Life begins at conception and historical Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark_a
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mark_a

Guest
I read somewhere, probably here, that a certain pope said, declared, stated, defined, decreed that life begins at conception because there was some possible disagreement among some Church fathers.

Can someone give me some insight to this and the circumstances that moved this particular pope to settle the question?
 
mark_a said:
Can someone give me some insight to this and the circumstances that moved this particular pope to settle the question?
Click to expand...
No pope ever settled the question of life beginning at conception. Such a question is scientific. It’s answer has been settled by embryology, not theology.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
mlchance said:
No pope ever settled the question of life beginning at conception. Such a question is scientific. It’s answer has been settled by embryology, not theology.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Shoot!!

I had previously heard it was settled by Rush Limbaugh!!!
 
mlchance said:
No pope ever settled the question of life beginning at conception. Such a question is scientific. It’s answer has been settled by embryology, not theology.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
When is the embryo infused with a soul?
 
setter said:
When is the embryo infused with a soul?
Click to expand...
It’s infused with a soul the moment it begins to exist. The debate in the history of the Church was in whether or not it was infused with a fully rational soul at the very beginning, or if the soul “developed” as well.

Peace and God bless!
 
setter said:
When is the embryo infused with a soul?
Click to expand...
The existence of the soul is quite irrelevant to pro-life issues, but on that matter, the Church bases her answer on her consistent teaching that all living things have souls. Since it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception, it is a theological fact there a soul must be present from that moment as well.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
mlchance said:
The existence of the soul is quite irrelevant to pro-life issues, but on that matter, the Church bases her answer on her consistent teaching that all living things have souls. Since it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception, it is a theological fact there a soul must be present from that moment as well.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
The Church also teaches that only man is an enfleshed spirit, whereas the soul gives living creatures the ability to animate the body they inhabit.

Can you please explain why “The existence of the soul is quite irrelevant to pro-life issues” when we are talking about an eternal soul being created at the moment of conception?
 
There can be confusion when people dig up quotes from Early Fathers and popes from many centuries ago. Back then, science was primitive and people thought that the man supplied the ‘seed’ and the woman provided the fertile soil. Since any dolt could see that kids often had attributes of the mother, it was thought that the seed absorbed something from the mother as well, but that this must take time. They concluded from that that ensoulment must not take place immediately.

But all that is irrelevant since it was speculation based on faulty science. When the scientific understanding was corrected, all previous theological speculation based entirely on the old scientific model became obsolete.
 
manualman said:
…When the scientific understanding was corrected, all previous theological speculation based entirely on the old scientific model became obsolete.
Click to expand...
Exactly. One does not need believe in the existence of the soul to see the clear scientific fact that an embryo is alive. Indeed, one not even believe in God to be pro-life. Dragging theology into what is a human rights issue unnecessarily clouds the matter.

godlessprolifers.org/

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top