Gender confusion, and an old heresy

by Robert Barron
Two news items from early June put me in mind of St Irenaeus and the battle he waged, 19 centuries ago, against the Gnostic heresy.

The first was the emergence of Bruce Jenner as a “woman” named Caitlyn, and the second was a
“shadow council” that took place in Rome and apparently called for the victory of a theology of love over John Paul II’s theology of the body.
Let me begin with Irenaeus.
Towards the end of the second century, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, wrote a text called Adversus Haereses (Against the Heresies), and the principle heresy that he identified was Gnosticism.
Gnosticism was, and is, a multi-headed beast, but one of its major tenets is that matter is a fallen, inferior form of being, produced by a low-level deity. The soul is trapped in matter, and the point of the spiritual life is to acquire the gnosis (knowledge) needed to enable the soul to escape from the body.
On the gnostic interpretation, the Yahweh of the Old Testament, who foolishly pronounced the material world good, is none other than the compromised god described in gnostic cosmology, and Jesus is the prophet who came with the saving knowledge of how to rise above the material realm. What Irenaeus intuited — and his intuition represented one of the decisive moments in the history of the Church — is that this point of view is repugnant to biblical Christianity, which insists upon the goodness of matter. Scan through Irenaeus’s voluminous writings, and you will find the word “body” over and over again. Creation, Incarnation, Resurrection, the
theology of the Church, sacraments, redemption, the Eucharist, etc. all involve, he argued, bodiliness, materiality.
For Irenaeus, redemption is not tantamount to the escape of the soul from the body; rather, it is the salvation and perfection of the body.
Now you might think that this is all a bit of ancient intellectual history, but think again. As I hinted above, the gnostic heresy has proven remarkably durable, reasserting itself across the centuries. Its most distinctive mark is the denigration of matter and the tendency to set the spirit and the body in an antagonistic relationship. That is why many thinkers have identified the anthropology of René Descartes, which has radically influenced modern and contemporary attitudes, as neo-gnostic.
Descartes famously drove a wedge betweenspirit and matter or, in his language, between the res
cogitans (thinking thing) and the res extensa (thing extended in space). In line with gnostic intuitions, Descartes felt that the former belongs to a higher and more privileged dimension and that the latter is legitimately the object of manipulation and reorganisation. Hence he
says that the purpose of philosophy and science is to “master” nature, rather than to contemplate it.
One would have to be blind not to notice how massively impactful that observation has proven
to be. Echoes of Descartes’s dualism can be heard in the writings of Kant, Hegel and many of the master philosophers of modernity, and they can be discerned, as well, in the speech and attitudes of millions of ordinary people today.
All of which brings me back to Bruce Jenner and to the “shadow council” in Rome. In justifying the transformation that he has undergone, Jenner consistently says something along these lines: “Deep down, I always knew that I was a woman, but I felt trapped in the body of a man. Therefore, I have the right to change my body to bring it in line with my true identity.”
Notice how the mind or the will — the inner self — is casually identified as the “real me”, whereas the body is presented as an antagonist that can and should be manipulated by the authentic self. The soul and the body are in a master-slave relationship, the former
legitimately dominating and re-making the latter.
This schema is, to a tee, gnostic — and just as repugnant to biblical religion as it was 1900 years ago.
For biblical people, the body can never be construed as a prison for the soul, nor as an object for the soul’s manipulation. Moreover, the mind or will is not the “true self” standing over and against the body; rather, the body, with its distinctive form, intelligibility, and finality, is an essential constituent of the true self. Until we realise that the lionisation of Caitlyn Jenner amounts to an embracing of Gnosticism, we haven’t grasped the nettle of the issue.
And a word about what took place in Rome in early June. I want to be careful here, for I’m relying on a few reports concerning what was intended to be a private gathering of Church leaders and intellectuals. I want to give all of the participants the benefit of the
doubt and I remain sincerely eager to hear their own accounting of what was discussed. But what particularly bothered me — in fact, it caused every single anti-gnostic sensor in me to vibrate — was the claim that the secret council was calling for a “theology of love” that would supplant the theology of the body proposed by John Paul II.
For biblical people, human love is never a disembodied reality. Furthermore, love — which is an act of the will — does not hover above the body, but rather expresses itself through the body and according to the intelligibility of the body. To set the two in opposition or to maintain that an inner act is somehow more important or comprehensive than the body is to walk the gnostic road — which is just as dangerous a path as it was in the time of St Irenaeus.
Fr Robert Barron is the rector of Mundelein Seminary and the founder of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries.