God created and willed that man be in the image of God and not a monkeys uncle. Those enemies posting, give themselves away.  They are of man and not living their lives with a Divine Superior.  If they can toss out the supernatural, the enemy thinks he can reign and the enemy is the "damned fool".  The enemy plays the game of reasoning and the True faith believes in the mysteries of FAith the mysteries of Our Lady formed before God created earth and man.  We believe in miracles and not of magic.  The proof of existence of God, is in the reasoning, if we are reasoning, could not have come into existence by itself. with such harmony that even science still searches for answers to many questions. Animals have instinct and no free will.  So, if the enemy thinks they be so smart, well, are you animal to think that?  No, but if you wish to be it is your lose.  Just because you can not see the soul does not mean that it does not exist. Yet you would  not deny human reason, that can not be seen. Soul cannot die as the body does. Soul is not dependent on matter and hence not subject to decay or death.  

My suggestion, is when those of this forum who are of reason and intellect recognize a post(s) that is trying to manipulate our thoughts, ignore them and post no more.  Let the post die out.  We need no enemy to spin our wheels and waste our time.  The enemy is recognized when they use the formula of KAB.  Trying to change our knowledge to change our attitude and behavior.  Notice how the subject began with when the soul is infused to birth control.  

Many thanks jarheadusmc for having posted this topic - some 4 plus years ago.  It is quite fascinating to say the least.  In particular I wish to thank you for introducing the truly stunning work (The City of God) of Venerable Mary of Agreda into the discussion.

Also, I wish to thank Stubborn for the spot on quotes from the aforesaid work along with the link to it which I repeat here: THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD.

Stubborn said:

Venerable Mary of Agreda's: Mystical City of God - (whose body remains Incorrupt) states that Our Lady received her soul after 7 days and that men get theirs after 40 days and women after 80 days.
She speaks of the rational soul - not sure if it's the same thing as the immortal soul or not.............


219. The day on which the first Conception of the
body of the most holy Mary happened, was a Sunday,
corresponding to the day of the week on which the an
gels were created, whose exalted Queen and Lady She
was to be. For the formation and growth of other
human bodies, according to the natural order, many
days are necessary in order to organize and fit them for
the reception of the rational soul. Thus for a manchild
are required forty and for females eighty days,
more or less, according to the natural heat and disposi
tion of the mothers. In the formation of the virginal
body of Mary the Almighty accelerated the natural time
and that, which according to the natural rule required
eighty days, was accomplished in Her within seven days.
Within these seven days, by accelerated growth, was
organized and prepared in the womb of holy Anne that
wonderful body which was to receive the most holy soul
of her Daughter and of our Lady and Queen.

220. On the Saturday next following this first Con
ception, the Almighty wrought the second Conception
by creating the soul of his Mother and infusing it into
the body; and thus entered into the world that pure
Creature, more holy, perfect and agreeable to His eyes
than all those He had created, or will create to the end
of the world, or through the eternities. God maintained
a mysterious correspondence in the execution of this
work with that of creating all the rest of the world in
seven days, as is related in the book of Genesis. Then
no doubt He rested in truth, according to the figurative
language of Scripture, since He has now created the
most perfect Creature of all, giving through it a be
ginning to the work of the divine Word and to the Re
demption of the human race. Thus was this day a
paschal feast for God and also for all creatures.
221. On account of this Immaculate Conception of
most holy Mary the holy Spirit has provided that Satur
day be consecrated to the Virgin in the holy Church,
since that was the day on which She received the great
est benefit through the creation of her soul and its
union with its body without entailing sin or its effects.
The day of the Immaculate Conception, which the Church
now celebrates, is not the day of her first conception,
when the body alone was conceived, but it is the day of
the second Conception or the infusion of her soul. Body
and soul, therefore, remained for nine months in the
womb of holy Anne, which are the days that intervene
between the Conception to the Nativity of that Queen.
During the other seven days preceding the vivification
of the inanimate body, it was disposed and organized by
the divine power, in order that this work might corre
spond with the account that Moses gives of the Creation
of all things, comprising the formation of the whole
world at its beginning. ........

As far as I know the Church has still not defined when the moment of ensoulment actually takes place.  If there has been a clear and conclusive definitive statement concerning this please be so kind as to cite the exact "chapter and verse" so to speak.

I think it is incuмbent upon anyone who wishes to study this subject of ensoulment seriously to take into account the above quotes from The Mystical City of God.  It should also be noted that a good number of pre-Vatican II popes praised The Mystical City of God and promoted its widest possible dissemination.  Perhaps needless to say, it has received various Imprimaturs down through the centuries -- and that when they were worth infinitely more than the paper they were written on.  As a reminder the Imprimatur assures the Catholic that the work does not contain anything (as in ANYTHING!) against either faith or morals.  Some of the great praise and approvals The Mystical City of God has received can be viewed in the following link for the first of the 4 volumes under the headings "Special Notice to the Reader" and "Approbations."  THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD

I believe the unbiased and sincere Catholic should be be suitably impressed at all the papal and other ecclesiastical approbations The Mystical City of God has received.

A most wonderful characteristic of the Church and of properly formed and educated Catholics is that of being able to make proper distinctions when discussing their faith.  In that regard I would ask that one consider that the above quote from The Mystical City of God speaks of two ensoulments, one of life itself and one of rationality, if you will. 

I don't see how the idea of two ensoulments necessarily negates the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  If you disagree I would ask that you spell out exactly how it does and back it up with a definitive (i.e., de fide) assertion of the Church regarding same.

It may well be that the second or rational ensoulment (if we assume for the sake of argument that there are two ensoulments) is the immortal one while the first is not.  Again, although the zygote contains all the DNA that will determine the many characteristics of the fully developed human being (i.e., person) that does not necessarily mean that the science of DNA would be conclusive in terms of arguing for only one ensoulment as opposed to two ensoulments.  Correct me (please not with mere emotion and or sincerity, but with actual Church doctrine) if I am wrong, but I think it could be reasonably and perhaps correctly argued that the first ensoulment creates a human being while the second ensoulment transforms that human being into a human person.  I don't know of anything in Church doctrine that infallibly negates this assertion.

As sort of an aside, albeit an important one I think, and although certainly not dispositive of the matter, it may certainly be of some interest to wonder where all the literally trillions of one cell zygotes and multi-cell embryos end up that come to termination if they have immortal souls.

P.S. PLEASE: nothing that I have said should be interpreted in such as way as to take away from the extreme dignity and sacredness that the Church holds for human life from the moment of conception -- the moment the egg of the woman is fertilized by the seed of the man.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the knowing and willful termination of even the zygote (one cell human being) is murder and thus inherently evil

Thanks for your reply josefamenendez.  I think it certainly deserves a thoughtful response so I will do my best.

josefamenendez:

Like Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, who stated in the "Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations" that black people have dark skin because they were cursed.. so am I obliged to believe EVERYTHING in either of these particular revelations, even if the total work is  mystically profound and predominately in alignment with the Truth of the Church?

No, you are absolutely not obliged to believe everything in either of these particular revelations and the Catholic Church has never asserted that either expressly or even implicitly.   The Imprimatur simply indicates that nothing which is said in the work for which it is given is against faith or morals.  I am not familiar with Emerich's statement -- assuming you have reported it accurately -- but on the face of it, I cannot see that if it were true it would actually contradict ANYTHING in our Catholic faith or morals since as far as I know there is no definitive doctrinal assertion in our Catholic Religion that actually speaks to the question of how or why it is that the Negro race has dark skin.  (I am no expert on the subject, but regardless of its extreme political incorrectness, I don't think we as Catholics should simply dismiss the curse of Ham as not possibly being a reasonable explanation for the color of the Negro race.  I am personally undecided as to whether the curse of Ham explanation is correct and as far as I know the Church has not given any Magisterial endorsement on the subject one way or the other.)

josefamenendez:

In volume one, Venerable Emmerich states that the Blessed Mother's ensoulment was "4 and 1/2 months, less three days" from the time of her conception. There is a discrepancy here with both of them, which doesn't necessarily make either of them wrong- these great mystics were human, subject to their own interpretation and understanding of the revelations given to them, and a product of the times in which they lived.

On the face of it (I am not familiar with your reference to Emmerich here) there would obviously be a discrepancy which on the face of it can not be reconciled.  It would ba as if one was saying the distance of the nearest star to the Earth after the sun is an exact number of miles to the Earth at a given time while the other says it is a different distance at the exact same time.  One could be objectively right or both could be objectively wrong, but both could not be objectively right at the same time.  It is, of course, an examination of the objective truth not an examination of any subjective perception of that truth which concerns us here.  That is why I think it is of paramount importance that we simply approach the interpretation of the writings of both Emmerich and Maria de Agreda based on the literal meaning of the words presented to us unless there is a clearly compelling reason to do otherwise.

I greatly admire the writings of both Emmerich and Maria de Agreda and am very edified in reading both of them.  That said, if I came across a discrepancy in their writing, I would -- all things being equal -- tend to go with that of Maria de Agreda and that primarily because of the transcribing intermediary in the person of Clemens Wenzeslaus Brentano who was at the service of Emmerich and who has been criticized, rightly or wrongly, for embellishing the work of Emmerich in ways which supposedly have been deleterious to the accuracy of some the reported revelations made known to Emmerich.

josefamenendez:

I really don't understand the two ensoulments or why it would be necessary, but then again, why should I understand it.

Join the club!  Neither do I.  Life, itself is a mystery!

josefamenendez:

The Incarnation is obviously an entirely unique situation, but Jesus Christ,  God made Flesh from the moment of the Incarnation, was also 100% human with a(perfect) human soul as well as being the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. When Mary "made haste" to visit her cousin Elizabeth after the Assumption (most scholars agree that Mary was 3 or 4 day pregnant at the time of her arrival at Elizabeth's home) the unborn John the Baptist "lept in the womb" acknowledging His Savior in utero . It just doesn't seem feasible to me that there was the slightest possibility that Christ didn't have His human soul as well at that time.

As you say, the Incarnation is "an entirely unique situation" so I agree with you that it does not seem feasible that Christ did not have His human soul at the time of Mary's visit to her cousin Elizabeth.  That, of course, logically speaking would not necessarily negate the double ensoulment idea expressed by  Maria de Agreda.  Again, Maria de Agreda does no more say that the first born son of a temporal king is not the crown prince (potential king) and as such is due great respect by the king's subjects than she says that the thing (zygote or fertilized egg) that comes into being at the moment of conception is not a human being (potential human person)  and as such is of a sacred order in nature and by that account is due great respect by all God's subjects.

josefamenendez:

I know the last thing you want from me is some situational or circuмstantial unsubstantiated stuff- but.. I don't think there is life without a soul. When someone dies, they are not dead before their soul departs. In fact, the Church allows Extreme Unction up to an hour after declared death , because there is no certainty of true death by superfical mechanical means, there may be physical life at a deeper level that can't be detected, so the Church in it's wisdom knows this and allows for the possibility of a present soul for an hour after the declaration of death.. Once you are dead-dead extreme unction can't be given.   So reversing this situation, how can an embryo or fetus even be alive without ensoulment? Isn't that what life is? What is the status of the pre-ensouled child?

You are absolutely right and the Church has never taught otherwise: there is no human life without the presence of a soul, a human soul.  Death enters into the body at the moment the soul leaves just as surely as life enters into the body (the one cell zygote) at the moment of conception when ensoulment takes place.  If it did not the zygote would not display the characteristics of life because it simply would not be alive.  Again, regardless of whether the soul of the zygote is immortal/rational, it is due great human reverence as a very special creation of God Almighty.