Abortion should be Criminalized and Punishable under the law

[PRmerger]

PR it’s a common knowledge for the theologically trained and I draw on clear memory from 30 yrs ago, sources and commentary abound on the Net. Just get off your butt and look. I have already pointed you to Aquinas who is based, like all the Catholic ancients, on the science of Aristotle.
I don’t need to prove it to you, it’s a common place thing for crying out loud.

You can search the internet, far and wide, but you will NEVER find a Church document which endorses the view of delayed ensoulment.

QED.

I feel a great duty to correct your errors here, as there are many lurkers who may be led astray by the incorrect assertions being made.

Please, dear Lurkers, do not be duped. When someone makes an assertion about the Church "teaching "something, but does not provide an actual documentation of this, you can readily dismiss this.

And, please be aware: statements from priests and bishops, no matter how holy, esteemed and learned, are not documentation of Church teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You can search the internet, far and wide, but you will NEVER find a Church document which endorses the view of delayed ensoulment.

QED.

I feel a great duty to correct your errors here, as there are many lurkers who may be led astray by the incorrect assertions being made.

Please, dear Lurkers, do not be duped. When someone makes an assertion about the Church "teaching "something, but does not provide an actual documentation of this, you can readily dismiss this.

And, please be aware: statements from priests and bishops, no matter how holy, esteemed and learned, are not documentation of Church teaching.

99% of our Church clerics and professors were taught this and in turn taught the next generation of seminarians for many 100s of years, its in the Summa, past moral judgements/teaching re abortion not being homicide are based on it, a contributor below has sited docs for you…but for you that doesn’t mean the Church taught it because it isn’t a dogma and you never explicitly read it in the layman’s Catechism :blush:…
By all means feel it your duty to correct Aquinas .
Next you will be saying Limbo was never a teaching.

PR please just give it up.
In the eyes of anyone with a modicum of formal Thomistic theological or scholarly education you are just embarrassing yourself.

When will our CAF auto-didacts learn to stop over-reaching themselves .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I read that a Pope (long ago) found a monk not guilty of murdering an unborn because the deed was done too early in the pregnancy. Clearly the Pope believed, or assumed, something about the nature of that unborn connected to stage of development. Did this rise to the level of teaching? Certainly noone could be blamed for taking the pope’s action as guidance in the matter, though it should be noted that the Pope did not mislead anyone into believing the act was moral or permisssble.

I suppose it depends on how rigid or ultra-Montane one wants to get re defining what qualifies as a “teaching”.
If moral judgements were regularly made by the Magisterium on the basis of this position then its good enough to qualify as a teaching for me. But then I don’t have issues with teachings being a work in progress that get precisioned or formally defined or relegated to the back-burner over time…like Limbo. Others for some reason have a very novel view that “teachings” are somehow implicitly infallible. Perhaps its due to a less than stellar education in Church History.

 

[Rau]

…PR please just give it up.
In the eyes of anyone with a modicum of formal Thomistic theological or scholarly education you are just embarrassing yourself.

Blue - regardless of where the “right” lies, this sounds terribly pompous. It’s OK to simply disagree.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue - regardless of where the “right” lies, this sounds terribly pompous. It’s OK to simply disagree.

Yes I was somewhat.
Given the context (PRs “I feel a great duty to correct your errors here”) I thought it relatively tame. Sun-spots are apparently very bright, but against the sun only black. Apologies to “lurkers” here who thought my rejoinder excessive.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I read that a Pope (long ago) found a monk not guilty of murdering an unborn because the deed was done too early in the pregnancy. Clearly the Pope believed, or assumed, something about the nature of that unborn connected to stage of development. Did this rise to the level of teaching? Certainly noone could be blamed for taking the pope’s action as guidance in the matter, though it should be noted that the Pope did not mislead anyone into believing the act was moral or permisssble.

But back to topic.
A quick Net search has uncovered more excellent examples of moral and dogmatic teachings justified by the common place doctrine of delayed hominisation that I had not averted to.

For example the Catechism of Trent (1566) taught Christ’s soul was miraculously created immediately at conception - unlike the rest of mankind.

“as soon as the Blessed Virgin gave her consent … the most holy body of Christ was formed and a rational soul was joined to it. Nobody can doubt that this was something new and an admirable work of the Holy Spirit, since, in the natural order, no body can be informed by a human soul except after the prescribed space of time.”

 

[Rau]

Blue - from where comes the 40/90 days figure? What is the nature of its basis?

