Human person

[wjp984]

This is what started my whole question.

Has the Church stated explicitly that the soul is infused at conception.

So here explicitly is my question:

Where or when has the Church stated explicitly that the human soul is infused at conception?

THANKS!!!

I am pretty sure that the answer is the matter is still up for legitimate debate and that the Church has not definitively answered this question.

Again, this is not to be confused with the start of human life. Human life begins at conception which is why abortion is always wrong.

However, with issues such as twins before there are twins and frozen embryos, it is impossibile to know whether the soul is actually there or not.

That being said, I believe the soul is infused at conception but I don’t know for sure.

 

[Jim_Baur]

That is my understanding also.

The Church, from what I have been told, is moving in that direction, especially in the last twenty years. The Church here means the official teaching office of the Church.

I was informed of this on Saturday, December 17, 2011. The individual is a world class scholar, but I do not wish to drop names, nor perhaps insult the person. I did not want to to make a mistake on my understanding either. However, the person was really careful and clear.

I wanted to share the information and also be really, really, really careful.

Thanks wjp984.

 

[Newbie2]

The sin was in conceiving these children outside of the natural process. Although many children do die within the process of implantation, the sin, in my opinion at least, is creating the situation where the children are placed in this danger. Implanting them is effectively morally neutral.

I agree with you, but the Church has not spoken difinitively about the morality of frozen embryo rescue. The prevailing view is that it is “frowned upon”, at least in magisterial/theological circles, if not implicitly condemned in principle, however, many genuine Catholic theologians approve of the practice.

Personally, I think the reluctance to “endorce” the practice, or at least not officially condemn it is the risk of abuse, such as that which as you correctly noted got us in this moral situation in the first place (IVF).

 

[runningdude]

I agree with you, but the Church has not spoken difinitively about the morality of frozen embryo rescue. The prevailing view is that it is “frowned upon”, at least in magisterial/theological circles, if not implicitly condemned in principle, however, many genuine Catholic theologians approve of the practice.

Personally, I think the reluctance to “endorce” the practice, or at least not officially condemn it is the risk of abuse, such as that which as you correctly noted got us in this moral situation in the first place (IVF).

I definitely agree that endorsing implantation, even rescue implantation, has a high risk of causing scandal. The subtlety would be lost on the general public.

 

[runningdude]

That is my understanding also.

The Church, from what I have been told, is moving in that direction, especially in the last twenty years. The Church here means the official teaching office of the Church.

I was informed of this on Saturday, December 17, 2011. The individual is a world class scholar, but I do not wish to drop names, nor perhaps insult the person. I did not want to to make a mistake on my understanding either. However, the person was really careful and clear.

I wanted to share the information and also be really, really, really careful.

Thanks wjp984.

I am pretty sure that the answer is the matter is still up for legitimate debate and that the Church has not definitively answered this question.

Again, this is not to be confused with the start of human life. Human life begins at conception which is why abortion is always wrong.

However, with issues such as twins before there are twins and frozen embryos, it is impossibile to know whether the soul is actually there or not.

That being said, I believe the soul is infused at conception but I don’t know for sure.

It seems to me though that there is currently very little room for debate. The innate dignity of human life rests upon the immortal human soul. Without body and soul, one is not human. Jesus Christ assumed both a human body and soul during the incarnation.

The practicalities of the debate are fairly chilling. If the church admitted that there is a time when a human fetus lacks a soul, its argument against early chemical abortions and hormonal birth control would be severely undermined. We’ve already discussed the moral difficulties of IVF.

Even if there is no document spelling it out currently, to produce such a document would be a very easy task, with frequent references to existing documents, dogmas, and scripture.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It seems to me though that there is currently very little room for debate. The innate dignity of human life rests upon the immortal human soul. Without body and soul, one is not human.

You can make that argument if you want, but it is not required by Catholic teaching. It is not hard to see how the body has dignity based on what it soon will become, even if it has not yet become that. You don’t need to attach a soul immediately to give the body dignity. In fact, even before conception, we see the whole process of conception given great dignity by the various restrictions the Church places on its proper use. That dignity is not based on what the sperm and egg are now. It is based on what the sperm and egg are meant to become. All of this is possible before bringing in a soul. So why do you suddenly assume that a soul is necessary to give the body dignity at the moment of conception? Isn’t it enough to see that the body is holy because of what it is designed for? And even after death, we treat the body with great respect - even after we assume the soul has left the body. If the soul were the only reason we treat the body with respect, then dead bodies would be discarded with the trash.

 

[Newbie2]

You can make that argument if you want, but it is not required by Catholic teaching. It is not hard to see how the body has dignity based on what it soon will become, even if it has not yet become that. You don’t need to attach a soul immediately to give the body dignity. In fact, even before conception, we see the whole process of conception given great dignity by the various restrictions the Church places on its proper use. That dignity is not based on what the sperm and egg are now. It is based on what the sperm and egg are meant to become. All of this is possible before bringing in a soul. So why do you suddenly assume that a soul is necessary to give the body dignity at the moment of conception? Isn’t it enough to see that the body is holy because of what it is designed for? And even after death, we treat the body with great respect - even after we assume the soul has left the body. If the soul were the only reason we treat the body with respect, then dead bodies would be discarded with the trash.

You do if you want to give it the dignity of a human person.