“As We Await the Redemption of Our Body”

Part 1: Status Quaestionis

Reflecting on inordinate desire and making a distinction between desire for things that are pleasurable to the senses (bodily) and desire for things pleasurable to the psyche, such as ambition or avarice, it is easy to see that the former is influenced by the body, yet it is difficult to discern the influence of the latter. In Desire and Unity,¹ a book by Emmanuel-Marie Le Februe on the history of the Augustinian order (Part 1) and Augustinian spirituality (Part 2), St. Augustine gives us the concept of imbalance within the human person and the struggle to reach and sustain equilibrium. Either form of desire can be reasonable or inordinate. When it is inordinate it is concupiscence; when it is reasonable, it is a flourishing of the human person.

In St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 8:22–23, Paul gives us something to think about. “We ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” That we have “the firstfruits of the Spirit,” and “await redemption of our bodies,” adoption and redemption of the body will be a follow-up to firstfruits. With the follow-up being an event of redemption, that of the body, firstfruits would be redemption of the soul. We know that our souls are redeemed in the Paschal Mystery of Christ, and the soul, redeemed, cannot be a source of concupiscence. The body, unredeemed, has inclination toward things that are inherently bad, or inclination to excess of the things that, in themselves, are good.

Concupiscence is the effect of Original Sin (loss of grace), and it is the noble faculties of the soul, Intellect and Will, who struggle to determine what is true and what is good (imbalance). In relation to our distinction between bodily desires and desires of the psyche, it is plausible to say that the desires of the psyche influence the Intellect, and bodily desires influence the Will. With our free will always in play, we can react to these influences in a positive way or negatively by overriding what we know is true or good.

Paul warns of living “according to the flesh.” In these passages he uses the Greek word “sarx” which is translated as “flesh,” but in a broader translation it can mean “the world.”

Rom 8:5, 8, 12:

For those who live according to the flesh [sarx/world] are concerned with the things of the flesh [sarx/world], . . . those who are in the flesh [sarx/world] cannot please God.

Consequently, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.

For affirmation we can put Paul’s use of the word “flesh” in conjunction with how Jesus refers to being “of the world” or “belong to the world.” These two phrases are interchangeable in Bible translations of John 17:16.

They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. (NAB)

They are not of the world, any more than I am of it. (NIV)

The concept of “flesh,” being merely bodily, is broadened, to include the things of the world that lead us away from God. As there are things of the world that are good for the body, such as food and drink, there are things of the world that are good for the psyche, such as personal achievement. The struggle for equilibrium is not merely a matter of temperance, it is also a struggle to discern the things of the world, the distractions, and attractions.

With a redeemed soul, the source of any inordinate desire (concupiscence) can only be the unredeemed body. What of the psyche then? How is it that the unredeemed body would be the source of inordinate desires of the psyche?

Part 2: Soul, Mind, Memory

Early in Book X – Memory, of The Confessions,² Augustine speaks of the soul in a way that is familiar to us, body/soul composite, spiritual core of the person, e.g., [I make my confessions] “by words from my soul and a cry from my mind.” In a less familiar way, although this has been debated, Augustine speaks of soul and mind as separate entities. In general rhetoric, soul and mind are sometimes used interchangeably (Aquinas) and depending on the context, this could be appropriate. In Book X, however, Augustine progresses with this distinction, and details further distinction of soul, mind, and memory. From these early references to the soul, Augustine then focuses on the mind-memory dynamic within the body/soul composite.

I combine with past events images of various things, whether experienced directly or believed on the basis of what I have experienced; and on this basis I reason about future actions and events and hopes, and again think of all these things in the present. . . This power of memory is great, very great, my God. It is a vast and infinite profundity. Who has plumbed its bottom? This power is that of my mind and is a natural endowment . . . (BX p. 186–87)

The mind is the power of memory, the power to recall. Memory receives images and there they reside; images, events, experiences, are stored in memory. The mind, power of the memory, retrieves them in the context of current thoughts and interactions. Whatever is in the memory is in the mind. (BX p194) The mind is an active element of human nature, while memory is a passive element of the mind. Memory’s power [the mind] holds memory itself. . . (BX p. 191)

With the body/soul composite being primary, the soul is superior to mind, and memory is subordinate to mind (i.e., “memory’s power, the mind, holds memory itself.”) And so, it is hierarchy:

Soul
Mind
Memory

with interplay between Mind and Memory.

Cupidity, Gladness, Fear, Sadness

Augustine says:

Note also that I am drawing on my memory when I say there are four perturbations of the mind—cupidity, gladness, fear, sadness and from memory I produce whatever I say in discussing them . . .

And even before I recalled them, they were there. I was able to bring them out from memory’s store. These notions we do not receive through any bodily entrance [senses] (BX p. 191–92)

The mind, which is “a natural endowment,” has four attributes, which are there “before I recall them,” hence the attributes are of human nature as well. We do not learn fear; it is activated in our mind when we encounter something terrifying, human nature’s mechanism for self-preservation. As is gladness, in a similar way, when we encounter something joyful; natural inclination to be happy, and sadness, a natural reaction to grief or disappointment. Of these perturbations, it is cupidity, a natural desire for self-improvement, which plays a key role in understanding concupiscence as a distortion of desires, both somatic and intangible.

We are all seeking a happy life, joy, which is ultimately found in God. For Augustine, those who are unhappy are seeking joy in other things.

The happy life is joy found in truth (BX p. 199).

Their love for truth takes the form that they love something else and want this object of their love to be the truth; and because they do not wish to be deceived, they do not wish to be persuaded that they are mistaken. And so, they hate the truth for the sake of the object which they love instead of the truth. (BX p. 199)

Herein lies the struggle for Equilibrium. The intellect is seeking truth, and the will is seeking good. In some instances, the will seeks joy (good) from things, and the intellect argues that it is not true that this thing will provide joy. On the other hand, there are instances when the intellect seeks truth in opportunities, and the will argues that this opportunity is not good. It is here that cupidity comes into play.

You command me without question to abstain “from the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the ambition of the secular world” (1 John 2:16) (BX p. 202)

Besides the lust of the flesh which inheres in the delight given by all pleasures of the senses, there exists in the soul, through the medium of the same bodily senses, a cupidity which does not take delight in carnal pleasure but in perceptions acquired through the flesh. (BX p. 211)

The phrases, “through the same bodily senses . . . perceptions acquired through the flesh,” correlate with Paul’s use of the word “sarx,” which encompasses pleasures of the bodily senses as well as worldly enticements. Augustine describes these temptations in the framework of 1 John 2:16.

There are various Bible translations of 1 John 2:16, but most use the same verbiage, lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life. To extract meaning from this verse, it seems that the first and second are similar, even to seem the same. The eye must see the object of lust prior to the act of lust for the object. The translation in the New American Bible, however, uses words that make a subtle distinction between the first and second allurement, as in a similar quote from Augustine above.

“For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world.”

Enticement is the pivotal word. There are many things in the world that are enticing that are not “fleshy” in a sensual/sexual way. Paul knew this very well. There are things in “sarx” that draw us away from God and toward an inordinate desire for fame, honor, wealth, and power.

Augustine breaks down how cupidity influences the intellect by making a distinction between pleasure and cupidity, and cupidity in relation to curiosity.

Cupidity does not take delight in carnal pleasure but in perceptions acquired through the flesh. As this is rooted in the appetite for knowing, and as among the senses the eyes play a leading role in acquiring knowledge, the divine word calls it “the lust of the eyes” (I John 2:16). [In that sense] we apply the power of vision to knowledge generally. (BX p. 210) From this observation it becomes easier to distinguish the activity of the senses in relation to pleasure from their activity in relation to curiosity. Curiosity pursues the contraries of these delights with the motive of seeing what the experiences are like, not with a wish to undergo discomfort, but out of a lust for experimenting and knowing. [Or] when there is no advantage in knowing and the investigators simply desire knowledge for its own sake.

Cupidity is the desire for possessions, material possessions or intangible possessions such as experience or knowledge. Curiosity is a particularity of cupidity as a desire for tangibles or intangibles, but not necessarily to possess them.

Part 3: Body/Soul/Mind

In considering the mind in relation to the body/soul person, we first have to consider the bond between soul and mind. Intellect and Will are faculties of the soul, yet it is through the mind that they interact. The images and experiences, as well as perceptions acquired by the person are stored in memory readily available to the mind for thoughts and interactions. Necessarily, there is a connection between the mind and the body. Thoughts and interactions are expressed by the body. It is far from being speculative to say that the interface between the mind/soul, and the body, is the brain. The brain calls on memory for the data it needs to direct the body in ordinary activities.

In Christian morals and in particular, Catholic doctrine on the human person, the dignity and life of the person is of highest priority. The interface between mind and brain, however, does not comprise the human person. The human person is body and soul, and anything that proceeds from this is secondary in defining the person. It is an ongoing debate between the secular understanding of person verses the Christian definition. This debate engages in many bioethical situations in determining prognosis and end of life considerations. Be it a person in a hospital who is comatose or has “no brain/neurological activity,” or a person in elderly care who is not responding voluntarily or a person deemed to be mentally dysfunctional; the question becomes, “Is there a point in any of these situations when termination of life would be ethical?” Of course, the answer is “no,” because the human person is body/soul composite, not body/mind. The dynamic of soul, mind, memory functions whether or not the body is participating. The person, as body/soul, is still alive as long as the body is breathing and heart beating. When this ceases, the soul, and all the metaphysics of the person live on in the soul.

I am not learned in bioethics, but the little I have been exposed to gives me confidence that these assertions are accurate from a theological perspective, in which I am learned.

Dr. D.C. Schindler, in his essay “Notes Toward the Definition of Memory,”³ responds to the notion that memory itself can be forgotten (lost).