 

[PRmerger]

99% of our Church clerics and professors were taught this and in turn taught the next generation of seminarians for many 100s of years, its in the Summa, past moral judgements/teaching re abortion not being homicide are based on it, a contributor below has sited docs for you…but for you that doesn’t mean the Church taught it because it isn’t a dogma and you never explicitly read it in the layman’s Catechism :blush:…
By all means feel it your duty to correct Aquinas .
Next you will be saying Limbo was never a teaching.

PR please just give it up.
In the eyes of anyone with a modicum of formal Thomistic theological or scholarly education you are just embarrassing yourself.

When will our CAF auto-didacts learn to stop over-reaching themselves .

Ah. That’s exactly what I thought: you are referencing Thomas Aquinas.

Please note: as I stated earlier–the professions of priests and bishops, no matter now holy and esteemed, ought not be confused with the teachings of the Church.

The Church has NEVER taught a delayed ensoulment.

As far as “correcting” Aquinas–not so much. I am correcting you.

Your erroneous assertion that this is what the Church taught is what I need to ensure folks do not believe.

Whether Aquinas is correct or not on delayed ensoulment, well, since the CHURCH hasn’t spoken on this, I remain silent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ah. That’s exactly what I thought: you are referencing Thomas Aquinas.

Please note: as I stated earlier–the professions of priests and bishops, no matter now holy and esteemed, ought not be confused with the teachings of the Church.

The Church has NEVER taught a delayed ensoulment.

As far as “correcting” Aquinas–not so much. I am correcting you.

Your erroneous assertion that this is what the Church taught is what I need to ensure folks do not believe.

Whether Aquinas is correct or not on delayed ensoulment, well, since the CHURCH hasn’t spoken on this, I remain silent.

No I am not referencing Aquinas. I merely stated Aquinas is one of a huge number of weighty witnesses who took delayed ensoulment as a given in their teachings and rulings.
Apart from the Immaculate Conception that’s a fairly good weather vane for most people they are on the wrong path without further ado.

I could go on and on with other weighty sources in addition to the Catechism of Trent below. But what is the point, you disagree in principle so cannot be convinced even should Moses arise and speak .

There is no point conversing with you further on this done and dusted topic for these reasons sorry PR.

 

[Rau]

…Your erroneous assertion that this is what the Church taught is what I need to ensure folks do not believe.

I just wish someone would tell me where the 40 days comes from.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I just wish someone would tell me where the 40 days comes from.

I believe it’s been mentioned a number of times…Aristotle, who reflects the common science/philosophy of his day.

 

[BornInMarch]

I believe it’s been mentioned a number of times…Aristotle, who reflects the common science/philosophy of his day.

Aristotle was a smart guy in a lot of ways, but he was not a scientist and many of his scientific theories have been found to be false.

 

[Rau]

I believe it’s been mentioned a number of times…Aristotle, who reflects the common science/philosophy of his day.

You mean, in this case, the basis was “he said so”? He, being Aristotle, born 384BC.

 

[PRmerger]

No I am not referencing Aquinas. I merely stated Aquinas is one of a huge number of weighty witnesses who took delayed ensoulment as a given in their teachings and rulings.
Apart from the Immaculate Conception that’s a fairly good weather vane for most people they are on the wrong path without further ado.

I could go on and on with other weighty sources in addition to the Catechism of Trent below. But what is the point, you disagree in principle so cannot be convinced even should Moses arise and speak .

There is no point conversing with you further on this done and dusted topic for these reasons sorry PR.

Suffice it to say, Blue: it was erroneous to proclaim that the Church once taught delayed ensoulment.

 

[Rau]

…it was erroneous to proclaim that the Church once taught delayed ensoulment.

You may be right about that. I was interested in the origins of the idea - that is one means of gauging substance and the likelihood of it being taught, and the formality of that teaching.

There seems little doubt that the Catechism of Trent asserts that the human body exists prior to the rational soul. And little doubt that the Catechism is *reasonably *authoritative, but being published a year after the Council Fathers had dispersed, does not have the authority of conciliary definitions.

It is therefore interesting to read (as one does…) Decree #1, 1311-1312 (Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne):
“In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert, defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic."

This dogma means that the rational soul is what makes the human body what it is. Since the soul is the form of the human body, there cannot be a true living human body that does not have a true rational soul infused into it. The soul must therefore be their from the ‘beginning’ of the body.

