Some of what you post is original and good. Unfortunately, that which good is not original and that which is original is not good. But most of what you post is just incoherent. The frequent, arrogant condescending slurs though remind me of a troll who used to frequent this site. Is that you Blue Horizon? Why the multiple aliases?Look o_milly, you are simply out of your depth philosophically on this one. I can see the shorthand boilerplate flags I assumed you are reading are not being read. Further discussion is not possible sorry, we are clearly on different planets and I really don’t have time to explain fully each philosophic abbreviation I am using if you are not familiar with the concepts referred to.
You can no more reasonably hold the older view of hominization than you can hold the older view of geocentrism. Both positions were based on the knowledge science provided; when the science changed so did the church. Some view of delayed hominization would seen reasonable, but it assuredly is not the “traditional” one.I am simply defending the right of Catholics:
(a) to validly disagree with this recent new position and hold to the traditional one of delayed hominization. Like Limbo, the teaching has never been withdrawn.
Like all geniuses he discarded some, built on some and invented some. Your across the board assumptions and generalisations here are too universal and vague to provide useful insights. There is no indication whatsoever I am aware of that the minor theory of SGOL is in play in the major principles he worked from re ensoulment.“Why did Aquinas believe ensoulment happened some time after conception? Because he accepted the science of his day, which taught the theory of the spontaneous generation of life (the idea that life spontaneously arises from non-living matter).
Nobody is arguing against that. The existence of human (vegetative) life is not at issue by anyone. What is at issue is the necessity of positing the existence of an immortal human soul ab initio. A necessary trait of such is permanent individuality - which is lacking up to a 16 cell zygote according to modern embryology.Modern biology has shown the conceptus does have distinctively human traits.
The only people who seem to argue this are scientists untrained in Thomistic/Aristotelain philosophy (and it seems lay CA staff of 2011 who don’t pen their name to the philosophically lightweight article you referenced). If they have any soul based philosophy at all it tends to be dualistic Cartesian which is a mutilation of both Aristotle and Aquinas.Bad science led Aquinas into a wrong conclusion
If this is how the above scientists interpret the principles of Aquinas then its a strawman. Perhaps they should actually debate with a professional Thomist instead of just self-learning. No professional “self-learns” embryology.Life can be vegetable, animal, or human, but once begun, it remains the same. One form of life does not gradually become another kind of life.
There is a rather notable difference between basing an opinion on what seems to be true that turns out to be false, and basing it on something known to be false in the first place. The historical position on delayed hominization is no more tenable than geocentrism. The only argument that reasonably allows the concept of delayed hominization today is that the church has expressly chosen not to state when it occurs. That does not mean that all delays are equally rational.Therefore if Cardinals could validly take that position on teachings that were in fact based on (faulty) reason not faith (ie geocentrism) then Catholics can still validly do so re delayed hominization today.
Your response may be philosophically accurate, but philosophy carries little weight in a political knife fight. That every abortion is a murder is more likely true than not both philosophically and theologically, and is certainly the rational, scientific conclusion.Trying to hit secular society over the head (let alone many unfortunate Catholic mothers) with arguments of murder allegedly based on science does not fly very far for a variety of reasons.
Well we clearly disagree on that point.The historical position on delayed hominization is no more tenable than geocentrism…something known to be false in the first place
What seems clear is that you misunderstood my point. Since the church has not declared the matter of delayed hominization settled there are reasonable positions that one could take, but those positions do not include the historical one.Well we clearly disagree on that point.
I have given the matter little thought and less study. I’m generally quiet on things I’m unsure of.Re soul teaching (let alone DH), you are rather quiet on affirming it is of reason rather than of faith.
I don’t know specifically what the church “teaching” is. As to my understanding of the term, I understand the church to have doctrines. Opinions (prudential judgments) come from the clergy and Magisterium. The one we must assent to, but not the other. It can be misleading to lump these categories together.For the record would you say Church teaching on the soul is a “teaching” according to your unusual definition of “teaching” (ie formal doctrine)?
If you are arguing over the trivial point of what the actual date is (eg 40 days) I really have no axe to grind. The working end of the DH view are the principles that led to that conclusion. Improvements in embryological science clearly can shift that somewhat circumstantial marker.Since the church has not declared the matter of delayed hominization settled there are reasonable positions that one could take, but those positions do not include the historical one.
I agree with you.I have to disagree with you here. The arguments we use or have within the Church, using the specialized language of the Church, should not be those we use with those who are not Catholic, understand little of Catholicism, or who are not Catholic philosophers or moral theologians.
Well if we changed the phrase “potential human being” to “potential human person” (with an immortal soul) then this person would be holding a traditionally valid mainstream Catholic position that was mainstream until about 200 years ago (at least before the 40th day). It is still a valid position - though with modern embryology it seems we must move the date back to about 2 weeks.An atheist supporter of abortion’s being legal tells me that the blastocyst, embryo, fetus is merely a potential human being, and not an actual human being
That does not follow. Something potentially capable of receiving an immortal soul needs to be treated as if it already had a human soul. This has always been the Church’s position regardless of when a potential person becomes an actual person.and therefore abortion should be legal.
You don’t need to go into history. But you need to respect reason which is what philosophy is about. Primarily that suggests a discussion on the definition of “human person”, “human life”, “potential versus actual” and why State legislation should be used to enforce the ethics of a minority religion.No, I’m going to exlain why abortion is wrong without going into the ins and outs of Church philosopical history.
I suggest that will be a complete waste of time because the issue is not simply embryology but philosophic as well. It is not the role of a scientist to define the difference between “human life” and “a human person”. Nor is the question of backing Catholic morality with the legal apparatus of the secular State a simple one to be decided by the views of committed lay Catholics alone even if the morality is correct. That would be exactly what Muslims want in their pursuit of State Shariah. Religions in the same society cannot get along in modern States if this simplistic principle was fully embraced. State law is not simply all religious morality writ large. If it were divorce and prostitution must always be criminalised also. Even the Catholic Church does not teach this. The issue is more complex than your stated view above allows for.And I am going to use science to do it, because that is what the person accosting me will understand and perhaps come to accept.
If we want to influence our educated secular professional counterparts then we need to come up with better approaches than what you’ve stated so far. You seem to put your faith in a “science” that cannot and does not support what you are trying to affirm. That is precisely why both sides (who leave out philosophic approaches) are each using “science” to make their case…and are consequently talking past each other and getting absolutely nowhere.I am not going to say, oh, wow, this does not align precisely with Aquinas, so maybe I should just keep my mouth shut.
That tends not to be there argument anymore, because Science is already against them. The argument now has moved on to the “rights” of the parent (mother usually).An atheist supporter of abortion’s being legal tells me that the blastocyst, embryo, fetus is merely a potential human being, and not an actual human being,
And yet assumed philosophy within the Church validly holds the contrary up until today. Which suggests your view, while also valid, is not certain which you seem to also assert.As a matter of philosophy, every human being is a human person, because personhood is inherent to a human being.
Unfortunately you just contradicted Aquinas.A bodiless soul remains a person…
I am sorry Jim but I cannot continue this discussion with you if you point blank deny the philosophic definition of “human person” as used by the Church in theological discussions on The Trinity, The Incarnation, Delayed Hominisation, disembodied souls and so forth.Still I insist that any human being necessarily includes the aspect of personhood.
Well you haven’t been following the debate closely enough then.Well, neither will I concede to disbar whole categories of human beings from the human family by denying their personhood.