Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wiggle room to believe the soul is or is not united in a composite with the body at conception. Many people say the Church teaches that as certain. The Church does not teach it as certain. It teaches it is probable. So, the Church allows that ensoulment may not take place at conception.

The notion many people have that ensoulment certainly takes place at conception is their opinion, not Church teaching.
The fact that it*** is*** probable that a body/soul composite(baby:)
is present at conception and begins the continuum of life until natural death, is all the information we need to protect the right to life of a living, growing human being…who has been endowed with an immortal soul by his/her Creator*** in the womb*** of their mother. Th Church will always condemn** ABORTION**, regardless of people’s opinions. But thanks for clearing things up for us.:banghead::blessyou:
 
Wiggle room to believe the soul is or is not united in a composite with the body at conception. Many people say the Church teaches that as certain. The Church does not teach it as certain. It teaches it is probable. So, the Church allows that ensoulment may not take place at conception.

The notion many people have that ensoulment certainly takes place at conception is their opinion, not Church teaching.
What do you make of this then from the source you keep saying you read?
  1. Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation. Human reason is sufficient to impose it on the basis of the analysis of what a human person is and should be. Constituted by a rational nature, man is a personal subject capable of reflecting on himself and of determining his acts and hence his own destiny: he is free. He is consequently master of himself; or rather, because this takes place in the course of time, he has the means of becoming so: this is his task. Created immediately by God, man’s soul is spiritual and therefore immortal.
I bolded it for you.
 
I have discovered no contradiction in Church teaching. I am unaware of another doctrine that is in opposition to the Sacred Congregation.

People who had been under the impression the Church taught with certainty that body and soul unite in a composite at conception can now think about the fact thay have been mistaken, and can rectify their idea of what the Church teaches.

People can also think about the responsibility thay have to accurately relate Church teachings when in discussions of various issues.
Well, your first paragraph here is correct. Your second one has been shown above to be incorrect and your third applies to you.
 
Oh, you mean the one that also says this?
4. Charged with the promotion and the defense of faith and morals in the universal Church,
[2] the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proposes to recall this teaching
in its essential aspects to all the faithful. Thus in showing the unity of the Church, it
will confirm by the authority proper to the Holy See what the bishops have opportunely
undertaken. It hopes that all the faithful, including those who might have been unsettled by
the controversies and new opinions, will understand that it is not a question of opposing
one opinion to another, but of transmitting to the faithful a constant teaching of the
supreme Magisterium, which teaches moral norms in the light of faith.[3] It is therefore
clear that this declaration necessarily entails a grave obligation for Christian consciences
.[4] May God deign to enlighten also all men who strive with their whole heart to “act in
truth” (Jn. 3:21).

and this:
Thus we understand that human life, even on this earth, is precious. Infused by the Creator,
[5] life is again taken back by Him (cf. Gen. 2:7; Wis. 15:11). It remains under His
protection: man’s blood cries out to Him (cf. Gen. 4:10) and He will demand an account of
it, “for in the image of God man was made” (Gen. 9:5-6). The commandment of God is formal:
“You shall not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Life is at the same time a gift and a responsibility. It
is received as a “talent” (cf. Mt. 25:14-30); it must be put to proper use. In order that
life may bring forth fruit, many tasks are offered to man in this world and he must not
shirk them. More important still, the Christian knows that eternal life depends on what,
with the grace of God, he does with his life on earth.
  1. The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and
    favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development. Opposing the
    morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church of the first centuries insisted on the
    difference that exists on this point between those morals and Christian morals. In the
    Didache it is clearly said: “You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you
    shall not murder the infant already born.”[6] Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians
    consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion; he condemns the
    killers of children, including those still living in their mother’s womb, “where they are
    already the object of the care of divine Providence.” Tertullian did not always perhaps use
    the same language; he nevertheless clearly affirms the essential principle: “To prevent
    birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already
    born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one.”
    [8]
(when I get to the part that you keep going on and on about I’ll let you know.)
Yes. That’s the one.
 
The fact that it*** is*** probable that a body/soul composite(baby:)
is present at conception and begins the continuum of life until natural death, is all the information we need to protect the right to life of a living, growing human being…who has been endowed with an immortal soul by his/her Creator*** in the womb*** of their mother. Th Church will always condemn** ABORTION**, regardless of people’s opinions. But thanks for clearing things up for us.:banghead::blessyou:
OK.
 
What do you make of this then from the source you keep saying you read?
  1. Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation. Human reason is sufficient to impose it on the basis of the analysis of what a human person is and should be. Constituted by a rational nature, man is a personal subject capable of reflecting on himself and of determining his acts and hence his own destiny: he is free. He is consequently master of himself; or rather, because this takes place in the course of time, he has the means of becoming so: this is his task. Created immediately by God, man’s soul is spiritual and therefore immortal.
I bolded it for you.
I think the word “immediately” there refers to God alone creating the soul, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the parents. You will see the same phrasing in other sentences where the follow-on clause negates the parents parricipation in soul creation.

Also, I hardly think the Sacred Congregation would contradict itself in the same document. They are a pretty sharp bunch.
 
Well I read the whole thing WillieWonka and it appears you didn’t. It did not say at all what you have been saying in your past few posts.🤷

In fact, it said just the opposite, which I bolded in my above post.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html
I accept you have grave disagreement with the Sacred Congregation’s teaching that ensoulment is probable at conception. That’s fine. Lots of people disagree with the Church.
 
In the end, when God’s sadness turns entirely to anger, as it surely as, like in the past, All this arguing and semantics will be academic at best. Abortion is Evil. Do not presume to think that you can argue with the Creator over when life begins or ensoulment takes place. Tacit support, even through silence or logical defense, is complicity with the evil.
Embryos, zygotes, and fetuses, may be called those names scientifically. That does not make them less than fully human, in the sight of God.If you wish to mock God by not opposing all abortions, that is your sad choice. I will cry out the evil of abortion.
 
