Soul of unborn baby or child

[midori]

Woah. On a totally different note, I went to go link to the “Church Teaching/Soul/Conception” thread to fast-forward about fifty posts’ worth of discussion, and saw the thread had really been scrubbed.

 

[Gorgias]

No.

I am talking about what the poster really means by “human soul” at conception.

It is not defined Church teaching that it must be an immortal, intellective, spiritual “human soul”.

It could be a progressing vegetative “human soul”

Right. So, then, you are talking about misunderstandings of biology.

Basing its discussion on the faulty scientific notion that a human wasn’t present in the womb until the ‘quickening’, the response was that there was a soul at that point. That’s right out of Aquinas…!

(However, if you abstract it out, it’s exactly the same explanation that the Church teaches today! In other words, the Church teaches that as soon as there’s a human person, there’s an immortal soul.)

 

[BlackFriar]

Right. So, then, you are talking about misunderstandings of biology.

No. What biological misunderstanding exactly do you refer to?

the faulty scientific notion that a human wasn’t present in the womb until the ‘quickening’.

A somewhat vague statement of the issue.
We all agree human life is present from conception.
The issue is when a “human individual” or a “human person” must be considered present.

That is both a medical and philosophic conundrum.
First you have to define “person” and “individual” (these are philosophic issues) … then analyse the biology to see if the biology satisfies agreed definitions of the above.

In other words, the Church teaches that as soon as there’s a human person, there’s an immortal soul.

The Church does not currently teach a human person/individual is present at the moment of conception. Some recent Popes state strong personal views on the matter but explicitly state they do not pretend to settle this philosophic question.

It doesn’t matter, all abortion from caption is gravely wrong.

It would be good if the poster could advise why he asks the question in the first place.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Right. So, then, you are talking about misunderstandings of biology.

No. What biological misunderstanding exactly do you refer to?

the faulty scientific notion that a human wasn’t present in the womb until the ‘quickening’.

A somewhat vague statement of the issue.
We all agree human life is present from conception.

We do, but that wasn’t the point you raised. You mentioned the Church teaching being contrary to that for 1700 years. Aquinas mentions it here, in ST III.27.1, ad 4

So, I’m pointing out that, if that teaching followed the science of the day, then it was the scientific teaching that was in error, not the Church’s…

The Church does not currently teach a human person/individual is present at the moment of conception.

Really? It doesn’t…?
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul, the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.” From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God

You’re familiar with the Catechism, aren’t you? It’s the teaching of the Church.

 

[stpurl]

Ah, right on schedule, the “Church taught differently back then”.

 

[BlackFriar]

Really? It doesn’t…?

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul, the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.” From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God

You’re familiar with the Catechism, aren’t you? It’s the teaching of the Church.

Really it doesn’t.
Where is the silver bullet above that you believe denies my very specifically stated position?

 

[BlackFriar]

Well if persons regularly deny the actual position of the Church despite having it extensively explained in another recent thread what would you expect?

Teaching is not decided merely by vocal lobbying as far I know.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Children have functional bodies. When they are a simple zygote, their bodies function just as they are designed to function.

 

[Gorgias]

Where is the silver bullet above that you believe denies my very specifically stated position?

Do you mean this position?

The Church does not currently teach a human person/individual is present at the moment of conception.

If so, then I’ve already demonstrated it:

Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul, the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.” From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

What’s the referent for ‘his’ and ‘he’ in the second sentence above (from the Catechism)? It’s “the human person”. In other words, the sentence reads “from [the human person’s] conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.”

There you have it. “From conception.” “Human person.” The precise assertion that you claim the Church doesn’t teach… is right there in the CCC. QED.

(Perhaps you’re talking about a different “very specifically stated position”?)

 

[Crocus]

@adrian1, do these answers make sense to you? What is not made clear?

 

[BlackFriar]

Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul, the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.” From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.
What’s the referent for ‘his’ and ‘he’ in the second sentence above (from the Catechism)? It’s “the human person”.

Yes I thought you were taking this simplistic “proof-texting” approach.
In fact it is hardly clear that the 2nd sentence is at all trying to make the singular claim you are reading into it.

In 1711 it summarises, “the human person is from his very conception ordered to God”.
It doesn’t intrinsically say “the human person is such at conception.” Its saying the human person today was always ordered to being a [rational] human person from conception. That is different.

If it did mean what you want it to then surrounding indications ought to vindicate your reading. But context doesn’t.

1. The references that your CCC quote above refers to is GS (GS 14 § 2, GS 15 § 2, GS 24 § 3).
2. Strangely GS doesn’t teach what you assert.
3. There is no other place in the CCC that says what you want.
4. No Encyclical formally teaches what you assert.

The bits quoted here from GS have nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.
It has a lot more to do with saying human nature was made in God’s image as a personal being and on that account is destined to be with God from conception. That is not the same as asserting man must possess a “human nature” (ie an individual person) at the moment of conception.

This is typical of a “proof texting approach”. You are simply exploiting a close sounding expression or a linkage between sentences that isn’t really there. The context simply doesn’t match what you say at all.

No Encyclical states what you assert is in the Catechism (and these two sentences then are all you have anywhere). That is an extraordinary isolation if what you say were true.

In short, saying “the human person is from his very conception ordered to God” is saying no more than “from his very conception man is ordered to God.”

A man, when a zygote, is of course be ordered to God regardless of ensoulment issues. The Church taught that for 1700 years afterall.

So when you can find a formal quote that matches context I am willing to look at it.
Good luck with that.

 

[adrian1]

the development of the soul depends on the body’s development or the soul can develop into a nonfunctional or childlike body? The body cam block the evolution of soul

 

[adrian1]

Im asking about the soul, is the soul dependent of functions of body? A baby soul can have spiritual life without a body and a mind full mature, in case that the baby fie untul the body is ready to work.

 

[adrian1]

Im asking aabout the soul, is the soul dependent of functions of body? A baby soul can have spiritual life without a body and a brain full mature, in case that the baby fie untul the body is ready to work.

 

[Gorgias]

In 1711 it summarises, “the human person is from his very conception ordered to God”.

It doesn’t intrinsically say “the human person is such at conception.” Its saying the human person today was always ordered to being a [rational] human person from conception. That is different.

This appears to be a distinction without a difference. I appreciate that you seem to want to make it say that, but it really can’t be any more clear than it is. You really have to twist the sentence into a pretzel in order to change its meaning in order to make it mean what you want it to mean.

Let’s look at your argument:

The references that your CCC quote above refers to is GS (GS 14 § 2, GS 15 § 2, GS 24 § 3).

The sentence I’m quoting isn’t footnoted to GS. Ones near it are, but this one is not. Therefore, it doesn’t detract from the words of the CCC that GS (which isn’t footnoted at that sentence) doesn’t make this explicit claim.

Strangely GS doesn’t teach what you assert.

So… the Catechism doesn’t teach what it plainly says, just because it isn’t repeated in GS?

There is no other place in the CCC that says what you want.

You’re slipping. I quoted from two distinct places in the Catechism. 1703 was one, and 365-66 was another. So, yeah… the Catechism does make this point elsewhere.

No Encyclical formally teaches what you assert.

Are encyclicals the only vehicle by which the Church teaches?

I’m sure you’re aware of the CDF’s instruction Donum vitae. It teaches what you wish to claim that the Church doesn’t teach. In its foreward, it states, “the present Instruction… does not intend to repeat all the Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life as it originates and on procreation, but to offer, in light of the previous teaching of the Magisterium, some specific replies to the main questions being asked in this regard.”

In particular, the document states, “The human being must be respected - as a person - from the very first instant of his existence.”

I’m sorry @BlackFriar, but your arguments here just fail utterly. Your only recourse is to make appeal to that tired old red herring: “but… it’s not taught infallibly!!!” Let me save you the trouble: even when not taught under the mode of ‘infallibility’, the Church teaches authoritatively. This is a Church teaching, presented by the Magisterium. It teaches authoritatively, and thus, demands our acceptance.

Have a great day, BF…

 

[TheLittleLady]

We are a being that is made up of a body and a soul. The soul animates the body, so, if the soul leaves the body dies.

 

[Crocus]

My understanding is that God creates each one of us as a body infused with a soul. That body has a starting point which at first only God knows to be an individual of His making.

That body is so small (one cell only?) that the outside world cannot detect it for days, weeks, months … Yet God cherishes and guides the life of the body and soul as it grows. It has a relationship with God, reflecting God’s glory by and through its existence.

Hope that helps.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

In 1711 it summarises, “the human person is from his very conception ordered to God”.

It doesn’t intrinsically say “the human person is such at conception.” Its saying the human person today was always ordered to being a [rational] human person from conception. That is different.

This appears to be a distinction without a difference.

Well just read Gaudium et Spes in full then from which CCC articles 1703 and 1711 reference.
Not a close mention there at all that the conceptus is either a human person or a human soul.

Whereas the difference I demonstrate is there.
I get it you may have too set a position to be able to see the difference.

So… the Catechism doesn’t teach what it plainly says, just because it isn’t repeated in GS?

Absolutely correct. You have simply superficially proof-texted and exploited an ambiguity completely unsupported by context or references.

Blackfriar:There is no other place in the CCC that says what you want.
Gorgias: You’re slipping. I quoted from two distinct places in the Catechism. 1703 was one, and 365-66 was another. So, yeah… the Catechism does make this point elsewhere.

You were the one who stated 1703 was your silver bullet (actually if I was taking a proof-texting approach surely 1711 says what you want better? There’s also a GS ref for that article too).

Be that as it may now you claim 365f?
By all means demonstrate where is says the conceptus is a human person/individual?
All I see is the triviality that the human soul is the form of the human body. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the conceptus, which clearly is not a human body, has a fully human soul…meaning its a human person/individual. The ancients denied this…as do many theologians today…though quickening is now reduced to two weeks not 40 days.

Blackfriar: No Encyclical formally teaches what you assert.
Gorgias: Are encyclicals the only vehicle by which the Church teaches?

To suggest that a Catechism is the formal vehicle for presenting a new Catholic teaching out of the blue is so foolish a notion and I am not going to dignify your throwaway comment with further response.

CONTINUED…

 

[Gorgias]

And when you can find something to contradict the following from Donum Vitae which you ignored above do come back to us

Psst… it’s in the paragraph that follows the one you quoted. (All emphases mine):

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality.

The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. This doctrinal reminder provides the fundamental criterion for the solution of the various problems posed by the development of the biomedical sciences in this field: since the embryo must be treated as a person, it must also be defended in its integrity, tended and cared for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being

 

[BlackFriar]

Well if you cannot tell the difference between “being treated as a person” and “actually being a person” I wouldn’t quit your day job for scholarly exegesis just yet.

Over and out young fellah.