Intellect and Will: The Difference between Rational and Non-Rational

In certain films of recent decades, animals are portrayed as cunning creatures that can create, build, intellectualize, and make choices. In the 2007 Pixar movie, Ratatouille, for example, an ambitious mouse finds his way into a Parisian Cafe and proves to become the glowing star after cooking up delectable, mouth-watering recipes and along the way brings about justice and romance along the banks of the Sein. As long as media can make the distinctions between the different levels of life, there wouldn't be a problem with talking animals in children's stories. But contemporary society is losing sight of the elevated status of man, imprinted with the image of God, above the rest of creation and attempt to display humanity as merely a more developed creature that will soon by equaled by chimpanzees and dolphins. Could they be more wrong? They have overlooked(or ignored) the two marvelous faculties of a human being that sets him apart from the rest of creation: the powers of intellect and will.

Aristotle gives a very clean cut definition of man: “man is a rational animal.” The word rational comes from the Latin ratio, meaning reason. Man is the only creature capable of reason which means that he is an intellectual creature that can move from one judgment to another in his mind and accept one of them as true. He has an intellect that deliberates and chooses and a free will that puts the result of his deliberation and choice into action. Animals, however clever or sharp God created their instinct, are vastly inferior to mankind because of their lack of capacity to reason. If animals were truly man's equal than a grizzly bear would be put on trial for killing a hunter in Alaska and be accused of murder. Raccoons would be accused of theft and violation of property when digging into trash cans, deer would be convicted for jaywalking, and the list goes on. As anyone can clearly see, this never happens. These animals don't have the intellect to see through the results of their actions.

The word “intellect” originates from the Latin intus legere, which means “to read within.” It is through his intellect that man is able to abstract in which he can de-materialize an object and bring it within the immaterial walls of his mind. A man can sit down and read a passage of Aristotle and abstract the meaning of the words to contemplate them. This power is immaterial, like the rational soul, and can learn and develop as he goes through his various experiences. This power of abstraction proves that man is a spiritual being, contrary to the philosophy and belief of Charles Darwin, and can contemplate eternal truths and theorize about other hidden ones. Another clue to man's amazing intellect is the power of grasping universals. Man does not see particulars just as particulars, but as part of another category or species.

The second amazing faculty of a man is his will. Man's intellect allows him to deliberate on means for an end, but it is the will that realizes the decision. The will is often referred to as the intellectual appetite because “it is an activating power, directing the subject toward goods and away from evils.” This aptitude of man is clearly free, allowing him to choose either good or evil therefore earning merit or punishment. If man were not free to choose between good or evil, laws, love and all of life would be meaningless. It would be useless to accuse someone of a crime that he didn't want to commit, he wouldn't be driven by any desire of a higher good than himself, and life would be just a robotic exercise in which man is a machine determined in his actions. No, man is free.

These powers of intellect and will truly show God's love for man. He can abstract from a material object and contemplate and then deliberate, decide, and act. He is quite distinct from an non-rational animal, which can neither reason nor exercise free will. Man is an image of God endowed with gifts that enable him to know, love, and serve God, the source and end of all things. He can ascend or fall with his intellect like many evil men who used it for their own selfish ideologies or twisted philosophies and remain stagnant in his actions or rise up against the evil tide and push with his will, directed by his intellect, for the conquering of himself and the world for our Father, who is in Heaven.

Christianity in the Coliseum

--Rome was built on blood. Romulus satisfied his pride by killing his brother Remus, who mocked the short walls built around the future city. Christians were killed because they mocked the shortcomings of simple marble, stone, and wood. They believed in something greater.

The Coliseum was a masterpiece of Roman engineering, architecture, but reflected also pagan cruelty and malice. The Coliseum stood in the midst of Rome among the seven Capitoline hills, a monument to Roman greatness and gluttony. It was occupied by 500,000 poor souls who screamed their hatred of the sacral and love of the banal. Tertullian called it the place of no mercy, but that charitable sect of humanity called Christians did not desire to live to receive the mercy of the Romans, but rather to die and receive the mercy of another.

