Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[allhers]

It’s not my point. My point is that the Church allows for delayed ensoulment, and prior to ensoulment the fetus is not a human being because the Church says a human being has a soul.

Apparently very few here were aware of this teaching by the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI.

Importance is a function of each individual. Some find some thigs important. Some don’t. I think it is important to have accurate knowledge of Church teachings when claiming the Church teaches something.

If one insists the Church has always taught with certainly the soul is present at conception, it is important to know one is passing on false information. However, I grant some may not think it is important.

What is really important to point out and keep exposing is this.
You keep saying it over and over and the Church doesn’t teach this:
Your words—"My point is that the Church allows for delayed ensoulment, **and prior to ensoulment the fetus is not a human being **because the Church says a human being has a soul.

That is why I keep suggessting to you that you read the entire document that you keep saying this about, the Church DO NOT teach that it isn’t a human being if it doesn’t have a soul, it says it is a human being even if ensoulment isn’t present at conception, which they
believe it is, BUT that wasn’t the documents purpose.

The purpose was to point out that it is indeed still a tiny person.

You obviously still have not read the entire document and until you do, you won’t get it!!

 

[WillieWonka]

What would you have done, then? Every single person who used it as an argument to step forward, apologize, and swear never to use it again? You’ve made your point. I haven’t seen anyone on this thread who actually cares about debating the topic of ensoulment when no scientific conclusion will ever be made here. The fact that it cannot be proven one way or another means that it is better to find other proof and to just leave the topic alone for the more qualified theologians to battle it out.

I very much doubt the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI intended their teaching for theologians only. Is this a topic that should be off limits to Catholics? Is there any other teaching from the Sacred Congregation and the pope that is off limits for Catholics to discuss? If so, I would be very surprised. The Church has a long tradition of robust intellectual discussion. Surely an educated and informed laity can only strengthen the Church.

Benedict just publshed a very interesting encyclical. Are Catholics to shy away from discussing both the encyclical and its implications? Is that something reserved for theologians?

I suppose some might consider this teaching to be inconvenient for their personal agenda. Some might even prefer Catholics remain ignorant of the truth. Some might think they cannot deal with it. But if an agenda cannot squarely face the truth of Church teachings, does it deserve much deference?

 

[WillieWonka]

What is really important to point out and keep exposing is this.
You keep saying it over and over and the Church doesn’t teach this:
Your words—"My point is that the Church allows for delayed ensoulment, **and prior to ensoulment the fetus is not a human being **because the Church says a human being has a soul.

That is why I keep suggessting to you that you read the entire document that you keep saying this about, the Church DO NOT teach that it isn’t a human being if it doesn’t have a soul, it says it is a human being even if ensoulment isn’t present at conception, which they
believe it is, BUT that wasn’t the documents purpose.

The purpose was to point out that it is indeed still a tiny person.

You obviously still have not read the entire document and until you do, you won’t get it!!

Well, if a human being has a soul, and something does not have a soul, then it is not a human being.

The Sacred Congregation document in question does not say something lacking a soul is not a human being. But CC 365 tells us a human being has a soul. So, putting 365 together with the document from the Sacred Congregation, we can see that a human being has a soul. Therefore, if ensoulment has not happened, that which does not have a soul is not a human being.

*CC365: “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.” *

 

[allhers]

Well, if a human being has a soul, and something does not have a soul, then it is not a human being.

The Sacred Congregation document in question does not say something lacking a soul is not a human being. But CC 365 tells us a human being has a soul. So, putting 365 together with the document from the Sacred Congregation, we can see that a human being has a soul. Therefore, if ensoulment has not happened, that which does not have a soul is not a human being.

*CC365: “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 am well aware of the Cathechism, thank you, now, why don’t you go and read the WHOLE document so that you too and understand exactly what the Sacred Congregation is saying.

You and I have both linked to it several times, so I am sure you know where on the Vatican web site to find it by now.

 

[WillieWonka]

I am well aware of the Cathechism, thank you, now, why don’t you go and read the WHOLE document so that you too and understand exactly what the Sacred Congregation is saying.

You and I have both linked to it several times, so I am sure you know where on the Vatican web site to find it by now.

Para 19 of the end notes is quite clear. The Sacred Congregation does not know when ensoulment takes place. Nothing in the rest of the document contradicts this. These folks are very smart. They don’t conradict themselves in the same document.

If anyone wants to read for themselves what the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI said, here is the link.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

 

[allhers]

Para 19 of the end notes is quite clear. The Sacred Congregation does not know when ensoulment takes place. Nothing in the rest of the document contradicts this. These folks are very smart. They don’t conradict themselves in the same document.

If anyone wants to read for themselves what the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI said, here is the link.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

Yes, I know, the WHOLE document is quite clear, try reading all of it.

 

[WillieWonka]

Yes, I know, the WHOLE document is quite clear, try reading all of it.

