When did CC emphatically affirm human life starts at conception esp. regarding abortion?

[tonydavies]

I read or heard from several ambiguous Catholic political pro-choice advocates that the Catholic Church did not definitively rule or state the beginning of life begins at conception until approx 50-200 years ago. Purportedly a Pope ruled that a priest who tried to obtain an abortion did not commit this particular sin because life only began at the quickening of the fetus (when he/she first moves).

What is the CC historically definitive stance on when life begins with regards a human life?

 

[stephe1987]

A better question would be when did the Church ever officially okay abortion? Rumors about a priest getting an abortion, even if true, do not make it okay. Priests do things they shouldn’t all the time. Some priests are okay with ABC or abortion even though those are two things the Church is explicitly against.

Even in the days of St. Thomas Aquinas, although they did not know when life began (science wasn’t advanced enough yet), they still knew it was wrong to kill an innocent human being. The church has been divided on the issues of killing the guilty, but killing the innocent (murder) is always wrong.

I don’t think the Bible ever says anything about it being okay to murder a child in the womb. A child in the womb is still a child. I saw a picture earlier today of a foot imprint on a woman’s stomach from the inside. Pre-born children are definitely human and children of God.

 

[Ignatius]

I read or heard from . . . .

The earliest Church document to explicitly condemn abortion is The Didache or Teaching of the Apostles, written about 50 AD. It specifically says you shall not kill the unborn child by abortion.

 

[Vincent1984]

I read or heard from several ambiguous Catholic political pro-choice advocates that the Catholic Church did not definitively rule or state the beginning of life begins at conception until approx 50-200 years ago. Purportedly a Pope ruled that a priest who tried to obtain an abortion did not commit this particular sin because life only began at the quickening of the fetus (when he/she first moves).

What is the CC historically definitive stance on when life begins with regards a human life?

It is very disingenuous of those campaigners. What they refer to is a time when, without today’s medical understanding, microscopes, ultrasounds, pee-on-a-stick pregnancy tests, there was no knowledge of the development of the foetus and how it is a distinct live human even from conception. Put another way, the Church could not state that “life begins at conception” until it had medical knowledge of conception itself. Nevertheless, the Church has always opposed in the strongest terms any action to prevent an act of sexual intercourse leading to birth, even if medical understanding of the time thought of it as contraception rather than abortion.

In that particular case (though I have not heard of it before), it could be that the Pope was refusing to punish the priest, when there was not the moral certainty of pregnancy before quickening, and therefore he could not have been proved to have procured an actual abortion.

It is similar today. Actions leading to punushment must be interpreted strictly, not broadly. Therefore the canonical penalty of excommunication laetae sententiae for abortion is only for someone who actually succeeds in procuring an abortion, not merely someone who attempts to do so. Because, in the example you gave, pregancy could not be proven until quickening, it may have been seen as difficult to give a punishment for abortion if it was not clear that one had taken place.

Of course, in my opinion, attempt at abortion renders one morally unable to receive holy communion until sacramental confession … but this is not the same as the canonical penalty of excommunication.

 

[Brendan]

The Church has always held that abortion was evil.

You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

Didache AD 120

What was in question was when the sin of abortion translated into a type of murder.

That depened on exactly when the soul entered the body of the child. Since the chief power of the soul is animation ( making the ensouled matter alive), it would normally be easy to tell. But all of this was happening in the womb, so no one was sure when this happend.

When you felt the baby move, that was a 100 positive sign that ensoulment had occured, but when exactly did it happen prior was not able to be determined until modern technology showed that the zygote was, in fact alive, and genetics showed therefore it was it’s own seperate human person.

Ero, we could confirm the exact point that had been eluding previous theologians.

So to recap.

1. The Church has ALWAYS held that abortion was a sin.
2. The Church knew that sin of aborition equated to the sin of murder when ensoulment happened
3. Modern technology has shown us that ensoulment of a new person happens at conception, so the sin if abortion is always equated to the sin of murder.