This was a new kind of victim that the darkness of paganism could not comprehend as the reverend old man and child of five years walked into the place that stank of blood and brutality with eyes lifted to heaven and the hands folded, giving up their ghost in peace and with all the dignity possible in such a place. This is where slaves lost their lives and Christians saved their souls. Where the wild animals fed on a people who were fed by another flesh which gave them the strength and joy to face death. Where ships fought mock battles and where the followers of Christ swam in their own blood, but mocked the Romans in their steadfastness. A silent shout emerges from those ruins. A shout of victory and glory. The Thracian wielded a trident, but was defeated by the palm of a virgin. The gladiator entered to fight the beasts with a lance or gladius, but the Christians faced them only with faith and constancy. The blood which was shed by these victors watered the seed of Christianity and fostered the infant Church into a beautiful and healthy youth that the world could not crucify as it did its Master.

This giant of Roman architecture was conceived in the mind of Cesar Augustus, who commenced the construction in 70 A.D., employing some thirty thousand men to construct an amphitheater that has lingered to this day saturated with the blood of innocents. Oddly enough the workmen were captive Jews brought back to Rome by Titus and materialized by the ruins of the palace of Nero and the house of the Caesars on the Palatine Hill and built on top of a lake made by Nero. Little did Jew or Gentile know what kind of fountain they were constructing from which a river of blood would flow that would nourish the growth of the bride of Christ, not in order to satiate like a pagan sacrifice, but as the mystical body of Christ that, without the Divine paradox of life from death, could not serve without sacrifice. This enormous building covered six acres, stood 140 feet high, and was 564 feet long. It was finished under Titus and dedicated in 80 A.D. with the sole purpose of entertaining the people of Rome no matter the cost, for it was with popularity that many emperors maintained their throne, who even, at times, fought in the same arena as those that were condemned to death.

Persecutions were not unknown to the Christians when the great fire of Rome broke out on the night of July 18, 64 A.D., sparking a flame of persecution that would last the long night of two hundred and fifty years throughout the Empire. But the Christians fought fire with fire, the fire of faith, hope, and charity. This combat would be exemplified in the Coliseum which, soon after its completion, would house the games. Ironically, the first victim of the Coliseum was its own architect, the martyr St. Gaudentius.¹ Also odd is the etymology of his name. Gaudens, gaudentis is an adjective meaning “cheerful.” This may have come from the neuter noun gaudium meaning “joy” or “delight,” also meaning “cause of joy” or “source of delight.”² How soon would history prove the cheerful victims of the Coliseum as a source of delight to the heart of God! Virtually nothing is known of the circumstances surrounding the death of this peculiar martyr, only the verses on his tomb serve as testimony, “False and ungrateful was the pagan; He who is the great architect of the heavens, and whose promises fail not, has prepared for thee in reward of thy virtue a place in the everlasting theatre of the celestial city.” This additional act of patricide proves the ruthlessness of the Coliseum to exterminate the Christian religion, which had captured the heart of its designer.

The years ran on as the Coliseum watched the Empire conquer and fall, expand and contract, live and die, but what still remained was that place of horror and putrid pleasure. It was to come to an end. Nearly one hundred years after the death of the first Christian Emperor, the gladiatorial games were kept alive by a few rich senators and nobles, though the days of persecution were long gone. Far away in the wilds of Syria, in the silence of a humble cell, a monk named Telemachus heard the din of the stadium and screams of the dying. Infuriated on hearing these grim and gory stories of man killing his fellow man for the pleasure of a crowd, Telemachus set out for Rome. After months of travel he arrived at the city of Rome to be welcomed by a new series of games at the Coliseum. As he approached he heard the roar of humanity taken to a beastly level. Fired with holy zeal Telemachus entered the ring where the gladiators were combating and with a loud voice began to denounce this game of hell. Uponwhich the crowd stoned him to death. As it settled the populus looked upon the poor simple man they had just murdered. A simple monk. His message was love and theirs was hate. This last death caused the Emperor of the time to put a stop to the games of the Coliseum. The Coliseum was satisfied. It had eaten its full and now was sick. But what was it about this simple monk? We will never know. God's will.

1Martyrs of the Coliseum, p. 35

2The New College Latin and English Dictionary, p. 193

Purpose or Pleasure?

