Abortion + Aquinas + Council of Vienne(?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fish90

Guest
My friend was reading a passage for his ethics class. One of the arguments found in the passage dealt with Church teaching on abortion by the way of when ensoulment occurs and it cited Aquinas’ teaching and the Council of Vienne. In short, the Church teaching from the Council of Vienne which taught that “the substance of the rational soul… is the human form” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment), somehow gives evidence that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on abortion. Can anybody reconcile this and/or add to this argument?

Best,
fish90
 
fish90 said:
My friend was reading a passage for his ethics class. One of the arguments found in the passage dealt with Church teaching on abortion by the way of when ensoulment occurs and it cited Aquinas’ teaching and the Council of Vienne. In short, the Church teaching from the Council of Vienne which taught that “the substance of the rational soul… is the human form” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment), somehow gives evidence that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on abortion. Can anybody reconcile this and/or add to this argument?

Best,
fish90
Click to expand...
Medical research changed, not Church teaching. Back then it was not clear when a fetus got its soul, and it was not even clear if it got a vegetable soul first, then an animal soul, then a human soul. The Church was always right about killing preborn humans; it’s just that it wasn’t easy to tell when it became human. No microscopes, no ultrasound, just miscarriages and educated guesses.

There was a time for example when medical research thought that teratomas were horribly deformed children and the Church naturally ruled that they should be baptized, but now it seems they are just body cells gone awry, not deformed persons.
 
There wasn’t really consistency according to your link as to when the person took on a soul. So in a very real sense, all of the theological opinions are consistent regarding abortion: Abortion is wrong as soon as it acquires a soul. Today, Church understanding consistently has developed to recognize that instance to occur at conception.
 
MarcoPolo said:
There wasn’t really consistency according to your link as to when the person took on a soul. So in a very real sense, all of the theological opinions are consistent regarding abortion: Abortion is wrong as soon as it acquires a soul. Today, Church understanding consistently has developed to recognize that instance to occur at conception.
Click to expand...
No, the Catholic Church does not teach that ensoulment occurs at conception. The Catholic Church teaches that from conception, human life exists, and so such life should be treated as a person. See the Catechism 2270-2275.
 
Apollos said:
Medical research changed, not Church teaching. Back then it was not clear when a fetus got its soul, and it was not even clear if it got a vegetable soul first, then an animal soul, then a human soul. The Church was always right about killing preborn humans; it’s just that it wasn’t easy to tell when it became human. No microscopes, no ultrasound, just miscarriages and educated guesses.

There was a time for example when medical research thought that teratomas were horribly deformed children and the Church naturally ruled that they should be baptized, but now it seems they are just body cells gone awry, not deformed persons.
Click to expand...
The Church got to the top of the mountain before science. Abortion was condemned by the early Church because it was an immoral act, because if nothing else it was seen as ending a life.
 
Vince1022 said:
No, the Catholic Church does not teach that ensoulment occurs at conception. The Catholic Church teaches that from conception, human life exists, and so such life should be treated as a person. See the Catechism 2270-2275.
Click to expand...
Those paragraphs don’t mention soul, per se. Indeed they identify a “person” or “human being” at the moment of conception, and other paragraphs in the Catechism identify a person as having body and soul (i.e. #364). Other paragraphs like 1703 also suggest the soul exists at conception:#1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul, the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.” From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.
 
Am I right to say that the Church can be erroneous in matters of science but not in faith and morals?

Also, how do you explain the infallibility of the Church when it said teratomas were worthy of baptism and that people were people at different times in their gestation?

Best,
Rich
 
fish90 said:
Am I right to say that the Church can be erroneous in matters of science but not in faith and morals?

Also, how do you explain the infallibility of the Church when it said teratomas were worthy of baptism and that people were people at different times in their gestation?

Best,
Rich
Click to expand...
Not exactly. If you can prove “The Church” pronounced on those matters, then we have a convo.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Those paragraphs don’t mention soul, per se. Indeed they identify a “person” or “human being” at the moment of conception, and other paragraphs in the Catechism identify a person as having body and soul (i.e. #364). Other paragraphs like 1703 also suggest the soul exists at conception:#1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul, the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.” From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.
Click to expand...
suggesting is different from teaching
 
Let’s be brutally clear here. This argument is advanced by only two kinds of people:
  1. Those attempting to discredit the Church.
  2. Sincere, but confused people who don’t understand the Church’s moral authority.
Christianity has condemned abortion as gravely sinful from day ONE. ALWAYS. What there HAS been debate about is whether the sin is one of murder or “mere” defiance of God’s commands.

In the days before modern biology, people thought that a man’s semen was like seed and the womb was like fertile soil. They did not comprehend conception like we do in our more complete scientific understanding. So they DID have a hard time figuring out when the ‘seed’ became a person (ensoulment). This had NOTHING to do with whether abortion was considered sinful or not.

By God’s grace, we already had the teaching before we had the comprehension behind the teaching. Those constantly seeking to rationalize contraception should ponder the implications of THAT one well…
 
fish90 said:
Where does my error lie?
Click to expand...
The Church’s infallibility bleeds over into science when it is closely connected to matters of faith and morals. For example the Church can define infallibly that all human beings are descended from one pair, or that Mary’s hymen was medically intact all her life.
 
fish90 said:
Am I right to say that the Church can be erroneous in matters of science but not in faith and morals?
Click to expand...
Yes. Although it’s important to qualify such by saying that the Church, when teaching infallibly, which by definition only concerns “faith and morals”, cannot err.
fish90 said:
Also, how do you explain the infallibility of the Church when it said teratomas were worthy of baptism and that people were people at different times in their gestation?
Click to expand...
That is not something taught infallibly by the Church.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Those paragraphs don’t mention soul, per se. Indeed they identify a “person” or “human being” at the moment of conception, and other paragraphs in the Catechism identify a person as having body and soul (i.e. #364). Other paragraphs like 1703 also suggest the soul exists at conception:#1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul, the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.” From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.
Click to expand...
I cited the paragraphs I did because they are under the section of the CCC that deals with the 5th commandment.

While other paragraphs may “suggest”, as you note, that the soul exists at conception, the point is that the Catholic Church has not taught that “personhood” exists at conception. That’s a philosophical issue that is open to speculation.

Human life begins at conception, that’s the fundamental point of Catholic teaching regarding this issue.
 
Apollos said:
The Church’s infallibility bleeds over into science when it is closely connected to matters of faith and morals. For example the Church can define infallibly that all human beings are descended from one pair, or that Mary’s hymen was medically intact all her life.
Click to expand...
Gotcha!👍
 
Vince1022 said:
I cited the paragraphs I did because they are under the section of the CCC that deals with the 5th commandment.

While other paragraphs may “suggest”, as you note, that the soul exists at conception, the point is that the Catholic Church has not taught that “personhood” exists at conception. That’s a philosophical issue that is open to speculation.

Human life begins at conception, that’s the fundamental point of Catholic teaching regarding this issue.
Click to expand...
Why is “personhood” separated from being human?

To do so, it seems to me, to begin to tear apart the Church’s teaching on the immense value of every human being. Each individual, whether we call them persons or not, are specially created by, and loved by God and no human can morally impede their growth and development.
 
davidv said:
Why is “personhood” separated from being human?
Click to expand...
Because there has always been disagreement about such. When “personhood” exists has always been a philosophical point. The Catholic Church does not define “personhood” to exist at conception (though, personally, I would have no problem if She did).

The Catholic Church does teach that human life begins at conception.

Does that help?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top