www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ethics Question-Emergency Contraception

Joe,

We seem to be talking past each other. My point is this: one can believe that life begins at implantation and still uphold that the zygote must be protected from the moment of fertilization. The polarization I was talking about was lumping those who hold this view with the pro-abortion crowd.

To repeat myself, I know what the Church teaches, but I am saying I am not sure if it is theologically sound to say life can begin before ensoulment. Since the Church has not taken a position on ensoulment, and Eastern theology does not seperate bios and pneumatikos I don't think you can say Deacon John is disagreeing with the Church. There has been no infallible statement. Since he is an expert in this area, he has the right to suggest the Church further clarify this teaching. To do so does not make him a heretic, dissenter, or pro-abortionist.

And you still have not provided an answer to the twinning and fusing problem.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

//We seem to be talking past each other.//

I am only pointing out what the Church has already provided in the way of defining the beginning of life. If you wish to ignore it, that is your sole perogative. Maybe my posts don't make sense because you wish not to consider those instructions? I don't know.

//My point is this: one can believe that life begins at implantation and still uphold that the zygote must be protected from the moment of fertilization.//

Not so, my friend. Those who want conception and the beginning of life to be at the moment of implantation have reasons for doing so. Do I have to draw you a picture?

//The polarization I was talking about was lumping those who hold this view with the pro-abortion crowd.//

There are only two paths: the way of life and the way of death. The culture of death ignores the invitation of the Didache. Those who are lumped with the pro-abortion crowd are those who have other agendas besides protecting life. Consider Planned Parenthood ...

The French wanted school administrators to pass out 'morning after pills' and the Church responded in a forceful negative. First, condoms; now, 'morning after pills.' What's next?

//To repeat myself, I know what the Church teaches,//

What does the Church teach? And why have you failed to discuss it?

//... but I am saying I am not sure if it is theologically sound to say life can begin before ensoulment.//

This seems to be your problem. How in creation are you going to prove when ensoulment occurs? Even the Pope can't ascertain with certainty.

//Since the Church has not taken a position on ensoulment, and Eastern theology does not seperate bios and pneumatikos I don't think you can say Deacon John is disagreeing with the Church.//

The Church HAS taken a position on life, human life. Again, I ask you to read the church documents I referred to in my previous posts. Whether the Church has not taken a position on ensoulment or whether Eastern theology doesn't separatae bios and pneumatikos is a different issue than whether the beginning of life can be determined. The Church has taught, in the context of today's physiological understanding (and not First Century Palestine), that life begins at fertilization, which occurs five to six days before implantation.

//There has been no infallible statement.//

Must there be a dogma for everything?

//Since he is an expert in this area, he has the right to suggest the Church further clarify this teaching.//

We all have the right to demand a clarification. If you would only read their 'clarifications,' you will understand where they stand. The Church doesn't merely write instructions for 'experts.' We little people also have a brain, can read, and comprehend.

//To do so does not make him a heretic, dissenter, or pro-abortionist.//

My base argument has always been that his statement that life begins at implantation does not agree with previous church teachings, encyclicals, and instructions. It is you who are trying to pin me as one accusing the deacon/doctor as a heretic, dissenter, and pro-abortionist. What will be the next accusation you can muster? Anyone can read the documents that I referred to and determine for themselves that his statement does NOT agree with what has been published by the Church so far. Expert or no expert.

//And you still have not provided an answer to the twinning and fusing problem.//

Twinning and fusing problem? I haven't studied souls under a petri-dish and have no way of knowing what it is you want answered. You are determined to make the recognition and definition of "life" only in context with the spiritual realm. This demand will only make any commentary on life difficult, if not impossible.

- - -

From VATICAN DOCUMENTS - THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY - IN THE SERVICE OF LIFE - A SUMMIT MEETING OF EXPERTS ON HUMAN LIFE (Rome, April 20-22, 1991):

"The second fact is the denial, on the part of some sectors of the scientific and cultural world, of the full value of the human being from the first moment of fertilization. To further this end, subjective concepts and purely external data are introduced. Therefore, it is necessary to reaffirm the full anthropological value of the human individual from the moment of fertilization (cf. Donum Vitae, Part 1, n. 1).

The first moments of the beginning of human life are fundamental in determining the development which follows. It is not possible to conceive of the physiognomy and the characterization of individual human persons without going back to the first events of their life from the point of fertilization. In fact, what we are today is really the continuation and the development of what we were from the moment of fertilization. We should remember that at the moment of the union of the male and female gametes, all the characteristics of the new human being, including gender, are defined."

The entire text can be read here:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/pcfintheserviceoflife.htm

Joe

Joe,

This is my last post on this subject. I think I have made it clear that I respect and uphold the Church's teaching. That some feel a further clarification is in order or hold a philosophical opinion where the Church has not adopted one is not dissent, in my opinion. To lump these in with pro-abortionists is wrong. To do so with a person like Deacon John, is un-Christian.

As for your accusations and snide comments: "Maybe my posts don't make sense because you wish not to consider those instructions?; Do I have to draw you a picture? We little people also have a brain, can read, and comprehend." you can keep them to yourself. I don't make them and I am not going to tolerate them. If you can't maintain a respectful tone don't post.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

This is what happens when the issue being discussed gets de-railed. Maybe someday we will find all the answers to the problem of ensoulment, twinning and whatever. As for determining when life begins, I stand by what the Church teaches. Otherwise, I would have taken that pharmaceutical job with no iota of conscientious objection. Besides being accused of calling people heretics, pro-abortionists, and the like, I was also called nuts by other "Catholics" for passing up such a lucrative job. But I take seriously what the Church teaches and refuse to push drugs that will prevent life from finding a home in a woman's womb. My wife, as a medical biller for OB/GYN's also refuses to code for certain procedures. I might not be the "expert" you care to look up to, but we both face decisions in our house and will always take a pro-life stand. We find the teaching and instructions of the Church quite acceptable.

What our Church doesn't need is a scandal.

God bless,
Joe Thur

Lance,

You have consistently ignored every Church instruction, encyclical and document I have quoted and provided a link to regarding the issue at hand. Like the quote in my previous post, you have introduced "subjective" concepts (twinning, ensoulment, 40 days, etc) into the fray. You have not provided a reasonable commentary on the specific statements where the Church HAS taught or instructed that life begins at fertilization. Nor have you provided any Church statement specifically supporting the notion that conception or the beginning of life commences at implantation. You have defended the right to question, but have not included the arguments from the Church's position. The whole argument has to be critiqued, not just a professional's right to question.

All are welcomed to carefully critique the statements from the Church regarding life beginning at fertilization and not implantation. Questioning each other's position is a right we can all enjoy.

God bless,
Joe Thur

Well I did actually post an answer to this about 2 hours ago - but it seems to have vanished into the ether somewhere

I go away for a couple of days and come back to an enormous amount of reading - thanks guys for the mental indigestion I am surely going to get - love you too

However first - one reasponse is needed for clarification
Bisantino said
Hmm yes well the problem here is of course that I am Latin and my Parish Priest does wonder about me at times.

We had a Liturgy Group meeting recently and during a discussion about the re-ordering of the Sacraments I seem to have dropped a large brick [ not as far as I am concerned , you understand] when I said that I really felt we should give Communion to all children following Baptism - I actually used the argument that we give them food for their physical bodies and I felt that we should give them Spiritual Food for their spiritual well being and growth also. It takes a lot to get any reaction from our PP - but this did - his jaw dropped and hit the table with a resounding thud , and I was sharply reminded that we do not give Communon to anyone below the age of reason !!

OK back on topic now and I am off to get mental indigestion and catch up on all this reading.

Anhelyna

The Greek Orthodox parish in Somerville, Massachusetts (USA) was known as Assumption for decades upon decades. In the 60's, the name was changed to Dormition. Guess it was the reaction to the Italianate term: Assumpta Maria.

But then again: who cares. Those of us who love the Mother of God don't care too much about the 'details' of the phenomenon; it's just "she's the Mother of God, and her Son came for her."

What more do we need?

What also makes me smile is the ongoing yin-yang among posters about "when life begins". Perhaps I'm nuts, but I think: shouldn't we ask the woman about when she is aware that the new little one is present? Women KNOW what is happening to their bodies; and us men had better learn to ASK questions and not be so dogmatic based upon philosophy or quagmire-biology. While women appear to be happy to have some bio-medical support for one perspective or another, the fact remains that I really, really trust the woman to say: Yup, I'm pregnant, or Nope, not yet.