There is, of course, an evident irony in suggesting that it is even possible to forget memory. (p222) To speak of forgetting, not just one item or another but memory itself, is to drift toward self-contradiction. . . The horrifying thing that would be produced by the brutal excision of memory is not a human being, and cer­tainly not a person.¹⁷ (DCS p. 223).

Footnote 17 (DCS p. 223):

Note that this does not mean that those who suffer from amnesia or Alzheimer’s, or those who enter into a condition wherein they are no longer able to access their memories consciously, are no longer human beings. This would happen only on a radically reduced subjectivistic interpretation of memory, and of human beings simply (thus, for example, John Locke argued that human beings without memory no longer have personal identity). We are going to argue that memory by its very essence exceeds individual subjectivity, which implies that even those who lose their own subjective access to memory continue to participate in it in a broader sense.

Memory, Intellect, Will

Dr. Schindler brings these ideas together by noting the difference between Augustine and Aquinas’ analogy of the imago Trinitatis in the human soul.

Footnote 4 (DCS p220): Aquinas also speaks of memory as the habitual principle from which the acts of intellect and will arise . . . See ST I, q. 93, a. 7. [DCS citation]

He further explains that Aquinas differs from Augustine in regard to the entities of memory, intellect, and will. According to Aquinas,

Footnote 6 (DCS p220): “memory” is the intellectual object habitually possessed, while “intellect” and “will” represent that object actually known and loved.

Aquinas explains that it remains co-equal with the others, not as a power with respect to other powers but as habitual possession to actual possession (i.e., potency to act).
ST I, q. 79, a. 6; cf. ST I, q. 79, a. 7. [DSC citation]

At this point, the question of the soul’s immutable essence may arise. Created fully and immortal, as the form of the body, the soul is what the body will become as it matures, physically and mentally, in stature and knowledge. As immaterial spirit, however, the soul cannot change; there is no maturation or growth. By proposing that the memory is an element of the soul, albeit a passive one, it might seem that by adding things, images, experiences, to memory, the soul would be changed by addition, and addition implies growth. If we look back at what Aquinas proposes, we understand that there is no contradiction. Aquinas: The memory “remains co-equal with the others, not as a power with respect to other powers but as habitual possession to actual possession (i.e., potency to act).” (DCS p220)

As habitual to actual, potency to act, memory is an element of the created soul by way of being an “intellectual object,” an object of the intellect. Memory in potentia and act does not contradict the immutability of the soul. The accumulation of images/experiences would be natural to the soul. Memory is then actualized by such accumulation, which comes through the living of life.

Conclusion

Free Will

Not enough has been said about free will, God’s gift to human nature. In the context of imbalance/equilibrium, free will wavers with the winds of concupiscence, choosing to take the advice of the intellect or will in the “arguments” of imbalance. Of course, through faith and grace, our conscience, well formed, guides this “choosing” and supports and encourages our free will in making a good, or right choice.

Recapitulation

Have we answered our question? “How is it that the unredeemed body influences intangible desire?”

First, we have cupidity, inherent in the mind, which seeks intangibles such as self-improvement, or ambition, but through concupiscence it distorts these desires, resulting in an obsession with fame, honor, wealth, and/or power. In addition, there is the mind/body interface, the brain, the metaphysical and the bodily through which the body expresses the soul.

Through the living of life, we collect aspirations and perceptions of potential opportunities in our memory. Aspirations and perceptions are received through bodily senses; we see something that is enticing, or we may hear ideas in discussion that formulate ambition. These perceptions, gained through the senses, influence the intellect and will, in tandem with bodily desire for pleasure.

And so it is, that concupiscence, in the struggle for equilibrium, will be a constant opponent to the intellect and will . . .

“as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.”

Epilogue

Conscience, Soul, Grace, and Free Will

This is all well and good, one might ask, but doesn’t this seem like “knowledge for the sake of knowledge”?

We recognize our conscience as an inner guidance between right and wrong, what we should do and what we should not do. Even as we are unaware of the workings of the soul, the intellect and will are active in guiding the conscience in simple and more complex matters. Through prayer, aided by grace, we can increase our awareness, enabling us to participate in this discernment more fully.

This is very important in two respects. In our own spiritual life, this multilayered dialogue gives us more clarity in dealing with encounters that require decisive judgement. Secondly, we can help others with these complex situations. It may be with an individual in spiritual direction, in casual conversation, or in small group discussion. At the same time, they can be led to a heightened awareness of their active soul, with its powers of intellect and will, and to have more intention in developing their prayer life and spiritual life. With this interior awareness we can go beyond discerning good and bad, to a deeper understanding of what is true and good.

Who can know God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the LORD intends?
For the deliberations of mortals are timid, and unsure are our plans.
For the corruptible body burdens the soul and the earthen shelter weighs down the mind that has many concerns. Or who ever knew your counsel, except you had given wisdom
and sent your holy spirit from on high?
And thus were the paths of those on earth made straight.
(Wisdom 9:13–15, 17–18)