Catholic Church: Unborn Children Have a Soul at Conception

[JimG]

The notion of soul being the ‘animating principle’ of life is an Aristotelian notion that does not really make sense in modern biology.

As for the soul it has to be something that sets us apart from the other animals and the rest of creation - the only thing that meets that criteria is the mind and consciousness.

True, the idea of a soul is itself a philsophical, not a biological, concept. My point is that both philosophy and biology point to the same conclusion.

It has long been Catholic philosophy that the human soul is a non-material animating principle, and that the two primary faculties of the soul are intellect and will. “Mind” is another way of referring to the intellect and will.

Consciousness, in the sense of awareness, is found in animals as well as in man. But, it is only in the human that consciousness reaches a point of self-reflection. That is, we are not only conscous, but conscious of our consiousness. We are capable of self-reflection, and abstraction.

But humans are a composite of body and soul. We are not, for example, conscious or self-reflective while asleep or comatose, but we are still human. The human soul is dependent on the body for (name removed by moderator)ut, in a way that the angelic soul is not.

But because we know biologically, that every new individual of the human species has its beginning at conception, resulting in a new and distinct member of that species, we presume from a philosophical standpoint that such a new and distinct member of the human species must have a human soul. At least I do.

When it comes to arguments about abortion, though, I consider the issue of the soul to be nearly irrelevant, since the soul cannot be seen or measrued. But the biology is clear. We know when a new human being begins.

 

[razredge]

.

Consciousness, in the sense of awareness, is found in animals as well as in man. But, it is only in the human that consciousness reaches a point of self-reflection. That is, we are not only conscous, but conscious of our consiousness. We are capable of self-reflection, and abstraction.

By consciousness I mean this kind of self-awareness, self-reflection and abstraction and I equate this with the Imago Dei and therefore the soul.

But because we know biologically, that every new individual of the human species has its beginning at conception, resulting in a new and distinct member of that species, we presume from a philosophical standpoint that such a new and distinct member of the human species must have a human soul. At least I do.

See the problem with that reasoning, is that essentially what you are saying is that anything with unique human DNA has a soul and this leads to issues such as do monozygotic twins share one soul or have two separate souls? Do Siamese twins have one soul or two?

There is no way of resolving these (and other issues) without introducing arbitrary ideas on what gets a soul and what doesn’t. ie. There is no single definition of what has a human soul apart from one rooted in the mind that doesn’t cause issues unless you introduce ad hoc exceptions to the definition.

 

[JimG]

By consciousness I mean this kind of self-awareness, self-reflection and abstraction and I equate this with the Imago Dei and therefore the soul.

See the problem with that reasoning, is that essentially what you are saying is that anything with unique human DNA has a soul and this leads to issues such as do monozygotic twins share one soul or have two separate souls? Do Siamese twins have one soul or two?

There is no way of resolving these (and other issues) without introducing arbitrary ideas on what gets a soul and what doesn’t. ie. There is no single definition of what has a human soul apart from one rooted in the mind that doesn’t cause issues unless you introduce ad hoc exceptions to the definition.

Well, a human being by definition has a human soul. That’s philosophy. And a human zygote is a new and distinct member of the human species. That’s biology.

But as to when monozygotic twins get two souls is not relevant, at least to me. When there are two human beings, there are two human souls. (My own theory is that there are two souls, and two individuals, from the beginning. But a second sould could also be created at the point of separation.) And Siamese twins share bodies, not minds, thus they must each have a soul.

But the only time I have heard the issue discussed in recent years, aside from purely philosophical discussions, is with respect to the issue of abortion. And then it is usually those who don’t even believe in souls who raise the issue, trying to find a reason for early abortion.

 

[razredge]

Well, a human being by definition has a human soul. That’s philosophy. And a human zygote is a new and distinct member of the human species. That’s biology.

So, does all unique DNA have a soul? do my fingernails have souls? what about my leg?

But as to when monozygotic twins get two souls is not relevant, at least to me. When there are two human beings, there are two human souls. (My own theory is that there are two souls, and two individuals, from the beginning. But a second sould could also be created at the point of separation.) And Siamese twins share bodies, not minds, thus they must each have a soul.

‘Not relevant’ means you haven’t thought about the issue enough to see the problems with your position that all human life has a soul, unless alternatively you advocate some kind of completely arbitrary, subjective basis for what has a soul and what doesn’t have a soul.

