Folia Theologica et Canonica 3. 25/17 (2014)
IUS CANONICUM - Michael Carragher, O.P., The sacrament of confirmation and personal development
180 MICHAEL CARRAGHER, O.P. Furthermore, if a human being were to use his hands as fore-feet, then his ability to use them for other tasks would be greatly compromised, e.g., his ability to write or sketch. His hands would lose that capacity to be dexterous and versatile. In addition, if a person were to use his hands as fore-feet, then instead of feeding himself furnished with cutlery in his hands, he would be constrained to consume food with his mouth. That change would necessarily impact on the formation and texture of his mouth, as this organ would need to harden to protect itself against rough, sharp and unsavoury substances (since it would be difficult to separate the pleasant from the disagreeable) that it would encounter or even to masticate the raw food to be consumed.19 The lips would protrude and consequently would be no longer suitable for communication. Moreover, it is interesting to note that all the sense organs accomplish one individual task, e.g. the nose to smell, the ear to hear, the eye to see, whereas one uses the tongue both to speak and to eat, to profess one’s faith and consume the Holy Eucharist. That would no longer be possible if humans were on all fours. This is reason’s proper operation: to communicate.20 The book of Ecclesiastes reads simply 7:30: “God made man right.” Indeed what is man or better what a human being is, even exercised the thought of the psalmist. It is advisable to follow the example of Aristotle and change the ‘what’ into a ‘why’. Why was a human being fashioned or created in this way? mus, his quoque de rebus pauca dicantur. Principio corporis nostri magnam natura ipsa videtur habuisse rationem, quae formám nostram reliquamque figurám, in qua esset species honesta, earn posuit in promptu, quae partes autem corporis ad naturae necessitatem datae aspectum essem deformem habiturae atque turpem, eas contexit atque abdidit. Hanc naturae tarn diligentem fabricam imitata est hominum verecundia. Quae enim natura occultavit, eadem omnes qui sana mente sunt removent ab oculis, ipsique necessitati dánt operám ut quant occultissime pareant; quarumque partium cotporis usus sunt necessarii, eas neque partes neque earum usus suis nomi- nibus appellant, quodque facere non turpe est, modo occulte, id dicere obscenum est. Itaque nec actio rerum illarum aperta petulantia vacat nec orationis obscenitas.” Cicero On Obligations A New Translation by P. G. Walsh, Oxford 2001.43. Cicero continues in Walsh’s translation: “nature at the outset seems herself to have devoted much thought to our bodies, for she has lent prominence to our features and to the rest of our make-up which presents a decent appearance, whereas the bodily parts given over to nature’s needs she cloaked and concealed, since they would be unsightly and ugly to look at. Our human modesty has fallen in with this most careful design of nature, for all men of sound sense keep out of sight the parts which nature has hidden; they take pains to answer the call of nature in as much privacy as they can. People do not use the precise terms either for the parts of the body which carry out these necessary functions, or for the functions themselves. There is no shame in performing these functions, so long as this is done in private, but to speak of them is unfitting. So neither performing such actions in public nor indecent discussion of them escapes the accusation of immodesty”. 19 See supra 12 where Hurford provides a scientific explanation coupled with a bibliography that analyses these matters. See also Fitch, W. T., The Evolution of Language, Cambridge 2010, where an exhaustive and scientific treatment of this topic is presented. 20 Cooper, J. M., Reason and Emotion Essays on Ancient Moral Psychology and Ethical Theory, Princeton 1999, chapter sixteen: Political Animals and Civic Friendship.
