Dear God

[Tora-Musume]

I came across some of these questions.

Dear GOD,
Why are there so many different opinions among believers on what the Bible says and/or means?-Venessa371

Dear GOD,
What does it mean to exist?-cmp6

Dear GOD,
Do babies go to heaven or hell (some churches believe they go to hell)?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Tora-Musume' date='Aug 2 2004, 09:55 PM'] Dear GOD,
Why are there so many different opinions among believers on what the Bible says and/or means?-Venessa371 [/quote]
for two reasons:

1. the Bible is not so clear that every single person will take from it the same meaning
2. too often individual Christians set themselves up as their own subjective authority on the meaning of the Bible. since no two individuals can agree in every regard w/o an objective rule of authority, they come away from the Bible w/ two different beliefs about what the Bible "truly" means.

[quote]Dear GOD,
What does it mean to exist?-cmp6[/quote]
to exist is to be endowed w/ a soul by Jesus Christ. that is why Catholics assert that we exist from the moment of conception, for it is at this point that God gives us the soul that fuels our being. once we die, our soul departs from our body and we no longer exist, in the strictest sense of the word.

[quote]Dear GOD,
Do babies go to heaven or hell (some churches believe they go to hell)?[/quote]
although it is essential that all babies be baptized so as to erase the condemning stain of original sin, those babies who die before baptism are subject to the will of a merciful God. the Church does not know w/ certainty what will become of their souls, but she prays to God, begging that His mercy will allow for their salvation.

i hope this helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]for it is at this point that God gives us the soul [/quote]

Is the stance of the Catholic Church? I remember phatphred saying that the Catholic Church doesn't teach either way yet? Just that the moment of conception is when the life should be taken sacredly. Someone mentioned Aquanis sayin that or something.. maybe it's developed since then.

Here's another question. I remember phatphred's point: Does God allow half of the concieved to die before they become implanted?

[Guest JeffCR07]

dairygirl, I'm not sure what your last question asks, but I will address the first one.

St. Thomas Aquinas held that the soul is not infused until around the 30th or 40th day of the pregnancy. His reasoning was basically that at around that time, the number of children conceived (one, twins, triplets, etc) can be known. Further reasoning is that the cell divides, so if the soul united with the cell at the moment of conception, would there by 1/4 or a soul there if the cell would eventually be quadrupletes?

No catholic is forced to believe this view, and the Church has never supported St. Aquinas' theory. Personally, I believe the following:

A soul is intrinsically immaterial, though, in the case of the human being, it is linked to the physical reality. However, one guardian angel - because he is immaterial - can guard multiple people, and thus I would posit that the reverse is also applicable. There is no reason why, if a cell at conception will produce 3 distinct children, there should not be 3 distinct souls present and united at that moment.

Let me use a more practical example. Does anyone in their right mind claim that two brothers who happen to be physically joined together (siamese twins) possess only one soul? Thus, the number of souls is not limited to or defined by the physical reality, but rather, is only normatively connected to it.

Thus, I would argue that the soul (or souls, in the case of twins, triplets, etc) are present immediately at conception.

Again, there is no definitive teaching on this, so there is no need to believe as I do, it merely seems to make sense.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[dairygirl4u2c]

When an egg is conceived it makes its way up the tube to be implanted. Half of all conceived eggs do not make this journey succesffully. This was phatphred's point that perhaps some cells or all cells do not receive souls at conception.

And your post did not really follow if you read it again. You said that since more than one soul can partake in cellsm and since maybe only one soul per cells is only normative, then souls are infused at conception. How does that follow?

Edited August 3, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest JeffCR07]

allow me to clarify. You asked about what Aquinas believes, which I explained (I hope?) clearly. I then provided a response to such a belief. I merely argue that, because a soul is immaterial, it is perfectly reasonable that, during the period of time between conception and the formation of, say, two humans inside the womb (twins) two souls are "present" in anticipation of the development of those two distinct physical realities. These physical realities, or bodies, correspond to their individual souls, though they do not limit them.

Thus, I would argue it as such:

Conception occurs. At the moment of conception, three souls become present. These three souls are present in anticipation of the triplets that will develop. In the case of conception that will produce twins, two souls will be present in anticipation of the two individuals that will develop. In the case of a single birth, one soul will be present.

Again, I merely offer an alternate explanation. If you are asking me to "prove" that the souls become present at the moment of conception, the only proof I can offer is that it makes logical sense that spiritual and physical life would begin simultaneously, as we are a unity of person, soul and body. Moreover, I would respond with the counter-question: Why would the soul ever become present at any other time? It seems to me that these "other times" defy logic and intuition.

With regards to phatphred's (who is that, by the way?) point about the eggs within which conception has occured but fail to become implanted, I would regard them exactly as I regard my mom's (or any other) miscarriage: The child died before he/she was born.

I hope that makes sense, and/or clears up your question. I appologize for not being as eloquent as I could have been.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

Yep.
We must remember that we are literally em[i]bodi[/i]ed souls.
The body is just a temporary vehicle carrying the soul around until death separates us, and the soul goes home to God.