I think the word “immediately” there refers to God alone creating the soul, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the parents. You will see the same phrasing in other sentences where the follow-on clause negates the parents parricipation in soul creation. HUH??? Where does it say in Church teaching that we humans can create a soul? The parents create the physical, God infuses the spiritual.
Also, I hardly think the Sacred Congregation would contradict itself in the same document. They are a pretty sharp bunch.
 
I think the word “immediately” there refers to God alone creating the soul, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the parents. You will see the same phrasing in other sentences where the follow-on clause negates the parents parricipation in soul creation.

Also, I hardly think the Sacred Congregation would contradict itself in the same document. They are a pretty sharp bunch.
Ok.

What are you personally going to do to help women find better alternatives to abortion?
That would be none of your business and an easy out question for you who supports pro abortion as an expedient solution.
 
40.png
WillieWonka:
If we were sitting here talking face to face, I would hand you a piece of paper and ask you to draw your picture of the soul and body as a composite. Or would you describe your mental image of the composite soul and body to me and I will try to draw it.

Please take your time as I won’t be back to this thread until evening. Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.
 
I accept you have grave disagreement with the Sacred Congregation’s teaching that ensoulment is probable at conception. That’s fine. Lots of people disagree with the Church.
The fact that it*** is*** probable that a body/soul composite(baby:)
is present at conception and begins the continuum of life until natural death, is all the information we need to protect the right to life of a living, growing human being…who has been endowed with an immortal soul by his/her Creator*** in the womb*** of their mother. Th Church will always condemn** ABORTION**, regardless of people’s opinions. But thanks for clearing things up for us.:banghead::blessyou:
I would go so far to say ensoulment takes place at conception since that is when life begins.

There are some indications the child is alive at conception
1.S/he moves on s/his own.
2.S/he takes nourishment.
3.S/he grows.

Without the soul/spirit, there is NO life. I don’t understand what the big argument is about.

A TRUTH IS A TRUTH EVEN IF NO ONE BELIEVES IT
A LIE IS A LIE EVEN IF EVERYONE BELIEVES IT
 
Wiggle room to believe the soul is or is not united in a composite with the body at conception. Many people say the Church teaches that as certain. The Church does not teach it as certain. It teaches it is probable. So, the Church allows that ensoulment may not take place at conception.

The notion many people have that ensoulment certainly takes place at conception is their opinion, not Church teaching.
I probably should never has used the word composite as I think it is not accurate.

Just for clarification the CCC says:
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
 
I accept you have grave disagreement with the Sacred Congregation’s teaching that ensoulment is probable at conception. That’s fine. Lots of people disagree with the Church.
You again are giving your opinion (which doesn’t mean a thing). I have no grave, or any other disagreements with the Church, it is you and only you that have that problem here today.

They didn’t say it was probable, you did.

See my post 241 above.
 
I think the word “immediately” there refers to God alone creating the soul, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the parents. You will see the same phrasing in other sentences where the follow-on clause negates the parents parricipation in soul creation.

Also, I hardly think the Sacred Congregation would contradict itself in the same document. They are a pretty sharp bunch.
The Sacred Congregation didn’t contradict itself, it simply didn’t say what you wrongly assumed it said. It stated that the soul is immediately created by God.

You are trying to form an opinion about what that means to YOU. You are wrong. Accept it. It didn’t say what you’ve been claiming.
 
If we were sitting here talking face to face, I would hand you a piece of paper and ask you to draw your picture of the soul and body as a composite. Or would you describe your mental image of the composite soul and body to me and I will try to draw it.

Please take your time as I won’t be back to this thread until evening. Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.
No matter where I was sitting, I wouldn’t have a clue how to draw a composite soul and body. Nor could I describe it to you. The notion comes from Fix who said the essence of a human being was a body and soul united in a composite. That seemed to be a very concise and accurate statement of the belief of many.
 
I probably should never has used the word composite as I think it is not accurate.

Just for clarification the CCC says:
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
Actually, I think your composite description does a very good job of encapsulating 365.
 
No matter where I was sitting, I wouldn’t have a clue how to draw a composite soul and body. Nor could I describe it to you. The notion comes from Fix who said the essence of a human being was a body and soul united in a composite. That seemed to be a very concise and accurate statement of the belief of many.
Here’s some ways I would draw the composite: I have never gotten past the drawing stage of a 5-year-old so I would draw a stick person with flesh probably on the heavy side with unequal arms and legs and a head that at least has all the features in the right place. I would call that the body. And then I would either draw a circle or a kind of heart on the left side of the body and that would be the soul. So there would be my composite–a human being with a soul in approximately the right place.

Sometimes I think the soul should be larger so I cover the whole trunk of the body with the soul. Lately, I’ve been thinking that since we are both soul and body, I should draw it as two equal rectangles side by side.

The reason I asked you to draw it is that I thought it might help me to understand your meaning of body and soul. I want to know your thoughts. It doesn’t seem like all of us are thinking the same way about body and soul. So maybe that is why you have to repeat your questions.

While I continue to have faith that we have a soul and that it is important, I have a hard time understanding it. Recently, I’ve been getting an idea that I am not quite right in my drawings.

I’m sure that there is a better way to understand soul and body. Maybe you or someone else has a better way to draw or explain it.

And yes, I believe that soul is important to the topic of abortion. There are people who don’t believe in the spiritual so everything is relative. Thus, abortion becomes a non-issue because life depends on one’s feelings.

Maybe Fix could draw body and soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top