How could a human individual not be a human person?

[BlackFriar]

I’ll assume since you didn’t address my argument

Your “argument” is trivial, discussed to death above and off topic.e.g. …

the scientific fact that life begins at conception.

This is trivial, noone disagrees.

human life does not exist without a soul.

This is trivial, noone disagrees.
So vague in meaning as to be irrelevant to the central topic of spiritual ensoulment.

the church has so far refused to specifically teach immediate animation

Thankyou for agreeing - recent posters just do not seem to get this (despite reading the above 400+ posts in 24 hrs) and keep attempting to use the CCC to prove the opposite.

does not mean it is therefore untrue.

This is also a trivial truth - who is denying this?

Why is it that whenever someone sticks up for an acceptable teaching position …you believe they are denying those who affirm a contrary teaching position that is also valid?

The real difficulty I suggest is that you seem unable to accept that the Church has WIP teachings that at certain periods in history allow for multiple valid points of view. By all means argue that on another thread if you wish.

 

[Benadam]

That’s what I believe.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benadam . . .

That’s what I believe.

That is perfect.

Your biology and theology are in perfect harmony.

And although one does not claim to teach the other (biology does not claim to teach theology, and theology does not claim to teach biology), there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from what IS taught by each and harmonizing it.

You have drawn the correct conclusion.

 

[Ender]

Your “argument” is trivial, discussed to death above and off topic.e.g. …

You need to choose your dismissive comments more carefully. Since you assert that my argument has been “discussed to death” it would hardly seem to be either off topic or trivial.

So vague in meaning as to be irrelevant to the central topic of spiritual ensoulment.

Are you suggesting that a person can have a soul yet not be spiritually ensouled? Do you really think people are arguing over the existence of animal souls?

Why is it that whenever someone sticks up for an acceptable teaching position …you believe they are denying those who affirm a contrary teaching position that is also valid?

I have not questioned the existence of more than one acceptable position, only that yours is not one of them.

The real difficulty I suggest is that you seem unable to accept that the Church has WIP teachings that at certain periods in history allow for multiple valid points of view. By all means argue that on another thread if you wish.

At certain points in history, yes, multiple positions were valid, but as more information became available positions that were once reasonable are reasonable no longer. One such position is that ensoulment does not happen in the first 40 days after conception.

 

[BlackFriar]

Are you suggesting that a person can have a soul yet not be spiritually ensouled?

It is not “my” position, it is a still validly held position/point tolerated by the Church called “Delayed Hominisation”. It seems you do not fully understand it despite this long thread.

yours is not one of them.

By all means quote my words then and what you think they mean.

positions that were once reasonable are reasonable no longer. One such position is that ensoulment does not happen in the first 40 days after conception.

That is clearly not the current teaching of the Church, nor is anyone debating that on this thread.
So just another Ender Strawman.

The issue of course is the theological hypothesis of delayed animation not the prudential issue of the exact cutoff date which is a matter of observation and application of this principle.
I do observe from past reading of your long arguments on CAF that you do have difficulty distinguishing between principle and its implementation.

 

[Benadam]

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

Yes. And it’s the soul’s potential that begins to actualize by determining the growth of the human zygote and continues to actualize throughout that person’s life. For me then, God made man a self determined creature and that self determination is evident at conception.

 

[Cathoholic]

Benadam . . .

For me then, God made man a self determined creature . . . .

I would be happy to discuss this issue on its own thread. If you ever begin one, please feel free to tag me Benadam.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Benadam]

You’re welcome Cathoholic.

I think that would be fun. I just may. Likewise if you beat me to it::

 

[Benadam]

The issue of course is the theological hypothesis of delayed animation

BlackFriar, I’m glad that there is an informed poster who favors Delayed Hominisation. You’re like some old guy from the 1500’s
i don’t think that hypothesis will ever be proved wrong or is necessarily wrong, even if a rational soul is animating the first movement of the body,.the soul informs the body and what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.

 

[BlackFriar]

There are not an insignificant number of professional theologians who are still see deep philosophic issues with positing the existence of a spiritual soul(s) within the first two weeks of human life due to the likelihood of twinning and recombining which makes for issues for the number of souls actually present.

Is a 16 cell zygote (each of which could be a clone if the gelatine “glue” isn’t strong enough) one soul or 16 souls? How can this astounding difference depend merely on the vagaries of biological jelly and sudden pelvic movements of the mother? Fully human individuals don’t split then maybe recombine again back to an “individual”. But lesser life-forms seem to do so…but then they aren’t “persons” or fully determined “individuals”.