 

[JimG]

So, does all unique DNA have a soul? do my fingernails have souls? what about my leg?

‘Not relevant’ means you haven’t thought about the issue enough to see the problems with your position that all human life has a soul, unless alternatively you advocate some kind of completely arbitrary, subjective basis for what has a soul and what doesn’t have a soul.

All human beings have a human soul. A human being is a composite of both body and soul. For humans, the body is material, and has many parts. The soul is immaterial and does not have parts. Your one unitary soul exists in every part of your body without being “spread out,” because a human soul has no parts to spread out. A spiritual being, including a human soul, is where it acts. And the soul acts throughout the body. It can not be divided.

That has been standard Catholic philosophy of man for about the last 800 years.

Biology doesn’t deal in souls, nor can it, since a human soul cannot be directly observed.

But biology does show when a new human being begins. A new human being naturally has a human soul, which is directly created by God.

 

[razredge]

All human beings have a human soul. A human being is a composite of both body and soul. For humans, the body is material, and has many parts. The soul is immaterial and does not have parts. Your one unitary soul exists in every part of your body without being “spread out,” because a human soul has no parts to spread out. A spiritual being, including a human soul, is where it acts. And the soul acts throughout the body. It can not be divided.

All human beings have a soul, what are human beings - beings that have human souls.
This is circular reasoning at its finest

But biology does show when a new human being begins. A new human being naturally has a human soul, which is directly created by God.

Define what you mean by ‘new human being’ without a circular reference to the soul

 

[JimG]

All human beings have a soul, what are human beings - beings that have human souls.
This is circular reasoning at its finest

Define what you mean by ‘new human being’ without a circular reference to the soul

Biologically, a new human being is a new and distinct member of the species homo sapiens, genetically distinct from both of its parents. There’s no mystery there.

From a biological standpoint, every human being has a beginning. That beginning is at conception. The alternative is to say that a human being has no beginning.

I suppose one could take the position that each of us had no beginning as human beings. But that would not be reasonable from an embryological standpoint.

 

[razredge]

Biologically, a new human being is a new and distinct member of the species homo sapiens, genetically distinct from both of its parents. There’s no mystery there.

Ok, so you’re happy with that definition? You don’t get a chance to change it later or introduce ad hoc exceptions when I present objections.

And these beings as defined by you also have souls, I presume?

From a biological standpoint, every human being has a beginning. That beginning is at conception. The alternative is to say that a human being has no beginning.

Yes - of course, i’m not arguing that human life doesn’t begin at conception.

 

[JimG]

Ok, so you’re happy with that definition? You don’t get a chance to change it later or introduce ad hoc exceptions when I present objections.

And these beings as defined by you also have souls, I presume?

Yes - of course, i’m not arguing that human life doesn’t begin at conception.

No chance to modify a definition? One that I just came up with within a few seconds while responding on an internet forum? Of course I wouldn’t be happy with it. I’d be much happier to go back and review in great detail my old philosophical psychology textbook. (for a philosophical definition) and an embryological textbook (for a biological definition.)

But if you’re not arguing that human life doesn’t begin at conception, then I don’t see any disagreement.

 

[razredge]

No chance to modify a definition? One that I just came up with within a few seconds while responding on an internet forum? Of course I wouldn’t be happy with it. I’d be much happier to go back and review in great detail my old philosophical psychology textbook. (for a philosophical definition) and an embryological textbook (for a biological definition.)

Well then that’s not much of a definition is it, if even you aren’t willing to stick by it.
So basically you admit to not having thought true the issue enough - as if you had, you’d have a definition that would consistently work for all cases and you’d be happy with.

But if you’re not arguing that human life doesn’t begin at conception, then I don’t see any disagreement.

human life does not necessarily equal to human personhood

 

[catharina]

Catholic Church: Unborn Children Have a Soul at Conception

Thus speaks the Church. While there have been, and remain, different voices within the Church, the human organism from the moment of conception is presumed to be in possession of a soul. This cannot be overstated. In her wisdom, the Church grants the presumption of a soul from the moment of conception.

lifenews.com/2011/08/12/catholic-church-unborn-children-have-a-soul-at-conception/

Yes, juliee, indeed.
While some posters have denied this, they are in error.

