What, then, finally of
the Sun, the Moon and the Stars? Are they, each one, a Substantial Form? Like
the Earth with its waters, the Sun, Moon and Stars fulfill the 3rd
requirement: they cannot be subsumed. They seem to be incommunicable, complete
and autonomous. But are they? Do they not depend in a rather absolute way –
upon the firmament in which they have been set on Day Four? The waters cannot
exist without some kind of container, such as the ocean’s shores, the river’s
banks, the firmament for those above? It seems to me that all of these larger
parts, as well as the atomic and other particles, require a larger Substance in
which they inhere as to be what they are: accidental forms, not substantial.
Did not St. Thomas recognize this implicitly when he said: “The world is
composed of the whole of its matter. For it is not possible for there to be
another earth than this one – since every earth would naturally be carried to
this central one, wherever it was. The same applies to the other bodies which
are part of the world. (ST,I,q.47,a3. - See answers to all the objections.
“No agent intends material plurality as the end…”)
My present thinking
about organ donation and related topics has not changed since previous
statements. All “scientific” experiments involving human body parts – I find
extremely repulsive, and I truly believe they are all deeply immoral. It is
agreed, I think, amongst Traditional thinkers, that “brain death” ought to be
considered illegal as a test of body death. All organ transplants require a
living organ. The implications are quite obvious. I even question now, the
very common giving of blood. And I find the issue of frozen embryos highly
questionable. If an adult human body is frozen, death certainly ensues. But
embryos are routinely frozen and thawed and implanted!?! I wonder if we have
the whole truth here? Maybe there is some truth in the medieval idea of the
vegetative soul preceding the sensitive and the sensitive preceding the
rational. Cardinal Mercier of Louvain, (and the villain in the so-called
mandate to accommodate Thomism to modern science’s “method and data”). (See
this writer’s “A Great Betrayal”) --- also was a proponent of the medieval
embryology, as opposed to the modern pro-life consensus that at the time of
conception, i.e., fertilization, the soul is present, when the genetic
complement is complete.
The method of modern
science is the exclusion, the absolute ruthless exclusion, of any relation or
reference of creatures to the Creator-God. And the “data” of modern science is
the imposed ideology of evolution, which is also and just as ruthlessly, that
is, categorically ruled to be the given that replaces the real and true givens
of the First Principles of all knowledge. The marvel is that this great
deception has succeeded for so long to convince so many people that it is the
truth about reality. I think it is evidence, before all else, of the power of
the authority of knowledge. This is Lucifer’s Masterpiece: the evolutionary
worldview – starting with the heliocentric cosmology of Copernicus and Galileo.
With the fixed-central Earth dislodged and sent whirling and twirling like any
other planet, the entire cosmological order of reality was bound to produce a
chaos in men’s minds. It could not disturb the Created Order, which continues
the same as God created it and fixed it on Days One, Two, Three and Four – in
preparation for Adam as the prototype of the God-Man Jesus Christ, Our Lord and
His Immaculate Mother Mary, the Second Adam and Second Eve to redeem us from the
ruinous fall of our first parents. It remains to demonstrate – that the
elements are accidental forms, NOT substantial forms. This is best done, I
believe, by showing how they operate – always – as the model properties of one
or the other of Aristotle’s nine categories of accidents of some substance.
I think it was John
Locke who first made a big To-Do over what he called Galileo’s secondary
qualities, such as color and sound. This issue was also first brought into
prominence for me when one of the boys I was home-schooling, one who had been
through the first six grades in a public school, refused absolutely to believe
that there was any objective reality to color or to sound. Color, he was
convinced, and so remains to this day – I suppose – is due entirely to the rods
and cones in the eye. With sound, it is entirely to the action of the apparatus
in the ear. The way he put it was that if a tree fell in the forest, there was
NO sound at all, if there was no one to perceive it. What must be emphasized,
therefore, is the objective reality of dimensive and continuous matter or atomic
motion. The particles of material forms are always in motion, and this motion,
whether measured and perceived by anyone or not, takes place as a result - as
an effect of the action of some material – secondary cause, created by God. The
same is true of the colors generated by the photons of light in the air. It is
the finite character of the Prime or Primary Matter of the Universe – what St.
Thomas designates when he says that the “world, that is, the Universe, is
composed of the Whole of its matter”, (ST. I, q.47, a.3) – it is the potencies
contained in this immensity – the virtually infinite number of potentialities
for all material-corporeal beings, including Man – that determine, in
conjunction with each specific form – the essential nature of each, in the Order
of Generation, but always preserving the substantial forms of the Order of
Creation.
Agency and Passivity are
the two categories that follow quantity and quality in the list of nine
categories of accidental forms. And they designate the areas of secondary
causality. There are two areas most clearly illustrative of secondary causality
and the production of accidental forms. One is the transmission by generation
of the substantial forms of each physical species. A. in plants of the cereal
forms – the flowering forms and the tree forms. B. in all the marine forms and
the birds. C. in all land animal forms and D. of man-kind.
