What is the Church definition of conception?

[Amaris]

I like that answer, thank you. It’s a very elegant solution.

 

[SoCalRC]

Forgive me for taking some extra time before responding. Whenever I trigger emotional responses I like to take a little time for prayer and reflection before replying. If I miss a direct question below, I’m sorry.

Re Plan B abortion possibility see Judy Brown on EWTN

Thank you. I should have been more clear. I am aware of the Church’s position (a good glimpse of USCCB objections can be found here). I am also aware of the supposition that because there is discernable change to the endometrium implantation may be inhibited.

What I have not been able to find is any clinical/scientific evidence to support that this actually occurs. It still seems like an exaggerated claim of additional effectiveness by Duramed, hence the conditional language in promotional literature.

Again, to be clear, Levonorgestrel is inarguably a contraceptive, so its use is prohibited by my Faith in any event. I am just trying to advance my understanding of the Church’s position.

Why is a fertilied zygote (baby) any less human than you are? What about when Christ was a fertilized Zygote? Did He have a human soul?

From a biological standpoint the differences are fairly pronounced. I am a living organism, the zygote is not. In other words, the zygote is a living cell, but it is not a single cell creature in the biological sense. I also have the gift of concious thought, which seperates me (like the rest of my species) from much of the organic life on the planet.

From a theological standpoint, I can only speak as a Roman Catholic. In that context, we are seperated by the presence of a soul. That does not mean I can destroy the zygote, it remains tremendously precious because it is a potential human being. This belief is also anything but new. When Mary was pregnant with Jesus, the belief of her faith was that the developing fetus was precious, but not yet human. Under Jewish law at the time, you became a human being at birth, when you received the breath of life.

We can see this influence in Holy Scripture. Note that Adam was first formed, then received the breath of life. Note, also, that in ancient texts ‘Spirit’ can be literally translated as ‘Breath’. Ancient Jewish views can be upsetting to some modern Catholics, particularly when we look at how pregnancies were dealt with when a woman was condemned to death, but it is important to remember context. Jesus was born in a culture and religion that rejected abortion in most cases and considered infanticide murder. Pauline Christianity flourished among a population with no sociel mores rejecting abortion of infanticide. For over 1000 years the Church struggled with infanticide as a common practice among the laity. In other words, the beliefs that Jesus was born into were about 1500 years ahead of their time.

A living human individual, in the biological sense, exists from the moment of fertilization; to deny this much is literally total dishonesty or complete idiocy. You might as well deny that the sky is blue.

I am sorry that you feel strongly enough to question both my integrity. As a Roman Catholic I am compelled to obey and defer to the teaching authority of the Church. As we walk through the ages, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas, and numerous popes, up to John Paul II, have either actively promoted or implicitly accepted delayed ensoulment as a necessary and important Church teaching.

Note from my comments above that this is actually an extension of our Jewish heritage as well. I am sorry if this upsets you, but if you take the time to examine the concept and the arguments for it deeply I believe you will find that the Saints, Popes, and Doctors of the Church did have some compelling reasons.

cont.

 

[SoCalRC]

Hmm. Was Pope Pius IX speaking infallibly when he “reaffirmed that at the earliest stages of fetal development, ensoulment has not occured”?

That is actually an interesting question. Secular skeptics and some self described ‘Progressive Catholics’ have argued that he made the change specifically to appease the French, who were concerned about negative population trends, and gain support for the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. Personally, I think he was simply responding sincerely. Darwin had just published his work on natural selection, but no real understanding of genetics was yet available. So ‘spermist’ theories abounded.

I’m not saying that popes do not react to geopolitical conditions, etc. But in this case I think that his own words can be taken at face value. He was not rejecting ages of Church tradition. He was simply noting that science was bringing into question our long standing beliefs on when ensoulment occurs, so the prudent thing was to error on the side of life. I think it is interesting that, in the process, he brought a laity, which had spent a millenia resisting the concept that burying newborns alive is evil, one step closer to the respect for potential life that Jesus was born into (see my notes above).

