R
RAR
Guest
Oh, thanks TOm, my apoligies. I missed this one. I’m a rookie at this forum business.
- Status
R
RAR
Guest
Ohhhh, great post! I can’t believe I missed this one… again my apologies… good stuff! I like the way you think and thank you for being sucked back in… I’m thoroughly enjoying it.
Let me start with clearing something up… someone previously quoted the LDS position on abortion (from 1983, I believe) and I found little concern with it… taken sincerely anyway. What I mean is that the only concern I could have is in the case of rape and incest, but let me make clear that as stated, I see nothing to condemn in the LDS church’s handling of it… at least in as far as it works ideally. The question becomes one of “health.” What I mean is that under ideal conditions, and as stated by the LDS church, God will instruct as to whether or not the baby should be allowed to come to term. My problem is that it leaves the door open for human interpretation, which I feel is not worthy. Indeed, my belief in Jesus establishing His church with Peter and my belief that the authority remains today, argues that because of this, our personal faculties, in difficult cases like this, are superseded by that endowment given to His church and that the pronouncement (as stated by the Catholic Church) can be trusted as whole. For this reason, the need for the LDS woman and her bishop enjoin God in prayer is not necessary… the Church has already spoken.
I agree with your personal position on it. I would prefer that the LDS line was as clear as the Catholic’s, but I understand the LDS concept. Let me make clear for the record that I believe that under no circumstances, including rape or incest, is it permissible to abort a baby, and regardless of the ensoulment discussion. Because the ensoulment question is moot in that if humans were not to intervene, the developing baby would at some point be infused with a soul and become a human being with a name anyway.
RAR
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
How do you know a newborn is ensouled?
In the case of a baby conceived as a result of rape, LDS teaching would never allow anyone to question the ensoulment of, or pray about killing the newborn. Why the difference when the same baby is preborn?
Thank you for your answers so far, I’m getting a much clearer view of Mormon teaching on abortion than I previously held.
Sorry, I hadn’t heard Jimmy Akin talking about plant/animal souls, I think it was “mark a” who mentioned it in one of his posts, maybe he has a link.
M
mark_a
Guest
Here it is, keep in mind that this link is from a live “call-in” show. The entire show was not about the souls of carrots and amoebas.
catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=&event=5015&date=2008-02-07
T
TOmNossor
Guest
And this is also a concern of mine as well.
Let me outline a few steps.
- Humans are not worthy so God will constrain humans to not commit horrible atrocities like killing babies born or unborn.
- Humans are not worthy so God’s church will lay out concepts built upon the magisterium and the honest efforts of Catholic Bio-ehticists. God’s ordained leaders will hopefully teach such things.
- Humans are not worthy so God will lay out general guidelines and require prayerful seeking of His will not only by the individuals involved, but by 2 levels of ordained ecclesiastical leaders. God’s ordained leaders will hopefully teach such things.
- Humans are not worthy so God would like to do something, but since there is no visible church Protestant ministers (hopefully called by God) have huge variances in what they teach.
We know that #1 for whatever reason is not God’s way. We both believe that God could constrain humans from performing abortions or …, but God does not.
So where do we go with #2 and #3. Clearly we both recognize that God offers us freedom and the ability to choose. Clearly we both recognize that God has established a church and boundaries associated with this choice. If the whole world were LDS, I would lean towards preferring #3. In our secular world, I will vote and advocate for the position outlined by the Catholic Magisterium while recognizing that for those more spiritual than the average human (and probably more spiritual than me) #3 has a beauty #2 lacks.
And my position is almost identical to this. My reasons however are a little more pragmatic than yours. I do not trust the average human and in many ways the average faithful LDS to be able to choose to seek God’s guidance or be clear thinking enough to hear God’s guidance.
And when I advocate for my personal position, ensoulment is in fact moot. It is only important because it shows a connection to the Catholic past and how the life of the mother in very rare occasions can be of more value than the non-ensouled life within her.
Let me further explore why I might be wrong to adopt the view I do. I know folks who experience my most powerful divine communications on a daily basis. I would expect that these folks might be much more comfortable with allowing a very spiritual man like the Stake President to calmly seek God’s will. I tend to believe everyone is more like me than not, but I have very good reason to see some folks as much more in touch with God than I am.
Charity, TOm
R
Renton405
Guest
that is awful these “Liberal Catholics” are really defacing the church and confusing its members. There is no such thing as a pro-choice catholic or a pro-homosexual Catholic. No matter how many people seem to disagree.
I find it so hypocritical that these people who claim to be Catholic are for things like abortion and such(Catholics for a free choice, etc). I personally think the bishops need to do more about this and make it clear that these people are against the teaching of the church and should be excommunicated.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
In the case of a baby conceived as a result of rape, LDS teaching would never allow anyone to question the ensoulment of, or pray about killing the newborn. Why the difference when the same baby is preborn?
Unlike the secularist or potentially the Protestant, LDS and Catholics have a church to offer guidance on some moral issues. As I pointed out in my previous post, there is a difference between the way our churchs presume God and Church interact with individual. There are pros and cons for this difference.
Anyway, the baby born is ensouled because teachings of my church concerning murder are quite clear.
Now, as I pointed out long ago, both you and I have something to deal with concerning killing children. To my knowledge neither of our churches have an authoritative position on what exactly happened between Abraham and Isaac, but both of our churches demand that fathers do not kill there children. Kierkegaard (who began his religious life as a faithful Catholic) wrote Fear and Trembling about what Abraham and Isaac have to teach us. He concluded that Abraham had faith Kierkegaard had never seen in another human being. Just a bit to think about.
Now, per my explanation of the rape exception, the killing of a born baby would be unacceptable even if they are not ensouled. There is no longer a threat to the unstable rape victim that could not be effectively mitigated by adoption and/or temporary custody of the baby by LDS social services.
Charity, TOm
Mark,
Thanks for the link. I will need to listen eventually. Too bad I couldn’t read it!!!
Charity, TOm
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
R
RAR
Guest
Thank you, TOm. It seems we very much have the same feelings on the subject. I only have one point I need clarification on, which will be clear below.
RAR
And finally, I, too, am not the most “spiritual” of persons. I understand your own self-revelation. My faith lies with the Catholic Church for very practical and logical reasons and not because of a spiritual happening, though I did experience the Holy Spirit at least once. It was for about 9 months (my “honeymoon” following my conversion. But it’s because not all of us are gifted with discernment of spirits (or are otherwise spiritually gifted) that I am Catholic, because it doesn’t seem to me that God would require an individual, separate phenomenon to happen to each of His children for their belief. This seems especially unnecessary following something as universe-shattering as His rising from the dead. It seems to me that God has already spoken, revealed Himself, and given His children all the means they would need to follow Him.
RAR
T
TOmNossor
Guest
T
TOmNossor
Guest
TOm said:
And when I advocate for my personal position, ensoulment is in fact moot. It is only important because it shows a connection to the Catholic past and how the life of the mother in very rare occasions can be of more value than the non-ensouled life within her.
I say to attempt to explain:
Being against all abortions, I use the “is the mother’s life more important than the babies life” regularly to explain why abortion should not occur in the case of rape. Many folks who call themselves pro-life have a rape exception. I am opposed to the rape exception. That said, since my church has specifically claimed that we do not know when ensoulment occurs AND has a very rare (prayerfully sought, unstable mother, no instance of this occurring to my knowledge, …) rape exception it seems the possibility of non-ensoulment is the reason for this valuing the life of the mother over the baby.
It is also true that I consider the evolution of this within Catholicism to be worth considering when Catholics choose to make hay out of the LDS position. So I bring it up partially because it relates and partially because it is a tangential issue that merits consideration.
If Mother Teresa can have a “dark night of the soul” for the period she did, I suspect my lack of continual spiritual high is not such a problem.
I should quote a LDS scripture:
“To some it is given to have a witness, to others it is given to believe upon the witness of …”
I have no time to look-up. Back later.
Charity, TOm
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Tom;
The Catholic doctrine concerning the intrinsic holiness of life, the sanctity of the unborn, has never gone through an “evolution…within Catholicism.”
Here you go again.
Robert
I am not sure if you are misreading what I have stated OR you are unaware of the evolution of Catholic thought concerning these subjects. Either way a more thorough read of the thread would seem to take care of this.
However, briefly, I acknowledge that Catholics have always taught that abortion was wrong. They have not consistently taught that it was murder.
Catholics have also evolved from a place were anyone (that I have found) who spoke of ensoulment did not consider the baby immediately post conception to be fully human, fully ensouled to a position where ensoulment occurs immediately.
These are issues discussed in this thread. Unlike my error on the religious affiliation of Soren K, I am not mistaken.
BTW, for someone who at one point accused me of not being able to deal with issues, you seem to have neglected to deal with an issue I pointed to you to, and you also seem to be much more concerned with “gotcha apologetics” than dialogue on issues. I guess I can return “gotcha” for “gotcha,” but I would prefer to discuss issues. You could start by addressing the thread I linked you to:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217932
Charity, TOm
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
But you state that the killing of a born baby would be unacceptable even if they are not ensouled. That their murder is prohibited then cannot be the way you know they are ensouled.