Blessings!

Dr. John,

Yet women buy home pregnancy tests ...

Mostly men state they aren't sick so as not to visit the doctor's office or take medicine. Should we take their word?

Where do you think up these things?

Joe

Dr. John,

It's amazing how many women really don't have a clue - but there are ways in which this sort of thing is like unto converse with God - He's always there, but you need silence and attentiveness to hear Him. Likewise, a woman who is attentive to the rhythms of her body will indeed know within days or weeks of when she has conceived. That's the only reason I know that I miscarried twice. This is common amongst women who chart their cycles - women who do not are equally as likely to miscarry, but not being aware that they had conceived, assume it is a late, heavy or "odd" menstrual period - and a tiny life winks out unknown to any but God.

And for what it may be worth - I have no idea when a blastocyte or a fetus is ensouled, but no matter at what point, that precious mass of cells forming into a baby is loved by God. I will affirm to my death that one time before I miscarried, I was given a sense of how precious the tiny life in my belly was to God, and I was given a choice. I wasn't feeling particularly generous that day, but I had to admit that he or she belonged to God too. I miscarried later that day - and I have never before or since known God's tenderness so. (I also have to wonder what would have come to pass if I had insisted that the baby was mine...)

Sorry for the digression. I don't have any canons to cite.


Sharon

Since there were some questions regarding an Eastern perspective on the beginning of life and ensoulment, I post the following:

AN EASTERN CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE, FERTILIZATION, AND ENSOULMENT:

This first statement is taken from "Embryonic Stem Cell Research - A statement of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America" - October 17, 2001

"From the perspective of Orthodox Christianity, human life begins at conception (meaning fertilization with creation of the single-cell zygote). This conviction is grounded in the Biblical witness (e.g., Ps 139:13-16; Isaiah 49:1 ff; Luke 1:41, 44), as well as in the scientifically established fact that from conception there exists genetic uniqueness and cellular differentiation that, if the conception is allowed to develop normally, will produce a live human being.1 Human life is sacred from its very beginning, since from conception it is ensouled existence. As such, it is �personal� existence, created in the image of God and endowed with a sanctity that destines it for
eternal life."

The entrie text can be read here:
http://www.roea.org/0111/ho00004.html

Note: Of course, the Orthodox bishops responded after Fr. Johannes Jacobse wrote his article, "Why is the Orthodox Church Silent on Stem Cell Research?" Should we ask our Eastern Catholic bishops to make a statement too?

- - -

From the OCA, we have, "Whose Body Is It?" by Very Rev. John Breck:

"Over the centuries, theologians have held divergent views regarding the beginning of human life and the point after conception at which a "person" can be said to exist. It has been noted before in this space that some Church Fathers hold to "immediate animation," while others opt for a theory of "delayed animation." To the former, fertilization and conception are synonymous, and they understand that human life, even "personal existence," begins with the creation of the genetically unique zygote, the one-celled embryo at its earliest stage of development. The latter group argues, on various grounds, that the soul only "enters" the body at some point after fertilization -- for example, at implantation or quickening -- and only at that point do they consider the process of conception to be complete. I have also suggested reasons why, from the point of view of Orthodox anthropology, the latter view does not correspond with fact or reality."

The entire text can be found here:

http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/Whose%20Body%20Is.htm

- - -

The idea of ensoulment at 40 days (for boys) or 80 days (for girls) is from Judaism. The above article from the Orthodox bishops state that 'ensoulment' is at conception/fertilization.

Here is another statement from Metropolitan Nicholas (ACROD):

"It is only the Church that witnesses to the greatness and profound beauty of personhood. This personhood begins simply, inexorably, and elegantly, at the moment of conception. Neither does the soul exist first by itself, nor does the body: both come into existence simultaneously. As St. Gregory of Nyssa has taught, "The beginning of existence is one and the same for body and soul.""

[So, we DO have an Eastern theology on the beginning of soul and body.]

