Second Half:

I've read the whole Venerable Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God and highly recommend everyone undertake the task and read it, but it should be noted that regardless of all the approbations, some things in her works are worthy of question. Here is one thing she says that is actually wrong, that the soul is not created until 40-80 days after conception:

Vol. 4, The Coronation, p. 264, 265, #281

"281.....the demons, with their vast experience, judge as much as possible of the complexion or inclinations of the one conceived and they are wont to lay out great plans for future action. If they fear good results, they seek to hinder as much as possible the last generation or infusion of the soul, waylaying the mother with dangers or temptations to bring about an abortion before the creation of the soul, which is ordinarily delayed forty or eighty days. 

But as soon as they see God create or infuse the soul, the wrath of these dragons exerts itself in furious activity to prevent the creature from issuing to light, and from attaining Baptism, if it is to be born where this Sacrament can easily be administered. For this purpose they suggest and tempt the mothers to many disorders and excesses,  whereby the parturition is forced and a premature birth or the death of the child in the womb might be caused; for among Catholics and heretics, who still administer Baptism, the demons content themselves with depriving children of Baptism and thus withholding them in limbo from the vision of God. Among pagans and idolaters they are not so solicitous, because among them damnation is in certain prospect."

 

It has been awhile since I have read all of the books.  It is interesting that the book supports more of the "quickening" idea of the soul.  At least that was not heretical at the time it was published.  Sort of like Saint Thomas and Saint Augustine who also supported the same idea from what I understand.  😅

*****

"Through the Latin translations of Averroes's (1126–1198) work, beginning in the 12th century, the legacy of Aristotle was recovered in the West. Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) adapted largely to his views[1][5][24][25][26] and because they believed that the early embryo did not have a human soul, they did not necessarily see early abortion as murder, although they condemned it nonetheless.[5][21][19][20]: 150  Aquinas, in his main work, the Summa Theologica, states (Part I, question 118, article 2 ad 2)"…that the intellectual soul is created by God at the end of human generation".[27] Although Jesus may have been exceptional, Aquinas did believe that the embryo first possessed a vegetative soul, later acquired sensitive (animal) soul, and after 40 days of development, God gave humans a rational soul.[28]

In 1588, Pope Sixtus V issued the Bull Effraenatam, which subjected those that carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with automatic excommunication and the punishment by civil authorities applied to murderers. Three years later after finding that the results had not been as positive as was hoped, his successor Pope Gregory XIV limited the excommunication to abortion of a formed fœtus.[15]: 71–72 [29][30]" (From Wikipedia"Ensoulment")

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that although the Church treats life from the moment of conception as sacred, at the same time it has never made a formal condemnation of the Angelic Doctor's views regarding ensoulment nor to this day, nor has it ever condemned  Venerable Maria de Agreda's work in this regard or any other regard.  (If complete human ensoulment does take place at the moment of conception one is left to wonder at the "zillions" of embryos that are not purposely aborted, but nevertheless die within the first two months of conception.)

I wondered about this before too, but I think the Church won't explicitly condemn such things unless the wrong belief is or becomes the popular belief and is wide spread, and even then, She would only say what is true, and would do so without condemning the saints, as was the case with the Immaculate Conception. 

I think it has always been the practice that when She condemns the idea, She condemns the author along with it, but since St. Thomas was only mistaken, She just said what the truth of the matter is. Ven Mary of Agreda is still perfectly incorrupt after 357 years so it's not too surprising that the Church didn't condemned her works.

I have wondered the same thing about embryos. Additionally it is true that the Church has never said anything about when conception takes place. So it is certainly a grey area in the order of nature. But it doesn't necessarily undo the moral problems of contracepting an embryo even if ensoulment did occur later.

Very well stated!  Thank you!

The Annunciation, does that not tell us when conception takes place, sure. There is no grey area.