Anybody out there "pro-choice"?

[WillieWonka]

WW, can you comment of this part of the Sacred Congregation document:

…“supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed”

My point about this statement is that it provides clarification that the B/S union the CCC 365 describes for human life is satisfied by a fertilized ovum, EVEN IF its soul is belated. A fertilized ovum awaiting ensoulment is not a different kind of human life than a fertilized ovum with a soul intact, and I don’t find the Church trying to suggest that difference anywhere.
You say this:

CC 365 speaks of the body and soul union (B/S) forming a single nature. If there is no soul, this union (B/S) cannot exist, and the nature the CC speaks of cannot exist.

But the ensoulment note from the document does not say the union and the nature of B/S does not exist, it just says it’s possible that the body is awaiting its soul…you are the one defining “union” as a soul already joined to the body, and not “on the way” to the body. The Congregation note affirms the soul is, at the very least, on the way, and further clarifies that in that case, the body is still human life…just as much as it will be when the soul arrives. So it seems to me that the unity of B/S is satisfied because it is inevitable that the already existing body will receive the soul.

I’ll look into more official teaching on this for you. There indeed may be something I’m missing from Church teaching since 1974 about delayed ensoulment which affirms that since the fertilized egg at conception is animated, it has a soul then and there, and there is no other soul it can have than a human one.

1a. …“supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed”

1b. Belated ensoulment means the ensoulment takes place sometime after fertilization. That means there is no soul at some period (P) after fertilization and before ensoulment. In period P, there cannot be the B/S spoken of in CC365 because there is no available S.

1c. As you read it, the Saced Congregation provides not clarification, but contradiction. CC365 refers to B/S. The Sacred Congregation refers to period P where there is no available S, so there is only B. B is not equal to B/S.

1d. That which is calling for a soul does not have a soul, and there is no B/S. It wouldn’t be calling if it were there. That which is preparing for a soul does not have a soul, and there is no B/S.

1e. CC365 speaks of a union B/S. It does not talk of callling for a soul or preparing for a soul.

1f. When there is no available S, there cannot be a B/S.

2a. I am not the one defining defining “union” as a soul already joined to the body, and not “on the way” to the body. It is CC365 which makes that definition in 2b…

2b. CC365 “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.”

1. The ovum waiting for a soul is different than an ovum which has a soul. Waiting is very different from having. CC365 says the “union forms a single nature.” That single nature cannot exist withut B/S. Waiting means it is not there and is expected. Having means it is there and the B/S union exists. First comes waiting. Then the wait is over. Then B/S exists.

4a. The Sacred Congregation does not say the soul is “on the way.”

4b. The Sacred Congregation does say the fetus is calling for and preparing for a soul. That is very different from affirming the existence of the soul by saying it is “on the way.”

4c. Saying a soul is on the way assigns action to an existing soul. Saying the fetus is waiting and preparing assigns action to the fetus. These are very different things. One might speculate these are not mutually exclusive, and both could happen at the same time. But that is not what the Sacred Congregation says.

4c. Unity of B/S can never be satisfied at period P simply because at some future period (P+n) the union will be satisfied. There is no union at period P. There is union at period (P+n). P is not (P+n).

1. The Sacred Congregation certainly knew in 1974 that the egg, sperm, and fertilized egg were all animated. (Watson and Crick found DNA in 1953 and were awarded a Nobel in 1962.)
2. We are limited by the extent of our English vocabulary The word “human” has a wide range of uses in our language. Latin is the same. But that in no way limits our understanding of concepts.

 

[SteveGC]

My point is that there is an inevitability regarding ensoulment. There is no doubt whatsoever that a living fertilized egg from the moment of conception either already is, or will be ensouled with a human soul. It is inevitable. And it is this inevitability which allows the Church to proclaim that a body that might be awaiting a soul is already to be considered a human life.

CCC 365 is not defining what precisely “union” or “unity” is. One could argue, as you do, that a body “preparing for” and “calling for” a soul infers that the soul does not exist. But CCC 366 says “The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God”. I take “immediately” to mean just that…at the moment of conception. I don’t know how else to rationalize that immediately means sometime after conception. And because the soul is created immediately at conception…it exists at conception, and is either immediately unified with the body, or yes…is “on the way” (again, inevitable).

So the Church IMO does NOT contradict herself with CCC 365 and the Sacred Congregation document regarding possbile delayed ensoulment. Because God creates the soul immediately in conjunction with the fertilization of the egg…union DOES exist. Just because they may not be mysteriously made one, they are destined to be made one. Indeed…“union” in the dictionary allows for it to be the “act of uniting”…and not necessarily limited to being “already united”.

 

[SteveGC]

Just found this interesting article on the subject, WW. It addresses our debate quite thoroughly. Get back to me when you can.