Metropolitan Nicholas goes on to include:

"Now there are other opinions and other "anthropologies." There are other theories advanced about the meaning of humanity, and about the where and when of the beginning of human life.

One of the grim consequences of this m�lange of opinions is an atmosphere of ambiguity and confusion. Presently, there is little appreciation for objective truth about the meaning of humanity. Instead, there are a number of "theories" regarding human life that have come to the forefront. Each one is used as a rationale for the use of human stem cells in research, and the manipulation of human embryos.

Some believe that what is used for the harvesting of stem cells - the zygote - is only potential human life. They conveniently re-label the fertilized egg as a "pre-embryo," rather than an "embryo." They argue that personhood (or "singularity") is established when the zygote attaches to the uterine wall-- when it develops into a more complex "individuated" structure - then it becomes a person. This, they contend, is when human life begins - at the moment of implantation, not at conception.

Others believe that human life begins, arbitrarily, six months after conception, at the third trimester of pregnancy. This is the legal consensus of the U. S. Supreme Court, which concluded, in 1982, that "a fetus, at least during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, is not an existing person within the meaning of the Constitution."

The official archpastoral statement can be read in its entirety at:

http://www.acrod.org/mn/message11.HTML

- - -

Another quote from Fr. Breck:

"Eastern Christian tradition has almost always held to the theory of �immediate� rather than �delayed� animation. That is, the Church believes that full human life�indeed, personal existence�begins with conception, meaning fertilization."

This article can be found at:

http://christianity.com/CC/article/0,,PTID3863%7CCHID460356%7CCIID814762,00.html

- - -

This quote taken from "Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court of the United States by the Holy Orthodox Church: Webster vs. Planned Parenthood - 1988; No. 88-605":

2. The Early Church Recognized That Life Begins at Conception, and Rejected Distinctions Based Upon Fetal Development or Viability

The Roe Court observed that there was "little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation.

There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide." 410 U.S. at 134. This assertion has no basis in the practices or theology of historic Christianity.

Among the earliest testimonies that fetal development was irrelevant is that of St. Basil the Great, who wrote that "any hairsplitting distinction as to its being formed or unformed is inadmissible with us." [12] He also condemned suppliers of abortifacients, regardless of the stage of pregnancy: "'Those who give potions for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers, as are those who take potions which kill the child." [13]

St. Basil's brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-394), saw the fetus as a complete human being from the time of conception, and specifically rejected theories based upon formation or quickening: "There is no question about that which is bred in the uterus, both growing, and moving from place to place. It remains, therefore, that we must think that the point of commencement of existence is one and the same for body and soul." [14] Even Tertullian of Carthage (c.160-c.230), a prominent Latin ecclesiastical writer who seemed to accept the formed/unformed distinction as a biological matter, dismissed its moral importance: "Abortion is a precipitation of murder, nor does it matter whether or not one takes a life when formed, or drives it away when forming, for he is also a man who is about to be one." [15]

Though less specific, Holy Scripture also recognizes that an unborn child's life is sacred, and begins no later than conception: "'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5, 6. [16] Also noteworthy is St. Luke's use of the same Greek word, brephos (baby), for both the unborn St. John the Baptist (Luke 1:44) and the newly-born Christ child (Luke 2:12). Even more indicative are those examples, in both Old and New Testaments, where God enters into a direct personal relationship with a specific individual before birth, by "consecrating," "appointing," "calling," and //setting apart" the unborn child through His grace. [17] This testifies to the Bible's view that the fetus is not only a human being but a person. That this understanding of an unborn person's receptivity to divine grace extends back to conception is further evidenced by the ancient practice, as formalized in the Church calendar, of celebrating not only the conception of Christ (Annunciation, March 25), but that of His mother (December 9), and St. John the Baptist (September 23).

The entire brief can be read here:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/OrthodoxAmicusBrief.htm

- - -

Eastern theologians and official episcopal statements agree with the "Catholic" position that life (and ensoulment) begins at fertilization, not implantation or some other moment of delayed animation.

I agree with St. Gregory. To suggest that a soul is planted or inserted at some other time than the beginning of life/fertilization is to suggest a Platonic notion of the soul being imprisoned in the body. This can lead to the idea of the soul being 'good' and the body being 'bad.' And we all know where that will lead ...

