Defining miscarriage

[HomeschoolDad]

I’m just going to throw this in here and I’m making no claims regarding it…you do know that even conception is a process? Once the sperm has entered the egg, there are several hours while the haploid DNA from each unwinds and then recombined to form the new unique DNA. So, there isn’t some specific point in conception…it takes hours for what we would consider a new life.

You are quite right, and I knew this, but didn’t think of it, in the present discussion. If I had to guess, I would say that “unique human life” — ensouled or not — comes into being when the DNA is fully formed. Excellent point.

When I say “catechesis” I am referring to religious instruction provided in the Catholic schools and CCD programs. As you yourself note in your post, it “was faulty”. I don’t know your age, but when you said 40+, I assumed you were probably in school or CCD during those "horrible 1970s and 1980s receiving some of that faulty instruction. I was not referring to any of your private studying and research.
And I do feel sorry for those who weren’t catechized properly; they deserved more.

I also have done tons of reading and studying on my own, read the Bible, read the Catechism, read papal encyclicals and books, some ECF’s, … - but I don’t consider that catechesis. I think catechesis is receiving instruction from someone as opposed to self study. But perhaps it has a broader meaning.

Sorry you were offended; that certainly was not my intent.

It takes a lot to offend me, and what you said didn’t get anywhere near that point. I did not have a typical catechesis. I began at age 14 with the old Knights of Columbus correspondence course, which was totally orthodox and still used pre-Vatican II books. It was amazing. To be a short ten-lesson course (pamphlets of about 30 pages each), it was perfect in every way. I hope they have maintained these standards. Then I decided to join the Church and I received the standard individualized instructions one-on-one from a priest who was basically orthodox, but dissented from Humanae vitae. The textbook was The New Parish Catechism (Fr. William Martin) and Of Sacraments and Sacrifice (Fr. Clifford Howell), both perfectly orthodox. I questioned his dissent from HV — it didn’t make sense. How can you pick out one doctrine and say “I don’t believe that”? I told him I’d take his word for it, but I still wasn’t convinced. Again, aside from HV, my catechesis was entirely orthodox. Ours was a pretty conservative diocese (on the fringes of the Midwestern US).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

To chronicle the ten or so years after that would take a book, so I’ll leave it at that. Suffice it to say I read a lot, and I didn’t take anyone’s word for anything — I went straight to the sources, and sorted it all out. As far as the ensoulment question, my position is the same as Father Pacholczyk (NCBC article). If I’m wrong, he’s wrong. An SSPX-affiliated priest explained the Thomistic position (vegetative-animal-human) in an adult catechism class, and this made sense to me as well. But I will concede that progress in scientific knowledge, the understanding of DNA and the human genome (something Thomas Aquinas didn’t have), and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, all point towards ensoulment taking place at conception. If the Church ever proclaims this, I’ll accept it without reserve, and I expect Father Pacholczyk will as well.

 

[heidi_storage]

Yes. If you had a positive pregnancy test–even a very sensitive one–then your embryo had to have been implanted at least a few days; your body doesn’t make enough hcg to show a positive test until then. Implantation doesn’t occur until 6-12 days after conception. I’m sorry for your losses; it’s hard when such a loss is unacknowledged.

 

[JGD]

You were fortunate, praise God.
Aquinas seems to have accepted Aristotle’s ensoulment times. I wanted to be able to read Aquinas so getting some perennial philosophy knowledge became a prerequisite. Of all the tapes and books I read, the best was “Philosophical Psychology”. The short description hooked me - “What is the soul? What are the passions?” Those were some of the precise questions I was seeking answers for at the time. God is amazing in how He answers us. The author or that book is D.Q.McInerny, (not to be confused with Ralph McInerny). He was a philosophy teacher at FSSP seminary - retired now . Definitely Thomist - & he explained things in understandable language for someone without a philosophy degree. That book and a couple others of his were the help I needed. I got mine directly from FSSP, probably the only place it was available. Think it’s out of print now.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

You were fortunate, praise God.

Yes, I was. But I had a lot of obstacles in my way. Some are too personal to discuss. A lot of pain and loss. I have paid dearly for being an orthodox Catholic.

Aquinas seems to have accepted Aristotle’s ensoulment times.

That was the vibe I got as well.

One thought I have had, using the Immaculate Conception as “proof” of ensoulment at conception is fine when discussing with other faithful, orthodox Catholics, but a non-Catholic Christian would simply point out “that proves nothing — you’re using a papal, infallibly proclaimed dogma to prove your point, and we don’t accept that dogma (and neither do we accept the papacy nor his infallibility), Mary was a woman just like any other woman, holy and blessed to be sure, but she wasn’t preserved from original sin, she had a sin nature like everybody else, and she didn’t remain a virgin after Jesus was born, she and Joseph had several more children”.

FWIW, many non-Catholic Christians affirm that the soul is infused at conception.

 

[JGD]

One of the reasons I had to get a little philosophy under my belt was to learn what Aquinas meant by certain words. They were very ordinary words - eg. act, potency, form,… - but he was using them to mean something that went beyond our everyday meaning. And it’s usually that deeper meaning that is intended when the Church uses them in doctrinal matters.

In regards to ensoulment, learning the philosophical meaning of the word “form” is critical if one wants to understand what is meant when the Catechism says in CCC365 ‘The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:’ I’m only giving my opinion, but I would guess most people would take that to mean just the shape of the body – but it goes deeper than that.

This article may be a help for those who are not aware of the broader meaning. A short clip:

The word “form” may misleadingly suggest that what is acquired in a case of substantial generation is simply a shape, and …artefacts… . When we consider organisms, however, it becomes apparent that having the right shape is not sufficient to possess the form. A thing’s form is its definition or essence—what it is to be a human being, for example. A statue may be human-shaped, but it is not a human, because it cannot perform the functions characteristic of humans: thinking, perceiving, moving, desiring, eating and growing, etc. …

Really liked the links you provided in your earlier post (#17) Homeschool Dad. Especially the link to catholicism - At what point is a new soul created according to the Catholic Church? - Christianity Stack Exchange