3DOP

The intimacy of sharing? I think we all have probably experienced and enjoyed that. But I have never heard it expressed in such a plain way. It reminds me of a mysterious passage in the last book of the New Testament: "To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone, which no one knows except him who receives it." ---Rev. 2:17b It sounds like a secret that the just shares with our dear Lord alone. I like your idea a lot. It seems very fitting. Yeah. Nobody is going to be mind reading the new name that is given to the just, who conquers! It reminds me of a song from the 80's after my time. This band called Radiohead made a song called Creep. The singer had the saddest lament of any Psalmist or Jeremiah. He talks about the human desire to be "special". No one can claim that name except he or she who receives it. It is unique and perfectly fulfills the natural human desire to be special.

I don't have the answers. It seems like there are degrees of glory for sure. I would only suggest that every soul of the just is unique and has glory that pertains to him or her alone in different qualities and quantities. I am only speculating. I hold that there is more that is unrevealed than revealed. We seem to be required to accept mysteries. Heh, longview. Thanks for the reply. But I don't think my Church has been told the answers. That is why I cautiously "suggest". All the best longview. I appreciate your questions.

I suppose us oldies will be relieved of walking across the house and when we get to where we were going; it seems like we should remember why we were going there?

There is a list. There are seven attributes of the resurrected bodies of the just. The unjust have only the first three attributes. 1) Identity, "Resurrected bodies will retain their original identity; we will be essentially the same persons as before we died." 2) Integrity, "Resurrected bodies will retain all of the parts of their old bodies – resurrected bodies will be complete. This property or condition is called integrity." 3) Quality, "Our bodies will be youthful and will retain our original gender, a condition called quality." 4) Impassibility, "We will be immune from death and pain, a condition called impassibility." 5) Subtlety, "Our bodies will be free from restraint by matter, yet palpable. This is a property called subtlety. To St. Thomas, subtlety means perfect subjection of the body to the soul." 6) Agility, "We will have complete freedom of movement, our souls will direct our bodies without hindrance." 7) Clarity, "The glory of our souls will be visible in our bodies. We will be beautiful and radiant, a property called clarity." ---copied from the following website: https://thoughtfulcatholic.com/on-the-resurrection-of-the-body/ #4 is obvious to all. #'s 5 and 6 might seem similar. #5 One would not be hindered from passing through solid objects. But because such a body would be palpable, made out of matter, the soul would also be able use matter in the way we are accustomed at this time. I don't think we know how this operation of subtlety would work. Will the just have some kind of control over matter, or will it consist in control of one's body? #6 Movement could be instantaneous, or at least light speed perhaps! It seems like instantaneous. I say that because of someone who might like to explore the physical heavens. If it were only e at light speed it would seem to take almost forever to finish seeing things. Of course, time doesn't exist anymore. There are so many more questions that these proposals raise. It can be edifying to ponder any of them. Each are so full of mystery, and prompt questions to wonder about. This seems like an inkling of what would be in store, but it is revealed that it hasn't entered our thoughts or hearts what God has really prepared for those who love Him. Which is the greater motivation for behaving ourselves before God? Would it be the fear of being one of the unjust, or the desire of being among the just. I know belief in both hell and heaven continue to be factors in making me try to be better. How often do I put these things out of mind? Often. Daily. Praise God for His mercy and love towards us. The list above was written by a webmaster who took them from St. Thomas Aquinas. If you don't know, in the articles of the Summa Theologica, Thomas tries to avoid straw men by first listing some reasons why his eventual proposition might be in error. It can be pretty dry reading. There are good summaries of the Summa that are more accessible to the ordinary faithful. Obviously, non-Catholics will not necessarily accept any or all of these. But one should at least be able to recognize and respect the intellectual rigor which he poured into his entire works. When at the end of his life, he called his writings straw, we do not think he was saying his work was erroneous, but rather was acknowledging how that it lacked the brilliance of a single glimpse of what heaven is really like.

Cal. Hi. You always put so much loving thought into your beliefs. May we meet in a happy place of peace. I won't say more until then.

Thanks cal. You are always so generous.

In medieval times, it had not yet been determined that the soul comes into existence at conception. It wasn't that Aquinas would have accused the Mother of God of having sinned. Rather, it was undetermined at that time when the soul came into the body. It had to have occurred at least by the time of quickening, when the baby had mobility in the womb. In medieval times the timing of the entrance of the soul was undetermined. The teaching in the New Catechism (#366) is recent and does not affirm the timing. It only affirms that the soul is created "immediately" by God. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 argues for why the current position of the Church satisfies the major premises of three schools of thought. But it does not reference a defined statement of the Church's doctrine either. www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm The question of timing appears to be more difficult than I have previously considered. For instance, twins are sometimes joined in the womb, before they split bodily. Are there two souls in one body before they split? I don't think we have that information at this time. The only hints I can think of is not from reasoning but revelation. When the Blessed Virgin visited Elizabeth after the Incarnation, the Christ child would have been only weeks old at the most. Elizabeth referred to Mary as "the mother of my lord." But even Elizabeth's inspired remark could be referring to the future. Ps. 51 has David saying that in sin he was conceived. Assuredly he is not referring to the marriage act. The Psalmists frequently resort to hyperbole. This could be another example of that. It would be a sola scriptura argument which as always, never settles doctrinal controversy. My reading of the New Catechism leaves the timing open according to how I read in #366. I think one would have to resort to the fallible teachings of St. Paul VI (Humanae Vitae) and John Paul II in regards to contraception and abortion. We are still learning all the time. We are trending towards ensoulment at conception. I have to admit that I do not think we are all the way there yet. Edit: Or maybe Catholics should infer ensoulment at conception because of the defined teaching of the Immaculate Conception. This does little for non-Catholics, but I think we could affirm that Mary could not be "immaculately conceived" without a soul for a length of time.

Thanks for being forthcoming Tony. Cal talked about "quickening". When Mom feels the baby move. That is why, if I correctly understand, Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception. You followed what you were taught, and St. Thomas agreed. Before the Council of Nicea, St Justin Martyr, who died for the name of Jesus, and who we Catholics honor to this day, had some views that 150 years later, after Nicea, would have been questioned. More than me, you have submitted to what you thought the Church taught you. In my eyes, and I think in the eyes of God, you are a very good son of the Church.

Hi again, Cal. It is undefined, but I believe in love. God isn't going to punish a baby, or a fetus, made in His image. One of my daughters has only four lovable children that have been born. She laments her many miscarriages. Gabriel was big enough and old enough to have a name and to have been buried. My unborn grandson has a grave. No one can accuse me of denying the Catholic faith for believing that he beholds the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in heaven this very moment. I used to tend to believe that he would be in what we call Limbo of the Children. That might be also. Even that is a pretty great deal, if you will, for never even having the chance to sin. But I now tend to think that I will see him, and know him, and love him someday, unless I apostasize. Gabriel is okay. But according to our faith, that hope doesn't give anybody the right to cut our little ones short, who can't even make a choice, short of having a longer mortal life.

Hi calm. I don't know about your first question. The principle is that one always favors life both with regards to procreation and abortion. Catholics who understand these things (most of our bishops) that come up in our modern scientific world are always in favor of that which is healthy. This comes from the belief that everything that God created is good. First chapters of Genesis. If its good and works, leave it alone. The Church doesn't agree with anything that would "frustrate" good health. That means that we can't oppose nature. Nature is good. We are against abortion or sterilization unless it is the only option that allows for the most life. There are natural ways to limit pregnancies for many good reasons. We can't oppose nature. But we can use nature. But here is the problem. Unlike many Christians and virtually all non-Christians, Catholics believe that an immortal soul is supernaturally created simultaneously with natural human conception. So how can we approve of the destruction of a person with an immortal soul? Only be dehumanization. And I approve of that intellectual process! I don't believe that pro-choice folks believe in murder, praise God. There is no getting around it as a Catholic. But we would be wrong to think that secular folks who don't believe in immortal souls are guilty of murder. That makes it easier to love them. None of us are promoting murder. So we aren't in favor of sterilization either. But we are "stuck", if you will, with our theology, while loving it, and seeing it as good. We cannot approve of the destruction of healthy organisms (sterilization). Nor can we approve of any abortions that would medically result in certain anticipated deaths, unless we are saving one (the mother or child), for the sake of the other. If two are going to die without medical intervention, and one can live with medical intervention, then intervention is the good and moral choice.

Thanks Eschaton and Seeking Understanding. I wasn't aware of this public discourse which seems to pit anti-empathy against pro-empathy. It appears to me to be more nuanced than presented by the poll, or the NCR article which baited them into foolishly arguing against something called empathy, but which demands more than is prudent or reasonable. It made them look like terrible people, but if we have empathy, we will try to understand them better. I said that "I do not know of a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate motives and feelings of everybody." It seems to me that what is bolded and italicized is not the same as the "empathy" that the conservatives are opposing. If they are all really against what I described as empathy above, they have not declared themselves against that. Do either of you take issue with how I have described empathy? The NCR article begins as follows: "There's a growing movement, among some conservatives, pushing back against traditional notions of empathy. What's behind it, and what might it mean, especially for Christian conservatives?" From what I could see in the subsequent article, the conservatives were accepting a new definition of "empathy" which views those who are against unlimited immigration as lacking in the same. Hopefully not. Many of us can't accept a novel kind of empathy that is certainly not traditional, and which requires us to accept as good and moral everything that anyone with whom we empathize believes or does. To empathize with someone does not traditionally require agreement with all of their beliefs and actions. However, to empathize with those with whom we disagree is a very traditional Christian virtue. It is natural and easy to empathize with those with whom we agree. How much merit is there in that? I am afraid I don't see much empathy on the non-conservative side either, beyond those with whom they already agree about morals and law. I did like a lot of what you said SeekingUnderstanding above. I certainly wouldn't include you among those who paint the other side in the worst possible light. I appreciate that while you are probably what is called pro-choice, you do not approve of calling a fetus, a clump of cells. I am what is called pro-life, but I have to recognize that pro-choicers do not believe as I do, that God imparts the immortal soul of a human person at conception. How can it be a crime if the fetus is no more human at the start than is a mouse full-grown? I disagree with anyone who thinks empathy should be the supreme rule by which civilization should be governed. Hyperbolic comments against the word by conservative commentators are unfortunate. But if those who are against the conservatives in this debate wanted to empathize with the conservatives, they would see that they are not against traditional ideas of empathy. They are only against empathy if it requires them to try to coherently accept the beliefs and behaviors of everybody they disagree with at once. Even Elon Musk was quoted as saying that empathy is good in its proper place: "Empathy can be good, but it's too often weaponized to persuade well-meaning people to support bad ideas." No one said anything against trying to "understand and appreciate motives and feelings of everybody."

I challenge these contentions. You say that "we all know certain extremists..." I am not familiar with a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate the motives and feelings of everybody. Has everybody here heard of this phenomenon except me? For those who are in the know about this ugly phenomenon, with empathy, maybe you might see these "certain extremists" in a more favorable light? Maybe you have misunderstood them? I cannot possibly see someone who disapproves of empathy having so much influence over a population in such a short time. You call it "slow poison"? This would have to be one of the swiftest acting social poisons ever if you were even correct in your theory. Regarding your opinion about White Evangelicals...Do you know a lot of them, other than through the internet? Besides this poll, what leads you to find them so deep in anti-empathy as to be "probably a lost cause at this point"? Are there any other categories of people in the world that in your opinion are "probably a lost cause at this point"? I am confident that the evangelicals I have known, even the white ones, if they knew you, would be empathetic about your view of them. They have much good in them as do you. Everyone alive has good nature as a foundation upon which God's grace can build a virtuous and loving person, another Christ! I do not know your background, but I know God loves you, in spite of it and because of it. We are all the same in that regard. We all have some bad and some good in us. God does not consider anybody a "lost cause" and neither should His children. That alone is enough truth for empathy with our fellows in the same condition. There are reasons, almost entirely hidden from us, that have shaped the characters of those who we are tempted to despise the most. As your brother in the God-Man Jesus Christ, I admonish you to try to understand everybody, all of our brothers and sisters in Jesus. We can't give up on any one, and certainly not an entire group of Jesus' brothers and sisters as "a lost cause", not at any point. I am happy to note that you qualified your comment with "probably". I say definitely NOT...a lost cause! I am a former white Evangelical and minister, who will always be thankful for their help as God's instrument in a beginning of a life in Jesus many years ago. I have firm hope that He that willed a beginning of His life in me, through these white Evangelicals, will continue it in me until the day of Christ Jesus. 3DOP

Eschaton, hi. Accept my heartiest best wishes. The idea you raise is truly important! It is quite likely that I do not know what is meant by the word empathy. It is because Christians seemed more wary of empathy than those with no religion, it made me think that there is perhaps a misunderstanding on the part of participants in the poll as well. I am all in favor of "weeping with those who weep and rejoicing with those who rejoice." We should try to understand and appreciate the joys and pains of people who aren't Christians too. My Church teaches that "through the Incarnation of Christ as man, He has in a certain sense, united Himself with every human person". That is a paraphrase of a document from the Second Vatican Council called Gaudium et spes. It is in ch. 22. I have it partly memorized because that certain sense, spoken of, must be maximized. It is a radical recognition that He who our religion is named for, Christ, doesn't identify persons as what they have done, but as His, Who came to deliver all of the sons and daughters of Adam into the liberty and freedom to renounce the ties that bind them to that which is not God. He identifies with all of us together, through His most Sacred and Loving Heart in willing the best for everyone. Of course, He will not violate anyone's freedom to reject His love. Everyone we encounter in any way is a brother or sister in Jesus. They may not have faith. They might be unbaptized. This isn't to say that they enjoy God's peace in a life indifferent to God's laws or in the next life. But it should mean that in justice, Christians should have the deepest compassion, (or empathy?), for everyone in this world of restlessness and sorrows, without ever ourselves being indifferent or triumphalist because of some self-imagined superiority. We have to want the best for those who might appear to be the farthest away from our beliefs. They are ever so close because Jesus is the God-Man. I suppose this is a truth that will be even more obvious to the Latter-day Saint who believes we are all God's spirit children. Coming at it differently, with a transcendent God, we join you, perhaps with more wonder, because of the belief that a God who is wholly content, who does not need us, would sacrifice that contentment for a time, to enter Creation, and become one of us. It is stupendous; faith alone makes it credible. Thanks for the post. Regards, Rory

From the results, it seems like "empathy" as understood by those responding, might be more of a non-Christian value than Christian. It appears that the Christian value of good will and the need to love our neighbors includes a balance that recognizes that loving everyone cannot blur the distinction between good and evil behaviors which we might discover among those for whom we are called to love. Unconditional love and good will to all? Yes. But that cannot mean unconditional approval of every possible kind of human behavior.