Catholic Church: Unborn Children Have a Soul at Conception

[juliee]

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/

 

[SonCatcher]

That’s why we had a full Mass and respectful burial for our child who miscarried at 4 weeks gestation (we barely knew he was there and he was gone). There wasn’t even enough of him to see, yet.

I’m glad the definitive word is getting out.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Do aborted and miscarried babies go straight to heaven?

Do they have original sin if they have not yet been born?

 

[SonCatcher]

All the unbaptized have original sin, even the unborn. We can only entrust them to God’s mercy.

 

[centurionguard]

That’s why we had a full Mass and respectful burial for our child who miscarried at 4 weeks gestation (we barely knew he was there and he was gone). There wasn’t even enough of him to see, yet.

I’m glad the definitive word is getting out.

WOW !!! I like hearing this kind of a story to show the dignity and respect to the Unborn in a Mother’s Womb.

I must say though its rare in the Catholic Church you hear of these kind of Requiem Masses.

I have a sister now 41 with four children most in their 20’s.
In all her child bearing years she experienced five miscarriages.
Each time she was devastated.

I guess I’m somewhat surprised because; very little is said in the Church by the clergy that I’m aware of, where Parents (Mothers) can (“or Should”) request the remains of their miscarriage for burial funeral service within the Church.

Most times when a medical D and C procedure is done on a woman after miscarriage the remains are discarded in a hospital incinerator.

Maybe its not an official requirement of the Catholic Church to request these remains for burial.

But I think the sentiment of your post bears substance when considering that a fetus still has a God Given Soul until it dies through complications in miscarriage.

Can anyone else add to this?

 

[Dan_Daly]

All the unbaptized have original sin, even the unborn. We can only entrust them to God’s mercy.

---

This is why abortion is an even more horrible crime than murder of a born individual- it denies the opportunity for baptism. The traditional Catholic teaching on the matter is that unbaptized infants to include unborn children who were miscarried or murdered by abortion go to Limbo- where they enjoy a state of perpetual happiness but do not experience the full beatific vision that those in Heaven do. Contrary to media reports that say otherwise, this traditional teaching has not changed. The much ballyhooed “Limbo doesn’t exist anymore!” document (A) doesn’t say that and (B) isn’t Church Teaching even if it did say that, which it doesn’t.

We can hope and pray for God’s mercy for the unborn. That being said, as hard a teaching as Limbo can be- it is a sign of God’s mercy. An unbaptized child is “born in wrath” and an enemy of God. And how does God treat this enemy if he dies- He blesses them with perpetual happiness.

Pax.

 

[centurionguard]

Perhaps this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=225788
answers the question of Requium Masses for Infants Still Born or Miscarriage.

However; Is it technically a Funeral or a Memorial service?

I’m surely assuming there is the benefit of a Sacramental Blessing conferred on the dead infant in this situation.

 

[SonCatcher]

Perhaps this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=225788
answers the question of Requium Masses for Infants Still Born or Miscarriage.

However; Is it technically a Funeral or a Memorial service?

I’m surely assuming there is the benefit of a Sacramental Blessing conferred on the dead infant in this situation.

Thanks for posting that. Here’s another thread that specifically deals with how to treat the remains and details just about everything a couple needs to do. Providentially, I bookmarked it just before my miscarried child was conceived.

I don’t know whether the Mass was Memorial or Funeral but since we brought the casket with us I couldn’t tell anything different Father did from a funeral.

 

[razredge]

Rubbish, the Church wisely leaves the question of when ensoulment occurs open, it only teaches that life begins at conception.
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923637,00.html

We have no idea when the soul enters the body:

However, in its official declarations, the Catholic Church avoids taking a position on the philosophical question of the moment when a human person begins to be:

This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: "From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence ... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to 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 great capacities requires time ... to find its place and to be in a position to act". This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted. Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.[40]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

 

[SonCatcher]

I am well aware of the “doubts” surrounding the time of ensoulment. Essentially, it is the same issue that concerns the lack of scientific proof of God’s existence or of our own souls.

From Declaration on Procured Abortion (the document being discussed in the OP’s linked article - emphasis added):

“on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.”

While not absolute, the Congregation’s choice in terms places significant weight on the supposition that ensoulment occurs at fertilization.

Further, the Declaration quotes Tertullian, “The one who will be a man is already one.” (emphasis added) What is a human person but a body already in possession of its soul?

 

[Hadrianus]

I am well aware of the “doubts” surrounding the time of ensoulment. Essentially, it is the same issue that concerns the lack of scientific proof of God’s existence or of our own souls.

From Declaration on Procured Abortion (the document being discussed in the OP’s linked article - emphasis added):

“on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.”

While not absolute, the Congregation’s choice in terms places significant weight on the supposition that ensoulment occurs at fertilization.

Further, the Declaration quotes Tertullian, “The one who will be a man is already one.” (emphasis added) What is a human person but a body already in possession of its soul?/QUOTE

Actually, that the existence of God can be known with certitude by natural reason is a Dogma of the Catholic Faith, unlike the question of ensoulment, it’s not an open point for discussion. Unfortunately, many people don’t realize this and fall into the trap of accepting the agnostic premise that we really can’t know whether God exists or not and that we must accept it only on faith.

 

[SonCatcher]

Actually, that the existence of God can be known with certitude by natural reason is a Dogma of the Catholic Faith, unlike the question of ensoulment, it’s not an open point for discussion. Unfortunately, many people don’t realize this and fall into the trap of accepting the agnostic premise that we really can’t know whether God exists or not and that we must accept it only on faith.

“Natural reason” and “scientific proof” are two very different things. Note I also included the fact that humans are ensouled at all in this. Natural reason can prove that humans are ensouled but that still is not scientific proof. The fact of ensoulment is also not open to doctrinal discussion. The only thing that seems open to doctrinal discussion is the time of ensoulment. Even within that discussion, there is much weight to support ensoulment at fertilization even if one were to exclude the argument of caution against accidental killing.

 

[mark_a]

All the unbaptized have original sin, even the unborn. We can only entrust them to God’s mercy.

Our priest told us that baptism of desire is in effect because the parents would have desired baptism.

 

[razredge]

Further, the Declaration quotes Tertullian, “The one who will be a man is already one.” (emphasis added) What is a human person but a body already in possession of its soul?

Tertullian is merely speculating and does not really know for certain.

 

[Trader]

Rubbish, the Church wisely leaves the question of when ensoulment occurs open, it only teaches that life begins at conception.
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923637,00.html

We have no idea when the soul enters the body:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

I think your conclusion is extreme. The Church does have an idea of when ensoulment takes place, but not to the extent that it can require us to believe it. The possibility that the embryo is a fully human person with an immortal soul is so great and the consequences of abortion are so severe that we should act as if the ensoulment has taken place even if we are not sure. A responsible hunter cannot shoot when he sees a rustling in the forest because it might be a deer–it could also be another hunter.

I have heard several pro-life speakers say that the Church teaches that ensoulment takes place at conception and that is not correct either, as the text you quoted shows. The traditional and unchangeable teaching of the Church from the first century is based on its understanding of the nature of man, and it is the very same understanding by which the Church condemns contraception and sex outside of marriage. Unfortunately, many Catholics are unwilling to proclaim a teaching they know is widely rejected and want to give 21st embryology more credit than it deserves. Science cannot say one way or the other when ensoulment takes place, but it certainly does not contradict the Church’s teaching on abortion.

 

[razredge]

I think your conclusion is extreme. The Church does have an idea of when ensoulment takes place, but not to the extent that it can require us to believe it. The possibility that the embryo is a fully human person with an immortal soul is so great and the consequences of abortion are so severe that we should act as if the ensoulment has taken place even if we are not sure. A responsible hunter cannot shoot when he sees a rustling in the forest because it might be a deer–it could also be another hunter.

.

I agree - and even if there were a time where we knew the embryo was not ensouled it would still be morally wrong to abort since it is an unborn child and a potential person. This is similar to the reasons pro-life atheists have for opposing abortion.

 

[JimG]

If a new human being has its beginning at conception, as it does, and if a soul is the animating principle of the body, as it is, than a newly conceived human being must have a soul. Otherwise it would not be alive, having no animating principle.

In some previous ages, it was thought that the matter composing the embryo did not actually take human form (in the philosophical sense) until some later point than conception, thus the doubts about ensoulment.

Now we know biologically with no doubt at all, that a new human individual has its beginning at conception.

If it is living–and it is–, if it is human–and it is, if it is a new and distinct individual from either mom or dad–and it is, then it by definition has a soul.

 

[SonCatcher]

**If a new human being has its beginning at conception, as it does, and if a soul is the animating principle of the body, as it is, than a newly conceived human being must have a soul. Otherwise it would not be alive, having no animating principle. **

In some previous ages, it was thought that the matter composing the embryo did not actually take human form (in the philosophical sense) until some later point than conception, thus the doubts about ensoulment.

Now we know biologically with no doubt at all, that a new human individual has its beginning at conception.

If it is living–and it is–, if it is human–and it is, if it is a new and distinct individual from either mom or dad–and it is, then it by definition has a soul.

Since an animating principle (soul) is necessary for all life, consider an alternative to the presence of an immortal spiritual soul at conception.

Would it be that the fertilized embryo possesses an animal soul only which would be replaced with a spiritual soul whenever God deemed appropriate? If a soul is switched, then this would no longer be the same human being but another. Actually, this topic has parallels with the issues of twinning (one embryo dividing into two) and chimeras (two embryos that join to form one). In those cases, it seems appropriate to say that a new life is “born” without loss of the original or that one “dies” while being absorbed.

I don’t find the alternative of replacing an animal soul with a spiritual one appealing. That would mean that the child is somewhat less than human before then.

 

[JimG]

Since an animating principle (soul) is necessary for all life, consider an alternative to the presence of an immortal spiritual soul at conception.

Would it be that the fertilized embryo possesses an animal soul only which would be replaced with a spiritual soul whenever God deemed appropriate? If a soul is switched, then this would no longer be the same human being but another. Actually, this topic has parallels with the issues of twinning (one embryo dividing into two) and chimeras (two embryos that join to form one). In those cases, it seems appropriate to say that a new life is “born” without loss of the original or that one “dies” while being absorbed.

I don’t find the alternative of replacing an animal soul with a spiritual one appealing. That would mean that the child is somewhat less than human before then.

Yes, it would. But the child is not less than human at any point. That is biologicial fact. A new and genetically distinct individual of the human species has its beginning at conception.

As to twinning one may infer either of two possibilities: a) a soul is infused at the point of separation of the twins, or b) two souls were present from the beginning because two individuals were intended from the beginning.

In any case, a new and distinct individual of the human species must have a human soul.

 

[razredge]

If a new human being has its beginning at conception, as it does, and if a soul is the animating principle of the body, as it is, than a newly conceived human being must have a soul. Otherwise it would not be alive, having no animating principle.

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.