How could a human individual not be a human person?

[Cathoholic]

BlackFriar . . . .

Do come back when you are prepared to answer reasonable questions and explain relevance.

“Reasonable questions” about WHAT?

“Relevance” concerning WHAT?

WHAT are you talking about BlackFriar?

.

BlackFriar said . . . .

I am pointing out it is perhaps good to teach yourself before posting personal interpretations of the CCC that have little to do with what it is actually saying . . .

I asked . . .

What is it about my interpretation of the CCC do you see as wrong?

.

BlackFriar didn’t answer my question. BlackFriar merely criticized me saying . . .

.

Your CCC quote doesn’t seem to have anything to do with assisting re the topic of this thread and I am at a loss to see its relevance.

.

OK. So we know BlackFriar doesn’t see “immediate” as being “relevant” to when souls are created.

(I posited that “immediate” likely means BOTH "without [or “im”] “mediation” AND “immediately” as in “RIGHT NOW”.

I have a couple of reasons for WHY I think BOTH senses apply here, but I want to hear BlackFriar’s objections. My reasons MAY be irrelevant if BlackFriar has something NEW to add. So far BlackFriar has not been explicit about what my alleged error is [other than I disagree with him on implied Church teaching upon when ensoulment occurs].)

CCC 366a The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God . . . .

(Isn’t it just “possible” BlackFriar that “immediate” IS relevant here in CCC 366?)

.

I asked again . . . .

.

What is it about my interpretation of the CCC do you see as wrong?

.

BlackFriar’s response?

Do come back when you are prepared to answer reasonable questions and explain relevance.

.

BlackFriar. This is NOT the way to have a dialogue.

I have no problem with you criticizing my positions.
I have very little problem with the repeated insults directed against me (which I have largely ignored).
I have no issue with trying to answer your objections concerning what I wrote . . . . .

. . . .BUT . . . you gotta be specific.

.

You must be specific . . . .

Otherwise I will lay out YOUR position for you (based on taking what you are saying to its logical conclusion). . . .

. . . then you can just turn around and accuse me of putting “words in” your mouth" (it would be partially wrong because I WOULD use your PRINCIPLES but not your words).

You don’t want me to do that.

I don’t want to do that.

So I want to hear it from you directly, in THIS context.

Now please answer the questions about the criticisms you have raised.

 

[Cathoholic]

BlackFriar. I am also going to ask you again. What do you think “quickening” means?

.

BlackFriar . . . .

The Church has no set teaching on this point other than that it is some time before quickening

 

[BlackFriar]

And still the Church officially declines to pronounce on this matter as you well know by now .

It seems there is more to play out…

 

[JimG]

The Church will never define the moment of ensoulment because souls are not perceptible. But we know when a new member of the human species has its beginning.

 

[Cathoholic]

BlackFriar . . .

And still the Church officially declines to pronounce on this matter as you well know by now

And yet with or without an “official pronouncement” it can still readily be seen that the soul is immediately placed into a LIVING human being from Church teaching.

And although we don’t expect to ask the Church to answer issues of biochemistry, the biochemists DO give us those answers on when a living human being is . . . . well . . . . LIVING.

And that “living” IS immediate in the sense of “right now”.

And so by using what “official” Church teaching we DO have, along with the OBVIOUS FACT that the human being is LIVING . . . .

. . . We can rightly conclude that the spiritual soul is immediately created by God in the sense of not just without help from parents (or anyone else; as in “im” mediate or without mediation) but “immediate” in the sense “right now” or “instantaneously” too.

(Later I will give another reason why it is reasonable to see “immediate” as not only “without mediation” but ALSO instantaneously directly from The CCC)

 

[BlackFriar]

The Church will never define the moment of ensoulment because souls are not perceptible. But we know when a new member of the human species has its beginning.

I don’t see why not.
It has already made some decisions on the matter.
It was prepared since ancient times to teach such is only definite after around 80 days - and then based serious Church laws on that principle.

 

[Benadam]

Could it be “immediately” in BOTH senses? (As in “right now” especially since the biology CLEARLY shows new “life” “right now” in relation to a body that is NOT “dead” AND an “im” and “mediate” sense too?)

http://people.sju.edu/~jgodfrey/catholic.htm

Definitions
Ensoulment: the origination of human soul, which, in a theological or philosophical anthropology, is equivalent to the origination of human life specifically as personal life.
Animation: the time at which soul becomes present. (“Anima” is Latin for “soul”).
Immediate animation: the name for the view that soul becomes present at the time of conception or fertilization. Immediate animation contrasts with mediate or belated animation, the view that soul becomes present later than the time of conception or fertilization.

“[The Church] has never taught immediate animation. Even the fathers of Vatican II resisted efforts to elicit such a teaching statement in connection with its condemnation of abortion. And the most recent declaration (1974) on abortion from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a similar bypass of the question.” Connery, 308.

 

[Ender]

I don’t see why not.

It has already made some decisions on the matter.

It was prepared to teach it is only definite after around 80 days since ancient times and then base serious Church laws on that principle.

The church does not teach what she does not know. Since historically she didn’t know what a fetus was she didn’t teach that it was human before that point in time where it was known to be true. That point has been significantly rolled back by modern embryology. That the church has explicitly refused to define the point at which ensoulment occurs in no way refutes the arguments being made that (a) human life begins at conception, and (b) a human life cannot exist without a soul.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

I don’t see why not.

It has already made some decisions on the matter.

It was prepared to teach it is only definite after around 80 days since ancient times and then base serious Church laws on that principle.

The church does not teach what she does not know. Since historically she didn’t know what a fetus was she didn’t teach that it was human before that point in time where it was known to be true. That point has been significantly rolled back by modern embryology. That the church has explicitly refused to define the point at which ensoulment occurs in no way refutes the arguments being made that (a) human life begins at conception, and (b) a human life cannot exist without a soul.

Ender you are just going around in circles and adding no more to the conversation than has already been traversed and accepted above.

That is, it is valid for a Catholic to believe and teach:
(a) an embryo may only receive its spiritual soul some weeks after conception.
(b) the Church’s teaching on the immorality of all abortion traditionally does not rest on an alleged fact that the spiritual soul is infused at conception.

The church does not teach what she does not know.

And yet she clearly taught on limbo in approved Catechisms and seminaries and somehow Church Cardinals condemned Galileo for denying Geocentrism which is clearly supported by the Bible.

But of course the Cardinals were not taught these things by the Church were they .
Ender I really don’t know why you feel the need to regularly pronounce risable universals.

 

[JimG]

I suppose if geocentrism makes a comeback, so might delayed ensoulment, but both would reman untenable.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benadam . . .

“[The Church] has never taught immediate animation.

But I didn’t SAY the Church has taught “immediate animation”.

I said the Church has taught a body without a soul is dead.

I said that the Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God (and I think the “immediate” is used in two senses).

I said the Church teaches AGAINST “shelving” of souls.

And I said biochemists (and cell biologists, etc.) teach us the baby is alive immediately.

I pointed out how the preborn baby in its earliest stages, has its own genetic compliment, consumes energy, grows, gives off heat, has cellular metabolism, and other things (the mitochondrial DNA is derived only from the ovum and thus is “maternal” for an example that I did not get into earlier).

And I said the conclusions are obvious. Unless there was some teaching to the contrary.

“Quickening” isn’t going to be sufficient.

“Quickening” can be used as a synonym for “ensoulment”.

That would not make sense to use “quickening” in THAT sense.

Why?

Because it would be a tautology. It would be using the premise to define the conclusion. It is merely two ways of saying the same thing. It would be like saying . . . .“Ensoulment” occurs at the time of “ensoulment”.

Well that doesn’t help with anything.

“Quickening” can be used in a clinical sense too.

“Quickening” can be used to mean “when the mother is made aware of the baby’s movement.”

But THAT wouldn’t provide any insight either.

Some moms are NEVER AWARE that they are carrying a baby and they show up in the emergency room with “abdominal pain” only to deliver a surprise baby.

Certainly you are not going to try to tell me the baby was without a soul for nine months? . . . .I hope.

Which leads me to MY question.

WHEN do YOU think the Church DOES teach ensoulment?

You DO agree a newborn baby has a soul . . . Don’t you?
You don’t DENY the full personhood of children at age . . . . say . . . two do you?

Hopefully not.

I tried to get BlackFriar to answer what he meant by “quickening”.

So far my requests have been ignored on that.

What do YOU think about WHEN the Church DOES teach “ensoulment” Benadam?

 

[Benadam]

WHEN do YOU think the Church DOES teach ensoulment?

It teaches that ensoulment doesn’t submit to observation therefore it’s a philosophical question that is still open. So, the Church doesn’t teach when it happens. The moral status of the zygote/embryo doesn’t depend on the moment of ensoulment.

ou DO agree a newborn baby has a soul . . . Don’t you?

You don’t DENY the full personhood of children at age . . . . say . . . two do you?

My personal opinion is that the moment there is a human individual that is determining it’s own growth a rational soul has begun the process of actualizing it’s potential therefore a rational soul is evident and so this human individual is a person. Whether or not the the body is observed to be materially organized to receive a rational soul isn’t required because the body is already actualizing potential of a rational soul. The potentiality of a rational soul is not actualized at the beginning of life, or the middle, but at the end. When it comes to the human soul it hasn’t fully actualized it’s potential until it can no longer perfect it’s powers joined to the body.This process of self determination begins at conception and doesn’t end until death.

 

[BlackFriar]

so might delayed ensoulment, but both would reman untenable.

It is perfectly “tenable” for a Catholic to hold and teach the possibility of delayed ensoulment…even if some Catholics think modern embryology has settled the issue.

 

[Ender]

Ender you are just going around in circles and adding no more to the conversation than has already been traversed and accepted above.

I’ll assume since you didn’t address my argument that you have no actual response to it. You’ve made much of the fact that “the Church officially declines to pronounce on this matter”, as if that meant there was no rational position that could therefore be taken. As I said before, this does not counter the scientific fact that life begins at conception nor the theological assertion that human life does not exist without a soul. The fact that the church has so far refused to specifically teach immediate animation does not mean it is therefore untrue.

 

[Cathoholic]

Bendam (with parenthetical addition mine) . . .

(The Church) teaches that ensoulment doesn’t submit to observation . . . .

But I never said, something outside of the physical realm and into the spiritual area (such as the soul) “submits” to “observation”.

.

Bendam to Cathoholic . . .

The moral status of the zygote/embryo doesn’t depend on the moment of ensoulment.

But I haven’t mentioned “moral status”. (Yet)

 

[Cathoholic]

Benadam (on WHEN a soul is formed) . . . .

My personal opinion is that the moment there is a human individual that is determining it’s own growth a rational soul has begun the process of actualizing it’s potential . . . .

(Emphasis mine)

So in your theory, there IS outside “mediation” (by virtue of “it’s own” growth, at least by the baby itself?) (At least according to you?)

.

Benadam . . .

a rational soul has begun the process of actualizing it’s potential . . . .

(Emphasis mine)

So you would in some sense, agree with Peter Singer when he says a two-year old isn’t fully a person? (Singer has since revised-down THAT to a six month old.)

 

[Cathoholic]

I gotta say Benadam. I think Blackfriar is closer than you.

Blackfriar at least says “some time BEFORE"quickening” occurs.

Since "quickening"takes place as early as two months in some moms, that means by 2 months old in utero ensoulment has occurred.

You on the other hand seem to be saying ensoulment isn’t fully realized until death. Presumably God puts SOME parts of your “soul” into you along the path of life, little by little. OK?

Blackfriar: Pretty close to conception for ensoulment.
Benadam: Pretty close to death for ensoulmemt. At least “complete” ensoulment".
Any lurkers around here willing to vote for a mid-life ensoulment?

Am I reading you correctly (before I go on to disagree and explain WHY this is not tenable with the Catholic faith)

 

[Benadam]

You have completely misunderstood what I wrote.

The zygote is determining it’s own growth, therefore a rational soul is self evident. I go on to give reason why it is evident of a rational soul. It’s a person at conception.

 

[Cathoholic]

Bendam . . .

You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. . . .

Whew. I am glad you did not mean what it seemed to mean.

Now I’ll go on.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benadam . . . .

The zygote is determining it’s own growth, therefore a rational soul is self evident.

.

Let’s just be clear here. “Zygote” is merely the DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE for a fully living fully human organism. Right?

And this human person fully has a “rational soul” correct?