Souls of Embryos

[Areopagite]

What about identical twins? They start as a single, fertilized egg cell. Does that single cell have two separate souls, or do the two souls only show up when two separate zygotes have formed?

Good question. I can tell you what I heard from a Vatican bioethicist I happened to meet in Rome a few years ago (it was kind of random), and he said, in this case,* that the two souls show up when the two separate zygotes have formed and not before*. I guess it makes sense. I haven’t thought about this issue too much myself. It’s still up to debate among philosophers/theologians, though, as I understand.

 

[Rosesz]

You are coming at this backwards. The soul is created perfectly by God! To say the soul “receives all it’s information from the physical components of the human body (e.g., eyes allow the soul to see)” is incorrect. i would argue that the soul is perfectly united with God and is confused and corrupted by what it “receives from the physical component”!

Perhaps the “frozen embryos” are in a perfect state of union with God?

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

As far as your post… Jesus called for us to become as innocent children to come to Him… if a child has to be baptized to go to heaven??? what happens to the aborted innocents… or miscarried babies…
I see these innocents right in the palm of His loving hands…

I have had a personal belief that God gives us the exact combination of dna among possibe children who will implant and grow within us, whether naturally or by insemination…
Some dont take at all… and some miscarry and tragically some are aborted…
There fore as much as I hate embryonic stem cells being used… I am not sure each of those embryos has a mature soul… though it could.

 

[Rosesz]

Human souls aren’t perfectly united with God by nature, only by Grace. The unBaptized lack this foundational Grace, so it’s impossible to say that embryos are perfectly united to God.

And yes, the soul was made perfectly by God, but it was made to have a body and use a body, so the body can’t be a limitation on it. If the body is a limitation on the soul, then God lied when He said “it is very good” in Genesis.

Peace and God bless!

Sorry I am new and meant to post to this poster. sorry

As far as your post… Jesus called for us to become as innocent children to come to Him… if a child has to be baptized to go to heaven??? what happens to the aborted innocents… or miscarried babies…
I see these innocents right in the palm of His loving hands…

I have had a personal belief that God gives us the exact combination of dna among possibe children who will implant and grow within us, whether naturally or by insemination…
Some dont take at all… and some miscarry and tragically some are aborted…
There fore as much as I hate embryonic stem cells being used… I am not sure each of those embryos has a mature soul… though it could.

 

[learningtheway]

I know this tends to go against the beliefs of most Catholics and I can’t explain it myself but I believe for whatever reason in certain circumstances some people come back for a 2nd life. So it’s my theory that if one is killed via abortion they’re given another life where they won’t be killed.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I know this tends to go against the beliefs of most Catholics and I can’t explain it myself but I believe for whatever reason in certain circumstances some people come back for a 2nd life. So it’s my theory that if one is killed via abortion they’re given another life where they won’t be killed.

Interesting. But i doubt it. Some people for the sake of the good, will not have to live this life, and will go straight to heaven.

This is my belief.

 

[evolwk]

I know this tends to go against the beliefs of most Catholics and I can’t explain it myself but I believe for whatever reason in certain circumstances some people come back for a 2nd life. So it’s my theory that if one is killed via abortion they’re given another life where they won’t be killed.

Unpopular with the Magisterium too. It is not true:

Paragraph 1013 from the Catechism, “Death is the end of man’s earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When “the single course of our earthly life” is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: “It is appointed for men to die once.” There is no “reincarnation” after death.”"

 

[MindOverMatter]

Unpopular with the Magisterium too. It is not true:

Paragraph 1013 from the Catechism, “Death is the end of man’s earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When “the single course of our earthly life” is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: “It is appointed for men to die once.” There is no “reincarnation” after death.”"

Yep. Once you get past the age of 60, you have past the point of no return.

 

[Bluegoat]

I may be able to shed some light on the question of why the soul is said to be present at conception. I haven’t actually read this explanation in this context, but it would follow based on my understanding of the theory of the soul.

The soul is just the form of a living thing. All material things are made up of form and substance - the substance gives it physicality and extension, and the form is what makes it what it is. While it is possible to have a form without substance, there is no substance without form. If something exists, it must “be” something.

An embryo, then, must have a form, or it wouldn’t be anything, which is impossible. It has the form, or soul, of whatever kind of living thing it is. Of course, in an embryo, just as in a child, many of the abilities of the fully developed form are not actualized, they exist only potentially. Even in some adults this is the case.

 

[evolwk]

I may be able to shed some light on the question of why the soul is said to be present at conception. I haven’t actually read this explanation in this context, but it would follow based on my understanding of the theory of the soul.

The soul is just the form of a living thing. All material things are made up of form and substance - the substance gives it physicality and extension, and the form is what makes it what it is. While it is possible to have a form without substance, there is no substance without form. If something exists, it must “be” something.

An embryo, then, must have a form, or it wouldn’t be anything, which is impossible. It has the form, or soul, of whatever kind of living thing it is. Of course, in an embryo, just as in a child, many of the abilities of the fully developed form are not actualized, they exist only potentially. Even in some adults this is the case.

I respectfully disagree. It seems like you are mixing your philosophical metaphors. You equate form with soul and say there is no substance without form. One only has to go to a funeral with an open casket to see substance (the body in your definition) without form (the soul in your definition). I believe the Summa purports the exact opposite position in a context not fully relevant to the present discussion (e.g., the form is what we can observe with our senses, the accidents; and the substance is what the item actually is). This is particularly important in the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist.

 

[Bluegoat]

I respectfully disagree. It seems like you are mixing your philosophical metaphors. You equate form with soul and say there is no substance without form. One only has to go to a funeral with an open casket to see substance (the body in your definition) without form (the soul in your definition). I believe the Summa purports the exact opposite position in a context not fully relevant to the present discussion (e.g., the form is what we can observe with our senses, the accidents; and the substance is what the item actually is). This is particularly important in the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist.

At a funeral, the thing you are seeing is no longer a person, it is a dead body, on it’s way to being dirt (or dirt and formaldehyde). It is most certainly not John Smith, although it still bears a resemblance of him.

It is, however, a very interesting question, what is the form of a dead tree, or a broken chair? Is it that it is somehow reverting back to it’s constituent parts, so it is no longer really a tree but a certain arrangement of carbon and water? I can’t see it as being semi-formed, that would be very awkward in cases like a dead person, as you’ve pointed out.

I think the explanation of the Eucharist is using the words in a different way altogether. If so, that wouln’t invalidate my explanation, it would have to be “translated” first. And if they were in opposition, we’d still have to show that St thomas was indeed correct in this context - I certialy won’t argue with him about the Eucharist. In any case, I would not have understood accidents as belonging properly to form - a form makes the thing what it is (the formal cause) but accidents are not essential to what it is, they can change without changing the nature of the thing itself.