How is a preborn baby a threat to an unstable rape victim?
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Yours is perfectly reasonable logic. Let me try again.
When LDS claim that we do not know when ensoulment occurs no LDS has or would ever claim that ensoulment does not occur before birth.
The early Catholic Church did not know when ensoulment occurred, but they never claimed (and to my knowledge nobody ever questioned their stance on this) that ensoulment could possibly not occur until after birth.
The rape victim who becomes pregnant has had her agency taken and the pregnancy will continue to be a consequence (not chosen) for a period of time.
The unstable rape victims be they LDS or not have committed suicide and/or never recovered from the trauma.
There is danger here and God knows sufficiently well which rape victims (the vast majority I expect as I know of no LDS rape victim abortions and some LDS rape victim births) are able to deal with this and which will ruin two lives.
LDS just trust God enough to turn this decision over to Him.
I very much sympathize with distrusting the human element in this human/God decision, which is why I would vote and advocate for laws precluding abortion in the case of rape. We know God could ENSURE his will is heard. He could even ENSURE His will is headed. LDS theology in this instance trusts that God’s will is heard. We both recognize that God though He could does not ensure his will is done.
Charity, TOm
D
Dauphin
Guest
Catholics have also evolved from a place were anyone (that I have found) who spoke of ensoulment did not consider the baby immediately post conception to be fully human, fully ensouled to a position where ensoulment occurs immediately.
The Catholic Church teaches exactly what St. Thomas Aquinas taught about ensoulment; anything that is animate has a soul. Any animate human has a spiritual, eternal soul. St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to apply this principle to the human fetus, which he clearly believed only became animate some time after conception. We know now that the human embryo is in fact a living organism with a human genetic code, not simply an inanimate seed that gradually grows into a living human. Therefore, according to Thomistic theology, the human fetus has a soul. If the saint had been aware of the animate nature of the fetus, his position would have been identical to that of the Catholic Church today. There is no contradiction or change in Catholic teaching; the teaching is simply being applied in accord with what modern scientific investigation has revealed.
Ensoulment is something that occurs completely in tune with nature. God doesn’t simply “impose” a soul on a living organism; that living organism has a soul by virtue of its being animate.
D
Dauphin
Guest
**
What sense does this make? How can life be “non-ensouled”? All life is ensouled by virtue of the fact that it is animate. The soul is the animating principle behind life. It’s clear that the Mormon concept of the soul, just like many other concepts of that religion, is completely foreign to the Catholic Church. We may use similar terms, but we clearly have very different meanings for them. The soul isn’t something which God arbitrarily imposes on an organism; if something is living, it has already been given a soul by God. The soul is fundamental to life.
R
RAR
Guest
Thanks TOm, I understand better now.
But, I followed your link to Serenginus (er something er other) and did not find any concerns with the Catholic understanding of abortion. It seemed to support that the Church has been consistent in her handling of abortion. Or were you talking more of the ensoulment issue? If so, I’m more than okay to leave that to the theologians and have no concerns with the on-going and historical discussion of it in the Church.
RAR
T
TOmNossor
Guest
What sense does this make? How can life be “non-ensouled”? All life is ensouled by virtue of the fact that it is animate. The soul is the animating principle behind life. It’s clear that the Mormon concept of the soul, just like many other concepts of that religion, is completely foreign to the Catholic Church. We may use similar terms, but we clearly have very different meanings for them. The soul isn’t something which God arbitrarily imposes on an organism; if something is living, it has already been given a soul by God. The soul is fundamental to life.
As I mentioned earlier on in this thread there is some LDS thought that might parallel the soul (though not human soul) for all life as in plant soul and animal soul.
I also embrace a generally Whiteheadian metaphysic rather than an Aristotelian metaphysic. God provides concurring energy to all matter, life or non-life and offers prehensions for creative advance. Father Thomas Hosinski offers the most readable understanding of these concepts.
I do not have much more to say on Catholic abortion thought.
I think your point is that Aquinas thought that male children were not alive until 40 days after conception and female children were not alive until 80 days after conception so he postulated late ensoulment. It seems to me that Aquinas recognized the nurtive soul in the embryo just not the intellectual soul. The reason the soul difference is linked to full humanity seems to be that in the early church nurtive soul abortion was always sinful, but not always murder. Since science still has not been able to discern the existence of a soul (or the distinction between the nurtive and the intellectual soul) this still seems to be a non-scientific move within the Catholic Church.
I think that is all I have. I will read whatever you respond with. Thank you for your time.
Charity, TOm
- Status