly used in the Byzantine liturgy, and as the old saying goes, "the rule of prayer determines the rule of faith."

 

 

ACT OF CONTRITION

 

Forgive me my sins, O Lord, forgive me my sins;

the sins of my youth, the sins of my age,

the sins of my soul, the sins of my body;

my involuntary sins, my serious voluntary sins;

the sins I know, the sins I do not know;

the sins I have concealed for so long, and which are now hidden from my memory.

I am truly sorry for every sin, mortal and venial,

for all the sins of my childhood up to the present hour.

I know my sins have wounded Thy Tender Heart,

O My Savior, let me be freed from the bonds of evil through the most bitter Passion of My Redeemer.

O My Jesus, forget and forgive what I have been.

Amen. 

 

One of the Act of Cont. posted in the parish confessional. :)

[Socrates]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states that homosexual tendencies themselves are "objectively disordered."

As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the CDF Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons: 

 

 

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

 

 

 

 

Homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, so no, it cant be 'cured'.

 

You can debate over whether the primary root of the disorder is psychological, physical, or spiritual (as all three aspects are involved in human sexuality, nevertheless, the fact remains that homosexual tendencies or desires are disordered - as the only proper ordering or human sexuality is a man to a woman and vise versa.

 

Whether or not this disorder can be cured or overcome is another matter, though I do not have reason to deny the testimony of all those who do claim to have cured or greatly reduced their homosexual tendencies.

[Socrates]

Many other "paraphilias" cannot be diagnosed unless the patient feels some personal distress regarding it.  So, it's only a disorder if it makes you feel bad, according to the APA.  

 

That's the problem with modern psychology in a nutshell.

[Dr. Bombay]

What about a man who mutilates his genitals, wears a C cup bra and insists that everyone refer to him as a she?  Is that a disorder?

 

 

What about Catholics who affirm this man and pretend he's a woman?  Disordered or no?

[Socrates]

What about a man who mutilates his genitals, wears a C cup bra and insists that everyone refer to him as a she?  Is that a disorder?

 

 

What about Catholics who affirm this man and pretend he's a woman?  Disordered or no?

Yes.

[Dr. Bombay]

Yes.

 

Sanity prevails, Deo gratias. I thought maybe I was the one with the mental disorder.

[Nihil Obstat]

Sanity prevails, Deo gratias. I thought maybe I was the one with the mental disorder.

You still might be. Cannot rule it out just yet.

[Dr. Bombay]

You still might be. Cannot rule it out just yet.

 

I suppose so.  Still, all of my body parts are intact and I don't base moral judgments on unsourced articles in the National Catholic Reporter so I'm not completely crazy. 

[photosynthesis]

What about a man who mutilates his genitals, wears a C cup bra and insists that everyone refer to him as a she?  Is that a disorder?

 

 

What about Catholics who affirm this man and pretend he's a woman?  Disordered or no?

 

Seriously?