Then and Now
I ran across this bit (excerpted from a longer post on medieval sci-fi by m_francis1
Which brings us back to "St Christopher the Dog-Head." Why was it that no ones seemed to be any more outraged that a Dog-Head could be baptized and become a saint than that, say, a Krenk in Eifelheim could be so? The key is that: As a result of baptism, he gained human appearance. Church doctrine was that the soul was the substantive form of the human body. And the soul of a human was defined as a "rational soul," one possessing intellect [abstract reasoning] and will [appetite/desire for abstract concepts]. This is the "human form" or appearance, the "image" in which humans were said to have been made. Thus, while there was a clear distinction between humans and other animals, this was based on rationality. Any race of creatures which displayed rationality -- as the Dog-Heads did in keeping a code of laws, showing dominion over other animals, etc. -- would be regarded as the equivalent of human beings. In consequence, Church teaching has not changed in this regard
Interesting, no?
Just something to keep in mind if one is tempted to congratulate oneself on the moral superiority of our 20th and 21st century civilization versus that of those old dead white3 Papists. We certainly seem to have fallen all over ourselves in the rush to designate h. sapiens people who look just like us as inhuman. God knows what we'd do if we met any actual aliens. Maybe that's why, in His mercy, it looks as if we won't.
1. He writes SF himself ( The January Dancer et al.) and it's pretty good reading if you've a taste for Cordwainer-smith-ish sort of SF2
2. Only somewhat less poetical and with his own distinctive voice; but then, that's a bit like saying Thor was less ruler-god-like and one-eyed than Odin when you're comparing both to your average Norseman: a bit of quibble.
3. For values of "white" = "golly, you're even more historically ignorant than me! That takes some doing."
Which brings us back to "St Christopher the Dog-Head." Why was it that no ones seemed to be any more outraged that a Dog-Head could be baptized and become a saint than that, say, a Krenk in Eifelheim could be so? The key is that: As a result of baptism, he gained human appearance. Church doctrine was that the soul was the substantive form of the human body. And the soul of a human was defined as a "rational soul," one possessing intellect [abstract reasoning] and will [appetite/desire for abstract concepts]. This is the "human form" or appearance, the "image" in which humans were said to have been made. Thus, while there was a clear distinction between humans and other animals, this was based on rationality. Any race of creatures which displayed rationality -- as the Dog-Heads did in keeping a code of laws, showing dominion over other animals, etc. -- would be regarded as the equivalent of human beings. In consequence, Church teaching has not changed in this regard
Interesting, no?
Just something to keep in mind if one is tempted to congratulate oneself on the moral superiority of our 20th and 21st century civilization versus that of those old dead white3 Papists. We certainly seem to have fallen all over ourselves in the rush to designate h. sapiens people who look just like us as inhuman. God knows what we'd do if we met any actual aliens. Maybe that's why, in His mercy, it looks as if we won't.
1. He writes SF himself ( The January Dancer et al.) and it's pretty good reading if you've a taste for Cordwainer-smith-ish sort of SF2
2. Only somewhat less poetical and with his own distinctive voice; but then, that's a bit like saying Thor was less ruler-god-like and one-eyed than Odin when you're comparing both to your average Norseman: a bit of quibble.
3. For values of "white" = "golly, you're even more historically ignorant than me! That takes some doing."