Evidently, the Catechism of Trent on this point (not supported by or aligned with any conciliar decision I can identify) was in error from the day it was written.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You may be right about that. I was interested in the origins of the idea - that is one means of gauging substance and the likelihood of it being taught, and the formality of that teaching.

There seems little doubt that the Catechism of Trent asserts that the human body exists prior to the rational soul. And little doubt that the Catechism is *reasonably *authoritative, but being published a year after the Council Fathers had dispersed, does not have the authority of conciliary definitions.

It is therefore interesting to read (as one does…) Decree #1, 1311-1312 (Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne):
“In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert, defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic."

This dogma means that the rational soul is what makes the human body what it is. Since the soul is the form of the human body, there cannot be a true living human body that does not have a true rational soul infused into it. The soul must therefore be their from the ‘beginning’ of the body.

Evidently, the Catechism of Trent on this point (not supported by or aligned with any conciliar decision I can identify) was in error from the day it was written.

You are right Rau. The Church’s heavy reliance on the philosophy of Aristotle baptised by Aquinas (ie body and soul) and endorsed to a significant extent by the Council of Vienne would be seriously called into question if delayed hominisation was denied given the evidence of science at the time re the embryo. This is for the reason you state (actually it is a bit more complicated than that).

Actually the conflict between soul/body theology and ensoulment at conception is still with us and modern embryology findings haven’t totally taken the problem away.

For a human soul to exist unique individuality must also be proven of the conceptus.
But modern embryology denies this until I believe a week after formation. Each dividing cell is still “totipotent” in that time. This means if the loosely glued clump of cells separates we will have twins triplets or whatever. There is no human individual present, rather a potential colony. The life-form is not irreversibly individual in nature. This means the “life” present in the first days/week cannot have a human soul according to traditional body/soul doctrine. A human person is not there yet.

Sure its the beginning of “human life”. But that is not the same thing and does not carry the same rights. Procured abortion of such a “life” is still gravely wrong but its not homicide and baptism was forbidden by the Church for the spontaneously aborted non-quickened life form (until even a few hundred years ago I believe). Baptism was compulsory for the quickened.

BTW it is an interesting that Alphonsus Liguori writes in 1789:

“not every lump of flesh should be baptized which lacks every arrangement of organs, since it is universally accepted that the soul is not infused into the body before the latter is formed.”

Theologica Moralis.

And elsewhere he states:

“On the other hand, some are mistaken who say that the fetus is ensouled from the first moment of its conception, since the fetus is certainly not animated before it is formed.”

Theologica Moralis.

At his time theological opinion was swinging away from Aristotle’s view to ensoulment as early as two days.

Modern embryology, as above, to be compatible with Church soul/body theology actually has nothing more to add to this philosophical question. Compatibility between the two still requires enspoulment only when the dividing fertilised ovum proceeds to the point where the cells are no longer totipotent and the cells start forming different parts of a single embryo.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You mean, in this case, the basis was “he said so”? He, being Aristotle, born 384BC.

Not quite sure what you are asking if this isn’t a satisfactory response.
Presumably he based it on the “embryology” of his day which observed that no bodily organisation (organs?) were visible to the naked human eye until this time.

Others say this is the time embryos “quicken” (ie the earliest they can be felt to move).

I haven’t come across a specific answer and a search on the Net doesn’t answer further.
Nor can I find the reason directly in Aristotle’s works yet

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Aristotle was a smart guy in a lot of ways, but he was not a scientist and many of his scientific theories have been found to be false.

Of course, he didnt have a microscope for a start.
But he was a great scientist - though the profession as we understand now did not exist in those times.
He was also a great philosopher.

That’s a very rare combination in todays world.

 

[PRmerger]

Suffice it to say, Blue: it was erroneous to proclaim that the Church once taught delayed ensoulment.

You may be right about that.

Yes.

 

[AiyanaS]

Suffice it to say, Blue: it was erroneous to proclaim that the Church once taught delayed ensoulment.

Catholic Church most certainly has taught delayed ensoulment: (The concept of when a soul entered a fetus is one that was under development for over 1800 years until the church finally settled on ensoulment at conception)

Pope Innocent III (1161-1216):
He determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time.
Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.

Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull (issued in 1588 by Pope Sixtus V which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty) and reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16 weeks).

It wasn’t until 1869 that the concept of the soul entering the pre embryos upon conception was taught, when Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the long held distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus.”

religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm