Author Topic: When is the soul created? (Read 4530 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 12, 2012, 06:58:48 AM »

Quote from: Aristotle

Now there is one property that animals are found to have in common with plants. For some plants are generated from the seed of plants, whilst other plants are self-generated through the formation of some elemental principle similar to a seed; and of these latter plants some derive their nutriment from the ground, whilst others grow inside other plants, as is mentioned, by the way, in my treatise on Botany. So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their several organs

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** November 12, 2012, 07:04:01 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

I don't see the connection to the theory of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

The successive development of the vegetative, animal, and rational soul in comes from Aristotle.

Quote

It is rather the opposite, as some thought the soul to spring forth from the parents directly, as opposed to being infused by God.

St. Thomas Aquinas relied on Aristotle's theories on this. That doesn't mean they agreed completely.

Quote

Of course this has no effect on the lawfulness of abortion, as one can clearly see from the Gratian decretal.

Not the lawfulness, but it does have to do with the gravity.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #12 on:** November 12, 2012, 07:15:59 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Aristotle
Now there is one property that animals are found to have in common with plants. For some plants are generated from the seed of plants, whilst other plants are self-generated through the formation of some elemental principle similar to a seed; and of these latter plants some derive their nutriment from the ground, whilst others grow inside other plants, as is mentioned, by the way, in my treatise on Botany. So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their several organs

This is the same as the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas:

"Anima sensitiva educitur de potentia materiae in brutis. In nobis vero non, sed est per creationem, cuм eius essentia sit essentia animae rationalis, quae est per creationem" (Quodl, 11, 5, ad 1).

I do not doubt that both theories have their difficulties. The individuation of twins, for example, speaking of the theory of direct infusion, as well as the fact that about 50% of pregnancies fail, usually unnoticed, in the very first stage.

If this were not a problem, the Congregation for Studies should have formulated the XV. thomistic thesis differently:

XV. Contra, per se subsistit anima humana, quae, cuм subiecto sufficienter disposito potest infundi, a Deo creatur, et sua natura incorruptibilis est atque immortalis., relying of course on St. Thomas in his definition of soul generally:

"Anima est actus primus physici corporis organici potentia vitam habentis." (CG, 2, 61)

Also, as far as I can see it, the thomist moral theologians do not differentiate the gravity of an abortion according to the state of the fetus, even though the ascribe to the theory of St. Thomas.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 12, 2012, 07:23:23 AM »

It's impossible to argue the question of ensoulment doesn't have to do with gravity.

You should be able to see that.

It is also obvious that the fact that many pregnancies fail is irrelevant to the question of the creation of the soul.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #14 on:** November 12, 2012, 09:33:11 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

It's impossible to argue the question of ensoulment doesn't have to do with gravity.

You should be able to see that.

It is also obvious that the fact that many pregnancies fail is irrelevant to the question of the creation of the soul.

You are correct, I have to retract and apologize. As a matter of fact, the Corpus Iuris Canonici states exactly what you are saying, namely:

Quote

C. VIII. Non est homicida qui aborsum procurat ante, quam anima corpori sit infusa.
Quod uero non formatum puerperium ad homicidium pertinere noluit, profecto nec hominem deputauit, quod tale in utero geritur. Hic de anima questio solet agitari, utrum quicquid formatum non est nec animatum quidem possit intelligi, et ideo non homicidium sit, quia nec exanimatum dici potest, si animam non habebat. Item:
§. 1. Si illud informe puerperium iam quidem fuerat sed adhuc informiter quodammodo animatum (quoniam magna de anima questio non est) precipitanda indiscussa temeritate sentenciae, ideo lex noluit ad homicidium pertinere, quia nondum dici potest anima uiua in eo corpore, quod sensu caret.

Decretum Magistri Gratiani 2.32.2.7

It is very surprising then, though, that the law of the Church was such for several hundred years.