If every living thing has a soul does that mean cells have souls?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LJH_80
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LJH_80

Guest
So I know that the Catholic Church teaches that every living thing has a soul, which distinguishes it from non-living things.

Since single-celled organisms are alive, does that mean that they have souls? If not, how many cells must something have to have a soul?

Does that mean that individual cells of my own body have their own souls? (they metabolize, reproduce, and excrete waste… they are alive).

What if they are living outside of me (i.e. in a cell culture)?

What if they are part of me, then removed and grown seperate from me, and then re-attached, as happens with some forms of skin grafting?

Does the soul that is “me” overlap all these other souls, or am I an emergent property of their combined mini-souls?
 
LJH_80 said:
So I know that the Catholic Church teaches that every living thing has a soul/QUOTE]

It does not.

Catechism 363:
In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I don’t have references handy, but I’m sure that Catholic Answers apologists talk of animals having souls too. Their souls die with them. I think, in that spirit, even plants are claimed to have souls (vegetative souls?).
 
The Spirit animates the soul and the soul animates the body. Humans have souls (minds) and bodies but also a Spirit which sets us apart from other living creatures. Adam and Eve would have been animals until God breathed His Spirit into them.

Fulton Sheen compares man to a peach. The pit or core is the Spirit, what surrounds the pit is the soul and what is the outer covering is the body. (If we aren’t healthy spiritually eventually it will effect the mind and the body)

I think all living things can be said to have a soul whether it is a complex brain or mere instinct for survival but only man also has a Spirit and is created in the image of God. (Spiritually.)
 
CAF thread on animals and souls.

I have found other references, too, to John Paul II saying that all living things have a soul (but not a soul like a human soul).

I just find the idea that there are souls within souls a bit odd.
 
There are NO souls within souls. A soul is that which makes an organism a single living thing. A human being has one soul. A single-celled organism has one soul. Cells within the body, however, do not have an independent existence from the body of which they are a part (yes, they have the potential to still be alive when separated, but they are ordered to the body as a whole and are not meant to be apart. When properly part of the body, they are essentially one with it.)

If you cut off body of the body, those cells, while still alive, would then have their own souls, but would exist merely as a clump if cells, no longer oriented to being part of a body. If, however, those cells were later re-attached to a body, they would once again be part of a greater whole and would lose their individual act of existence, becoming part of the larger whole.

The thing to keep in mind is that man is not a machine made of of individual parts which could in theory function separately. Man is a whole, in which each part is oriented to the functioning of the whole.
 
Katholish said:
There are NO souls within souls. A soul is that which makes an organism a single living thing. A human being has one soul. A single-celled organism has one soul. Cells within the body, however, do not have an independent existence from the body of which they are a part (yes, they have the potential to still be alive when separated, but they are ordered to the body as a whole and are not meant to be apart. When properly part of the body, they are essentially one with it.)

If you cut off body of the body, those cells, while still alive, would then have their own souls, but would exist merely as a clump if cells, no longer oriented to being part of a body. If, however, those cells were later re-attached to a body, they would once again be part of a greater whole and would lose their individual act of existence, becoming part of the larger whole.

The thing to keep in mind is that man is not a machine made of of individual parts which could in theory function separately. Man is a whole, in which each part is oriented to the functioning of the whole.
Click to expand...
Humans have souls that are also spirits while other living creatures have souls but without spirits. Spirits have no parts but are wholly themselves.
 
Polycarp1 said:
Humans have souls that are also spirits while other living creatures have souls but without spirits. Spirits have no parts but are wholly themselves.
Click to expand...
According Catholic teaching the human soul without its body is not whole, but is lacking. After death it will remain incomplete until the resurrection of the body on the last day.
 
davidv said:
According Catholic teaching the human soul without its body is not whole, but is lacking. After death it will remain incomplete until the resurrection of the body on the last day.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Polycarp1 said:
Humans have souls that are also spirits while other living creatures have souls but without spirits. Spirits have no parts but are wholly themselves.
Click to expand...
If you define “spirit” as the aspect of immateriality of certain forms, then fine, otherwise I fear you might be departing from a Thomistic framework, and I would ask you to explain what you mean by spirit.
 
Every separate living entity has a soul. If that entity is human it’s soul is immortal. Reconcile that however you need too. Soul=life
 
What about twins - when the cells split does each get 1/2 of a soul?

What about chimerism - does the 1 person then have 2 souls?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top