Sep

22

Ensoulment Theories and the Abortion Debate

September 22, 2007 | 13 Comments

“Ensoulment” is the word which describes the point at which the body of the conceptus is said to be informed by a human soul. (The notion of a living being having “no soul” is a philosophical oxymoron, since the soul is the principle of life in a material being.) There are two basic theories of ensoulment. The first is called the “immediate animation, immediate ensoulment theory”; the second, the “immediate animation, delayed ensoulment theory” (also called the “serial ensoulment theory”). As the names suggest, the former asserts that, at the very moment of animation (when life begins), the newly conceived human is animated by a rational soul; while the latter holds that the human soul’s informing of the new body is delayed. This latter theory further holds that there is a progression from vegetative to animal to human soul as the principle of animation. Common in the middle ages, the theory was based on Aristotelian biology and is untenable considering all that is presently known from the empirical sciences. Many learned Catholic authors of the ages of Faith held this theory and advanced it in their writings because it was the accepted biology of the day.

The issue comes into the abortion debate largely by way of abortion advocates advancing the notion that, since men like St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe a human soul actually animated the newly-conceived body for a number of weeks, Catholics are hypocritical for opposing abortion on the grounds that it kills an innocent human being. Of course, this is in itself a species of hypocrisy, given that advances in the sciences of fetology and embryology (as well as genetics) have undone the earlier theory. The abortion advocate using this argument generally presents himself as an “open-minded” individual of a broad scientific culture (one who is “reasonable” as opposed to “dogmatic”), but, by advocating the delayed ensoulment theory, he falls into a senseless retrogression to primitive biology.

Among those who have recently revisited the delayed ensoulment theory are the liberal Jesuit moralist Joseph Donceel and the feminist ideologue, Rosemary Reuther.

The issue thus briefly being outlined, it would be appropriate to give a summary and refutation of the delayed ensoulment (or serial ensoulment) theory, followed by what Dr. Hogan calls “a more economical theory of ensoulment”[1], i.e., one consonant with science, reason, and the truths of the Faith.

From the class notes, the serial ensoulment theory is thus summarized: “First because the soul is the substantial form of the body, the rational soul cannot be present until there is a body present that is significantly complex and organized to receive the soul. Second, a formal cause is present only in a finished product. An actual human soul cannot be united with a virtual human body. Third, there is no human body in the zygote. Fourth inasmuch as all the positive features of the human body derive from the soul, until the soul is present there is no human being.”[2]

The first point underestimates the nature of the new entity which results from syngamy. The numerous processes carried out with ordered precision (such as chromosomes borne by the pronucleus of each gamete conjugating along the mitotic spindle) present us with the new entity’s impressive complexity, something unknown before modern scientific discoveries. The second point again underestimates the zygote, the genotype of which is already established. What remains to be done after syngamy is merely the successive actualization of the active potentialities already there in this present reality, this being in act. Third, although the zygote is not a fully developed human body, that body is really present in the active natural potentiality of the zygote. The fourth point states a truism we gladly embrace. Having all the necessary genetic information and immanent activity heading towards full maturation, the full development of the human body is already in dynamic process; therefore, the human soul must be there.

We end with the “more economical theory of ensoulment”: The rational soul is present from the instant of conception as the principle which orders the complex immanent functions following syngamy. It is operating at first only with its lower faculties, anticipating the higher biological functions as it will later, in the neonate, anticipate both the use of reason and adult biological development. In the earlier stages its presence is comparable to the presence of the rational soul in one comatose. When the natural active potencies innate in the conceptus have been successively actuated, the full complement of human faculties will be manifest and the soul will be operating at the vegetative, sentient, and rational level.

[1]. http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c04104.htm.

[2]. Ibid.

Print, Share, and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • blogmarks
  • Blogsvine
  • De.lirio.us
  • description
  • eKudos
  • Fleck
  • Furl
  • IndiaGram
  • laaik.it
  • LinkaGoGo
  • Live
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • YahooMyWeb
  • BlogMemes
  • BlogMemes Cn
  • BlogMemes Fr
  • BlogMemes Sp
  • description
  • Fark
  • Gwar
  • Haohao
  • IndianPad
  • kick.ie
  • LinkedIn
  • Ma.gnolia
  • MisterWong
  • PlugIM
  • Slashdot
  • Webride
  • Wikio FR
  • Wikio IT
  • Yigg

Comments

13 Comments so far

  1. michael asciak on September 24, 2007 12:52 pm

    why would you say syngamy not penetration? Although I agree with you it is nice to hear your reasons.

