16th century pope said that embryos less then 40 days are not human?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tracydaisy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tracydaisy

Guest
**
CSI rerun
**
**Catherine: **Are you aware that through much of history, the offcial church position held that a child’s life beings when the mother first becomes aware of movement?
Dr. Ryan: Well, that’s your opinion.
Catherine: In the 16th century the Pope proclaimed that embryos less than 40 days old are not human. That is not my opinion.
**I’m prolife, and when I heard this comment, I immediately wanted to see if this had any truth and/or if it was taken out of context. I did a google search and could not find this proclamation by a pope. I don’t believe everything I hear on TV, but it seems some people do. **

**Does anyone know anything about this? **

I get fustrated 😦 when I think someone misrepresents the Catholic Church and I like to be prepared incase someone makes a similar comment to me.
 
In the Middle Ages popular scientific though was that an embyro was only a human after 40 days- prior to that it was first plant, then animal. Abortion before 40 days was still a sin, as it was killing a possible human, but not as great a sin as abortion after 40 days.

The doctrine didnt change- that the killing of an unborn human is murder- but scientific thought certainly did! 😉
 
The earliest Christian document concerning abortion is found in the Didache written around 50-70 AD state this:
  1. And the second commandment of the Teaching; 2. You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pæderasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten
 
That’s unfortunate… I hate that shows like that try to force a pro-abortion viewpoint down our throats. Time to watch less TV :mad:
 
I saw that rerun last night, too. This isn’t the first time that Catherine has made snide comments about pro-life issues or the Church in general. (She’s always so snarky about it!)

Also, later on in that episode, Grissom says this quote from Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” This supposedly points to human life not beginning until “the blood,” which, he says, is 16 days into gestation. (His point was that Catherine should have used the Bible to argue with those silly Bible thumpers, although he didn’t say it that way.)

The biggest problem I have with most TV shows is that they portray pro-life people as nutcases (as they portrayed the head of the frozen embryo adoption clinic) or completely stupid and naive (as they portrayed the young woman in whom the donated embryo was implanted).

'thann
 
I saw that rerun last night, too. This isn’t the first time that Catherine has made snide comments about pro-life issues or the Church in general. (She’s always so snarky about it!)

Also, later on in that episode, Grissom says this quote from Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” This supposedly points to human life not beginning until “the blood,” which, he says, is 16 days into gestation. (His point was that Catherine should have used the Bible to argue with those silly Bible thumpers, although he didn’t say it that way.)

The biggest problem I have with most TV shows is that they portray pro-life people as nutcases (as they portrayed the head of the frozen embryo adoption clinic) or completely stupid and naive (as they portrayed the young woman in whom the donated embryo was implanted).

'thann
I’ve noticed that too the one that got to me was in Law and Order CI. Where an abortionist was murdered and they made all the prolife people seem like nutcases, and of course the murderer was prolife. They never have an episode the other way around even though SVU sort of does.
 
Please don’t rely on TV crime shows for accuracy in any way-- even the science they portray on the shows is inaccurate… such as fingerprints matching in 5 seconds.

This is a rerun and has been discussed on this board before. Do a search.

Never has the church taught that abortion was acceptable at any point-- before or after 40 days. And, no, no Pope ever declared life before 40 days to not be human.

It’s ignorance on the part of Hollywood.
 
**I’m prolife, and when I heard this comment, I immediately wanted to see if this had any truth and/or if it was taken out of context. I did a google search and could not find this proclamation by a pope. I don’t believe everything I hear on TV, but it seems some people do. **

**Does anyone know anything about this? **

I get fustrated 😦 when I think someone misrepresents the Catholic Church and I like to be prepared incase someone makes a similar comment to me.
It wasn’t a pope who said that and it wasn’t the Churches position. The Church has no official position on matters of medicine. This was simply a commonly held belief among physicians and was used when discussing when God infuses the soul. It also reflects a difference between male and female, that the female is not human until a later time. Science has proved this wrong and holds today that life begins at conception.
 
