If it did, we could do whatever we
wanted with it, like we do with our possessions.
However, it is not the case, because
in order to have a right of ownership
2 things are needed:
a subject who owns; the owner,
and the thing that is owned,
the 2 things must be distinct
from each other.
Which is not the case with man.
Man is a substantiel whole,
composed metaphysically
of a body and a soul.
How many beings are there
between the body and the soul?
There is only one;
Only one substance.
The body and soul are the
principles of the being.
Am I my body?
No.
Am I my soul?
No.
I am my body and soul,
both of them
together, substantially united.
Since there is only one being
in me, there cannot be a right
of ownership of one over the
other.
The French philosopher Descartes
came up with the idea that the
soul was the master of the body.
He compared it to the captain of a
ship in the relation to his ship.
The problem with this analogy is
that the captain can anchor his
ship and get off, and on again,
when he wants,
whereas we cannot take our soul
in and out of our bodies.
We are body and soul in one.
So who does our body belong to?
It belongs to God.
God has universal ownership
on all things,
He has ownership of us,
He is the Creator and the Master,
we are His things.
We also own things, things that
are ours.
For example you are the full owner
of your car, and also the owner of the utilisation of your car.
But when you rent a car then
you are only the owner of the
right to utilise the car, you will
have to give it back.
Man has the ownership of the
utilisation of the body; the totality
of the being which is the body and
the soul,
and in this sense there is a right of ownership because now there is
2 elements present:
1. The subject who possesses; man,
2. The right to utilisation of the body.
God gave us the right to the utilisation
of our body.
So does that mean that we can do
whatever we like with the body?
No, because we are not the owner
of it,
but we are meant to use it.
That's why we have morals to guide
our actions.
An action is deemed to be good
when it respects and is in accordance
with the purpose of the action.
E.g. I eat because I want to nourish
the body, it gives me strength to do
what I need to do, but I don't eat
only for the pleasure of eating.
Thus the purpose of the action is
respected.
Short resumé of Catholic teaching concerning the body:
1. Man is not the proprietor of his body
2. Man has the right of usage of his body.
Man should use the body in accordance
with the purpose of his actions.
This is the basis for the entire Catholic
morality: to respect the purpose of our
actions.
So God has ownership of us, but He
gives to man's spirit the governance
of his own actions.
Ecclesiasticus ( Sirach) 15:14:
" It was He who created humankind
in the beginning, and He left them
in the power of their own free choice".
To this end He equipped us with
intelligence.
5th commandment:
Thou shall not kill.
Suicide:
When a person takes away his
life by his own authority he
destroys something that belongs
to someone else.
God created us, our existence,
and He remains our Master and
Lord.
Suicide is a sin against God, against
oneself and against society.
The person takes the place of God
in his decision.
There is also what is called indirect
suicide, when the person knows
that his action is likely to kill him,
however it is not the purpose or
intention of his actions. E.g: the
doctor or priest who enters a
leprosy colony to help know that
they are likely to catch it themselves,
the priest who goes into a battlefield
to give the Sacraments to injured or
dying soldiers, does so knowing that
he is putting his own life on the line.
These cases are not regarded in the
same way as direct suicide, even
though the person knows that his
own life might be taken as a result
of his actions, because it lacks
the expressed intent.
Suicide is a grave sin, but let it
be clear that in stating this, there
is no judgement or condamnation,
because only God can judge, and we
know that the suffering endured can
sometimes be so intense, that it can
be a case of reduced responsibility.
Objectively suicide is a grave offence
towards God.
Also; any bodily mutilation is a sin.
With the obvious exceptions of
removing sick body parts in order to
preserve life, in cases of cancer or
gangrene for example, what we see
today in the big business of surgically
removing healthy breasts and healthy
sexual organs of vulnerable and
confused young people, is a grave sin,
against God and against oneself.
In regard to our body, we have an
obligation to take care of it, in a
normal way; in order to preserve
life.
Homicide: to cause the death of
another person by one's own
authority.
Whether the person being killed is
guilty of something or not, is not
the issue, the issue is that it is
forbidden, we do not have, as
individuals, the authority to
take anyone's life, only God has
that authority.
However the society do have the
right, the government can decide to
eliminate a member, in the interest
of the good of society as a whole,
similarly to cutting off a sick part
of the body in order to preserve it's
life.
The taking of life, killing, is the
greatest injustice in the natural
order, between human beings,
it does not apply to animals or
plants or other things.
However killing in self defence
is allowed, when there are no
other possible way to prevent
an aggressor who attacks us; who
tries to maim, rape or kill us.
If he can be neutralized in some
other way we are obliged to do
that instead, the taking of life is
always the last resort, when there
are no other options to stop
the person.
It has to be in the actual situations
as they are taking place, it does
not apply to revenge killings for
past events, no matter how justified
we feel we are.
And it applies to situations where
we are unjustly attacked, not for
example if we have provoked a
situation ourselves.
