What is the Church definition of conception?

[GrantMeGrace]

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.

 

[SoCalRC]

That is actually a very good question, to which I do not have a satisfactory answer. I became interested in the question when the Church began taking a stance on Plan B, the so called morning after pill.

It was not surprising that the Church found the pill objectionable. It is undeniably a form of contraception. What I did find surprising is that the Church appears to be asserting that Plan B is also objectionable because it is “potentially abortive”. That is, that the termination of a pregnancy is involved.

Why this is confusing is Plan B is basically progesterone. Progesterone suppresses LH, or Luteinizing Hormone. A spike in LH triggers ovulation. So the whole concept behind Plan B is that ovulation is temporarily suspended past the life span of any sperm in the woman’s reproductive tract. If an egg is already released, the progesterone appears to do nothing. In other words, it does not appear to have any impact on fertilization or implantation, only ovulation. So it works by keeping egg from meeting sperm, not by impacting the development of a fertilized zygote. That is why it is considered ‘emergency contraception’ by most medical doctors, not an ‘abortion pill’.

However, I am sure that the Church has its reasons for assigning the “abortive” label. I just have not been able to determine if it is the result of a potential abnormal condition (ex. possible side effect) or a more complex definition of conception than fertilization.

Sorry to have been so long winded, you just happened to ask something I have wondered about as well.

 

[Della]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1711 Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in “seeking and loving what is true and good” (GS 15 § 2).

2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

If the fertilized egg passes out of the womb and is lost it is a natural abortion of the baby. No matter how small or young or old any human being is he is still a human being with his own unique set of DNA and his own soul.

 

[Steve40]

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 Church has given the benefit of the doubt to life at conception. When in doubt let live, don’t kill. Any hormonal contraceptive that prevents implantation effectively kills the child and is an abortion.

Scientifically life begins at conception. The cells that are formed are fully human. Time for growth and location never makes a person less of a human person. The only true criteria for human existence is existence. Since the right to live is a right that comes from God, we do not have the right to say when the right begins or ends. Existence is the only valid criteria for personhood or being human.

 

[rpp]

That is actually a very good question, to which I do not have a satisfactory answer. I became interested in the question when the Church began taking a stance on Plan B, the so called morning after pill.

It was not surprising that the Church found the pill objectionable. It is undeniably a form of contraception. What I did find surprising is that the Church appears to be asserting that Plan B is also objectionable because it is “potentially abortive”. That is, that the termination of a pregnancy is involved.

Why this is confusing is Plan B is basically progesterone. Progesterone suppresses LH, or Luteinizing Hormone. A spike in LH triggers ovulation. So the whole concept behind Plan B is that ovulation is temporarily suspended past the life span of any sperm in the woman’s reproductive tract. If an egg is already released, the progesterone appears to do nothing. In other words, it does not appear to have any impact on fertilization or implantation, only ovulation. So it works by keeping egg from meeting sperm, not by impacting the development of a fertilized zygote. That is why it is considered ‘emergency contraception’ by most medical doctors, not an ‘abortion pill’.

However, I am sure that the Church has its reasons for assigning the “abortive” label. I just have not been able to determine if it is the result of a potential abnormal condition (ex. possible side effect) or a more complex definition of conception than fertilization.

Sorry to have been so long winded, you just happened to ask something I have wondered about as well.

I believe your description as the process is incomplete. The Plan B also prevents implantation of a fertilized egg (post-conception). That is the abortive aspect of it.

I do not know what the actual teaching of the Church is, but my guess is that the Church’s definition of conception is pretty much what the Medical community traditionally taught. Conception occurs at the moment of fertilization. And in that instant, God grants us an immortal soul.

As to what happens to the soul of a miscarried baby, and aborted fetus and a 2 year old unbaptized child that dies in a car accident is a question the Church has not issued a definitive teaching on yet.

Finally, the medical community may be revising this definition to ease the conscience of doctors who have become mass murderers.

 

[SoCalRC]

I believe your description as the process is incomplete. The Plan B also prevents implantation of a fertilized egg (post-conception).

Could you point me to some evidence of that? Understand, I have already acknowledged that Plan B would be a mortal sin for any Catholic, I am just trying to futher understand.

Della: I am sorry, but I believe that Church teaching is slightly different. We hold that each soul is a unique creation by God. We had a long standing belief on when ensoulment occurs (when a developing fetus becomes a human being), but Pope Pius IX said that modern biology had put that understanding in question. He reaffirmed that at the earliest stages of fetal development, ensoulment has not occured, but abortion is still morally unacceptable because it is “anticipated murder”.

That was in 1869. As recently as 1989 the Church has maintianed that ensoulment does occur, but has no stance on when the exact moment occurs. From a biological standpoint it seems doubtful that a fertilized zygote is an ensouled human being. That is because it sometimes divides into two or more discrete human beings. This would make “simultaneous animation” (the idea that fertilization and ensoulment occur simultaneously) heretical.

This does not change the Church teaching. Abortion at any stage of fetal development remains a “grave moral disorder”. I just mention it because concepts like Traducism are common in some Evangelical Christian denominations, but rejected by the Mother Church.

Best Regards

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Could you point me to some evidence of that? Understand, I have already acknowledged that Plan B would be a mortal sin for any Catholic, I am just trying to futher understand.
. . .

Re Plan B abortion possibility see Judy Brown on EWTN

 

[Steve40]

That was in 1869. As recently as 1989 the Church has maintianed that ensoulment does occur, but has no stance on when the exact moment occurs. From a biological standpoint it seems doubtful that a fertilized zygote is an ensouled human being. That is because it sometimes divides into two or more discrete human beings. This would make “simultaneous animation” (the idea that fertilization and ensoulment occur simultaneously) heretical.

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? Here you had an egg from Mary and a Spirm from the Holy Spirit. Even if the Holy Spirit didn’t use Spirm there was obviously a contribution of 23 chomazomes. I think it is highly impobable that the Holy Spirit made a Physical contribution without the Result Being Fully Human and Fully God.

All flesh points to Christ we are in the image of Him and not vice versa. Therefore when a husband makes the contribution to his wife the resulting life is fully human.

 

[vz71]

Could you point me to some evidence of that?

Regardless of the media slant involved, USAToday reported this fact thus:

The pill prevents 89% of pregnancies if taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. It doesn’t cause abortions. Rather, it works like a regular birth control pill to inhibit fertilization of an egg or prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-01-20-plan-b-our_x.htm

And the Washington Post reported this:

Religious conservatives and some members of Congress say that pregnancy begins with the fertilizing of the egg. They argue that anything that harms the resulting embryo amounts to abortion. Although Plan B generally works by preventing fertilization, researchers believe that in some cases it might keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083101271.html

 

[GrantMeGrace]

A fertilized egg that does not implant always dies. It seems to me we need three definitive acts: marital relations, fertilization, and implantation. All three acts must occur to definitively lead to a human being. If any of them is absent, a human being can never be born. If any of them is absent, there is no potential life. I don’t know when ensoulment occurs, but I can see it occurring at the moment of the third definitive act, at the implantation.

Actually, that’s not quite right either. In Vitro fertilization followed by implantation also leads to a human being. But I can see in that case the marital relation can be said to have taken place in an unnatural, immoral way.

In my mind, whether ensoulment occurs at fertilization or implantation doesn’t change the Church teaching on contraception. I think the point is to not interfere with the natural process of procreation. Therefore we cannot bypass the marriage act, willfully suppress fertility, prevent fertilization or implantation, or abort after implantation. In this reasoning it’s not relevant whether ensoulment occurs at fertlization or implantation.

 

[Steve40]

A fertilized egg that does not implant always dies. It seems to me we need three definitive acts: marital relations, fertilization, and implantation. All three acts must occur to definitively lead to a human being. If any of them is absent, a human being can never be born. If any of them is absent, there is no potential life. I don’t know when ensoulment occurs, but I can see it occurring at the moment of the third definitive act, at the implantation.

Actually, that’s not quite right either. In Vitro fertilization followed by implantation also leads to a human being. But I can see in that case the marital relation can be said to have taken place in an unnatural, immoral way.

In my mind, whether ensoulment occurs at fertilization or implantation doesn’t change the Church teaching on contraception. I think the point is to not interfere with the natural process of procreation. Therefore we cannot bypass the marriage act, willfully suppress fertility, prevent fertilization or implantation, or abort after implantation. In this reasoning it’s not relevant whether ensoulment occurs at fertlization or implantation.

Another way to look at this is through the eyes of Theology of the Body. The meaning of being human in the body is being gift of self. This meaning is written in us being made in the likeness and image of God as male and female. The unityof husband and wife is an image of the Trinity. It is the Love of the Trinity that gives life. Consistent with the source of the image the gift of human life is given when the union of husband wfie truely become one and their cells intertwine to form one human life. Are they two or are they three or are they one. All of these are true just as God is One and God is Three.

 

[Transformer]

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.

 

[DJim]

Folks–remember the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

If the Blessed Virgin is preserved from original sin in the first instance of her conception, then doesn’t that imply the presence of the soul at the moment of conception?

One thing is sure–“ensoulment” can NOT be said to happen as late as “implantation” in the uterus, any more than it can be said to happen as late as birth. The “location” of the new life should not be used to determine his/her humanity.

The truth is, once a distinct and living human body is present–which IS scientifically at the moment of conception–there is NO reason to believe this living creation is less than human. The sanctity of human life arises from both body and soul.

The holiness of the human body is in itself worthy of complete protection…

DJim

 

[djoseph]

A fertilized egg that does not implant always dies. It seems to me we need three definitive acts: marital relations, fertilization, and implantation. All three acts must occur to definitively lead to a human being. If any of them is absent, a human being can never be born. If any of them is absent, there is no potential life. I don’t know when ensoulment occurs, but I can see it occurring at the moment of the third definitive act, at the implantation.

