When does an embryo have a soul?

[Fish and Bread]

obiectum secondarium to the Immaculate Conception.

That makes sense. I hadn't thought about it from that perspective before, but obviously if Mary "was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin" at "at the first instant of her conception", the implication there is that original sin applies to people at the moment of their conception, and one can only have original sin if one has a soul. Very logical.

The lack of praxis following this to some degree makes me wonder, though: Do you think it can be said definitively that *all* fertilized eggs have souls, or do you think it is rather simply that those God knows will survive until a certain point are ensouled at that moment? There is still something about 2/3rds of all immortal souls, even in a world without contraception, being single-celled fertilized eggs that survive for less than two weeks that seems a little alien to me. It doesn't seem like there has really been much theological unpacking of *why* God would make the normative path of human existience two weeks as a single-celled organism in the womb, which is what the implication of all fertilized eggs having souls would be, and it doesn't seem like Catholic practice really reflects it (i.e. People don't talk about the 2/3rds of their children they are never aware of even having conceived, etc..).

 

[Michael96]

So although the Church has not proclaimed it in so many words; it's intrinsic connection to other revealed truths and that connection being made by magisterial teachings on life, makes it possible to say with theological confidence that life begins at conception.

I would disagree - I would say that is an assertion that cannot be based on Scripture or tradition. We have to be honest (I think) that we can't be sure when (eternal) life begins - bit we give the benefit of the doubt to life.

Personally I think we actually undermine the cause for life when we try to say things that are not in sacred scripture or sacred tradition - in fact I think we undermine the credibiity of the Church. I think JP-IIs writings on the subject were excellent - arguing against abortion while being very clear and honest about what theological truths are certain and what are not (and what the best course of action is when they are not certain).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When the soul enters the body is irrelevant. At conception, or later. Its not up to us to interrupt the process either way.

Jim

 

[Davidnic]

That makes sense. I hadn't thought about it from that perspective before, but obviously if Mary "was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin" at "at the first instant of her conception", the implication there is that original sin applies to people at the moment of their conception, and one can only have original sin if one has a soul. Very logical. Unless there is some angle I am missing, I think we are in agreement about what Catholic theology states.

The lack of praxis following this to some degree makes me wonder, though: Do you think it can be said definitively that *all* fertilized eggs have souls, or do you think it is rather simply that those God knows will survive until a certain point are ensouled at that moment? There is still something about 2/3rds of all immortal souls, even in a world without contraception, being single-celled fertilized eggs that survive for less than two weeks that seems a little alien to me. It doesn't seem like there has really been much theological unpacking of *why* God would make the normative path of human existience two weeks as a single-celled organism in the womb, which is what the implication of all fertilized eggs having souls would be, and it doesn't seem like Catholic practice really reflects it (i.e. People don't talk about the 2/3rds of their children they are never aware of even having conceived, etc..).

I think all have a soul at conception. As far as the fact that so many die...I honestly look at that as something in God's hands.

Many do talk about the conceived children and miscarriages both known and unknown. I am currently working on some things (an article and a book) on miscarriage in Catholic theology (covering how it is viewed, emotional support and devotional comfort). So maybe I have just been inundated with the material and see it more.

 

[Davidnic]

When the soul enters the body is irrelevant. At conception, or later. Its not up to us to interrupt the process either way.

Jim

Yep.

 

[Rhamiel]

When the soul enters the body is irrelevant. At conception, or later. Its not up to us to interrupt the process either way.

Jim

I agree

 

[Davidnic]

I would disagree - I would say that is an assertion that cannot be based on Scripture or tradition. We have to be honest (I think) that we can't be sure when (eternal) life begins - bit we give the benefit of the doubt to life.

Personally I think we actually undermine the cause for life when we try to say things that are not in sacred scripture or sacred tradition - in fact I think we undermine the credibiity of the Church. I think JP-IIs writings on the subject were excellent - arguing against abortion while being very clear and honest about what theological truths are certain and what are not (and what the best course of action is when they are not certain).

I think the dogmatic case for it as obiectum secondarium to the Immaculate Conception is fairly solid. As well as the intrinsic connection to revealed dogma. There are other things like that.

All in all at the end of the day I think JPII's writings are not dependent on my point and his words in Evangelium Vitae address abortion in general so directly and strongly that when a soul enters is not vital to the conversation. Although I stand by my analysis and respectfully disagree on the level of certainty with regard to this fact.

 

[Fish and Bread]

When the soul enters the body is irrelevant. At conception, or later. Its not up to us to interrupt the process either way.

I don't disagree with that. I do think it might have some impact on the severity of the situation, though. The destruction of a being with a soul probably presents some degree of moral difference than the destruction of a being without one, even though both are undoubtedly against Catholic teaching in this context.

I think all have a soul at conception. As far as the fact that so many die...I honestly look at that as something in God's hands.

Many do talk about the conceived children and miscarriages both known and unknown. I am currently working on some things (an article and a book) on miscarriage in Catholic theology (covering how it is viewed, emotional support and devotional comfort). So maybe I have just been inundated with the material and see it more.

Sounds like an interesting book. Maybe you can devote a chapter to the fertilized eggs that fail to implant, and what you think the implications of that are about the makeup of the afterlife, and the deeper implications about what it means to be human and God's intent in creating humanity. Might be an interesting subject to interview some theologians on, if you're interviewing theologians for your book. My thinking is just that if in fact 2/3rds of the human race with souls are as you think they are, that has really major abstract theological implications that have yet to really be worked out (or at least aren't very well publicized).

By the way, if you are comfortable revealing your name (I would certainly understand if you aren't), please let us know when your book is published and what the title is, so we can consider picking it up. It sounds like a good read.

 

[jpcedotal]

I think life happens before conception.

Jer 1:4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

To me, this is why any contraception besides abstinence is a sin. Life or soul or essence or whatever was present way before conception. How far? God knows, not me.

Just a side note. I have had a vasectomy and have used birth control methods in the past so I ain't sitting here judging nobody.

 

[YourBrotherInChrist]

Can anyone provide a link to magisterial document that definitively teaches otherwise? The crux of this thread seems to be about the soul, so I think the above post makes an important point.

I not only provided a link to Evangelium Vitae in my post, but I quoted the relevant section, where Pope John Paul II not only acknowledges that "the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself", but also makes the powerful argument that the mere possibility that the embryo has a soul is more than enough for it to be "respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception."

 

[Toclafane]

Yes, the embryo has a soul at the moment of conception. This is one reason why abortion and birth control is wrong.

At what point would a clone have a soul then ?

 

[YourBrotherInChrist]

Another medical example to consider is the case where the pregnancy starts off with two fertilized eggs, but as the embryos develop, they merge to form a single person with extra body parts. I believe there was a case a while back where the newborn baby had (only) the foot of his twin growing out of his head. In the case of fraternal twins, the foot would have different DNA. Questions:

Did the twin start out with a soul? If so, did the twin lose that soul at some point? If so, at which point? If not, were the doctors committing murder when they removed the foot, which was alive at a cellular level until it was amputated?

 

[Davidnic]

the mere possibility that the embryo has a soul is more than enough for it to be "respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception."

Amen on that.

 

[Anygma]

I think life happens before conception.

Jer 1:4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

To me, this is why any contraception besides abstinence is a sin. Life or soul or essence or whatever was present way before conception. How far? God knows, not me.

Just a side note. I have had a vasectomy and have used birth control methods in the past so I ain't sitting here judging nobody.

thank you for the scripture, that's what i had in mind from the moment i started reading this tread.

after having 3 miscarriage over a few years, out of the blue, my instant messenger friend declared to me, that she day dreamed i was pregnant... i brushed it off as unlikely... but a few days later, i realized i was late for my periods and a home test reveal i was pregnant... this could be seen as very coincidental. but over a year and a half later, my son was just a bit over a year old, and started obsessing about the word baby, saying it over and over, for no apparent reason. I pulled out some of my childhood dolls hoping it would satisfy his baby fixation.

but it didn't stop. it was a word that popped up for several days. and maybe about 16-20 days later. i realized i was starting to be late for my periods again. and i went to the pharmacy for a pregnancy test... it was positive. he was right, i was pregnant. so i went back to my computer to look at the date of the picture i took of him with the doll, on that day he started saying the word... i did the math... it would've been 2 days before conception. and he loved the belly very much, always wrapping himself as close as he could to it, hugging it...

i did some looking on the internet and found out that there are other stories of parents having pre conseption experiences with their kids. some even for months or years beforehands.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Life or soul or essence or whatever was present way before conception.

The Catholic Church doesn't believe in the pre-existence of the soul. It was condemned at the second council of Constantinople (At least, apparently so, there is a bit of controversy about whether the actual written decrees of that council were faithfully transmitted).

 

[Fish and Bread]

Here is the 1st anathema against Oriegon, pronounced at the second council of Constantinople (553 AD):

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)

 

[JoabAnias]

I think life happens before conception.

Jer 1:4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

To me, this is why any contraception besides abstinence is a sin. Life or soul or essence or whatever was present way before conception. How far? God knows, not me.

Just a side note. I have had a vasectomy and have used birth control methods in the past so I ain't sitting here judging nobody.

Have you considered that God is outside of time as we know it?

Pre-knowledge might not be what we perceive from within the confines of time as we experience it.

I agree its the reason why not to play God ourselves though.

 

[JoabAnias]

When the soul enters the body is irrelevant. At conception, or later. Its not up to us to interrupt the process either way.

Jim

Not irrelevant in the debate over sentience.

 

[Davidnic]

The Catholic Church doesn't believe in the pre-existence of the soul. It was condemned at the second council of Constantinople (At least, apparently so, there is a bit of controversy about whether the actual written decrees of that council were faithfully transmitted).

It could be expressed in a way that is not heretical...i.e not actually saying that the soul prexists as a singular entity along some type of spiritual evolution and redemption progress.

Like a wibbly wobbly timey wimey reverberation or prophecy from God letting you know that He who is outside of time is preparing you for a child rather than an already existing soul before conception. Now as far as the Scripture where God knows us before we are formed. God can be seen as both inside and outside of time, an infinite singularity point who would indded know us before we are formed without our pre-existing the formation.

 

[Anygma]

Here is the 1st anathema against Oriegon, pronounced at the second council of Constantinople (553 AD):

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)

i would like to know what is that restoration referred to in that quote? a lot of the following numbers seem to refer to a belief in the fluidity of spiritual being from angel, to human or demons, and that one can shift at any time from one to an other and even be restored as angels.