D
Dan_McVay
Guest
Are all humans persons? Can non-humans be persons? What are the criteria for being a person?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Dan_McVay
Guest
Is a human a person even if it does not have a soul?
R
Rainaldo
Guest
God and angels are persons but not human.Are all humans persons? Can non-humans be persons? What are the criteria for being a person?
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
all humans are persons. Every human being has a soul.
D
Dan_McVay
Guest
When do they get souls per Catholic Church teaching?
N
Nita
Guest
When a sperm and ovum unite and become a** living **entity, it is because a soul has been infused by God. (The soul is the principle of life - both physical life and spiritual life.) When that happens, a new human has been conceived and come into existence; and that human is a person.Is a human a person even if it does not have a soul?
Should a sperm happen to penetrate an ovum, but no living organism ensued, it would mean that God did not infuse a soul into the physical material of the ovum penetrated by a sperm. Thus, no new human would have been created and no new human person would have existed.
Once a new human being comes into existence at conception (and thus a human person), the “person” continues to exist even after physical death - that is, after the soul separates from the body. At that point (when body and soul are separated), our “person” seems to be more localized???, so to speak, with our soul. Our body is buried in the ground, but our soul appears before the Lord for our particular/individual judgement. But, even for the saved, I think there is a sense of incompleteness without our bodies; a longing for the reunion with our resurrected bodies which will occur at the end of the world. As “humans”, we need both bodies and souls to be complete.
D
Dan_McVay
Guest
Is that official Catholic Church teaching or your personal views? Do monozygotic twins split a soul?When a sperm and ovum unite and become a** living **entity, it is because a soul has been infused by God. (The soul is the principle of life - both physical life and spiritual life.) When that happens, a new human has been conceived and come into existence; and that human is a person.
Should a sperm happen to penetrate an ovum, but no living organism ensued, it would mean that God did not infuse a soul into the physical material of the ovum penetrated by a sperm. Thus, no new human would have been created and no new human person would have existed.
Once a new human being comes into existence at conception (and thus a human person), the “person” continues to exist even after physical death - that is, after the soul separates from the body. At that point (when body and soul are separated), our “person” seems to be more localized???, so to speak, with our soul. Our body is buried in the ground, but our soul appears before the Lord for our particular/individual judgement. But, even for the saved, I think there is a sense of incompleteness without our bodies; a longing for the reunion with our resurrected bodies which will occur at the end of the world. As “humans”, we need both bodies and souls to be complete.
T
TimothyH
Guest
The subject of what it means to be a person was discussed at length by Blessed Pope John Paul II in his catechesis called “Theology of the Body.”
*The analysis of the Yahwist text also enables us to link man’s original solitude with consciousness of the body. Through it, man is distinguished from all the animalia and is separated from them, and also through it he is a person. It can be affirmed with certainty that man, thus formed, has at the same time consciousness and awareness of the meaning of his own body, on the basis of the experience of original solitude. (Man’s Awareness of Being a Person, Pope John Paul II, General Audience of Wendesday, October 24) *
Theology of the Body was a series of 129 talks given by the Holy Father at his usual Wednesday general audiences. The entire series is at ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm and the first seven cover this exact topic - what it means to be a person.
Object, subject, subjectivity, conciousness of himself, conciousness of being alone, and a whole host of other ideas are explained through an analysis of the truths revealed to us by God in the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 through Genesis 3.
It does little justice to the Holy Father for me to try to explain it. Those interested should give the first seven talks a deliberate read.
You can also google “personalistic norm.”
-Tim-
*The analysis of the Yahwist text also enables us to link man’s original solitude with consciousness of the body. Through it, man is distinguished from all the animalia and is separated from them, and also through it he is a person. It can be affirmed with certainty that man, thus formed, has at the same time consciousness and awareness of the meaning of his own body, on the basis of the experience of original solitude. (Man’s Awareness of Being a Person, Pope John Paul II, General Audience of Wendesday, October 24) *
Theology of the Body was a series of 129 talks given by the Holy Father at his usual Wednesday general audiences. The entire series is at ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm and the first seven cover this exact topic - what it means to be a person.
