The Importance of Correct Anthropology

The nature of Man has been the subject of philosophers and theologians since the dawn of time.  The reason is very simple: the nature of man has many serious ramifications on our polities, our education, our responsibilities to our neighbor, and even our relationship to ourselves.  Take the modern phenomenon of transgenderism, for example: this notion is based on the gnostic/enlightenment idea that the person of the human being is the spiritual consciousness, as well as the flawed philosophy of the Social Contractors which claims that one is free to do whatever one wills as long as it does not impose on another’s freedom.  The centrality of Man’s anthropology and the far-reaching ramifications of getting the nature of Man correct is no novel idea to JPII.  He embraces anthropology as his starting point, elaborating on the mystery of the human person throughout his pontificate in order to ensure the Church effectively fulfills her mission of bringing Man to Christ.

Man is neither pure material (the atheistic view), nor is he purely spiritual (the Gnostic view).  Rather, “Sacred Scripture presents both the unity (the person) and the duality (body and soul). One thinks of the Book of Sirach which says: ‘The Lord created man out of earth, and turned him back to it again;’ and further on: ‘He forms men's tongues and eyes and ears, and imparts to them an understanding heart. With wisdom and knowledge he fills them; good and evil he shows them’ (17:1, 5-6) (Catechesis from April 16, 1986).”  The dualistic view of Man, championed not only through Sacred Scripture but also through the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and followed through with Aquinas, all allow Man a nature which is at once animalistic and yet immaterial.  In this school of thought, Man’s subjectivity can be overcome on a spiritual level, and his solitary “encasing” in his physical body can be shared and be in communion with another through physical life.  

What happens when we divorce the physical from the spiritual natures of Man?  Recent history has done just that.  “In modern times,” writes JPII, “the theory of evolution has raised a special difficulty against the revealed doctrine about the creation of man as a being composed of soul and body. With their own methods, many natural scientists study the problem of the origin of human life on earth. Some maintain, contrary to other colleagues of theirs, not only the existence of a link between man and the ensemble of nature, but also his derivation from the higher animal species. This problem has occupied scientists since the last century and involves vast layers of public opinion (April 16).”  What results is a conglomeration of legal structures and education systems, aimed at training rather than teaching, and limiting the will instead of freeing Man.  In such societies, Man cannot be revealed to himself by Christ or by anyone because Man’s original solitude is insurmountable.  He is either material alone, which by its nature cannot relate but only react, or he is Spirit alone, which therefore has no way to access the other spirits trapped in other bodies.

JPII is not wrong to focus on getting the anthropology of Man correct.  As with so many other things, faulty foundations yield faulty constructions.  If we are to truly engage the world through the missionary vocation of the Church, we cannot pretend to be successful without addressing the foundational flaws of the anthropology of our listeners.  In other words: we, like JPII, must make sure we lay correct foundations.  We must never content ourselves to argue positions doomed to fail by subjecting them to the erroneous framework of flawed anthropology.