The Sanctity of Human Life from Conception to Natural Death
By Bishop Samuel J. Aquila

catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=622

" …

The CCC (2258) teaches: “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.” This is the common thread which runs through all of the life issues.

The right to life is the essential right for every other human right. Pope Benedict XVI on September 7, 2007, reminded the authorities and diplomatic corps of Austria that "the fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other human right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception to its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right – it is the very opposite. …"

The very action of conception includes the creation of an immortal soul.
To deny or dispute that fact is the height of il-logic and obstinacy.

Human life, from conception to natural death,
salutes and reveres the presence of an immortal soul.

 

[razredge]

The sanctity of human life is a separate issue to whether ensoulment occurs at conception or not - which is something the Church has not definitively pronounced on - so it is you who are in error there:

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. It remains an open question. The Declaration on Procured Abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974 phrases the matter with considerable precision:

• This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent. *

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8268

 

[catharina]

The sanctity of human life is a separate issue to whether ensoulment occurs at conception or not - which is something the Church has not definitively pronounced on - so it is you who are in error there:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8268

As I stated on the other thread, I’ve no interest in the suppositionsquoted from catholicculture. I do however, firmly believe the infallibly revealed truth of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, mother of Our Lord.

With the doctrine we learn that Mary was conceived without the stain
of original sin. That is Mary herself, not an almost-Mary or a
Mary-to-be-someday. To support the notion of “ensoulment” at any
time other than the instant of conception seems to be a direct denial
of this doctrine. I REFUSE to go there.

Conception: body and soul - Mary’s was immaculate.

 

[razredge]

As I stated on the other thread, I’ve no interest in the suppositionsquoted from catholicculture. I do however, firmly believe the infallibly revealed truth of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, mother of Our Lord.

With the doctrine we learn that Mary was conceived without the stain
of original sin. That is Mary herself, not an almost-Mary or a
Mary-to-be-someday. To support the notion of “ensoulment” at any
time other than the instant of conception seems to be a direct denial
of this doctrine. I REFUSE to go there.

Conception: body and soul - Mary’s was immaculate.

You clearly haven’t properly read that article or my quote from it, it isn’t a ‘supposition’ from Catholiccuture.org it mentions formal Church teaching from ‘The Declaration on Procured Abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974’

This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.

It is you who are disagreeing with Church teaching on this matter and trying to use the doctrine of Immaculate Conception out of its context to contradict a more recent and germane statement on the very matter at hand.

 

[catharina]

You clearly haven’t properly read that article or my quote from it, it isn’t a ‘supposition’ from Catholiccuture.org it mentions formal Church teaching from ‘The Declaration on Procured Abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974’

It is you who are disagreeing with Church teaching on this matter and trying to use the doctrine of Immaculate Conception out of its context to contradict a more recent and germane statement on the very matter at hand.

I request that you find that quote with YOUR deriative meaning
in the Vatican format of the Declaration I don’t see it.

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

*This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent. *

…

You have misunderstood - meaning that the declaration makes it very clear that our moral affirmation of LIFE remains independent of scientific and philosophical pursuits.

You will not find support for your house built on sand.

Also I do wonder about the nature of your investment in arguing against
Church teachings. You express identical views in other threads. Why is that?

 

[razredge]

I request that you find that quote with YOUR deriative meaning
in the Vatican format of the Declaration I don’t see it.

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

Look harder, it’s footnote 19

You have misunderstood - meaning that the declaration makes it very clear that our moral affirmation of LIFE remains independent of scientific and philosophical pursuits.

Yes, I agree - but that is not the point

Also I do wonder about the nature of your investment in arguing against
Church teachings. You express identical views in other threads. Why is that?

In this case I am not arguing against Church teachings since the Church has yet to settle the ensoulment matter.

 

[catharina]

Look harder, it’s footnote 19

Yes, I agree - but that is not the point

In this case I am not arguing against Church teachings since the Church has yet to settle the ensoulment matter.

from me in the other thread:

*You have shown your own opinion.

The Church states this:

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]

and this:

1. To this perpetual evidence - perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation[19] - modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time- a rather lengthy time- to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. “The one who will be a man is already one.”[20]

Both from document on Vatican site
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ortion_en.html

and this Stated Twice:

"The one who will be a man already is one."

Our belief, defined by the Church is that each man posses an immortal soul.
The soul defines the life, defines the man.

Good bye to you now. *

You will be in my prayers.