I haven’t heard a good resolution of this issue yet. Posters on this thread simply sweep it under the carpet and don’t take it seriously.

Personally though, if one absolutely cannot accept delayed hominization as a hypothesis then the better alternative is to deny “soul talk” altogether. Souls talk afterall is an ancient Greek hypothesis as well, representing the “science” of the day.
Perhaps its time to bury it too…I am not joking.

 

[Ender]

It is not “my” position, it is a still validly held position/point tolerated by the Church called “Delayed Hominisation”. It seems you do not fully understand it despite this long thread.

It appears you base this claim on the fact that there is no specific teaching rejecting this ancient belief, and the fact that the church has explicitly refused to identify the exact point at which the soul is joined to the body. That, however, ignores what she does teach that give a clearer picture of what she in fact believes. “Delayed” hominization is a rational term only where the delay is understood to be vanishingly small, and perhaps not even then.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:

By all means quote my words then and what you think they mean.

See above.

I do observe from past reading of your long arguments on CAF that you do have difficulty distinguishing between principle and its implementation.

You are long on assertion and short on justification.

 

[BlackFriar]

I see nothing of substance here sorry.
And the CCC quote says nothing about when the soul “changes” from a material soul to a spiritual soul. You really need to read up on DH, you don’t seem to understand it.

 

[BlackFriar]

Another poster late to the movie who does not seem to have read the thread above…

 

[Ender]

And the CCC quote says nothing about when the soul “changes” from a material soul to a spiritual soul.

I’ll be happy to read up on the subject. Where does the church teach about the material soul as distinct from a spiritual soul?

 

[BlackFriar]

Ender this is not a free Catechetical home schooling/tutoring website.
Its a Forum for people to discuss and argue from what they know and understand.
If you feel the need to gainsay posters better educated and trained than yourself on particular issues then may I humbly suggest you educate yourself before hand.

What you ask is basic Aristotle/Aquinas philosophy 101.
Perhaps its time to do a Catholic Uni paper or two.
Secondary level Catechesis and autodidactic education can only take a lone Catholic individual so far.

 

[Ender]

Ender this is not a free Catechetical home schooling/tutoring website.

Its a Forum for people to discuss and argue from what they know and understand.

If you feel the need to gainsay posters better educated and trained than yourself on particular issues then may I humbly suggest you educate yourself before hand.

What you ask is basic Aristotle/Aquinas philosophy 101.

Perhaps its time to do a Catholic Uni paper or two.

Secondary level Catechesis and autodidactic education can only take a lone Catholic individual so far.

What I asked was what the church teaches currently (“Where does the church teach…”), not what Aristotle or Aquinas taught in the past. I’ll assume since you didn’t cite anything about current church teaching on the material soul as distinct from the spiritual soul it is because there isn’t anything to cite…which has pretty much been my point.

 

[BlackFriar]

As I say the Church teaches these things in Pontifical Catholic Universtities at year1 Catholic Philosophy level…and has done so for at least 700 years.

Yes, its not explicit in the Catechism…though the Catechism does speak of a “spiritual soul” (distinguishing it from a “material soul”.)

But then many things routinely taught to seminarians and moral theologians are not in the Catechism. Autodidacts beware. You will never understand the Church’s traditional teaching on Delayed Hominisation if you haven’t even got off the blocks on this basic philosophic distinction accepted and used by the Church.

You really need to get a tertiary level Catholic education if you want to weigh in on this particular topic as strongly as you do Ender.

 

[JimG]

Ah well, if only Aquinas had had a tertiary level education in embryology he might have written differently about the subject. Likely “quickening” would never have been mentioned.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Ah well, if only Aquinas had had a tertiary level education in embryology he might have written differently about the subject. Likely “quickening” would never have been mentioned.

Bingo. Highschool level would have sufficed.

Arguing that the Church allows for the belief in delayed hominization is like arguing that the Church allows for belief in phlogiston. The philosophy is not in question so much as the faulty science it was based upon.

 

[BlackFriar]

Surely most intelligent persons can see the DH hypothesis does not stand or fall on accurately choosing date of ensoulment. It provides principles for science to determine it and that date will be as accurate as the scientific tools used.

Currently most Thomists, with the insights of modern embryology would bring it forward to the 16-32 cell zygote stage (2 weeks) when clone like omnipotent cells change to differentiated pluripotent cells.

Of course if one is biased it doesn’t matter how intelligent one is …this obvious truth will not be grasped.

Indeed this is not rocket science.

But being unaware of the difference between a material soul versus a spiritual soul would I think be somewhat reprehensible for one who strongly attempts to poo poo the DH hypothesis.