Click here

 

[WillieWonka]

My point is that there is an inevitability regarding ensoulment. There is no doubt whatsoever that a living fertilized egg from the moment of conception either already is, or will be ensouled with a human soul. It is inevitable. And it is this inevitability which allows the Church to proclaim that a body that might be awaiting a soul is already to be considered a human life.

CCC 365 is not defining what precisely “union” or “unity” is. One could argue, as you do, that a body “preparing for” and “calling for” a soul infers that the soul does not exist. But CCC 366 says “The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God”. I take “immediately” to mean just that…at the moment of conception. I don’t know how else to rationalize that immediately means sometime after conception. And because the soul is created immediately at conception…it exists at conception, and is either immediately unified with the body, or yes…is “on the way” (again, inevitable).

So the Church IMO does NOT contradict herself with CCC 365 and the Sacred Congregation document regarding possbile delayed ensoulment. Because God creates the soul immediately in conjunction with the fertilization of the egg…union DOES exist. Just because they may not be mysteriously made one, they are destined to be made one. Indeed…“union” in the dictionary allows for it to be the “act of uniting”…and not necessarily limited to being “already united”.

1a. I agree the Sacred Congregation says the fetus lacking a soul is a human life. It is very clear. They say "supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed,"

1b. So, they are referring to a fetus lacking a soul (B) as a human life. Few would dispute that. It is alive and of the human species.

2a. Look at the full text of CC 366 which you exerpted. It’s in 2b below.

2b*.“The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.”*

2c. One of the meanings of immediately is directly. Note the hypen after the word God. This hyphenated clause provides an explanation of what they mean. They mean it is not created by the parents, but is directly created by God. It is not produced by the parents, but is exclusively producd by God. This removes the notion that the parents pass on a soul, and we are all of one continuous soul. The use of immediately here is not linked to any other event.

2d. If your reading of immediately is correct, then the Sacred Congregation contradicts it by allowing for belated ensoulment.

2e. If your reading of immediately means it is at he same time as another event, what is the other event? Lacking such a referenced event, and noting the hyphenated explanatory clause, immediatel meand directly by God without parental participation.

1. It is acceptable under CC365, CC366, and the Sacred Congregation teachings to believe God creates a soul and B/S at conception. However, the text of the three referenced teachings do not support that as the exclusive belief.

4a. CC365 clearly says, “but rather their union forms a single nature.” It doesn’t say potential union, procces of uniting, intended union, future union, anticipated union,or expected union.

4b. Destiny indicates a union will exist at a future time (T+n). The time in question is not T+n, but T.

5a. We need not rely on a mystery here. the words of the Sacred Congregation, CC365, and cc366 are very clear. There is no difficulty in understanding them.

5b. The difficulty appears when one tries to introduce the notion that the Churh teaches instant ensoulment. That dos not meet the tests of Sacred Congregation, CC365, and CC366.

 

[WillieWonka]

Just found this interesting article on the subject, WW. It addresses our debate quite thoroughly. Get back to me when you can.

Click here

I agree with Pacholczyk’s reading of the Sacred Congregation’s teaching.

*"People are sometimes surprised to hear that the wrongness of destroying a human embryo does not ultimately depend on when that embryo might become a person, or when he or she might receive a soul from God.

“They often suppose that the Catholic Church teaches that destroying human embryos is unacceptable because such embryos are persons (or are “ensouled”). While it is true that the Church teaches that the intentional and direct destruction of human embryos is always immoral, it would be incorrect to conclude that the Church teaches that zygotes (a single-cell embryo) or other early-stage embryos are persons, or that they already have immortal, rational souls. The magisterium of the Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place.”*

 

[catharina]

I agree with Pacholczyk’s reading of the Sacred Congregation’s teaching.

*"People are sometimes surprised to hear that the wrongness of destroying a human embryo does not ultimately depend on when that embryo might become a person, or when he or she might receive a soul from God.

“They often suppose that the Catholic Church teaches that destroying human embryos is unacceptable because such embryos are persons (or are “ensouled”). While it is true that the Church teaches that the intentional and direct destruction of human embryos is always immoral, it would be incorrect to conclude that the Church teaches that zygotes (a single-cell embryo) or other early-stage embryos are persons, or that they already have immortal, rational souls. The magisterium of the Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place.”*

**

… and yet -

we have received the teaching of the Immaculate Conception as INFALLIBLE.

By that single association, we learn that at the moment (instant) of her conception, the mother of Our Lord, Mary Immaculate, was conceived and EXISTED without the stain of original sin on her (existing) soul.

(Ignore this fact at your own peril.)**

 

[guanophore]

If so, perhaps you can explain something to me. (Understand that I’m gonna be hard to convince… I’m pro-life in every circumstance…)

Can you please clear up a mystery for me, and tell me what makes sense about this?
acts17verse28.blogspot.com/2009/05/wheres-sense-in-that.html.

I am pro-choice. I don’t think that human beings are compelled by their biology to pro-create. I think everyone is able to choose to refrain from doing those things that create offspring until the appropriate conditions are present.

 

[FanChan]

**

… and yet -

we have received the teaching of the Immaculate Conception as INFALLIBLE.

By that single association, we learn that at the moment (instant) of her conception, the mother of Our Lord, Mary Immaculate, was conceived and EXISTED without the stain of original sin on her (existing) soul.

(Ignore this fact at your own peril.)**

Oo, good point.

 

[catharina]

Oo, good point.

Thank you and merci, danke, gracias, xiexie.

I’ve been making this point for YEARS.
You’re the very first to acknowledge it.
So, again THANK YOU!

 

[FanChan]

Thank you and merci, danke, gracias, xiexie.

I’ve been making this point for YEARS.
You’re the very first to acknowledge it.
So, again THANK YOU!

You’re quite welcome! I know how important it is to have your argument acknowledge Easy to get discouraged otherwise. Hopefully more than myself have acknowledged it to themselves.

 

[catharina]

You’re quite welcome! I know how important it is to have your argument acknowledge Easy to get discouraged otherwise. Hopefully more than myself have acknowledged it to themselves.

Right you are - especially this argument as related to “ensoulment” vs. abortion.
I’ve worked in pro-life for more than forty years.
Maybe that’s why the clear connection to this “Mary teaching” came to me.

 

[elts1956]

Just found this interesting article on the subject, WW. It addresses our debate quite thoroughly. Get back to me when you can.

Click here

Excellent source.

 

[SteveGC]

I agree with Pacholczyk’s reading of the Sacred Congregation’s teaching.

*"People are sometimes surprised to hear that the wrongness of destroying a human embryo does not ultimately depend on when that embryo might become a person, or when he or she might receive a soul from God.

“They often suppose that the Catholic Church teaches that destroying human embryos is unacceptable because such embryos are persons (or are “ensouled”). While it is true that the Church teaches that the intentional and direct destruction of human embryos is always immoral, it would be incorrect to conclude that the Church teaches that zygotes (a single-cell embryo) or other early-stage embryos are persons, or that they already have immortal, rational souls. The magisterium of the Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place.”*

Yes, I thought you might agree with him there. And do you also agree with him here?:

What a human embryo actually is, even at its earliest and most undeveloped stage, already makes it the only kind of entity capable of receiving the gift of an immortal soul from the hand of God. No other animal or plant embryo can receive this gift; indeed, no other entity in the universe can receive this gift. Hence, the early human embryo is never merely biological tissue, like a group of liver cells in a petri dish; at a minimum, such an embryo, with all its internal structure and directionality, represents the privileged sanctuary of one meant to develop as a human person.

 

[WillieWonka]

Yes, I thought you might agree with him there. And do you also agree with him here?:

What a human embryo actually is, even at its earliest and most undeveloped stage, already makes it the only kind of entity capable of receiving the gift of an immortal soul from the hand of God. No other animal or plant embryo can receive this gift; indeed, no other entity in the universe can receive this gift. Hence, the early human embryo is never merely biological tissue, like a group of liver cells in a petri dish; at a minimum, such an embryo, with all its internal structure and directionality, represents the privileged sanctuary of one meant to develop as a human person.

Let me be clear. I said I agreed with his reading of the Sacred Congregation teaching… That means we both read it the same way, and we both agree on what it says. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

The Sacred Congregation says, “(1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed,”

Pacholczyk’s reading is in basic agreement with what the Sacred Congregation says. He and I both read the Sacred Congregation teaching the same way, and we agree on what it says.

 

[SteveGC]

Let me be clear. I said I agreed with his reading of the Sacred Congregation teaching… That means we both read it the same way, and we both agree on what it says. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

The Sacred Congregation says, “(1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed,”

Pacholczyk’s reading is in basic agreement with what the Sacred Congregation says. He and I both read the Sacred Congregation teaching the same way, and we agree on what it says.

Yes, I do realize that’s what you meant. And I would still like to ask if you agree with his explanation of what a fertilzed ovum is at conception (given in the quote I gave).

The issue here is that despite belated ensoulment, human life begins at conception…this is a clear Catholic teaching…not contradictory to the fact that CCC 365 affirms that a human is a human when it is both body and soul. The point Pacholcyzk is making is the same one I have been making when supposing the reality of belated ensoulment…and that is this… because a fertilized ovum (the body) is inevitably destined for a soul, that body is to be treated as human from the very moment it is conceived. Every faithful Catholic is fully aware of this. And the only excuse a Catholic has to rationalize that fact away, and act in accord with the possibility that an early abortion may not be immoral, is that they either deny the authentic teaching on the matter, or they willfully stiff-arm or neglect the attention they owe to that teaching. Given that fact, it does not stand to reason that we can excuse or be tolerant of the beliefs of anyone that think a human deserving of full life protection might not yet exist at conception.