It is clear. It says many things. What in particular are you trying to highlight by recommending reading all of it?

 

[elts1956]

Therefore, if delayed ensoulment is the case, the fetus lacks a soul before ensoulment and is not human.

Is the tiniest fragment of those human baby cells alive? Does it move, is it growing, does it take nourishment? Yes and it has a soul. All living things have souls just not all in the same form. Human souls are eternal. I don’t know of any other animal soul that is, but I “could” be wrong.

I don’t believe in delayed ensoulment. What would be the point?

 

[WillieWonka]

Is the tiniest fragment of those human baby cells alive? Does it move, is it growing, does it take nourishment? Yes and it has a soul. All living things have souls just not all in the same form. Human souls are eternal. I don’t know of any other animal soul that is, but I “could” be wrong.

I don’t believe in delayed ensoulment. What would be the point?

That is certainly an acceptable belief under the teaching of the Sacred Congregation, but, nevertheless, the Sacred Congragation teaching tells us it doesn’t know if that tiny fragment has a soul. So, belief the tiny fragment has s soul is not a certain Churvh teaching.

 

[FanChan]

That is certainly an acceptable belief under the teaching of the Sacred Congregation, but, nevertheless, the Sacred Congragation teaching tells us it doesn’t know if that tiny fragment has a soul. So, belief the tiny fragment has s soul is not a certain Churvh teaching.

I’m going to try to ask this again. Does whether or not the fetus has a soul or not at the time of an abortion make a difference on whether it’s right or wrong?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Every person makes the choice to serve either God or Satan. It really is that simple, in spite of what ‘sophisticates’ would have us believe.

 

[SteveGC]

That is certainly an acceptable belief under the teaching of the Sacred Congregation, but, nevertheless, the Sacred Congragation teaching tells us it doesn’t know if that tiny fragment has a soul. So, belief the tiny fragment has s soul is not a certain Churvh teaching.

But WW, this has no bearing on what is acceptable to believe. Because, despite the unanimous declaration of precise timing of ensoulment, the Church officially declares that life begins at conception…at that very instant…and is sacred…and must not be deliberately terminated…ever. The fact that they disagree on the timing of ensoulment is irrelevant to the infallible declaration of when life begins.

And so, it is NOT acceptable to God to believe otherwise…to believe there is a point between conception and nidation wherein abortion is justified. God, through the Church, decrees that life begins at conception…period.

The crux of the matter is whether or not it is important to someone to follow what God decrees…or to follow their own prideful whim.

 

[ConservativeOne]

YES ! I CHOOSE LIFE.
I’ve CHOSEN LIFE.
I’ve CHOSEN NOT to vote for those who AREN’T PRO-LIFE.

So, in that regard, you could say I’m “pro-choice” - MY CHOICE is the RIGHT choice. LIFE.

 

[WillieWonka]

But WW, this has no bearing on what is acceptable to believe. Because, despite the unanimous declaration of precise timing of ensoulment, the Church officially declares that life begins at conception…at that very instant…and is sacred…and must not be deliberately terminated…ever. The fact that they disagree on the timing of ensoulment is irrelevant to the infallible declaration of when life begins.

And so, it is NOT acceptable to God to believe otherwise…to believe there is a point between conception and nidation wherein abortion is justified. God, through the Church, decrees that life begins at conception…period.

The crux of the matter is whether or not it is important to someone to follow what God decrees…or to follow their own prideful whim.

Everyone agrees life begins at conception. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and the fertilized egg is alive. The alternative is the fertilized egg is dead.

I acknowledge the Sacred Congregation says no fetus at any stage of development should be terminated. The document is very clear.

But, we can observe the Sacred Congregation says it doesn’t know when ensoulment takes place. Therefore, it doesn’t know when a human being comes into existence because a human being has a soul according to other Church tecahing.

Given that, the contention of many that the fetus is not a human being is allowable under the teaching of the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI.

 

[FanChan]

Everyone agrees life begins at conception. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and the fertilized egg is alive. The alternative is the fertilized egg is dead.

I acknowledge the Sacred Congregation says no fetus at any stage of development should be terminated. The document is very clear.

But, we can observe the Sacred Congregation says it doesn’t know when ensoulment takes place. Therefore, it doesn’t know when a human being comes into existence because a human being has a soul according to other Church tecahing.

Given that, the contention of many that the fetus is not a human being is allowable under the teaching of the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI.

So what? Really, then, so what? What does that ultimately mean?

 

[SteveGC]

Everyone agrees life begins at conception. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and the fertilized egg is alive. The alternative is the fertilized egg is dead.

I acknowledge the Sacred Congregation says no fetus at any stage of development should be terminated. The document is very clear.

But, we can observe the Sacred Congregation says it doesn’t know when ensoulment takes place. Therefore, it doesn’t know when a human being comes into existence because a human being has a soul according to other Church tecahing.

Given that, the contention of many that the fetus is not a human being is allowable under the teaching of the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI.

WW, you’re drawing your own conclusions as to what the Church teaches…combining documents together where the Church did not combine, and deducing your own summary of what is officially taught. When you say “Therefore, it doesn’t know when a human being comes into existence…”, you are saying something the Church doesn’t say. The document about ensoulment does not address when a human being comes into existence…it merely allows for the lack of unanimity of the precise timing of ensoulment…it seems to me it directly infers that this timing is irrelevant to the fact that the Church considers the living cells to be human, even if ensoulment happens at some point after conception.

Bottom line…ensoulment timing is not an official, infallible Church teaching…but sacred human life beginning at conception IS. Are you offering that the Church contradicts itself by saying a human life doesn’t exist without a soul, then later claiming a human life does exist without a soul?..If so, I would say that the ensoulment document is merely illustrating that human life exists at conception even under the possible premise that it exists without perfect enjoinment with its soul, but is still destined (and awaiting) to inevitably receive its soul. Hence, it indeed IS a human being…just as much as a fetus with a received and perfectly enjoined soul is a human being.

 

[WillieWonka]

WW, you’re drawing your own conclusions as to what the Church teaches…combining documents together where the Church did not combine, and deducing your own summary of what is officially taught. When you say “Therefore, it doesn’t know when a human being comes into existence…”, you are saying something the Church doesn’t say. The document about ensoulment does not address when a human being comes into existence…it merely allows for the lack of unanimity of the precise timing of ensoulment…it seems to me it directly infers that this timing is irrelevant to the fact that the Church considers the living cells to be human, even if ensoulment happens at some point after conception.

Bottom line…ensoulment timing is not an official, infallible Church teaching…but sacred human life beginning at conception IS. Are you offering that the Church contradicts itself by saying a human life doesn’t exist without a soul, then later claiming a human life does exist without a soul?..If so, I would say that the ensoulment document is merely illustrating that human life exists at conception even under the possible premise that it exists without perfect enjoinment with its soul, but is still destined (and awaiting) to inevitably receive its soul. Hence, it indeed IS a human being…just as much as a fetus with a received and perfectly enjoined soul is a human being.

Well, we agree exact ensoulment timing is not an official teaching. But they do tell us they don’t know when the exact ensoulment takes place. The Sacred Congregation addresses both delayed ensoulment and instant ensoulment. Hence, it doesn’t know when ensoulment takes place. It refers to instant ensoulment as probable. Probable is not certain. Not certain means they don’t know.

*CC 365 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. *

So, the Church teaches a human being has a soul.

If a human being has a soul, and the Sacred Congregation does not know when ensoulment takes place, then the Sacred Congregation doesn’t know when a human being comes into existence.

Under the case of delayed ensoulment, what is a fetus prior to ensoulment? What is a fetus after ensoulment?

I think you are saying something without a soul is a human being. And you are saying something with a soul is a human being. I think the Church contends a human being must have a soul…

 

[PapaSquash]

So what? Really, then, so what? What does that ultimately mean?

It means Willie has whipped himself up a batch of frothy intellectual mousse. Ain’t too filling but I suppose he finds it tasty.

 

[FanChan]

Well, we agree exact ensoulment timing is not an official teaching. But they do tell us they don’t know when the exact ensoulment takes place. The Sacred Congregation addresses both delayed ensoulment and instant ensoulment. Hence, it doesn’t know when ensoulment takes place. It refers to instant ensoulment as probable. Probable is not certain. Not certain means they don’t know.

*CC 365 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. *

So, the Church teaches a human being has a soul.

If a human being has a soul, and the Sacred Congregation does not know when ensoulment takes place, then the Sacred Congregation doesn’t know when a human being comes into existence.

Under the case of delayed ensoulment, what is a fetus prior to ensoulment? What is a fetus after ensoulment?

I think you are saying something without a soul is a human being. And you are saying something with a soul is a human being. I think the Church contends a human being must have a soul…

This is about the fiftieth time you’ve said just about these exact words, and I still fail to see your point.

 

[royal_archer]

It’s not my point. My point is that the Church allows for delayed ensoulment, and prior to ensoulment the fetus is not a human being because the Church says a human being has a soul.

Apparently very few here were aware of this teaching by the Sacred Congregation and Pope Paul VI.

Importance is a function of each individual. Some find some thigs important. Some don’t. I think it is important to have accurate knowledge of Church teachings when claiming the Church teaches something.

If one insists the Church has always taught with certainly the soul is present at conception, it is important to know one is passing on false information. However, I grant some may not think it is important.

Importance is not the same as relevance. Because they left the door open to the theoretical possibility that a soul and body are united at a point immediately following conception instead of at the moment of conception is totally irrelevant to the discussion.