A Philosophical Defense of Yoga for Catholics
That is, yoga postures *when executed for purely physiological purposes.*
INTRODUCTION
In 1989, the Vatican published a document warning against the spiritual dangers of the practice of yoga, among other practices. What Catholics have wanted to know, however, if it is morally permissible to execute yoga positions purely with the intention of physically exercising.
Here, Catholic Answers responds: “If the breathing and body positions are simply done for exercise and health then there is nothing wrong with it. If someone is engaging in non-Christian spirituality then that is a problem.”
Here, Catholic Answers states: “Yoga is not inherently evil. Practicing yoga is not an occult activity, and it does not necessarily lead one into involvement with the diabolical. Yoga is a non-Christian Eastern spiritual practice that involves bodily postures, breathing exercises, and meditation and Christians should not pursue it as a spiritual path.”
Here, Catholic Answers states that “it depends on whether the yoga is being presented in a manner that is free of religious elements, i.e., purely as a system of physical exercise.”
Here, theologian Dr. Brett Salkeld states: “Many arguments Catholics tend to use against the practice of yoga are, in fact, unCatholic – even superstitious. Those who argue that the practice of putting one’s body into certain positions automatically opens one to malign supernatural forces are making the same mistake that St. Paul criticized in 1 Corinthians 8 when he told those in his congregation who were concerned about eating food that had been offered to idols (much of the available meat in Paul’s time would have come from pagan temples) that ‘we know that no idol in the world really exists.’ The physical positions of yoga have no more spiritual power of themselves than meat from a pagan temple differs from any other meat.”
Dr. Salkeld continues: “There is no problem with a Catholic using various stretches and exercises that may help her or his bad back just because they happen to be yoga poses…Any Catholic practicing yoga, therefore, needs to be clear that they are merely exercising…There can be nothing inherently wrong with exercises that enhance our health and wellbeing.”
I have seen a fair amount of anti-yoga pushback to these articles from Catholics and here seek to defend the content of these articles in some more detail.
AN ARISTOTELIAN, HYLOMORHIC (FORM-MATTER COMPOSITE) APPROACH
In any debate or discussion, we need to define our terms, so let’s define yoga in Aristotelian ones. According to Aristotle, form + matter = substance. A human person is a substance comprised of A) the form of a unique rational soul and B) the matter of human flesh (the human body). Yoga itself is a substance (an entity - a thing) and is therefore is comprised of form plus matter. The physical element (exercises/movements/poses/postures) is the matter, and the Eastern spiritual element is the form.
Here, Catholic Answers states: “The bodily postures and breathing exercises common to yoga may be used by Christians for non-spiritual exercise.” CA is arguing here that the physical human movements that comprise the matter of “yoga” are common to yoga but not proper to it. This essentially means that “yoga” doesn’t get a linguistic/terminological monopoly on the human body. This is because, according to Aristotle, matter can be common but not proper to numerous different entities at the same time.
My evidence for this is what I observe on a natural level. When my 10 month old twin babies roll around on the floor all day, I see them regularly do at least 4 physical movements that are very intrinsic and natural to the human body. This is not learned behavior. “Yogis” at certain points in time gave these postures the names of “lotus”, “cat”, “child’s pose”, etc. Are my babies “doing yoga”? No. They are simply executing physical motions that naturally feel good to them. It is not my babies’ “problem” if someone at some point tacked on a name to the physical movements that my babies naturally do. (However, there is also nothing immoral or spiritual about a lotus, cat or child. These are naturally-occurring entities/things - plants/animals/humans, in particular - in the natural world. There is nothing spiritual about any of these things.)
Here’s another example. Let’s say that I want to hold a lunge position, with the sole intention of building leg strength. I can call this physical movement a lunge because it IS a lunge. Now, look at different yoga postures that are all based on lunges - warrior I, II, or III - etc. Virtually any lunge-based exercise that I can invent on my own has already been named a yoga posture by some yogi. Does this mean that I now can’t do a lunge, because the lunge is now somehow intrinsically immoral? Of course not. A lunge is a lunge is a lunge. It doesn’t matter if some yogi has somewhere named the lunge a “warrior” position or what have you. A lunge is still a lunge. (And of course, there’s nothing immoral or spiritual about a warrior, anyway.)
This proves my point: human movement is not proper to yoga - it is common to it. Because these movements are not proper to yoga, these physical movements can be removed altogether from the “yoga” context. The physical movements can indeed be separated from the spiritual element, and these physical movements can be executed in successful isolation from the spiritual element. These physical movements are NOT by their nature intrinsically, inherently married to the spiritual element.
This has been the crux of the argument all along. The question has been: can these physical movements be conceived of and executed, apart from any spiritual element? I think that the answer is yes. Indeed, it would seem that the matter (the physical exercises) of the substance of yoga can be separated from the form (the spiritual element) of yoga, such that these physical postures, when done in isolation from the spiritual element, are indeed just that - physical exercises, not yoga. When the form (the spiritual element) separates from matter (the physical motions), the substance (yoga) is no longer intact.
Regarding St. Paul’s aforementioned point in 1 Corinthians 8, the meat (the matter) had been used in the pagan ritual (the substance), but the meat wasn’t the ritual itself. Similarly, human bodily movements (the matter) are used in yoga (the substance) but aren’t yoga itself. Meat is common but not proper to the pagan ritual; similarly, physical exercises are common but not proper to the practice of yoga. (Here, the form of the pagan ritual is whatever spiritual language was used in the ritual, and the form of yoga is the spiritual attachments.)
This is why, from a metaphysical perspective, it seems morally permissible to execute these physical movements for purely physical/health purposes.
MORAL THEOLOGY 101
In order to examine the morality of an act, according to the Angelic Doctor of the Church, the Aristotelian philosopher Thomas Aquinas, we need to examine the act’s object, intention and circumstance. In the case of the yoga, what is the object - the matter? The physical exercises/poses. What is my intention? To acquire physiological health benefits. What is the circumstance? My living room or an exercise class (AKA a modern Western yoga class). All three check out.
As usual, I welcome any discussion and debate below.
SOURCES
Hatha Yoga: Its Context, Theory and Practice
Oxford Textbook of Spirituality in Healthcare