Object, subject, subjectivity, conciousness of himself, conciousness of being alone, and a whole host of other ideas are explained through an analysis of the truths revealed to us by God in the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 through Genesis 3.
It does little justice to the Holy Father for me to try to explain it. Those interested should give the first seven talks a deliberate read.
You can also google “personalistic norm.”
-Tim-
N
Nita
Guest
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTMIs that official Catholic Church teaching or your personal views?
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”
…….
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
No. They each have their own soul.Do monozygotic twins split a soul?
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1B.HTM
L
levinas12
Guest
This is where there is an interesting encounter between philosophy and theology.What are the criteria for being a person?
As Catholics, we know that a “person” begins at conception. Not potentially but actually.
So certain philosophical “understandings” are not the whole story. For example, “person” is not just a “center of consciousness” or a “self-consciousness” (at least in the Cartesian sense). Because at the moment of conception there is no self-consciousness (as the term is commonly used).
Again, “person” is not just a being who uses personal pronouns (“I”, “you”, “we”, etc). Because this doesn’t happen at the moment of conception.
Now, the baby “person” will be able to do this later. But this does not lessen the “personal reality” of the baby. Again, the “person” is “there” at the moment of conception.
This is not only true of babies. Terry Schiavo remained a person in spite of her severe brain damage.
So the philosophical account of “person” needs to go beyond the attribute of “consciousness” (at least how “consciousness” is understood both in common parlance and modern philosophy).
One thing we know for sure - “person” is the basis of a relation that makes a special demand on us. Unlike, e.g., a rock or even a dog.
A “person” is a “who” not a “what”. “Person” may require a specific nature. But “person” goes beyond “nature”. For example, my human nature is the same as yours. But my “who” is radically other than your “who”. “Person” is singular, non-repeatable, incommunicable (in the language of medieval philosophy).
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
We should be careful about what the Church actually teaches in regard to human personhood:
Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time … to find its place and to be in a position to act". (25) This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote* resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted. Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.
N
Nita
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is what the Church actually teaches - that’s why I cited it.We should be careful about what the Church actually teaches in regard to human personhood:
What/who is the source of your quote?
G
grannymh
Guest
For some fascinating reading about “person” as meaning you and me, start with paragraph 355 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. It is our own peerless human nature which is key to who we are.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm
This is not a page-turner, so take time to absorb each idea. Keep going all the way to paragraph 421. It is really worth the effort.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm
This is not a page-turner, so take time to absorb each idea. Keep going all the way to paragraph 421. It is really worth the effort.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Note the nuance in what the Catechism section you quoted: “Since it must be treated from conception as a person…” The Church states that we must treat human life, from the moment of conception, as a person. The Church apparently has not waded into the philosophical debate of personhood and ensoulment…The Catechism of the Catholic Church is what the Church actually teaches - that’s why I cited it.
FYI, its a link. The link will lead you to then Cardinal Ratzinger’s CDF document Donum Vitae.What/who is the source of your quote?
L
levinas12
Guest
Where does the “must” come from? There is obviously some “necessity” at work here.The Church states that we must treat human life, from the moment of conception, as a person. The Church apparently has not waded into the philosophical debate of personhood and ensoulment…
“Personhood” must be distinguished from “ensoulment”. “Ensoulment” harks back to Aristotle’s notion of the form (psyche) of human being, i.e., the nature. Aristotle argued for successive ensoulments (vegetative, animal, and finally rational) depending on the stage of human development.
Contrary to successive ensoulments, there is a strong philosophical argument that human psyche is there from the beginning as a final cause.
But, more importantly, Aristotelian psyche is not a “person”. It is a nature; and, as such, it is shareable. My nature is the same as your nature. But my person is radically other than your person. Person is much closer to the “da” in Heidegger’s notion of dasein. A “person” is a singularity, totally unique and non-shareable.