  2. Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. on September 24, 2007 1:13 pm

    “Syngamy” is “the union of gametes, as in fertilization or conjugation; sexual reproduction.” “Penetration” is the marital act itself, i.e., copulation. The latter can take place without the former. Not every marital act results in fertilization.

  3. Catholicism Computes » The problem of the ensoulment of identical twins on November 18, 2007 12:27 am

    [...] A recent Catholic blog post states that there are two main theories of ensoulment: [...]

  4. Sara Gordon on March 8, 2009 7:34 pm

    Thank you. This explanation of ensoulment saved my unborn child’s life. How fortunate we are to have him!

  5. Bruce Barron on March 29, 2009 1:49 pm

    The conceptus has all the matter necessary to be a person. Just as the acorn is the smallest tree so the conceptus is the smallest person.
    The nature of a thing is that which makes it what it is. Since the conceptus is human and an actual being,which is self evident,it must necessarily have a human nature. And since the conceptus must have a human nature the conceptus must be a human being. Now there is no such as a human being[a being is anything that exists] or human nature without a subject of such a nature. The subject of the being of this nature is necessarily a person. Again the conceptus is the smallest person.
    Of necessity since it has all the requirements to be a person the soul must necessarily be infused at the moment of conception.

  6. Bruce Barron on March 29, 2009 2:25 pm

    I would like to add one more note.The nature of a thing is its principle of operation. Now it is impossible for a principle of operation not to have an operator or some being in possession of this operation. A human being with this principle of operation is called a person and must necessarily be so.Since the conceptus is a human being with a principle of operation which defines what it is,that is, its nature, it must necessarily be a person and have a soul.

  7. Bruce Barron on March 29, 2009 2:32 pm

    Since it is obvious that the conceptus has a human nature, and natures are not just flying about devoid of a subject,the subject of a human nature must be a person.Therefore the conceptus must be a person since there is self evidently a human nature present in the conceptus.

  8. sheetpan on July 23, 2009 5:01 pm

    All is folly, these concepts are impossible to know with any truthful certainty. Yet we spend so much time and energy on conjecture. To me, it is simply this; What kind of a thinking species kills its own unborn while still in the womb? Weather it has a soul or not. What kind of Idiotic criteria is that?

  9. Chris Mulcahy on April 5, 2010 12:40 pm

    I approach this definitional dilemma as a committed Catholic and opponent of abortion. Nevertheless, I ask this question: how to reconcile “from birth to . . . ” with this (seeming) medical fact:

    “A related issue that comes up in this debate is how often fertilization leads to an established, viable pregnancy. Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time. Of those that do implant, about 25% are miscarried by the sixth week LMP (after the woman’s Last Menstrual Period). As a result, even without the use of birth control, between 48% and 70% of zygotes never result in established pregnancies, much less birth. – from wikipedia”

    How to reconcile oneself to the belief that millions of Johnnies and Marys are passing through our water-borne waste system on a daily basis. Should we have a priest offering baptism at the treatment plant? Or special Catholic privies for potentially pregnant ladies?

  10. Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. on April 5, 2010 3:50 pm

    Chris,

    Whether or not the supposed scientific facts are really such, the truth of the Church’s teaching on ensoulment is unaffected. We are dealing with an apparently large number of spontaneous abortions. This means that numerous human beings do not make it to live birth and therefore have no chance at supernatural regeneration at the baptismal font. God, who is master of life and death, whose providence dispenses all things sweetly, does not owe us life, much less supernatural life. Those who die without baptism can live a life of natural happiness in Limbo.

    Your last two questions come across as flippant and irreverent. They also miss the point that dead people — large or small — cannot be validly baptized anyway.

  11. Ellen Giangiordano on June 2, 2010 5:13 pm

    Herbert F. Smith, SJ writes in his book, Pro Choice, Pro Life that “[T]he human soul is spiritual and therefore comes directly from God by an action of creation. But when? At conception? God has not revealed the moment.” (p. 37). My answer to Father Smith’s comment is: “Mary has!” Unfortunately, unlike the words of scripture, the Church has never reflected on the words Mary has spoken through time to see if they contain a deeper value than initially thought.