Grace & Peace!

This article is illuminating on a number of counts: home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/abortion.htm

A salient paragraph is this one:Many Christians in the medieval period apparently believed in delayed hominization. The Teaching of an Irish Synod, i.e., Christian clergy (ca. 675): “The penance for homicide is seven years on bread and water… The penance for the destruction of the embryo of a child in the mother’s womb [early abortion?] is three and a half years. The penance for the destruction of flesh and spirit [late abortion?] is seven and a half years on bread and water… The penance for a mother’s destruction of her own child [infanticide?] is twelve years on bread and water…” Bede of England, Penitential (ca. 725): “A mother who kills her child before the fortieth day [of gestation] shall do penance for one year. If it is after the child has become alive, [she shall do penance] as a murderer. But it makes a great difference whether a poor woman does it on account of the great difficulty of supporting [the child], or a prostitute for the sake of concealing her wickedness.” (Bede does not explain, though, whether the woman’s motive in obtaining abortion is more important than the stage of pregnancy in which it’s performed.) Another Irish penitential text, ca. 800: “A woman who causes miscarriage of that which she has conceived, after it has become established in the womb, three years and one-half of penance. If the flesh has formed, it is seven years. If the soul has entered it, fourteen years of penance.” Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX (ca. 1200) considered abortion to be homicide only when the fetus is “formed.” (Hurst 10-11) This is rather startling, given that many 20th-century Catholics tend to assume that the Vatican has always affirmed “immediate animation.”
The TV show may have been referring to Gregory XIV:

Pope Sixtus V, in Effraenatum (1588), declared contraception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy, whether the fetus was “animated or not animated, formed or unformed,” to be homicide, a mortal sin, and grounds for excommunication. But in 1591, Pope Gregory XIV in Sedes Apostolica recommended “where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does.” (Hurst 15)

It’s a very interesting article for the historical data, but it becomes much more clearly pro-choice in the last section. So be warned if you’re not sympathetic to the polemic.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
 
I used to like CSI but I stopped watching it just because of that episode. They went out of their way to make the pro-lifer an idiot.
I have not regretted my decision once…more time for bible study:D
 
IF this is true, then I think it would reflect more on their lack of medical knowledge in the middle ages than on some compromise about the sanctity of life.
 
Some but not all medieval Christians, including Aquinas, thought this because, following Aristotle, they thought the human soul could only be infused into the human body when the body was properly disposed to receive it (developing a cortex, internal organs, etc.). Before that time, it received a vegetative soul (life) and then an animal soul (movement).

However, as others have pointed out, this was just due to their lack of medical knowledge, not any error in the philosophical principles. If Aquinas had known of DNA, he would have known that the human begins development at conception and has no change in substantial form; therefore, the soul can be infused at conception. Contemporary Thomists arguing for this position include Robert P. George and Patrick Lee.

Some so-called Catholic philosophers today (Joseph Donceel, Dombrowski and Deltete, Robert Pasnau if he’s Catholic) still argue that the Catholic position should be pro-choice, based on this outdated scientific idea. The Catholic Church did not change its philosophical position, but its scientific position on embryonic development. And, as someone has pointed out, for Aquinas at any stage abortion is a serious sin; after a certain stage, he thought it was equivalent to homicide.
 
In the Middle Ages popular scientific though was that an embyro was only a human after 40 days- prior to that it was first plant, then animal. Abortion before 40 days was still a sin, as it was killing a possible human, but not as great a sin as abortion after 40 days.

This is a good example of how reliable “science” is when it resorts to speculation, rather than observation, repeatiblility and falsifiability. When the Scientific Method is not the source of the theory, it is NOT science. Case in point: EVOLUTION.

ابو كمون
 
The medieval writers were relying on the best available science they had, namely, dissection of embryos. They had to rely on features visible to the eye, such as development of organs, cerebral cortex, appendages, etc. They just did not have the knowledge of embryonic development through DNA codes.

Do I sense an attempt here to wrench the OP onto a different subject? 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top