St. Gregory writes, "Therefore soul is not born after body. So body and soul are born together." This bold statement from the 4th Century can be found in his book, "On the Soul and the Resurrection, chapter 8."

That the soul and human life begins at the same time makes for an interesting anthropology. No matter how you 'divide' a person, you always remain with a unity or one-ness, however developed that person is bodily, mentally, and/or spiritually.

Note: The Theory of Delayed Hominization was made popular by St. Thomas Aquinas. Such ideas were based on Aristotle. Neither are part or parcel of an Eastern theological anthropology. At least I hope not.

I tried not to cite any canons.

Joe Thur

PS: One more from the 'experts': http://www.all.org/issues/textbook.htm

Joe,

Thank you for the citations. It would seem that the matter is settled. I would point out, however, that the Orthodox statements refuse to seperate the beginning of life and ensoulment and maintain a more consistent position than the CDF documents. The CDF documents are not consistent with Eastern theology which refuse to seperate body and soul, which is one point I was trying to make.

What is the point of the Catholic Church refusing to define when ensoulment occurs yet be willing to define life begins at fertilization? The Catholic Magesterium says bios begins at fertilization and leaves the question open on ensoulment, so I still think it is unfair to say Deacon John is speaking in error. For if Deacon John, as a good Eastern theologian, refuses to seperate bios from ensoulment, a logical progression is to look at what point is it more likely for that to occur. If in his expert opinion he concludes implantation, I do not believe that is a heretical view. Nor do I believe such a belief means one is in favor of abortion, as clearly Deacon John is not.

In anycase it is clear that Orthodox and Catholic consensus is that ensoulemnt occurs (and life begins) at conception, meaning fertilization. Although, I must admit I am still troubled by the twinning/fusing problem.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Dear Subdeacon Lance,

I stand by my statement and will not apologize--ordained ministers represent the Church, and even if they attempt a preface to their comments they surely will be given more credibility.

And by the way, I never called Fr. Dcn John a heretic. I said he was preaching heresy--which means he is in error. But to be a "formal heretic" and thus earn the title he would have to be conscious of his error and reject correction from his bishop. I do not believe that Fr. Dcn John is a formal heretic but I believe that his statements were heretical and should be revised.

I believe you are complicating the matter unduly by trying to make an argument--even if for "the sake of argument"--that the embryo dividing and possibly recombining goes against ensoulment being at conception: ISTM that since God knows if the embryo is going to divide or not, he provides the requisite number of souls at conception, with the soul of each twin going with its appointed zygote at the division.

anastasios

Lance,

The West has certainly taken a loop-dee-loop while following Aquinas and Aristotle over the centuries. Then again, the West has taken quite a few loop-dee-loops with these two fellas.

I think the "Catholic" Church DOES define ensoulment similar to the Orthodox. See their CCC #364:

"The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul ..."

#364 quotes Gaudium et spes (1965):

"Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity."

CCC #365 goes on to state:

"The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature."

In a previous article, the CCC states:

"In Sacred Scriptures the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person." (#363)

So, it would be logical to conclude that the beginning of life, humann life, at conception/fertilization includes ensoulment. It does not imply a form of dualism (the CCC refers to the Council of Constantinople IV).

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are in agreement. It would also seem logical that the Eastern Catholic bishops side with the Latin West in the U.S. only because they are members of their Conference of bishops and they just have to sign on the dotted line.

We also don't really have a 'synod' or have taken any leadership position (formal statement) on any medical and/or ethical issues that I am aware of. We are not apt to make our own decisions. That is usually done elsewhere - and only with permission.

Joe Thur

Anastasios,

Your correction is well taken, but the subtle distinction between heresy and heretic is open to misinterpretation. Your initial statement should have been more clear.

Your solution to twinning is certainly possible but we are still left with the problem of fusing. I don't know the answer, but we must certainly affirm that abortion is never acceptable.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Since my wording was unclear I apologize for that aspect.

I think that in fusing we could just say that God also knew the two embryos would rejoin eventually. When this happens, it must be some sort of necessity: maybe the two embryos "know" that they cannot survive divided, so they return to unity. I don't know--I had never heard of this before, I admit.

anastasios