Does that help?

 

[manualman]

This is a FAVORITE switcheroo of the pro-abortion crowd. They attempt to convince you that if the Church hasn’t always considered abortion to be the sin of murder, then the church hasn’t always considered abortion to be a sin. Not so, as stated above. Abortion has always been considered sinful.

What prevented it from being definitively considered as murder was the primitive state of the science of biology of earlier days. Recognize that until fairly recently, the man’s semen was considered ‘seed’ and the woman’s womb as soil (sometimes fertile, sometimes not). They recognized that semen inside a man wasn’t a human being, but knew nothing of ovum or fertilization. They just didn’t know when it stopped being a seed and started being a person. Lots of theorizing by lots of great theologians went on, but they were all crippled by the lack of biological knowledge. If you explained sperm and egg to Aquinas, it would take him but a microsecond to figure out when life begins.

So its no wonder and no scandal that abortion wasn’t known to be murder until science progressed to the point where it could be determined at what point there was a difference in substance: fertilization.

 

[onenow1]

I read or heard from several ambiguous Catholic political pro-choice advocates that the Catholic Church did not definitively rule or state the beginning of life begins at conception until approx 50-200 years ago. Purportedly a Pope ruled that a priest who tried to obtain an abortion did not commit this particular sin because life only began at the quickening of the fetus (when he/she first moves).

What is the CC historically definitive stance on when life begins with regards a human life?

Hi, Tony

My thought is common sense rules, is it not from God, and does He not give us all life ? It is up to Him not us !

God Bless
:compcoff:

 

[tonydavies]

Thank you all. That makes sense to me now. You are all so great, God bless you my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[z0wb13]

1. The Church has ALWAYS held that abortion was a sin.
2. The Church knew that sin of aborition equated to the sin of murder when ensoulment happened
3. Modern technology has shown us that ensoulment of a new person happens at conception, so the sin if abortion is always equated to the sin of murder.

Does that help?

if the church has always held that view, why is abortion never mentioned explicitly in the bible? because people had access to things like pennyroyal and silphium, herbs that would induce miscarriages or abortion. i rather think that the objection to abortion is a modern invention, which coincided with the development of a better understanding of medicine. so at least the CC is trying to adapt to a changing world and reëvaluating their positions in response to new knowledge.

i am rather curious what modern technology has shown that “ensoulment” occurs at conception. because if a soul it metaphysical, it probably won’t be measurable in the physical world. maybe i don’t fully understand what you mean by “ensoulment.”

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by z0wb13
i am rather curious what modern technology has shown that “ensoulment” occurs at conception

Among other verses:
"Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your redeemer,who formed you from the womb…
Reason shows here that if God formed us (man) from the womb, we are, obviously, living beings therein. We do not “magically” become endowed with a soul as we emerge. We either are ensouled from conception or we are not. If we are, then it follows that to kill (abort) a human in the womb is to kill a living human soul.
It’s common sense.

 

[z0wb13]

Among other verses:
"Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your redeemer,who formed you from the womb…
Reason shows here that if God formed us (man) from the womb, we are, obviously, living beings therein. We do not “magically” become endowed with a soul as we emerge. We either are ensouled from conception or we are not. If we are, then it follows that to kill (abort) a human in the womb is to kill a living human soul.
It’s common sense.

okay, but what modern technology is being used to detect the soul? i remember they had these things in ghostbusters, but i don’t think they are being used in hospitals, yet;p

but you said “We either are ensouled from conception or we are not.” well, what if we’re not? what if it happens at the time of quickening, as was traditionally believed?

the opening poster wanted to know when the catholic church took the stand that life begins at conception, and i couldn’t find any documentation on it, so i made the assumption that it coincided with better understandings of biology. it doesn’t really make a difference from what i can gather, because any sexual act that is not for the sole intention of procreation is a sin (going back to Onan). as far as i can tell, the CC is just updating their stance to reflect new knowledge, but it’s not a fundamental change from the position they have always taken.

as for any of this being common sense, it would also make common sense that heavier objects would fall faster. whenever i hear the term common, i think of the second definition: “low or inferior quality or value.” point is, their is no known way to measure the soul, so this modern technology claim is bogus. it’s a faith based claim, not any sort of empirical or scientific one.

 

[bearer]

It is very disingenuous of those campaigners. What they refer to is a time when, without today’s medical understanding, microscopes, ultrasounds, pee-on-a-stick pregnancy tests, there was no knowledge of the development of the foetus and how it is a distinct live human even from conception. Put another way, the Church could not state that “life begins at conception” until it had medical knowledge of conception itself. Nevertheless, the Church has always opposed in the strongest terms any action to prevent an act of sexual intercourse leading to birth, even if medical understanding of the time thought of it as contraception rather than abortion.

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.”

On another note, how does a priest “obtain” an abortion? On behalf of a woman, you mean?

 

[manualman]

okay, but what modern technology is being used to detect the soul? i remember they had these things in ghostbusters, but i don’t think they are being used in hospitals, yet;p

It’s not about developing a “soul detector” (how typically modern to expect a technological solution instead of a rational one). It’s about identifying the point in which there is an objective and knowable change in substance. Catholicism is a very physical religion. We don’t believe that humans are souls merely trapped in physical bodies but that our very substance is a UNION of body and soul. The physical world generally is merely a manifestation of at least some aspect of the spiritual world

So once biology advanced to the point in which there was a clear and identifiable point in which the man’s semen stopped being merely his semen and the woman’s womb (or more specifically the ovum within it) stopped being merely hers, it became clear when a person becomes a person. Theology is fundamentally based in reason and there is simply no rational basis for arguing that personhood (ensoulment) begins at any other time than conception. Earlier theologians just didn’t have the advantage of more thorough understandings of biology, so they didn’t have the physical observations to give them that spiritual insight.

 

[Vincent1984]

On another note, how does a priest “obtain” an abortion? On behalf of a woman, you mean?

I don’t think I mentioned a priest getting an abortion. Perhaps you mean the excommunication reference? That applies to laypeople and priests equally.

Canon law uses the word “procure” rather than ‘obtain’. This is usually understood to mean material assistance which contributed to the abortion, or other action without which it would have been unlikely or impossible. For example: paying for it; giving medical authorisation; pressuring someone into getting an abortion; assisting in the medical procedure et cetera.

 

[z0wb13]

It’s not about developing a “soul detector” (how typically modern to expect a technological solution instead of a rational one).

i get it. i was making a joke in response to a post that said modern technology has proven ensoulment occurs at conception. i would think that a metaphysical soul could not, by definition, be detected in the physical world.

your “how typical” comment isn’t very charitable, and your “rational” explanation is anything but. the idea of a soul is one that is dependent entirely on a faith-based assumptions. their is no rational basis for that claim, because there is not any evidence to back it up. i’m not saying it’s impossible, but it isn’t something that you can justify empirically.

 

[JimG]

Of course, a soul is a spiritual substance, and can not be discovered by the senses or by technology. Discussing ensoulment is merely a sidetrack. Metaphysically, a soul is the life principle of the body. If a human being exists, it has a soul, by definition.

Neither science, nor the law can or will argue about ensoulment.

The question rather is, when does a new individual of the human species have its beginning. Every human being has a beginning. Biologically a new human being begins at conception. That is a simple biological truth. That’s the point at which each one of us began to exist as a new human individual.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by z0wb13
but what modern technology is being used to detect the soul?

originally posted by z0wb13
but you said “We either are ensouled from conception or we are not.” well, what if we’re not? what if it happens at the time of quickening, as was traditionally believed?