    To understand the words of scripture, theologians use a process that involves a “constant rereading” through which the “word gradually unfolds its inner potentialities, already somehow present like seeds, but needing the challenge of new situations, new experiences and new sufferings to open up.” Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Foreword xviii-xix (2007). Indeed, Pope John Paul II’s reflection upon Jesus’ intent in using the words “from the beginning” in Matthew 19 gave rise to the Theology of the Body.

    If the Church treated Mary’s words like the words in scripture and engaged in a “rereading” of Mary’s words regarding her conception, the Church may arrive at a definitive answer as to when ensoulment occurs.

    My own “rereading” of Mary’s words began in the Great Jubilee year 2000. In October, I visited the Chapel of the Rue de Bac in Paris where Mary entrusted St. Catherine with the making of the Miraculous Medal. The words “Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee” are painted in large letters on the arch above the altar. While I had been wearing the Medal for twenty years by then, I never once thought about why Mary selected those specific words for the Medal. Sitting in the Chapel, I immediately thought “that is the oddest combination of words to want on a medal. Why would you want that? Why do you want to be known as ‘conceived without sin’? Why not ‘Queen of Peace’ or ‘Mother of all’ or ‘full of grace’?”

    Shortly after returning from Paris, I was sitting in on a class at St. Charles Seminary in Philadelphia and the young priest related that the Church had never defined the timing of ensoulment, and that for all we knew, a baby could receive his soul weeks after conception. My experience at the Chapel at the Rue de Bac came back to me. I wondered in using three simple words, Mary was declaring a truth that applied to herself and the rest of humanity, i.e., that Mary, and all members of the human race, received their souls at conception, with the distinction being that Mary’s soul was immaculate, while the soul of everyone else bore the stain of original sin?

    Since 2000 when I visited the Chapel at the Rue de Bac, I have come across other instances in which Mary appeared and spoke about her conception. There may be others, but these are the ones that came up in the normal course of my life:

    (1) In the 1300s Mary told St. Bridget of Sweden that she was “conceived without original sin, and not in sin” Revelations of St. Bridget 14 (Tan 1984).
    (2) On December 9, 1531, when Mary appeared to Juan Diego on December 9, 1531, some scholars believe she identified herself as the Immaculate Conception, and that a fundamental error in translation of Juan Diego’s native tongue has resulted in the use of the title “Our Lady of Guadalupe.” Francis Johnston, The Wonder of Guadalupe 46-48 (Tan 1981). (Apparently unaware of Mary’s statement to St. Bridget and the words on the Miraculous Medal, Mr. Johnston erroneously concludes: “It hardly seems likely that the Virgin would have referred to herself explicitly as the ‘Immaculate Conception’ since that dogma has not yet been defined. It was only after this dogma had been promulgated by the Church in 1854 that she publicly acknowledged (in 1858, at Lourdes) this unique dignity which God had bestowed on her.”)
    (3) In 1830, Mary selected the words “conceived without sin” to appear on the Miraculous Medal she entrusted to St. Catherine Laboure.
    (4) In 1858, our Blessed Mother selected the words “I am the Immaculate Conception” when identifying herself to St. Bernadette.

    Mary’s decision to appear on these occasions (and possibly more) and make statements about her conception caused me to start looking for an analysis by the Church of Mary’s word choices regarding her conception. When I could not find any, I believed that I must have missed something, so I became writing to priests and lay people who I thought could direct me to the material I sought. No one could point me to anything. Most, such as the Rector of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, Father Pavone, Jeff Cavins, who appeared at my parish, and Patrick Madrid, the brother of a friend, simply did not respond to my written inquiries.

    Father Donald Calloway, MIC, the Editor of the book The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the Life of the Church, advised me in 2007 that I had “a very insightful way of understanding when ensoulment occurs through the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception” and stated that he “wish[ed] I could point you in some direction for further reading, especially from the Church on this matter, but I’m afraid I do not have those resources. . . ”

    I must be clear here. I do not analyze ensoulment through the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Rather, I analyze Mary’s words to see if She was saying something about the timing of ensoulment to the saints to whom she spoke and to the communities in which the saints lived.