Aristotle never had a notion of “person”. He used passive matter to explain individuality. But passive matter cannot explain “person”. This is why Aristotle had an inadequate understanding of human agency (e.g., his use of an external agent intellect to explain cognition).
L
levinas12
Guest
Just to clarify, I’m doing philosophy not theology. And when Benedict says “how could a human individual not be a human person”, he is also doing philosophy.
Whether the Magisterium affirms or does not affirm a specific philosophical position (i.e., about the presence of the human person at the moment of conception) may not be entirely relevant philosophically. The Magisterium is concerned with theology. It may on occasion rule out certain philosophical positions as incompatible with theology but it generally does not engage in philosophy.
But I know that you were asked to provide an authoritative cite. Which you did admirably.
My intention is to elaborate a philosophical understanding that does not reduce “person” to a “center of consciousness” or simply “self-consciousness”. In philosophical terms, that does not reduce “person” to “cogito”.
Whether the Magisterium affirms or does not affirm a specific philosophical position (i.e., about the presence of the human person at the moment of conception) may not be entirely relevant philosophically. The Magisterium is concerned with theology. It may on occasion rule out certain philosophical positions as incompatible with theology but it generally does not engage in philosophy.
But I know that you were asked to provide an authoritative cite. Which you did admirably.
My intention is to elaborate a philosophical understanding that does not reduce “person” to a “center of consciousness” or simply “self-consciousness”. In philosophical terms, that does not reduce “person” to “cogito”.
N
Nita
Guest
Thank you. I read it but didn’t realize it was a link. Guess my cursor was off to the side.…
FYI, its a link. The link will lead you to then Cardinal Ratzinger’s CDF document Donum Vitae.
N
Nita
Guest
andWe should be careful about what the Church actually teaches in regard to human personhood:
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your posts, Father. I interpreted them to mean you were implying the Church doesn’t “actually teach” that personhood begins or is present with the start of human life at conception. Please correct me if I am wrong.Note the nuance in what the Catechism section you quoted: “Since it must be treated from conception as a person…” The Church states that we must treat human life, from the moment of conception, as a person. The Church apparently has not waded into the philosophical debate of personhood and ensoulment…
From the OP’s posts #5 and #7, I consider he wants to know what Church teaching is regarding personhood. The Church does have “actual” teaching on the subject. The Catechism statements make it clear that the Church considers/teaches personhood to be present at the point of conception and start of human life. The CCC does not include any reference to a possible doubt or uncertainty regarding the the presence of personhood at the point of conception, (Eg. It is thought by some…; general opinion of theologians…; due to the probability/possibility of personhood beginning at the point of conception…; …). I don’t think the CCC authors employed nuance for the purpose of making the meaning of their statements ambiguous.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
The Church says that we must treat a human life as a person from the moment of conception. However it has not waded in the philosophical waters of the issue.Maybe I’m misunderstanding your posts, Father. I interpreted them to mean you were implying the Church doesn’t “actually teach” that personhood begins or is present with the start of human life at conception.
I don’t think they were being ambiguous but rather they were intentionally being precise as to what the Church has actually officially declared.I don’t think the CCC authors employed nuance for the purpose of making the meaning of their statements ambiguous.
how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature…
N
Nita
Guest
You still didn’t answer my question as to whether, with your statement in Post #11 - “We should be careful about what the Church actually teaches in regard to human personhood:” - you meant the Church doesn’t “actually teach” that human personhood begins with the start of human life at conception.The Church says that we must treat a human life as a person from the moment of conception. However it has not waded in the philosophical waters of the issue.
The OP wasn’t asking whether the Church had made statements for the field of philosophy; he asked what Church teaching is. My position is that the Church teaches one is a person from the first moment he is a human being - at the moment of conception. That is what the CCC teaches us to do and also the earlier CDF document you cited.
If someone asks you whether the Church teaches personhood begins at the moment a new human being comes into existence/at the time of conception, what do you tell them:
Yes,
No,
No definite teaching; still open for speculation and personal opinion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.