Where are the days gone by when a young man looked outside of himself to find something or someone to serve or dedicate his life to? How about a man living life with a purpose? Someone who uses means for an end and does not make an end of the means? There used to be a standard by which a young man measured himself and looked up to it for examples of virtue and manhood. This is called chivalry. The word “chivalry” comes from the French word for a knight, “chevalier.” To be a chevalier, one had to be loyal to his king, willing to sacrifice, defend the weak, and protect and maintain fidelity to Christ. Where do we see those traits today? Not in our modern society. How about the innocence of a man? Do we even remember what the virtue of purity means? I have pulled up two pictures of two different men in two different ages for consideration.


What is the difference between these two? I cannot say that every man of the 15th century looked like this knight, nor do I say that every man today looks like this casual modern man. The question is what is the ideal of each? What do they point their aspirants toward? Where do they lead them? The point is that these are the two ideals of two different ages.


One of the men is leaning comfortably against a car. He is smiling leisurely wearing beach clothes, which help him keep cool in the oppressive heat and of course he is wearing the conventional baseball cap. He is probably on his way to a party or some other outing which occupies the young men of today. Our other young man wears an expression of nobility, seriousness, purpose, and masculine bearing. His suit of armor looks uncomfortable, but necessary for the struggle ahead, for he is a man that defends his principles when attacked and defends the weak when they are oppressed. He is possibly on a way to a tournament to practice his fighting abilities and keep his wits keen or he might even be on his way to a glorious battlefield to defend the honor of his king, country, or faith.

Now what does each represent? What do they stand for? Our modern man is a pleasure seeker. A man of the age, who works to gratify his desire for temporal things which occupy every minute of his day with the modern modes of pleasure. Does he look like one who could control his passions? He does what he feels like, he works to no end, except himself, he is a man without faith, he is a tribal terror, and example of modern morbidity. His law is no law, but where his emotions and feelings lead him.

How about the other? This knight swore an oath of fealty and signed the code of chivalry, which is as follows.
The Ten Commandments of the Code of Chivalry
From "Chivalry" by Leon Gautier(medieval writer)
I. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
II. Thou shalt defend the Church.
III. Thou shalt repect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
IV. Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.
V. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
VI. Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
VII. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
VIII. Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
IX. Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
X. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

Does this man sound like he could be easily brushed aside?
This code explains what this man stood for. A man for other men. A man for God.

Which of these men looks like he takes himself seriously? Who is the jokester and who is the jouster? This might make things easier: which of these two would rather have at your side when things went wrong? Who seems more likely to do what needs to be done?

Now am I saying that we all should wear suits of armor, ride a horse, and that will fix everything? Of course not! My point is that we should look at what they represent and at the eternal ideals of yesterday and apply them for today and not toss them aside as a museum piece or an article to be thrown away. We need to learn from the past to form the future. There was one writer who wrote, “Youth was not made for pleasure, but for heroism.” The man of the Middle Ages aspired to something higher than himself, he aspired to God through chivalry and heroism. How about the man of today? Are his aspirations the same?

St. Bernard, who wrote the rule of the Knights Templar, had this to say about joy and pleasure in this life: "Glory is like a shadow, if we run after it, it flees from us; if we flee from it, it runs after us. There is no true joy but in Our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, in the shadow of the Cross. The more a man is mortified, the happier he is. The more he seeks after pleasure the sadder he is."

The round table is empty, King Arthur sits by himself. But what are we waiting for? The quest continues. Follow it. The Holy Grail awaits.