Actually, that’s not quite right either. In Vitro fertilization followed by implantation also leads to a human being. But I can see in that case the marital relation can be said to have taken place in an unnatural, immoral way.

In my mind, whether ensoulment occurs at fertilization or implantation doesn’t change the Church teaching on contraception. I think the point is to not interfere with the natural process of procreation. Therefore we cannot bypass the marriage act, willfully suppress fertility, prevent fertilization or implantation, or abort after implantation. In this reasoning it’s not relevant whether ensoulment occurs at fertlization or implantation.

Bold statement. Are you saying that a child born out of wedlock is not human? Or a person who was born through vitro vertilization is unnatural, and immoral? i.e. also not human?
It seems you are, since humans are born with morals.

 

[mapleoak]

If the Blessed Virgin is preserved from original sin in the first instance of her conception, then doesn’t that imply the presence of the soul at the moment of conception?

One thing is sure–“ensoulment” can NOT be said to happen as late as “implantation” in the uterus, any more than it can be said to happen as late as birth. The “location” of the new life should not be used to determine his/her humanity.

Exactly. In fact, at the moment of conception, the entire ‘universe’ has something added to it which will last forever - a human soul created at that instance by God. Excellent cite on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception btw.

Bold statement. Are you saying that a child born out of wedlock is not human? Or a person who was born through vitro vertilization is unnatural, and immoral? i.e. also not human?
It seems you are, since humans are born with morals.

It makes absolutely no difference to the question of the humanity of the person conceived through unnatural means. In vitro fertilization, out of wedlock relations, etc., are immoral acts to which the procurers and participants in their commencement are subject to their moral gravity. The newly created human beings are brought about through procreation by man and God. Man does his part, God does His. This is true even if man uses immoral means, for which the resulting human life is not nor cannot be culpable of.

 

[GrantMeGrace]

Bold statement. Are you saying that a child born out of wedlock is not human? Or a person who was born through vitro vertilization is unnatural, and immoral? i.e. also not human?
It seems you are, since humans are born with morals.

I’m sorry you read that into what I said but I meant no such thing. Of course the humanity of the child had nothing to do with the morality of its creation.

If the Blessed Virgin is preserved from original sin in the first instance of her conception, then doesn’t that imply the presence of the soul at the moment of conception?

Hence my “dishonest and idiotic” effort to discern when conception really happens. Scientific knowledge has revealed more detail of the natural laws and I was wondering if the Church holds conception = fertilization, or was the Church referring to conception as an event which leads definitively to a human being.

One thing is sure–“ensoulment” can NOT be said to happen as late as “implantation” in the uterus, any more than it can be said to happen as late as birth. The “location” of the new life should not be used to determine his/her humanity.

This reasoning is more persuasive to me. Should human intellect ever discover how to enable a human embryo to develop outside of the womb, the humanity of the child cannot be questioned. Therefore conception must occur at the singular act of fertilization.

 

[GrantMeGrace]

… but Pope Pius IX said that modern biology had put that understanding in question. He reaffirmed that at the earliest stages of fetal development, ensoulment has not occured, but abortion is still morally unacceptable because it is “anticipated murder”.

That was in 1869. …

Hmm. Was Pope Pius IX speaking infallibly when he “reaffirmed that at the earliest stages of fetal development, ensoulment has not occured”? There’s no fetal development before fertilization. So if conception occurs at fertilization, there cannot be fetal development before ensoulment. In that sense Pope Pius IX was affirming something that cannot be true, unless conception occurs after fertilization.

 

[GrantMeGrace]

… humans are born with morals.

This is off topic, but…are we? We are born with its opposite, concupiscence, an inclination to evil. Babies and toddlers of themselves display the most selfish behavior. Absent of love, guidance and discipline (and sometimes even in spite of), children often treat each other cruelly and thoughtlessly. In general, we are self-centered well into adulthood. Somewhere along the line we do discover it is better to be moral than not. But are we born with morals? Or do we learn them by outside emulation, inside discovery, and the grace of God?

 

[Amaris]

I believe ensoulment begins at fertilization, but has the church said anything about how this relates to identical twins, which form later? I wouldn’t think they share a soul, of course (though you often hear stories of their psychic-like connections, even when raised thousands of miles apart, unaware of each other), but what’s the alternative? One soul until the zygote splits, and then God sends down another? Or two in the one little baby, until the split?

 

[GrantMeGrace]

I believe ensoulment begins at fertilization, but has the church said anything about how this relates to identical twins, which form later? I wouldn’t think they share a soul, of course (though you often hear stories of their psychic-like connections, even when raised thousands of miles apart, unaware of each other), but what’s the alternative? One soul until the zygote splits, and then God sends down another? Or two in the one little baby, until the split?

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.