Regarding the specific question, papal infallibillity was not being asserted. However, the pope was retaining a Church teaching with at least a 1400 year history and many prominent proponents through history. Was it infallible via the Ordinary Magisterium? I do not feel qualified to express an opinion. There was (and is) dissention concerning its application with regards to abortion, but I have not any real evidence of dissention against the theological principle.

I believe ensoulment begins at fertilization, but has the church said anything about how this relates to identical twins, which form later? [Snip] One soul until the zygote splits, and then God sends down another? Or two in the one little baby, until the split?

You have hit on some of the reasons that so many important leaders and theologians in the Church believe that our teaching about Delayed Ensoulment remains important.

Look at it another way, about 20% of detected pregnancies world wide end in miscarriage in the first trimester. In the ancient world, the numbers were much higher (more like the 30-40% we see in parts of the developing world). Theologians asked, why would a loving and merciful God create so many souls simply to destroy them? So they looked to scripture and decided that, just as the vessel proceeded life in the case of Adam, we first created suitable vessels would God would then fill. For some reason, perhaps original sin, our vessals are often not suitable (the arguments are actually a lot more extensive, but this should give the idea).

If anything, modern science keeps this question relevant. Although fewer detected pregnancies now end in miscarriage, we know know that huge numbers of pregnancies spontaneously abort before the woman is even aware she is pregnant.

cont.

 

[SoCalRC]

I happen to think a soul can fill out whatever vessel it’s placed in. When the vessel is divided into separate wholes, the portion of the original soul that remains with each part become whole and fill out the new bodies. The soul becomes two distinct, separate, and whole, just as the one body now becomes two distinct, separate, and whole, without diminishing any quality or quantity. Twins do not share a soul, just as they do not share a body.

I do not mean to sound at all judgemental, but from a Roman Catholic point of view this would appear to be heretical. First we reject ancient mystic teachings and witchcraft. Part of the reason that the Church not only accepted the concept of delayed ensoulment, but also had a strong opinion about when ensoulment occurs is that even in the first few centuries, it was already well known that early fetuses do not have an obvious human form.

In today’s context, it can be hard to understand why St. Jerome, or St. Thomas Aquinas centuries later, would be so adament that ensoulment must occur after a fetus reaches an obvious human form. But, like our penchant for burying our unwanted young, the Church also spent a very long time stamping out our pagan beliefs. Think of the things we still associate with witchcraft, vampires and the supernatural, consider that these were once counter beliefs to Christianity, and it is easy to understand why ‘human souls only go in human forms’ was Church teaching for 1400 years.

Second, we Roman Catholics are Creationists. We believe that each of us is blessed with a soul that was specifically created by God. The idea that human souls flow and divide with the biological process is not new. Tertullian wrote extensively on it in the latter part of the 2nd Century. His believed that this was also how original sin passed from one generation to the next. But these beliefs, sometimes called “Traducianism” or “Generationism” are held to be heretical (the Catholic Encyclopedia entry is here).

Peace be with you all

 

[DJim]

Before addressing some of SoCalRC’s comments, I must state for the record that the Catholic view of the human soul will not permit the notion of the soul being “divisible.” It’s not. It’s immortal and indivisible.

The issue of identical twinning is no different than the issue of laboratory cloning, with regard to ensoulment. Whether a clone is created immorally in a lab, or whether a “clone” (twin) is created naturally, it would simply be the case that God creates the human soul immediately at the moment of “inception”–the first moment of existence of the twinned–or cloned–embryo.

Whether through natural “conception” or through “inception”, God immediately creates the human soul from nothing. That’s His job–souls don’t just “divide” like cells do…

SoCalRC wrote:

I am also aware of the supposition that because there is discernable change to the endometrium implantation may be inhibited.What I have not been able to find is any clinical/scientific evidence to support that this actually occurs. It still seems like an exaggerated claim of additional effectiveness by Duramed, hence the conditional language in promotional literature.

ANY hormonal contraceptive can work in three ways–1. prevent ovulation, 2. prevent conception, 3. prevent implantation. That’s the nature of the drug.

As such, hormonal “contraceptives” are either contraceptive or abortifacient if implantation is prevented.

From a biological standpoint the differences are fairly pronounced. I am a living organism, the zygote is not. In other words, the zygote is a living cell, but it is not a single cell creature in the biological sense.

Then your “biological” sense is erroneous. The zygote is indeed a living organism.

I also have the gift of concious thought, which seperates me (like the rest of my species) from much of the organic life on the planet.

Possession of the gift of conscious thought is not a determining factor regarding whether one possesses the dignity of the human person.

From a theological standpoint, I can only speak as a Roman Catholic. In that context, we are seperated by the presence of a soul. That does not mean I can destroy the zygote, it remains tremendously precious because it is a potential human being.

There has never been, is not, and never will be ANY such thing as a “potential human being.” God does NOT create “potential human beings”–God creates human beings, period.

This belief is also anything but new. When Mary was pregnant with Jesus, the belief of her faith was that the developing fetus was precious, but not yet human. Under Jewish law at the time, you became a human being at birth, when you received the breath of life.

The only way to make sense of what you just wrote is if the phrase “belief of her faith” means “belief according to Jewish judicial law”. Marys faith was clear. At the Visitation of Mary and Elizabeth, there is NO question as to the humanity of the babes in their wombs.

Jesus was born in a culture and religion that rejected abortion in most cases and considered infanticide murder. Pauline Christianity flourished among a population with no sociel mores rejecting abortion of infanticide.

Actually, among the FIRST moral principles established in the early Church was the Christian prohibition of abortion and infanticide.

I am sorry that you feel strongly enough to question both my integrity. As a Roman Catholic I am compelled to obey and defer to the teaching authority of the Church. As we walk through the ages, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas, and numerous popes, up to John Paul II, have either actively promoted or implicitly accepted delayed ensoulment as a necessary and important Church teaching.

This is simply not true. The Aristotelean concepts behind “delayed ensoulment” have not made good Catholic sense for a loooong time and were based entirely upon completely specious ancient theories about reproduction and the relative “perfection” of male and female.

John Paul II never to my knowledge embraced any form of belief in “delayed ensoulment”…it is not even a teaching of the Catholic faith and as such is neither necessary nor important…

Note from my comments above that this is actually an extension of our Jewish heritage as well. I am sorry if this upsets you, but if you take the time to examine the concept and the arguments for it deeply I believe you will find that the Saints, Popes, and Doctors of the Church did have some compelling reasons.

No, actually they did not have compelling reasons. The views regarding “delayed ensoulment” arose as a vestige of really bad “science”.

BTW–no one appears to have provided a direct quote from Pope Pius IX from his 1869 text. Can anyone give us the direct quote?

DJim

 

[estesbob]

Does the Church say conception occurs at fertilization, or at implantation? Or does the Church leave the definition to the medical community?

If a fertilized egg does not implant, it passes out of the woman’s body and the woman doesn’t even know it happened. In that case, was the woman ever pregnant?

If an implanted egg passes out of the woman’s body, it’s a miscarriage and the pregnancy is interrupted.

The idea that conception does not occur until implantation is fairly new. It can be traced to the development of the IUD in the late 50s early 60S. Anxious to justify its use pharmaceutical companies lobbied to have the definition changed.

As Dr. Samuel Wishard stated at the 1964 conference on the IUD:

“I do not think it necessary for us to change the traditional definition that conception has been the point of fertilization. It has been suggested that we ought to set our definition that pregnancy startes at implantation . I think it ought to occur to us that us were talking about a theological definition not a biological definition and this group can not possibly help in making this definition”

In response Dr. ChristopherTietze commented:

I fully agree with you sir that the time at which human life or any life begins is a philosophical question. However if a medical consensus develops and is maintained that pregnancy and therefore life begins in implantation eventually our brothers from other for faculties will listen.
----

The concept that conception occurs in implantation is not based on biology the public relations.

 

[Transformer]

I am sorry that you feel strongly enough to question both my integrity. As a Roman Catholic I am compelled to obey and defer to the teaching authority of the Church. As we walk through the ages, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas, and numerous popes, up to John Paul II, have either actively promoted or implicitly accepted delayed ensoulment as a necessary and important Church teaching.

I freely admit that my post didn’t address the issue of ensoulment; all I did was assert that an embryo that hasn’t yet implanted is an individual living organism of the human species.

From a biological standpoint the differences are fairly pronounced. I am a living organism, the zygote is not. In other words, the zygote is a living cell, but it is not a single cell creature in the biological sense. I also have the gift of concious thought, which seperates me (like the rest of my species) from much of the organic life on the planet.

Of course a zygote is a single-celled organism in the biological sense. It is single-celled, living, has a totally unique genetic code, and grows as an independent organism does. As to the idea that living human individuals who haven’t yet developed conscious thought don’t have a right to live: that’s a totally different argument.

 

[DJim]

Let’s be perfectly clear:

“Delayed ensoulment” has NEVER been a teaching of the Magisterium of the Church…

The inferior biological knowledge of the past gave rise to theories that were based upon whether the fully human “form” was present or not.

The consistent view has been (even when the flawed Aristotelean biology was believed) to presume that the human soul was created by God at the moment in which the fully human “form” was present. The belief was that conception was the beginning of a process through which both “vegetative” and “animal” forms were passed through on the way to the human form. And, further, that it took longer for the fully human female form to take shape because it was of lesser quality than the male form.

In this scheme, embraced even by folks like Aquinas, this meant that ensoulment for males happened sooner than for females. Forty and eighty days, respectively, just like Aristotle believed.

More modern science has made clear that our physical selves do not pass through mere “vegetative” and “animal” states of being, but rather our human “form” (genetically distinct individuated organism) comes into existence at the moment of conception (or “inception” with twinning).

Thus, if we apply the same logic applied through all of Church history–that God creates the human soul at the very moment the truly human form is present–then that means that ensoulment occurs at conception.

But, by focusing all our attention on when the “soul” comes into existence, we completely OVERLOOK the equally compelling evidence about human beings.

We Catholics do NOT believe that a human body minus a soul is merely inert matter not possessing human dignity. Once the human form exists, by virtue of the body being human, the body bears the dignity of the human person–regardless of the issue of whether a newly conceived living human body is viewed as having a soul (though it seems absolutely silly to say it does not have a soul, in my view).

Human life begins at conception (or inception). That’s all we need to know.

DJim

 

[manualman]

First, a bit on the OP’s questions.

1. The church does not defer to science to determine questions crucial to morality, but she DOES rely upon the (name removed by moderator)ut of science to understand and frame the moral questions. It is a crucial difference.
2. Don’t forget how the woman’s body works. The same hormonal signs that prepare the ovaries for ovulation, prepare the uterus for implantation. The use of artificial hormones to suppress ovulation should naturally be suspected of ALSO suppressing the preparations the uterus makes for implantation. It is no secret that the normal birth control pill when used continuously (without the placebos at the end of the pack) will suppress a woman’s period almost indefinately. Her period is her body’s way of disposing of the unused extra tissue readied for potential implantation. I don’t need an MD after my name to strongly suspect that if the woman on the pill doesn’t generate that tissue AND it is shown that sometime she does ovulate, that it is likely that an egg IS sometimes fertilized and fails to implant because the womb is not prepared.

You ask for scientific evidence of this. But if you mean proof, please reconsider. The only way to get that evidence is via experiments too ghastly to contemplate.

Now, lets talk ensoulment. This is much ado about nothing. As I stated above, the church considers scientific knowledge to frame the question. Historic questions on ensoulment came about in an era that knew nothing of genetics and chromosomes. The science of the day considered the man’s sperm to be ‘seed’ and the womb to be mere fertile soil. Is it any wonder that they had to scratch their heads and wonder exactly when the ‘seed’ became human? If you got Aquinas for a few minutes and explained the science of sperm, egg and DNA he’d come up with the current church teaching in about 3/4 of a second. He merely lacked the science to properly frame the question. Therefore, his (name removed by moderator)ut and those of similar era popes are moot because they were only attempting to answer questions that had a fatally flawed premise.

 

[GrantMeGrace]

…

Thus, if we apply the same logic applied through all of Church history–that God creates the human soul at the very moment the truly human form is present–then that means that ensoulment occurs at conception.
…
We Catholics do NOT believe that a human body minus a soul is merely inert matter not possessing human dignity. Once the human form exists, by virtue of the body being human, the body bears the dignity of the human person–regardless of the issue of whether a newly conceived living human body is viewed as having a soul (though it seems absolutely silly to say it does not have a soul, in my view).

DJim

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying the human form itself is worthy to be accorded the dignity of the human person, “regardless of the issue of whether a newly conceived living human body is viewed as having a soul.” How does that reconcile with the following, which seems to say without the soul, a “body made of matter” is not a human body.

CCC 364: The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul…

CCC 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.

It seems to me the paragraphs say the body is a human body because it is united with a soul. So until ensoulment occurs, the body made of matter is not a human body.

 

[DJim]

You may wish to read the 1975 “Declaration on Procured Abortion,” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith…

It states:

1. Any discrimination based on the various stages of life is no more justified than any other discrimination. The right to life remains complete in an old person, even one greatly weakened; it is not lost by one who is incurably sick. The right to life is no less to be respected in the small infant just born than in the mature person. In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins.** From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. **

1. To this perpetual evidence–perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation[19]–modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time–a rather lengthy time–to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. “The one who will be a man is already one.”

And footnote 19 is illuminating as well:

(footonote)19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

If there is a “human life” from conception on, then there is a “human body” from conception on.

The way CCC 364 and 365 are phrased, it seems to make my point for me–since no one would say a conceptus is not “alive”, and the CCC says it’s the soul that “animates” or “enlivens” the body, then it would seem the CCC is asserting the view that any living human body is in possession of a human soul.

My original point was that the human body has dignity precisely because its nature is to be the material component of a human person. Even in death, the body is treated reverently…

DJim

 

[SoCalRC]

You may wish to read the 1975 “Declaration on Procured Abortion,” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith…

Oddly, I was just going to bring this up. Look at what is quoted:

“13. To this perpetual evidence–perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation[19]”

Animation is ensoulment. And, from the footnote:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.”

Now, no matter how we slice it, this leaves open a question. How is it that the Church could be asserting that something is a human being, but then specifically leave open the question of rather or not it has a soul? As has been noted in this thread, that seems like a complete contradiction.

A mistake perhaps? Let’s examine THE GIFT OF LIFE (DONUM VITAE) - “Instruction on Respect for Human Life In its Origin and the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day”, also put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but 12 years later. From Part 1, section 1:

“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 the 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.[26]”

“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 as far as medical assistance is concerned.” (Emphasis added).

No, it seems that the Church is still not willing to state, catagorically, when ensoulment occurs. Why maintain a concept for 1400 years if it is simply primitive “bad science”?

We’ve already looked at twins. A single Zygote divides, but each resulting human person ends up with an indivisable soul created by God. But let’s look at another.

Many fertlized zygotes implant, but do not develop. They become cysts. The living tissue does not ‘die’, it even contains a DNA record that is not identical to the mother’s. Is this cyst a human being? If we took a hypodermic needle and babtised it would there be an effect?

For those who think I am trying to be purposely offensive, please reconsider - in 1758 Monsignor Francesco Cangiamila, as part of the “simultaneous animation” movement, published EMBRYOLOGIA SACRA. Fearing for the fate of embryos that might die in the womb, he advocated ‘in utero’ baptism with a syringe. A practice which, of course, would probably incur accidental abortions if practiced on a large scale.

The passion and emotion the Monsignor felt is present in many “simultaneous animation” writings. I would respectively submit that I run into the same emotion interacting with such believers today. And, as with the Monsignor, I try to give those opinions respect and consideration.

But really, all I am asserting is that, first, I find the evolving position of the Church on these matters inspiring, not something to be downplayed (see my response in this thread).

Second, I think it is exceptionally wise that the Church has maintained a distinction between our biological development and our spiritual development. I do not feel attacked in my faith when people disagree, and I am greatly sadened when my comments make others feel attacked in turn. I try not to forget that I am not just Roman Catholic, but Christian.

Best Regards

 

[st_lucy]

As a mother to many children who were unable to implant I find the statements on this thread of one not having a soul until implantation appalling. My children were every bit as much human as you and I, and just because their lives were very short does not make them any less. God created these humans and I believe that I will be able to see them again on day because they do have souls.

 

[DJim]

Now, no matter how we slice it, this leaves open a question. How is it that the Church could be asserting that something is a human being, but then specifically leave open the question of rather or not it has a soul? As has been noted in this thread, that seems like a complete contradiction.

It’s not a contradiction because, just like with Aquinas, the presence of a living human body is still evidence of a living human being. The Church cannot declare the timing of ensoulment with precision, but it can agree, with science, that a zygote or “conceptus” is alive and physically fully human.

“Animation” of the physical form and “Ensoulment” may be two different things. Maybe not. I would personally think not. But if they are, it doesn’t matter. The Church teaches that from the first moment of conception (or inception) there exists a living human being.

No, it seems that the Church is still not willing to state, catagorically, when ensoulment occurs. Why maintain a concept for 1400 years if it is simply primitive “bad science”?

The bad science was Aristotle’s, basically. Which gave rise to a theory as to when the soul was present. The science really didn’t improve until much more recently–19th Century at earliest, I think…

Many fertlized zygotes implant, but do not develop. They become cysts. The living tissue does not ‘die’, it even contains a DNA record that is not identical to the mother’s. Is this cyst a human being?

I would offer the opinion that, just as there can be “conception” (natural fertilization) and “inception” (cloning), there can be successful conception (one that creates the human form through the proper uniting of the DNA of the sperm and the egg) and can be unsuccessful conception (in which the DNA does not unite properly and therefore does not create the human form).

That is just my general opinion regarding how we might assess situations in which conception produces something other than a truly viable human form from the beginning (e.g. hydatidiform mole). I would never make any specific observation regarding any individual’s experience (or belief) on this topic. Even in these cases, it may be even more respectful and prudent to simply leave this question in the Hands of our Creator.

DJim

 

[rpp]

As a mother to many children who were unable to implant I find the statements on this thread of one not having a soul until implantation appalling. My children were every bit as much human as you and I, and just because their lives were very short does not make them any less. God created these humans and I believe that I will be able to see them again on day because they do have souls.

I agree with you, St Lucy. While I realize the Church has not made a doctrinal or infallible declaration, I believe that conception and “ensoulment” occurs at the instant of fertilization.

In fact, I might even entertain the idea that human fertilization is an inherently spiritual process.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Every living thing - animal or vegetable - must have a life source which St Thomas called a soul. Animal and vegetable souls are perishable, the human soul is an immortal spirit. Thus at conception a human must have a soul of some sort if it is to grow. Now it can either receive a human spirit immediately at conception or receive an animal soul at that point and a human spirit later. Occam’s Razor requires that we assume the simpler explanation until someone proves the need for the more complex.

 

[SoCalRC]

As a mother to many children who were unable to implant I find the statements on this thread of one not having a soul until implantation appalling. My children were every bit as much human as you and I, and just because their lives were very short does not make them any less. God created these humans and I believe that I will be able to see them again on day because they do have souls.

I am sorry that you are having negative emotions. If it is consolation, no one here appears to be disputing Catholic teaching. That is, everyone here acknowledges that each of your fertilized ovum was a precious creation, to be valued as we value our own lives.

This is not only crystal clear in the documents that have recently been cited, but also in the works of Doctors of the Church, like St. Thomas Aquinas, but also in non-Canonized religious texts dating back to Jesus birth.

In other words, we are all called by our faith to cherish what you cherish and to fell sorrow for your obvious pain.

The subject here has simply been, what has the Church taught in the past and what the Church teaches today. I cannot change that for many centuries the Church taught something you find appalling. Nor can I change that the Church still refuses to take a stance on your belief of simultaneous animation today.

Since how we are called to act is unchanged, you might wonder, ‘why discuss it at all?’, since it is hurtful. But, in fact, no one’s motive is to harm individuals like yourself. The Church is not reluctant to openly embrace what you adamantly believe to hurt you, it is because there are serious theological questions to be considered.

Science has shown us that reproduction and birth is far more complicated that it might seem. And we humans are making it more complicated still. For example, in vitro fertilization techniques were developed, at least in part, to help people conceive, but this noble goal greats a moral dilemna for Catholics. Things like gene therapy are already helping with some tragic diseases, but that research has led to some strange forms of man made life… The point I am making is that we Catholics should discuss bioethics because changes are coming rather we like them or not. But the purpose of those discussions is not to hurt you or deny what you deem precious.

Best Wishes

 

[SoCalRC]

It’s not a contradiction because, just like with Aquinas, the presence of a living human body is still evidence of a living human being.

[snip]

But if they are, it doesn’t matter. The Church teaches that from the first moment of conception (or inception) there exists a living human being.

I would agree that is a fair assessment of both current Church teaching and of Aquinas’ COMMENTARY ON THE SENTANCES III and SUMMA CONTRA GENTILE II.

The bad science was Aristotle’s, basically. Which gave rise to a theory as to when the soul was present. The science really didn’t improve until much more recently–19th Century at earliest, I think…

Actually, it was Plato who first proposed the concept of duality (both a physical and spiritual self) and ensoulment. Aristotle just proposed that soul and form are linked. When you think about it from the point of view of someone just observing, it isn’t all that far fetched. When organic life forms die, they appear to lose their form and return, over time, to nothingness.

So Aristotle theorized that since the body loses form when the spirit is obviously absent, the assumption of form probably represents the presense of the spirit.

It is really not science, since there is no way to measure a soul, it is philosophy.

Remember, the Gospels were written in Greek, so it should be easy to understand how these Greek beliefs started competing with traditional Jewish teachings in the early church. When St. Augustine and later theologians like Aquinas accepted this they had additional reasons. They had no science to speak of, so again they had to go from scripture (God breathing life into Adam’s completed form), observation on human reproduction, and speculation about the nature and intent of God.

I supposed that we could say that ‘bad science’, or at least preliminary science, has played a real role since late in the 17th century. For example, early microscopes had optics so bad, that some people claimed that they could see tiny, complete human forms moving in seminal fluid. This gave rise to a whole bunch of spermist theories, some of which influenced theologians proposing simultaneous animation. Homonculus Spermists would be the most extreme example, but even respected individuals like Darwin were pushing variations (with no genetic explanation available, Darwin proposed that beneficial traits might be passed in the reproductive process as tiny components).

So we had a background in the mid 19th century of evolution, verification of the existance of the ovum, and wildy varying ‘science’ beliefs about sperm. On the flip side, we had the beginnings of the eugenics movement. In that light, I think that Pope Pius IX’s changes to doctine as well as making abortion grounds for automatic excommunication were very wise for the Church.

Even in these cases, it may be even more respectful and prudent to simply leave this question in the Hands of our Creator.

I’m sorry, I will have to respectfully disagree. As our understanding and options increase, serious thought and discussion would seem prudent. Case in point, at first glance in vitro fertilization practices and certain fertility drugs would seem to be ‘pro life’. It is not until the full ramifications are discussed that the serious moral ramifications are understood.

Best Regards

 

[SoCalRC]

Occam’s Razor requires that we assume the simpler explanation until someone proves the need for the more complex.

Well, St. Thomas Aquinas made it fairly complicated, still adopting that we progress from vegitable to animal to human, with the human soul being a special infussion that happened later…

The reason is that by accepting the existance of duality, we are already abandoning Occam’s Razor. We have to reconcile our beliefs about God with a world as God made it.

Personally, as someone who works in the hard sciences, I think God made things complicated on purpose. That way, as each generation makes new discoveries it can experience true wonder at his works.

Best Wishes

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Well, St. Thomas Aquinas made it fairly complicated, still adopting that we progress from vegitable to animal to human, with the human soul being a special infussion that happened later…

The reason is that by accepting the existance of duality, we are already abandoning Occam’s Razor. We have to reconcile our beliefs about God with a world as God made it.

Personally, as someone who works in the hard sciences, I think God made things complicated on purpose. That way, as each generation makes new discoveries it can experience true wonder at his works.

Best Wishes

As a physicist I think God is an efficient workman, who made His Creation no more complicated than necessary. I expct elegant solutions of Him. When things appear complicated there is a reason that we need to seek. For example, the appendix and junk DNA, which turned out to have very important functions.