 

[WillieWonka]

Yes, I do realize that’s what you meant. And I would still like to ask if you agree with his explanation of what a fertilzed ovum is at conception (given in the quote I gave).

The issue here is that despite belated ensoulment, human life begins at conception…this is a clear Catholic teaching…not contradictory to the fact that CCC 365 affirms that a human is a human when it is both body and soul. The point Pacholcyzk is making is the same one I have been making when supposing the reality of belated ensoulment…and that is this… because a fertilized ovum (the body) is inevitably destined for a soul, that body is to be treated as human from the very moment it is conceived. Every faithful Catholic is fully aware of this. And the only excuse a Catholic has to rationalize that fact away, and act in accord with the possibility that an early abortion may not be immoral, is that they either deny the authentic teaching on the matter, or they willfully stiff-arm or neglect the attention they owe to that teaching. Given that fact, it does not stand to reason that we can excuse or be tolerant of the beliefs of anyone that think a human deserving of full life protection might not yet exist at conception.

In the context of Church teachings, I agree with Pacholcyzk about what the ovum is at the moment of conception. It is an instance of the human species which may 1) have a soul, or 2) not have a soul. Here he is in agreement with the Sacred Congregation.

He stresss the respect for the ovum’s life in either souled or unsouled status because it is part of a continuum, while the Sacred Congregation stresses respect for its life because of the sufficiency of the probability it is ensouled.

While the SC does not actually state Pacholcyzk idea, it would be allowed because the sufficiency of the probability does not rule out other sufficient reasons.

 

[SteveGC]

In the context of Church teachings, I agree with Pacholcyzk about what the ovum is at the moment of conception. It is an instance of the human species which may 1) have a soul, or 2) not have a soul. Here he is in agreement with the Sacred Congregation.

He stresss the respect for the ovum’s life in either souled or unsouled status because it is part of a continuum, while the Sacred Congregation stresses respect for its life because of the sufficiency of the probability it is ensouled.

While the SC does not actually state Pacholcyzk idea, it would be allowed because the sufficiency of the probability does not rule out other sufficient reasons.

Ok, I can accept that synopsis…although I am inclined to see the SC holding to the continuum notion more than you have observed, hinging on the “there is still nothing less than a human life” phraseology. To me, both Pacholcyzk and the SC espouse the continuum as well as the sufficiency notions.

At any rate, where are we in all this? Can we continue to address any conclusions you are formulating?

 

[WillieWonka]

Ok, I can accept that synopsis…although I am inclined to see the SC holding to the continuum notion more than you have observed, hinging on the “there is still nothing less than a human life” phraseology. To me, both Pacholcyzk and the SC espouse the continuum as well as the sufficiency notions.

At any rate, where are we in all this? Can we continue to address any conclusions you are formulating?

I am not formulating any further conclusions.

 

[FanChan]

I am not formulating any further conclusions.

So basically there was no point to this whole train of thought, period?

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Whew! Approaching 100 pages. Has any one changed their mind one way or the other, has anyone learned anything or are they just getting battered and bruised?

Kind of reminds me of a classic scene from the western movie The Big Country (1958). Ranch foreman Charleton Heston publicly insults Eastern gentleman Gregory Peck’s honor and challenges him to a fight. Gregory Peck chooses not do defend his honor publicly and refuses the fight. In the middle of night Peck visits Heston’s sleeping quarters and then challenges him to the fight Heston wanted. The brash, tough, young Heston thinks he going to whip this older, gentleman in a minute. The two go outside and it becomes quickly established that Peck is a skilled fighter. Both proceed to beat the living snot out of each other alone in the darkness of night. They both keep getting up and both keep swinging. It goes on and on. Painfully.

Eventually, both combatants, exhausted, bloody and spitting out bits of grass mutually agree to stop the fight. No honor defended or lost, just a tiring, brutal fist fight. Honor has nothing to do with fists. Peck’s parting words were “What did we prove? Huh?”

Ready to stop swinging with useless fists and unheeded words?

The misinformed have been informed. As Catholics that is our loving duty to our brothers and sisters that we must do. Having done so it is now up to them as to what to do. This is not a fight of fists, it isn’t even a fight of words. It’s a supernatural fight. Want to win? It will take supernatural means, prayer, to win this fight. Pray for abortions to end. Pray for Limerick. Pray for all who support and permit abortions to know the Truth and do His will. Pray. Never stop praying. Go to mass, offer up mass. Just do it and The Liar will not prevail.