Religion and Theology

According to the church the term person refers to an individual intellectual substance that can exist in itself. In theology intelligence and individual wholeness is emphasized as part of what makes an individual. Also a person is deemed as an individual who has responsibilities and rights. On the other hand, to the church nature may refer to the created world. It includes the created things in the environment, the things that we see when we look around (Catholicreference.net, 2010)
The trees, the animals, the lakes and the like are all part of nature. Nature could also refer to the basic form of a person. What is commonly referred to as human nature means those things that happen as a result of being a human being or rather more specifically a person. This definition of nature implies that there are those attributes that a person or a human being may possess owing to the very fact they are a person.

When it comes to the issue of the relationship between the two, nature and person, one realizes that this wholly depends on the approach that one takes. One could view a person as part of nature. The only different thing is that people are intellectually endowed and therefore have responsibility and authority over all other nature.

In this essay however I take the approach of person as understood by the church to be an intellectual being with responsibilities, and the definition of nature as that which is present in a person as an integral part of the way a person or human beings were created.

Nature tells us what to expect of a person. For example one may say that it is in a peoples nature to eat, drink and socialize among many other things. This then means that the engagement of a human being in such activities makes them a complete person so to speak. If a person does not do these things, then that person may not be seen as a whole person because it is in the human nature to engage in such activities.

Though this is true, the Catholic Church agrees that the explanation of some activities by people as a result of human nature can be disadvantageous owing to the fact that this view may be used as an excuse to go against the ideals of the church.

When it comes to the roles played by the person and nature, Christianity believes that the two have roles that are separate yet intertwined. The person has intellect which makes him superior to all other forms of nature. The intellect which is still a part of nature of the person makes a person able to control what he does in reference to the human nature.

Take for instance in the case of sleeping which is a  natural thing for a person to do, the intellect that a person possess will make the person able to make an intelligent decision not to sleep by the road side but rather in a bed in the comfort and safety of a shelter. Nature on the other hand is responsible for the urges that a human being has. It is the natures responsibility to make a person hungry or sleepy among others.

The modern definition of the person and nature presents the two as in a manner to suggest that a person has very little that they can do to control actions that are only in their nature. The following are some consequences in the fields of anthropology, marriage and morality that this modern understanding may result to if upheld.

Anthropology primarily deals with the study of human beings. It encompasses such details as their behavior and culture. If the understanding of the person and nature is upheld then anthropologists would have to study people as those who are helpless to their natural tendencies so to speak.
The issue of culture then would not play an important role as culture is maintained by intellectual decisions. In fact if a person is deemed to be at the mercy of their natural urges then their standing as those responsible for all the other creation will be challenged.

In the sphere of marriage, the vows on fidelity and the responsibilities ascribed to the husband and wife persons would be meaningless. In the church for instance, the only place that is seen to be right for sexual engagement is within the boundaries of marriage. Although intercourse is a natural phenomenon in people, the understanding that a person is helpless to urges would then be the excuse given for infidelity. Responsibility would then be relegated to the back as urges caused by the human nature take center stage.

On the question of morality, all morals would go down the drain and any questions arising over the same brushed aside by the simple fact that the activity in question occurred as a result of nature. The principles that govern a person would be abandoned and in my view this would lead to nothing short of an animalistic society. When people believe that they can act in a certain way as a result of nature then they imply that they choose to withdraw from engaging their human intellect in responding to natural urges.

In conclusion, although there are activities that are driven by natural urges this should not be mistaken as rendering a person helpless in the face of an urge. It is true that the presence of these urges make us people but it is also true that the other thing that distinguishes us from all other creation is the fact that we have intellect and so can be able to respond to our natural human urges appropriately. This will in turn help us to maintain our nature as persons and nothing less than that.