How could a human individual not be a human person?

[Ender]

But then many things routinely taught to seminarians and moral theologians are not in the Catechism.

Yet again your response is to something other than my question. I never limited my comment to what was covered in the catechism. Surely there must be something the church teaches (please note: current tense) about a material soul as distinct from a spiritual soul.

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.

You really need to read more carefully if you’re actually trying to respond to the questions asked.

 

[goout]

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.

When claiming authoritative sources, it’s always good to provide references to the authoritative sources.
That is just common courtesy. You want people to see the truth of the matter, right? Do it for your readers.

 

[BlackFriar]

Surely there must be something the church teaches (please note: current tense) about a material soul as distinct from a spiritual soul.

…

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.

 

[BlackFriar]

Look up any serious book in Systematic Theology, Aquinas or just do some 101 Philosophy papers in a Vatican approved Catholic Uni. That’s where intelligent lay Catholics go if they want to understand the technical terms of the philosophic framework used in the Catechism, such as “spiritual soul”.

The Church does not tend to include technical material or systemic frameworks taught to its priests for the last 700 years in Encyclicals or Catechisms. Just as car manufacturers provide a Driver’s Manual quite different from the Technicians Manual and the content of Mechanic courses.

 

[goout]

Look up any serious book in Moral Theology, Aquinas or just do some 101 Philosophy papers in a Vatican approved Catholic Uni. That’s where intelligent lay Catholics go if they want to understand the technical terms used in the Catechism, such as “spiritual soul”.

The Church does not tend to include technical material taught to its priests for the last 700 years in Encyclicals or Catechisms. Just as car manufacturers provide both a User’s Manual quite different from the Technicians Manual and the content of Mechanic courses.

Ok, can you be patient with the ignorant and provide references?

 

[BlackFriar]

Look up any serious book in Moral Theology, Aquinas

Look up any serious book in SystematicTheology, Aquinas.

If you cannot follow these leads I conclude you either do not have the octane required or are “confused”. Either way, like the Dubia, you actually have the wherewithal, if one is actually willing, to dig further and find the answer.

 

[goout]

Well, given the humble knowledge I have and the resources and time at hand, I have to accept what the catechism and living Magisterium say, and where it points us. The catechism is the “sure norm” of our faith.

Human life begins at conception.
Human beings are a union of body and soul, and the presumption of full human dignity is to be accorded to an unborn child at the moment of conception.

Seems a good way to avoid nuancing myself into speculative philosophical knots.

 

[BlackFriar]

Yes, if one doesn’t have the tools or skills or time to get up to speed before entering a subtle debate along with the big dogs its always better to watch from the sidelines in my experience.

The proposition you enunciate above is a good summary of what was well established by about post 50.

The main chance is however about other issues.

 

[goout]

Yes, if one doesn’t have the tools or skills or time to get up to speed before entering a subtle debate along with the big dogs its always better to watch from the sidelines in my experience.

The proposition you enunciate above is a good summary of what was well established by about post 50.

The main chance is however about other issues.

Great. Thanks for clarifying the confusion.

 

[Ender]

Seems a good way to avoid nuancing myself into speculative philosophical knots.

It would seem the best way to avoid tying yourself up in speculative philosophical knots is to avoid tertiary Catholic education.

 

[goout]

Hey it’s a deer
No it’s a turkey.
No it’s a man!
I dunno…
Shoot!

 

[Benadam]

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 would like to posit that a totipotent human being doesn’t necessarily pose an obstacle for determining whether or not the zygote is individuated as it pertains to ensoulment… The soul animating a totipotent zygote is evidently totipotent. If this is the reality of human material at that developmental stage, it is evident it is also a characteristic of soul animating it. Maybe that could explain the phenomenon of merged experiences that seems common to twins.

It’s not a problem theologically.

 

[BlackFriar]

Oh dear.
There is no such thing as a communal spiritual human soul by definition.
That is the core of the problem.

One body, one spiritual soul, one individual, irreversible and unique before God.
Like the vote.

That is precisely why the delayed hominisation hypothesis still has great merit.

Animal/vegetative souls are material and are not restricted by this requirement.
Communal fungi and cellular souls do this sort of sh*t all the time, its part of their nature.

What many posters cannot get their head around is the possibility of “human life” having a preceding material soul. Its not a mandrake, its still human, but its not yet fully human.
Its still a human soul but not a human spiritual soul.
It has a human material soul with the intrinsic destiny of also becoming a being (or possibly many beings) with a human spiritual soul - in most cases.

What else is a human sperm, an egg, a skin cell, an ear on a rat, a heart in a box?
They all have human material souls.
But not all are intrinsically destined to become at least one human being with a spiritual human soul.

The problem with the old DH hypothesis is that the single formative principle which guided this intrinsic trajectory from human material soul to human spiritual soul was the male semen.
The male semen was considered to be a sort of mechanical human soul-bot that formed the mother’s inchoate human biological matter - without actually being a seed itself that physically entered into the mother’s matter.

We know that aspect is wrong but the principle remains valid and worth considering.
It may well be that DNA has taken over the role from ancient semen of being the single, overseeing “project manager” for this ensoulment project from multiple cells with one or more material souls to possibly multiple body/spiritual-soul pairs.

Or it could be time to drop the whole philosophy of soul talk as a vestigial legacy of an ancient science that no longer works in the modern world. Only the Catholic Church pedals this science anymore and maybe its time to admit the earth is not flat and no spiritual truth can be helpfully served by this old science anymore.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The soul animating a totipotent zygote is evidently totipotent. If this is the reality of human material at that developmental stage, it is evident it is also a characteristic of soul animating it.

There is no need to make such leaps. The principle of one body, one soul suffices to account for two individuals arising from on original embryo. When there is one embryo there is one soul, and when there are two there are two souls. We don’t require a pre-existing soul to account for the life of the original embryo, so there is no need for it to account for the second.

Anything more is merely compounding difficulties rather than resolving them.

 

[Benadam]

Animal/vegetative souls are material and are not restricted by this requirement.

Communal fungi and cellular souls do this sort of sh*t all the time, its part of their nature.

Drats! I agree with most of your post.

I don’t see a philosophical solution for twinning unless the origin of the soul is propagated materially.

The problem with DH, as I see it, is that it employs a Traducian view of the soul’s origin. Albeit a spiritual soul created after the possibility of twinning. Like you said though cellular souls such as starfish breaking off parts making another starfish is evidence that a material soul can be the life principle of totipotent organisms.

I’m sure you would agree that this is a philosophical conundrum only. It would be easy to solve theologically. one could posit that a spiritual soul isn’t split by twinning but another is added to.

As it pertains to spiritual souls I don’t see it in flesh that is no longer united to the whole. Loss of integrity ?? with the body to me is loss of the soul and any life remaining of the severed part is residual movement or the source of animation is not the spiritual soul.

I think I’ll consider that maybe the earth isn’t flat

 

[Ghosty1981]

I don’t see a philosophical solution for twinning unless the origin of the soul is propagated materially.

It is precisely because the rational soul isn’t propagated materially that twinning does not require any special explanation.

Consider the newly conceived embryo: if it is animated by a material soul then we could argue that this material soul arises from the activity of sperm and egg, later to be replaced by an immaterial soul. Where does this immaterial soul come from? It doesn’t come from the actions of a material soul, as an effect can’t surpass its cause. The immaterial soul must come from an immaterial cause that surpasses the power of the material soul that exists in the embryo, and we know that this is God. So even in the case of a human embryo with a material soul we require the action of a higher being to provide it with an immaterial soul at some point in its development.

In the case of an embryo with an immaterial soul the exact same problem arises, with the exact same solution. The embryo with an immaterial soul loses some of its matter, and this matter has the potential to possess an immaterial soul. This separate matter is instantly and immediately endowed with a rational soul by God, just as the first embryo was at conception.

There is no need for a totipotent soul, nor for any notion of an immaterial soul arising from the activity of a material soul. God endows suitable matter with an immaterial soul in either case, the only difference between the twin and the original zygote is when the suitable matter becomes available.

 

[Benadam]

There is no need for a totipotent soul, nor for any notion of an immaterial soul arising from the activity of a material soul. God endows suitable matter with an immaterial soul in either case, the only difference between the twin and the original zygote is when the suitable matter becomes available.

Thank you Ghosty. I think that is the answer to the theological solution I was considering below.

It would be easy to solve theologically. one could posit that a spiritual soul isn’t split by twinning but another is added to.

 

[BlackFriar]

I don’t see a philosophical solution for twinning unless the origin of the soul is propagated materially.

Which is exactly what material animal souls are all about. They are not created directly by God but by the material process itself. It is the semen that does this (in the traditional hypothesis).
See Aquinas I,118.

The problem with DH, as I see it, is that it employs a Traducian view of the soul’s origin.

Then you still don’t understand it. Traducianism is the false view that spiritual (ie human intellective) souls are propagated directly from the natural force of the semen just like material souls. This is wrong. The final soul in the production of a human person is created immediately by God when the animal body is at a sophisticated enough stage of development to support it.

But material animal souls are indeed propogated directly by the generating force of animal semen. The animal soul arises from matter not from God.

It would be easy to solve theologically. one could posit that a spiritual soul isn’t split by twinning but another is added to.

You don’t find that concept problematic? This suggests simple material mechanics (loose glue and a shake) is responsible for the creation/death of spiritual souls. But that is hard to accept. It is God who creates spiritual souls not simple accidents of matter. That is starting to sound like Traducianism.
Then there is the further issue of recombining? Which of the two souls is the remaining one?
And why wouldn’t the remaining one be the same as the one before the split?
And anyways, when it split are two new spiritual souls generated from the original soul or does the original soul give birth to the extra soul as it were? This sounds like Traducianism to me as it did to the DH therologians…which is why DH was the mainstream Church view.

As it pertains to spiritual souls I don’t see it in flesh that is no longer united …and any life remaining of the severed part is residual movement or the source of animation is not the spiritual soul.

Come on, this isn’t philosophy its rhetoric.
An ear on a rat is clearly thriving not surviving on momentum like an oil tanker with its engines turned off. What is so offensive in saying a human soul of a lower order (a material human soul) is indeed present. Duns Scotus is your man. He disagreed with Aquinas who said only one form was present in the human person. Scotus reckoned a hierarchy of souls (“forms”) with the spiritual soul being the one ring to rule them all.
When the one-ring is destroyed some of the lieutenants below take over (eg a heart in a box still has a fairly sophisticated material human soul calling the shots). If the body is too damaged for these lieutenants to control things then less sophisticated ones take over. Thus we still have organic cells that may survive for a while but as it decays into lower and lower organic life forms so too does the hierarchy of material souls collapse until we hit merely organic chemicals which are not “life”. Life is defined to be that which can self replicate.

 

[o_mlly]

Anything more is merely compounding difficulties rather than resolving them.

And this conclusion is, I think, the Church’s position. In her wisdom, Church teaching recognizes that we do not know what we do not know. Rather than invent or support an idealistically tight logical system, regarding the moment of ensoulment, the Church turns to a pragmatic epsitemology. In the moral order and in our ignorance, we must treat the conceptus as a human person with all the rights that such a dignified being is entitled among which is chiefly the right to life.

 

[BlackFriar]

…the Church turns to a pragmatic epsitemology. In the moral order and in our ignorance, we must treat the conceptus as a human person with all the rights that such a dignified being is entitled among which is chiefly the right to life.

Which wise conclusion has been correctly stated at least 5 or 6 times throughout this thread - yet late “contributors” boldly assert personhood from conception as the Church’s defined position (and allegedly proven by science) and all abortion is the same as murder .