Musica

Music, a wonderful gift from God and a talent for many, can definitely be enjoyable, beneficial, and relaxing or it can be a tool of the devil to drag souls from true enjoyment and innocent relaxation. They say music is the language of the soul. Knowing this the devil distorts music so as to divert from truly beautiful music like gorgeous Gregorian chant, militant band music, and so on.
Music like Rock’n’roll, rap, modern country and the like are full of cynical notes, and immoral themes. Rock’n’roll gets its foundation from Satanism. In the beginning of the 60’s rock’n’roll was purely Satanic with lyrics like, “I’m on the highway to Hell” or “my lord Satan.” The authors and singers of these songs are, this is public knowledge, drug addicts, immoral and disgusting, and their other acts are too awful for discussion. Many committed suicide in an attempt to escape the depression of their acts. We pray that they repented, before committing this crime against God. Rock’n’roll singers have actually admitted that they were not the authors of some of their songs. One author said he just got up to the mike and without thinking screamed whatever words came to his mind. At concerts people scream and throw themselves around to the point of exhaustion. You call this good music? Rock’n’roll itself admits its evil powes. In the Fifth studio recording by the American rock and roll band, The Supersuckers there is a song called “The Evil Powers of Rock 'n' Roll" and they also have song that admits the attempted submission of the soul by music “I Can't Hold Myself In Line." Ok, then the reader declares, “Why worry about Rock’n’roll anyways. It is practically dead.” Ok, but its aspects and rules apply to several styles today.
As for Rap, can that even be considered music? Let us look at the definition of music. Music is an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color. In Rap a man or group of men just talk with music in the background. Music? A deformation of it most likely. I could go through several more genres of music and show my problems with them, but that would take a book. One point in music that is generally helpful in discerning problem music is that it calls to your "base" nature. By that I mean music whose tone or beat makes you want to either go with the beat or flow with the tone. Beat is very interesting. There are two different types of beat. The beat that keeps time, like in military bands or in Irish or Folk bands, are good, for they are keeping the other instruments in time. They also add to the music, but do not call to your "base" nature. The other beat is the beat that makes you involved in the music. It rocks your soul and makes you to just want to let go of yourself and submit yourself to the music. This is, of course, bad because God created man as head of creation with an intelligence and therefore he should always be in control of himself and not act according to his instinct, which wants him to let go of himself and submit himself to the music. Why do people abandon beautiful music nowadays? While rock' n 'roll and rap cds get more popular less and less you see liturgical hymns or harmless folk music. Evil is taking over. You take me for a pessimist? Look at the cd stores. You have seen the music section in your local Barnes and Noble and and Borders stores. All you have to do is look at the cover to see the foul impurity or evil tones that the cd contains. The stores are overflowing with this junk.
God help us. Pray to end this persecution of good. Our Lady, defender of the pure, guide and protect us! - J. Thomas Schutzman

Is There an Ideal Form of Government?

Will any form of govermnent ever be perfect? Is America really the ideal form? Will the needs of man ever be satisfied? Well, no. Since men are imperfect beings they can never form a perfect form of ruling their fellow men. Well then, what is the best form? St. Thomas Aquinas provides this answer: a constitutional monarchy
In this quotation St. Thomas outlines the ideal government,
"Two points are to be observed concerning the right ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring, as stated in Polit. ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in respect of the kinds of government, or the different ways in which the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first place is held by the "kingdom," where the power of government is vested in one; and "aristocracy," which signifies government by the best, where the power of government is vested in a few. Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers." (Summa Theologica 1a 2ae, question 105. )

After reading this quotation several questions could be asked.
Isn't a form of monarchy a quick ticket to tyranny like we have all been informed by our History teachers? Absolutely not. How about the governments of Charlamagne, St. Louis IX, St. Ferdinand III, and hundreds of other Catholic monarchs and rulers? I know we aren't in the Middle Ages, but the past proves that there is nothing wrong with power in the hands of the few and that it actually can be beneficial. Then one would object by asking, "What if an evil person were to be in the line of succession." That is why St. Thomas Aquinas says that a constitutional monarchy is the ideal government so if an evil person were succeed to the throne he would be limited. Why do alot of people oppose monarchy because they are afraid of an evil successor? Why aren't they afraid or why don't they question the successor to the Presidency, the Supreme Court, State senator, State representative, etc..... There are more opportunities for an evil succession in a Republic than in a constitutional monarchy. In addition as Catholics we should strive to be like Heaven in almost every possible way. In Heaven there is a monarchy. God is the monarch and Our Lady, the angels, and saints are the hierarchy. We should try to imitate this, but in a monarchy we wouldn't have a sole monarch due to original sin and men succeeding could fall. That is why it is a constitutional monarchy.
Why shouldn't we strive to make everything as much like Heaven as we can? Why not? You are right Heaven has a perfect ruler and you are right men have orginal sin and can fall. That is the ideal form of government is a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy and not an ABSOLUTE monarchy.
Now what happened to that great dream of America? That flawless plan written by a group of men determined to set men free from the "tyranny" of monarchy? Didn't they promise us freedom and self-rule?
How do we rule ourselves? All Americans, whether we like it or not, pay taxes to support abortions, homosexual movements, contraceptives, and other immoralities.
How do we rule ourselves? Abortion was passed resulting in 47 million murders up to date.
How do we rule ourselves? We pay taxes on everything we buy. The reason we revolted against the English was to escape the taxes, but here we are and our colonies in the St. Thomas Islands for example pay taxation without representation.
How do we rule ourselves? Any government that would elect Bill Clinton(disgusting immoral, liberal, etc.) is fatally flawed.
How do we rule ourselves? The bill for suspending Habeus Corpus is sitting on the desk of President Bush just waiting for him to sign it to his pleasure.
How do we rule ourselves? All of the major decisions of America are settled by nine men on a bench.
How do we rule ourselves? They are inventing tiny computer chips to put in every American's body and so the government will be able to see every movement of every American.
Freedom?

My point is to see through what has been clouded and look at government to see what the ideal form of government is. This is, of course, just a personal opinion and I am not advocating rebellion against the United States government for such an idea is worthless. I guess we can only hold on and wait for the Reign of Christ and Our Lady and continue being good Catholics and stand up for what is right and go against what is wrong. As G.K. Chesterton said,"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it."
-J. Thomas

Time and its Importance

First let us ask what is time? Time is the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another. Human beings are obstructed by time, but God is outside of it. God is outside of time because God is the creator of all things and before the earth time did not exist, there was only eternity. God is outside of space and time, being that he is eternal and therefore in eternity. As human beings our life is a period of time in which we strive for Heaven. We are set in a finite period to achieve what we were created to do: to know, love, and serve God. Therefore with this finite period time is very important and precious. Our time on earth compared to infinity is but a drop of water to billions of oceans. As the Confessions of St. Augustine put it, "There is only a moment of present time." So we must spend each day doing what we can to please God, knowing the importance of each day as we use it. One of the inalienable properties of time is that it is irreversible; the linking of its parts, or the order of their succession, cannot be changed; past time does not come back. You only have that one day to do good. There is only one May 2 of the year 2007. What will you do with that? At your particular judgment God will judge you on how you used your time. Have you thought of that? So we must use our time wisely because it can be used for or against us in the rest of eternity. How will we benefit from time if we waste it on video games, TV, internet time, etc. No doubt you have heard of gaming sprees of unwise children who play for a straight eight hours on a video game. And in the end what does it accomplish for them? One statistic shows that the average person spends 10 years of his life watching TV! What excuse is there for such a waste of time?!? Time is important. Just a thought.

-J. Thomas Schutzman

Blessed Easter!

What do we mean when we say blessed Easter? Isn't usually happy Easter? Why say blessed? Well, firstly the Resurrection is the most important happening in the history of the Catholic Church. On Easter Christ rose from the dead to fulfill the last prophecy of the Old Testament, "He shall rise the third day," which completed the work of Redemption. Secondly, on this day of Easter Christ affirmed his life's work by proving his Divinity by gloriously rising. This affirmation was so important that the Apostles preached the Resurrection, for on that is founded the proof that a Divine being started the Catholic Church. Thirdly, the Resurrection is also a message of love. Christ conquered death and rose, showing us how we also will rise on the last day, as a result of his sufferings and death on the cross.