What an odd question. Which is nothing but bait for an arguement which is impossible, as you well know. You either have been gifted with The Faith to know the answer or you have not. As to what was “traditionally believed”, it was only because modern science had not yet advanced enough to understand that word “quickening”. Further, when was this *ensoulment at quickening *believed? The Middle Ages? The 19th Century?

originally posted by** JimG**
Neither science, nor the law can or will argue about ensoulment.

Exactly. It is a matter of faith and the *scientific *knowledge that there is no single day of “quickening”. Having had 3 children myself, I know that they were each moving around long before I felt them doing so.
The bottom line to this circular arguement/discussion/whatever, is that there is no identifiable “moment” or “day” of ensoulment. A human is ensouled at conception at the least and, perhaps, before, by God Himself.

To the OP; The Church has always believed/known that human life begins at conception. We know from the Hebrews four thousand years ago that man believed and knew life in utero was actual life. As bearer pointed out, Jeremiah 1:5 affirms this . I do not think any of this became an issue until the abortion crisis of Roe V Wade of 1971 when the “pro-choicers” had to believe that there was nothing but a “mass of cells” until the magical day of “quickening”. Soon after, it didn’t matter anyway as women began aborting 6 month olds and then, finally the partially born.
See where this reasoning of* ensoulment* leads?

 

[manualman]

i get it. i was making a joke in response to a post that said modern technology has proven ensoulment occurs at conception. i would think that a metaphysical soul could not, by definition, be detected in the physical world.

your “how typical” comment isn’t very charitable, and your “rational” explanation is anything but. the idea of a soul is one that is dependent entirely on a faith-based assumptions. their is no rational basis for that claim, because there is not any evidence to back it up. i’m not saying it’s impossible, but it isn’t something that you can justify empirically.

Waa. Why do people always whine about uncharitableness when their faulty logic is exposed?

Aren’t you the one who brought up the concept of soul? Wasn’t me. There is no need to argue or logically prove the existance of a soul to demonstrate what abortion is. Plain old biology shows pretty conclusively when the organisms in question cease being part of the parent’s bodies and become a completely unique organism biologically separate from (though physically dependent on) either parent. As I stated earlier, theology builds on physical science many times. Now that the science is clear, the theology on the matter is child’s play.

 

[z0wb13]

Waa. Why do people always whine about uncharitableness when their faulty logic is exposed?

Aren’t you the one who brought up the concept of soul? Wasn’t me. There is no need to argue or logically prove the existance of a soul to demonstrate what abortion is. Plain old biology shows pretty conclusively when the organisms in question cease being part of the parent’s bodies and become a completely unique organism biologically separate from (though physically dependent on) either parent. As I stated earlier, theology builds on physical science many times. Now that the science is clear, the theology on the matter is child’s play.

waa. i wish people had as good a sense of humor as me. i think i actually found the answer to the OP. Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii. from wikipedia

This encyclical repeats the Church’s condemnation of abortion in all circumstances. It also draws a connection between contracepting couples and couples that have abortions:

. . .those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death.

here’s a link to the original. note that the bible and jesus never explicitly address abortion.

 

[manualman]

here’s a link to the original. note that the bible and jesus never explicitly address abortion.

Jesus never condemns the intentional slaughter of BORN children either. Are you going to defend that too? Some things just don’t need saying once you recognize what they are. But humans, being creatures of amazing rationalizing potential, often intentionally confuse themselves about what things are.

Take slavery. For centuries, otherwise decent people managed to see no evil in treating other human beings are mere chattle property. This in spite of the rather simplistic logic that it should have taken to recognize why it was incompatible with human dignity. And yes, this flaw applies to christian humans as much as the non-christian sort.

And I’m not sure what you think the encyclical link proves. I’ll freely agree that contraception is the slippery slope to abortion. But that has nothing to do with the identity of the sin being committed. Sin begets sin, this is visible in ALL human history. Heck, all the misery on earth is descended from two otherwise fine people biting into a forbidden fruit! In spite of how innocuous that might seem on the surface, it was the beginning of the end because it was the initial rupture of the human soul that gave birth to all future ones.