    Like Father Calloway, Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center also missed this difference in approaches when he recently wrote to me saying: “the dogma of the Immaculate Conception . . . can theologically and summarily be formulated as: ‘the immaculate ensoulment’. It does not deal with the question of the timing of ensoulment, either for Our Lady, or in general. It simply affirms that ensoulment, whenever it may have occurred for Our Lady, occurred in a manner different from yours and mine.”

    Notably, Father Pacholczyk’s email to me made no mention of Mary’s intent in selecting the words she did, or what her audiences understood her words to mean at the time she appeared.

    In that Mary appeared several times to talk about her conception occurring without sin or immaculately, I find it curious that many in the Church believe that when Mary appeared again and again using the same words, she was not talking about her conception, but rather her “ensoulment.”

    As a preliminary matter, if Mary meant to talk about her ensoulment but wanted to make no mention of the timing of it, she could have easily used the word “ensoulment” or “ensouled” in speaking to the saints. Mary could have told St. Bridget “It is a truth that I was ensouled without original sin.” Mary could have requested that “ensouled without sin” appear on the Miraculous Medal. And Mary could have declared herself to be the “Immaculate Ensoulment” to St. Bernadette. Had Mary done so, I would agree that the “when” of her ensoulment would remain unknown, and more importantly, untold.

    The fact that Mary did not use the word ensouled in speaking to St. Bridget is particularly intriguing given the debates that raged in the 1200s regarding the purity of Mary’s conception/ensoulment. See generally, Fr. Paul M. Haffner, S.T.D., The Anthropological Significance of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in The Virgin Mary and Theology of the Body 139-53 (Donald H. Calloway, MIC ed., 2005). Mary’s use of the words “It is a truth” before “that I was conceived without original sin” suggests that Mary was weighing in on the debates and purposely selected “conception” as the word which most fully represented the truth she meant to convey.

    Additionally, if we accept that Mary, as Mother of God, and Queen of Heaven, knows what is happening on earth at the time she makes an appearance, and that Mary knows what will happen on earth after she makes an appearance, does it not make sense that at the time of her appearances in the 1300s, 1531, 1830, and 1858, Mary would know that in the future “laws that protect abortion . . . [would] rest on several false claims including that there is no certainly regarding when life begins, that there is no certainty about when a fetus becomes a person?” 2008 Pastoral Letter regarding Respect Life Sunday of Bishop Joseph Martino, former Bishop of the Diocese of Scranton, PA.

    Mary would know. All mothers know that their children will do foolish things before they do them. All mothers warn their children against the danger beforehand. When the matter is important, a mother will leave a reminder about what she said even though she gave verbal instructions.

    If revealing the moment of ensoulment was Mary’s intention by repeatedly selecting the words “conceived” and “conception” and then pairing those words with “immaculate” and “without sin,” the economy of her words to annunciate this reality was simply stunning, and thus, easy to miss. Perhaps that is why Mary felt the need to keep repeating herself and to leave visual reminders of her appearance (Juan Diego’s Tilma, the Miraculous Medal, the spring at Lourdes).

    As Pope Benedict noted in his discussion about the Trinity people are sometimes slow and somewhat lazy in interpreting heavenly matters: “If there must be short tenets for expressing the tenets of our faith, then they should at least be attractive, exciting, something whose importance for men and for our lives is immediately apparent.”

    Abortion, frozen embryos created during in vitro fertilization, and now stem cell research are all matters which warrant an examination of Mary’s word choices to see if they contain a deeper value that has been previously unappreciated. If you feel the same, I invite you to Petition the Church on this matter. I sent my own Petition on December 8, 2009 to:

    Cardinal William Joseph Levada
    Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
    Piazza del S. Uffizio
    11, 00193
    Roma, Italy

    Cardinal Justin Rigali
    Chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities
    Archbishop of Philadelphia
    222 N. 17th Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103-1299

  12. sandra zoroddu on January 24, 2011 2:50 am

    just tell me if there is limbo?. if there is. please send me some prayers for them. God Bless. sandra

  13. Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. on January 24, 2011 6:22 am

    Sandra: There is a limbo. There do not exist prayers for the souls in limbo, because they are already judged and are not like the souls in Purgatory, who will eventually go to heaven.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind