The Soul

[JimG]

It would seem that other creatures, indeed, Creation itself, are/is awaiting salvation:

Romans, chapter 8:
*
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.*

Yes, the theology of it is that there will be a ‘new heaven and a new earth.’ All creation will be renewed. But that is different than the salvation of human souls. Only human beings are called to the Beatific Vision of personal union with God.

 

[JimG]

So even though the Church has allowed room for belief in macro-evolution, they still have not decided which hominids have/had souls. Is it not possible that other archaic hominids had souls, i.e. Homo floresiensis, which only went extinct 12,000 years ago?

Possibly creatures such as the archaic hominids I mentioned.

In the field of ethology, there is evidence that some non-human apes express emotions such as shame, which would infer ethical judgments. This is not surprising since we share a common ancestor.

The Church doesn’t deal in anthropology. It does distinguish human beings from all other creatures as having rational souls, and thereby being creatures endowed with an ability to deliberately choose right and wrong, good and evil. As to which hominids fit that category, I don’t think any judgment has ever been made by the Church. She simply considers that any human being is one that is endowed with a human soul having the faculties of intellect and free will.

 

[redhen]

The Church doesn’t deal in anthropology.

There are courses in Christian Anthropology at Catholic universities. There seems to be a lot of discussion, but no definitive answers.

It does distinguish human beings from all other creatures as having rational souls, and thereby being creatures endowed with an ability to deliberately choose right and wrong, good and evil. As to which hominids fit that category, I don’t think any judgment has ever been made by the Church. She simply considers that any human being is one that is endowed with a human soul having the faculties of intellect and free will.

But if homo erectus had a soul, you’re adding almost 2 million years to “mans” history. Where was God then? Why such a long, slow, pain and suffering filled process?

 

[Faith1960]

Human beings have the capability to commit moral or immoral acts. Humans can reflect on their acts. The soul stays with the body until death, not brain death, which is often misunderstood, or as explained that people in a coma may hear everything going on around them. This has been reported by Belgian scientists concerning a man who was thought to be in a vegatative state. See:
current.com/news/91526144_man-trapped-in-coma-for-23-years-was-conscious-for-entire-time.htm

(There are videos as well).

Animals cannot make moral choices or reflect on their actions.

I’ve heard about cases like the one above, but I’m talking about the ones where the person is truly brain dead and machines are the only thing to keep them alive.

 

[JimG]

There are courses in Christian Anthropology at Catholic universities. There seems to be a lot of discussion, but no definitive answers.

But if homo erectus had a soul, you’re adding almost 2 million years to “mans” history. Where was God then? Why such a long, slow, pain and suffering filled process?

Not having been there 2 million years ago, I have no idea whether or not homo erectus had the faculties of intellect and free will. If he didn’t leave a written history, or other evidence of rational thought showing the ability of self reflection, I have my doubts.

There’s no doubt that homo erectus, like any living creature, had a soul; whether it was a human soul and not a material soul is the question.

And it’s been a long, slow, pain and suffering filled process for homo sapiens during the course of recorded history.

 

[redhen]

Not having been there 2 million years ago, I have no idea whether or not homo erectus had the faculties of intellect and free will.

I thought the Church’s denotation of “man” depended on having an immortal soul, not intellect or free will. Example; a brain dead patient is still human.

If he didn’t leave a written history, or other evidence of rational thought showing the ability of self reflection, I have my doubts.

Rational thought is only expressed by writing? What about oral cultures? Example; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture

There’s no doubt that homo erectus, like any living creature, had a soul; whether it was a human soul and not a material soul is the question.

Not only is it an academic question of curiousity, it’s an important theological point. If Homo floresiensis only went extinct 12,000 years ago, and they had immortal souls, what does this say about God’s plan?

And it’s been a long, slow, pain and suffering filled process for homo sapiens during the course of recorded history.

Right, and this exacerbates the problem of natural evil.

 

[JimG]

Intellect and free will are faculties of the human soul. The soul remains intact even in a brain damaged or comatose human being. A brain damaged patient has damage to the body, not the soul.

Written history is not, perhaps, the only evidence of a human society, but it is a good indication of a self-reflective soul in operation. Oral histories can also be evidence of this (my family is an example), but they are harder to document.

I presume that homo erectus is not a human being; else he would be called homo sapiens.

I think the questions posed in the original post have already been answered.

 

[bosonhiggs]

1. I was reading about the soul on Catholic Encyclopedia where it states: “The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.”
   What becomes of the soul when a person is brain dead or in a vegetative state, when they’re unable to think, feel or exercise their will? Has their soul left the body?

I have, personally, always believed that individuals who are brain dead are dead and their souls have moved on - even if their bodies are still being supported by machines. Vegetative state is a different matter, because they are (as far as we know) still living, so their souls are still contained within their bodies. They are not necessarily unable to think or feel, but their bodies are still animated and able to continue living without assistance (unlike those who are brain dead).

 

[JimG]

I have, personally, always believed that individuals who are brain dead are dead and their souls have moved on - even if their bodies are still being supported by machines. Vegetative state is a different matter, because they are (as far as we know) still living, so their souls are still contained within their bodies. They are not necessarily unable to think or feel, but their bodies are still animated and able to continue living without assistance (unlike those who are brain dead).

Personally I don’t much trust the concept of “brain death.” Philosophically it is a problem, in that the soul is the animating principle of the body–even with machines attached. So if the soul has really departed, the body has no animating principle, and it should be completely dead–a corpse. I’ve also heard stories of adverse reactions when organs are removed from non-anesthetized ‘brain dead’ patients. Are they corpses or not?

 

[Faith1960]

I have, personally, always believed that individuals who are brain dead are dead and their souls have moved on - even if their bodies are still being supported by machines. Vegetative state is a different matter, because they are (as far as we know) still living, so their souls are still contained within their bodies. They are not necessarily unable to think or feel, but their bodies are still animated and able to continue living without assistance (unlike those who are brain dead).

That’s what I’m thinking, too.

 

[Faith1960]

Personally I don’t much trust the concept of “brain death.” Philosophically it is a problem, in that the soul is the animating principle of the body–even with machines attached. So if the soul has really departed, the body has no animating principle, and it should be completely dead–a corpse. I’ve also heard stories of adverse reactions when organs are removed from non-anesthetized ‘brain dead’ patients. Are they corpses or not?

What kind of adverse reactions occurred? My thoughts on brain death is that the body is dead but is “breathing” because the machines are pumping air into the lungs.

 

[bosonhiggs]

Personally I don’t much trust the concept of “brain death.” Philosophically it is a problem, in that the soul is the animating principle of the body–even with machines attached. So if the soul has really departed, the body has no animating principle, and it should be completely dead–a corpse. I’ve also heard stories of adverse reactions when organs are removed from non-anesthetized ‘brain dead’ patients. Are they corpses or not?

Basically, yeah, they are corpses. They’re dead, reanimated corpses. Zombies, if you will. A bit harsh

If you are brain dead it means that you can no longer support the involuntary functions necessary for life (such as breathing or making sure organ systems are running properly) without life support. They only continue to “live” because they are on life support, which is animating the body. Without it their bodies would not continue to “move”. Medically brain death is an indicator of…death death (a death certificate is even issued when brain death is declared)- but it is up to the family/next of kin/etc to decide when (or if) to pull the plug. Honest question - why do you not believe fully in brain death?

Those stories could very well be true, and they can be explained. It’s not a response to pain, if that’s what you mean to imply -one of the criteria that needs to be met before the diagnoses of “brain dead” is no response to pain. There’s a lot that goes into the actual diagnoses (if you’re interested you can check this out: medstudents.com.br/neuro/neuro5.htm ).

The reactions could be completely normal responses to being taken off life support machines and “dying” - the bodies are still alive until the organs needed for the transplant are removed, at which point the life support is shut off - it’s been noted in many other situations. Apparently there are a lot of cases of bodies sitting straight up! Its like chickens who run around after their heads have been cut off, or it may be due to gases escaping the body or rigor mortis setting in (deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rigor-Mortis-and-Other-Postmortem-Changes.html)

 

[JimG]

Basically, yeah, they are corpses. They’re dead, reanimated corpses. Zombies, if you will. A bit harsh

If you are brain dead it means that you can no longer support the involuntary functions necessary for life (such as breathing or making sure organ systems are running properly) without life support. They only continue to “live” because they are on life support, which is animating the body. Without it their bodies would not continue to “move”. Medically brain death is an indicator of…death death (a death certificate is even issued when brain death is declared)- but it is up to the family/next of kin/etc to decide when (or if) to pull the plug. Honest question - why do you not believe fully in brain death?

Those stories could very well be true, and they can be explained. It’s not a response to pain, if that’s what you mean to imply -one of the criteria that needs to be met before the diagnoses of “brain dead” is no response to pain. There’s a lot that goes into the actual diagnoses (if you’re interested you can check this out: medstudents.com.br/neuro/neuro5.htm ).

The reactions could be completely normal responses to being taken off life support machines and “dying” - the bodies are still alive until the organs needed for the transplant are removed, at which point the life support is shut off - it’s been noted in many other situations. Apparently there are a lot of cases of bodies sitting straight up! Its like chickens who run around after their heads have been cut off, or it may be due to gases escaping the body or rigor mortis setting in (deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rigor-Mortis-and-Other-Postmortem-Changes.html)

No, the responses I am thinking of are the patient jerking and pulling away when you begin to cut him open for his organs. I haven’t kept up on this, but I’m thinking that because of this some nursing personnel didn’t want to be there, so they started using anesthesia.

There’s one sure way to tell if a “brain dead” patient is really dead. Unhook the machines and see if his heart and lungs stop. If so, then he’s dead.

The problem I have with ‘brain death’ criteria is that it equates the person with the brain. If that’s the case, then the human soul resides only in the brain. But that’s not correct, as the human soul is the animating principle of the entire body. And if it takes a functioning brain to be a human being, then abortion before brain development would be OK.

Further, it seems we are saying that the patient is alive, except for his brain–because dead organs do no one any good. So the patient is partly alive and partly dead, according to medical science. That’s not good enough for me to want people to start cutting me open with my heart still beating.

 

[grannymh]

I’m still waiting if I can pin down an official answer on what species the Church includes in its definition of “man”.

Would a common sense answer help?

Church writers would use the same species in its definition of man as themselves.

 

[grannymh]

So even though the Church has allowed room for belief in macro-evolution, they still have not decided which hominids have/had souls. Is it not possible that other archaic hominids had souls, i.e. Homo floresiensis, which only went extinct 12,000 years ago?

Very little is known about hominids whose anatomy decomposed or became fossils with no evidence of the soul’s functions… Yes, I do know that hominids made tools and built fires but I am talking about true intellect and will which makes bombs and penicillin. Therefore, it can be said that hominids are not the same as you and I

According to Catholic teaching which includes the reason for Jesus Christ, there had to be two sole parents of a species endowed with an unique human nature consisting of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body. The Catholic Church does not rule on any scientific theory for the material anatomy of the human person; but it does insist that the spiritual soul is created directly by God.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is sacred.

 

[redhen]

Would a common sense answer help?

Church writers would use the same species in its definition of man as themselves.

That sounds like circular reasoning; what species has an immortal soul - man. What’s a man? A being that has an immortal soul.

 

[redhen]

Very little is known about hominids whose anatomy decomposed or became fossils with no evidence of the soul’s functions… Yes, I do know that hominids made tools and built fires but I am talking about true intellect and will which makes bombs and penicillin.

There is evidence for grave goods in some archaic hominid burials. This would indicate other species besides homo sapiens sapiens had thoughts about an afterlife.

Therefore, it can be said that hominids are not the same as you and I

I submit this is a difference in degree, not type. A sharpened stick and a bomb have the same function.

According to Catholic teaching which includes the reason for Jesus Christ, there had to be two sole parents of a species endowed with an unique human nature consisting of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body. The Catholic Church does not rule on any scientific theory for the material anatomy of the human person; but it does insist that the spiritual soul is created directly by God.

Yup, this teaching is known to me, and it goes back to those borrowed ancient near east texts I mentioned. I disagree, in fact I dissent.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by redhen forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I’m still waiting if I can pin down an official answer on what species the Church includes in its definition of “man”.

Would a common sense answer help?
Church writers would use the same species in its definition of man as themselves.

That sounds like circular reasoning; what species has an immortal soul - man. What’s a man? A being that has an immortal soul.

It is circular in that the species as a definition of man and the species of the Church men are the same.

Please note that originally neither one of us named or defined the species. In post 36, you introduced the idea of an immortal soul. That looks as if “a being” also needs to be defined since one could say that all species are a living organism or a living being.

What I am getting at is – what is the definition of the human species? Any definition will do as a start. Yes, I do know that there are least two definitions with various particulars for the human species.

I would not be so nit-picky except that I remember you as an excellent thinker. Your link to the essay regarding Descartes and animals increased my understanding. Currently, I would like to increase my understanding of the soul. Being more an experiential learner, I like to turn concepts inside out.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[grannymh]

Yup, this teaching is known to me, and it goes back to those borrowed ancient near east texts I mentioned. I disagree, in fact I dissent.

I will respect your worldview. I will respond to the rest of the post much later.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[redhen]

What I am getting at is – what is the definition of the human species? Any definition will do as a start. Yes, I do know that there are least two definitions with various particulars for the human species.

I’m not an evolutionary biologist, so I will go with the high school textbook criteria; a species is a class of creatures which cannot produce fertile offspring with other classes of creatures.

However, there is some genetic evidence for modern human and neanderthal interbreeding, so I’m not sure if neanderthal can be classed as a distinct species.

nature.com/news/2010/100420/full/news.2010.194.html

When people, or the Church for that matter, speak of man or humans, I assume they refer to homo sapiens sapiens.