In all of these areas,
the Substantial Forms of the Order of Creation are transmitted by the
male-female reproductive process which produces new Substantial Forms, without
any substantial change in the parents. The same is true in the areas of making
things wherein the beings who are Substantial Forms, make things of beauty and
of use. They are Secondary Causes, acting under God’s primary efficient
Causality. (See the 2nd Way of St. Thomas). In the area of Art, the
maker or cause is a Substantial Form, and the product or effect is an accidental
form. In the Inanimate domain of the elements, we have innumerable examples of
agency and passive receptivity on the part of the elements, illustrating the
operations of accidental forms amongst themselves – obeying the laws of the
Substance into which they have been subsumed. Here, I need the help of a
physicist and chemist to illustrate the many operations of physical and chemical
change on the part of the elements – especially as they climb up the ladder of
the Hierarchy of Being, from one-celled plants and animals, to the human body in
its fallen state, and in the perfect integral Sacred Humanity of the God-Man and
His Immaculate Mother Mary. The Category of Relation is one that needs special
attention. For Aristotle, it meant consanguinity. But it can be extended to
designate any inter-relatedness between beings, such as our relatedness to the
environment and to other human beings. The notion of value, under the new
“science of aetiology, (please check me on this), is an attempt, in my opinion,
to replace the notions of natural and un-natural, of virtue and vice – or sin
with a notion of “value”.
(ST, I-II, q.31, a.7)
In an article “asking”
whether any pleasure is not natural? St. Thomas answers that in man, what is
natural can be taken in two ways: One being pleasures that are experienced when
one acts in accord with reason. For instance, it is natural to man to take
pleasure in contemplating the Truth and in doing works of virtue. The second
being – and here I invite the reader to read for himself – what St. Thomas says
and especially his use of the term – connatural, which I have seen printed as
connatural and I do not think they are the same. St. Thomas relates this second
kind of pleasure to an individual deviation, disorder or corruption of nature in
an individual and peculiar to him as individual. Such are from the body, from
some ailment, or from an evil temperament – or on the part of the soul. Thus
from custom – some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural intercourse
of men and beasts, or other such things, which are not in accord with human
nature. (ST.I-II, q.31, a.7)
It is in objection (2)
that the objector quotes from Aristotle’s Metaphysics, v.5 – whatever is violent
causes grief, for whatever is against nature is violent. Therefore, nothing
which is unnatural can give pleasure. And as noted above, St. Thomas points out
that some individuals do take a kind of con-natural, or really unnatural,
pleasure in certain actions related to nature, but in an improper or unnatural
or con-natural way. Well, the homosexuals, lovers of animals, and other lovers
of the unnatural, could take this text from St. Thomas as their basic
“justification”, I suppose, as Modernists are prone to do. I prefer to use such
terms as unnatural and perverse – rather than connatural or co-natural. But I
see St. Thomas’ point. The Objector was simply denying that even some actions
so un-natural as to be perverse and mortally sinful in God’s sight – as St.
Thomas surely demonstrates in his discussions of sin in the human act – are
still so close to the natural pleasure as to offer to some individuals of a
corruption in their body or in their soul, a kind of substitute for the natural
pleasure. And he gives example of those who in a fever, taste sweet as bitter,
those of an undisciplined, evil temperament – may commit totally irrational
acts, such as eating dirt or hot coals, etc. This digression was occasioned by
an interested reader who asked for more on proper and improper relations.
In the area of the
natural sciences, Aristotle’s category of relation- I have extended to designate
the relatedness between the atoms that causes them to be attracted or repulsed
to or by each other. I suppose it would come under the valency of the electron
and the bonding conditions. Here is where so much research needs to be done by
those with expertise in such fields as pure physics and all the areas of
chemistry in the life sciences. Time and Place are the next two categories and
I have written at length on both of these in previous works. Time, was created
on Day One as it began with the first motion of a physical particle. Its
measurement by man was determined by God Himself with the inauguration of Days
and the movements of the Sun, Moon and Stars. Adam, and his sons, made great
use of the constellations by imposing the primary figures of the Redemption on
these starry configurations. See Joseph Seiss – THE GOSPEL IN THE STARS. Any
attempt to replace this realistic notion of time and of time coupled with space,
in some kind of continuum, is only Einstein’s mental-mathematical construct - a
work of science fiction at best and at worst.
As for Place, the Body
of the Universe is, itself, one vast, immense created place for all of God’s
creatures, including the Angels! On this subject, with special reference to
HEAVEN AS A PLACE, see the excellent article of that title, by Robert Siscoe,
in the Catholic Family News, for September of 2013. Posture and Clothing relate
specifically to those accidents or properties of human beings that are
accidental in the most superficial and external sense, but could be found quite
relevant to someone deeply and thoroughly versed in physics, and the differing
geometric shapes that the atoms assume in their many operations. In fact, the
Platonists of the Pythagorean tradition – not only discovered the “music of the
spheres” – but also the (5) Platonic solids in their emphasis upon the
mathematical marvels – evidenced in Creation, for we know from Divine Revelation
– that God hath ordered all things by measure, number and weight….mightily and
sweetly. (Wisdom 1:8 and 11:21.)