God bless
J. Thomas Schutzman

The History of St. Valentine's Day

Stores over flow with Valentine's day cards and candy. In schools teenagers snicker at prospective Valentines. Notice the Valentine not St. Valentine. Catholicism and its fruits are being reduced to secular holidays. Does anybody today know the history of St. Valentine's Day? No, modernism has taken yet another Catholic holiday and abolished its history and meaning. In the pagan, Roman days Feb. 14 was the pagan feastday for the goddess of love and therefore a great feast for lovers. When society was becoming influenced by Christ's true Church the Pope took the pagan feast and elevated it to a Catholic one. The Pope chose St. Valentine as the patron of the day because he is the patron saint of lovers. As the story goes a young man died and his sweetheart went to St. Valentine to plead him to bring her lover back to life. St. Valentine complied and through him God raised the young man back to life. St. Valentine was later martyered for the Faith coincidentally on Feb. 14. In the Middle Ages the Catholic feast was celebrated with Mass and then an exchange of gifts or letters between younger people in a much more cordial and Catholic manner than today. Today it is more of a joke than young men and women who are thinking of marriage.
St. Valentine,
Pray for us!

If One Being Exists there Must be a God

A being can't cause itself to exist(principle of non-contradiction). A contingent being(a being dependent on another being for its existence) cannot cause the existence of another being(an effect can't be greater that its cause). But contingent beings do exist. Therefore they can be caused only by a necessary being, which is itself existence. This necessary being we call God.

Were the Medieval Ages really Dark Ages?

A good majority of people claim that the Medieval Man was still surrounded in doubt and illiteracy in those times known as the Middle Ages. Let me point out several facts that question this statement. The Middle Ages were the foundation of science, literature, agriculture, architecture, and battle tactics. Medieval man discovered the basics of medicine and science, for how could surgery be accomplished today if man did not know how to successfully stop infection. Medieval man was also not unlearned in the science of the earth, for why do Medieval representations of Christ holding the world show the world as round and not flat as people suspect that Medieval man believed? There were great writers of the Medieval Age like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Boneventure, Geoffrey Chaucer, William Dunbar, John Gower, and others. Also if the majority of Medieval men were illiterate why did Gutenburg invent the printing press? There was an abundunce of litereature and writing by hand was too slow so Gutenburg came up with the printing press to keep up with the amount of books that the public wanted. In agriculture Medieval man was at home. They knew the rotation of crops, harvesting, invention of farming tools, and others basic necessary knowledge. In architecture Medieval man was an expert. Just look at the buildings left( by left I mean the buildings that survived wars, fires, and conflicts) like Notre Dame de Paris, which is still in solid condition, the Cathedral in Strassburg, France(which clever Medieval man built over a river knowing that foundation (wood) that was surrounded and covered with water would not decay), the castles in England that have withstood time and conflict, and many more. In this case I think Medieval man was better at architecture then we are today. Look at many modern day houses:uneven foundation, the leaking roof, the cracking cement. Many will not survive 50 years. There is a town in the heart of Germany called Rotenburg. It was one of the few towns that survived the devastation of the Thirty Years War and it is still in perfect condition after 400 some odd years. Now let us look at battle tactics. A person only needs to go to a castle in Europe to see the ingenuity behind the tactical ideas of Medieval man. The ramparts, battlements, causeways, and towers are full of creative ideas of defense. An example would be the run-tower stairway. Medieval man created a stairway in the tower that curved to the right up. Why? So when the defenders were retreating up the tower the pursuer could not easily strike a blow, for most men were right-handed so when he was runnng and turning right at the same time he could not hit the man he was chasing. But at any time the defender could turn and easily with his right hand deal the enemy a good blow. There are alot more aspects of Medieval man that would take books to fill with his discoveries, great ideas, magnificent deeds, and successful explorations. But this article is just to give an idea of how Medieval man is greatly misunderstood and that he was truly a genious. One last thought. Modern day advances are like a tower and the Middle Ages are the base. How could we have made such advances if the Middle Ages were not great and productive. How could we have built such incredible structures if we didn't know the basic rules, methods and ways of doing so? How could we have discovered computer technology if we didn't know how to function and make a simple war machine? How could we have... I think you get the point. Medieval man was not stupid.

J. Thomas

Theological: The Immortality of the Soul

The soul is immortal and will never die.
When something dies it is either through decomposition or
because something it depends on dies.
The soul has no part therefore it cannot decompose and the soul doesn’t depend on the body, being that the soul is spiritual and the body is material,
so when the body dies the soul lives on. The soul depends only on God, Who cannot die.
God also would not annihilate the soul, for he created it to be intrinsically immortal.
God would contradict Himself if He annihilated it. Hence the soul will never die.