[amarkich]

PhatCatholic, the Church has declared [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]the following things:

"The souls of those who die with mortal sin or with original sin only descend immediately into hell." Ecumenical Council of Florence

"The souls of those who die with mortal sin or with original sin only descend immediately into hell to be punished with different punishments." Ecumenical Council of Lyons II

With that being known, it is impossible for anyone to presume that an unbaptized infant is saved (which you do not do), but it is also not logical to hope that they are saved since the Church has already stated that original sin itself damns. If this is true, then those who are unbaptized and have original sin would "descend immediately descend into hell" but the concept of Limbo would be available for these souls. This should be our hope for the unbaptized babies.


Dairygirl, you are correct in saying that the Church does not teach when the soul is infused (as is Jeff). You are correct that Saint Thomas Aquinas (and Saint Augustine) believed that the soul is infused about 40 days after conception (or, when the baby kicks in the womb according to some; this is traced to Saint John the Baptist who kicked in his womb upon being in contact with Our Lord--it is also a Tradition of the Church that Saint John the Baptist's original sin was cleansed at this instant). This would absolutely assure that a baby has a soul infused by the time that Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas believed (40 days) but would not assure that the soul is infused at conception. It is true that the physical life begins at this time (separate DNA; it is essentially a different person), but there is no way of knowing if there is a soul. I like phatphred's argument. I am somewhat undecided on when the soul is infused, but it is not necessary to be known because even if the soul is infused after conception, that would not justify abortion (or use of abortifacients like the birth control pill) because contraception is also a mortal sin. God bless.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Aug 3 2004, 12:42 PM'] Yep.
We must remember that we are literally em[i]bodi[/i]ed souls.
The body is just a temporary vehicle carrying the soul around until death separates us, and the soul goes home to God. [/quote]
Actually, I would disagree with you there. We are a body-soul composite, not just a soul inhabiting a material body. Both body and soul are significant parts of who we are. And, in fact, we will be reunited with our bodies at the end of time. Both our body and soul will be in heaven (or hell) for all eternity, not just the soul.

[cmotherofpirl]

My point exaclty. They are fused together until death, separated until the Christ returns and then joined forever. You cannot have one without the other.

Amerkich the Church teaches we trust unbaptised infants to the mercy of God.


[u]When Babies Get Their Souls [/u]
James Atkins


One of the arguments used by pro-abortion individuals is that it is permissible to kill an unborn child because nobody knows when the child gets a soul. Prior to this point, the unborn would not be a human being, and so killing it would not be homicide.


A parallel argument is sometimes made in the case of euthanasia. Some individuals confronted with a loved one who is comatose are counseled that the person's soul is no longer present, that it has "already gone home to God," and so it is okay to kill the body that is left.


Both of these arguments are wrong for a variety of reasons. To see why, let's begin by looking at when the child gets a soul — i.e., at the point of ensoulment. There are four basic possibilities for the time this can occur: at conception, between conception and birth, at birth, and after birth. Let's look at them in reverse order.


After Birth


This idea is so far out of Judeo-Christian tradition that it has always been recognized as an impossibility. It is, however, held in a small number of New Age circles. Some New Agers state that some children do not get their souls until several days after birth. This harmonizes with a common New Age idea that souls get to choose the body in which they reincarnate. The idea in this case would be that there is no magic point where a child has to get a soul; it just depends on what soul chooses the body first.


Needless to say, this is a bizarre idea and is not likely to have much traction outside New Age circles. It may become somewhat more common as abortion and euthanasia lead to a greater push for infanticide and thus a greater desire to rationalize away the humanity of a newly born child.


At Birth


Scarcely less bizarre than the post-birth hypothesis is the assertion made by some, supposedly based on Genesis 2:7, that one receives a soul and becomes a human when one draws one's first breath. This fails to appreciate the Bible's use of metaphor. Breath is a biblical metaphor for one's spirit or life-principle — since the only living humans in everyday life are breathing humans — but breath and spirit are not the same thing.


The idea that one inhales a soul at birth would suggest that souls are made out of oxygen molecules and that we inhale them and exhale them all the time, two notions incompatible with biblical anthropology. Furthermore, modern science reveals that the unborn have been already "breathing" through the placenta (the pre-birth organ equivalent in function to the mouth), which has been taking oxygen and nutrients from the mother's bloodstream.


Today the at-birth view is most often found among pro-abortion Christians. However, from a biblical point of view, it is clear that a child is human before birth. When Mary's greeting reached Elizabeth's ears in Luke's Gospel, the unborn John the Baptist leapt for joy in his mother's womb (1:44); we are also told that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (1:15). The unborn John the Baptist is also described as a brephos (Luke 1:41, 44), this being a Greek term meaning a babe, an infant, a newborn child. These indicate the humanity of the unborn John the Baptist, who was then in the third trimester (1:36-40).


After Conception


It is sometimes claimed that Thomas Aquinas believed that the unborn did not acquire a soul until several weeks after conception. This is not true. Aquinas believed that the unborn had a soul (a rational, human soul) from the time it was conceived. However, following Aristotelian science, he (and a few other Western writers) thought that conception was an extended process that did not finish until forty or ninety days into the pregnancy: "The conception of the male finishes on the fortieth day and that of the woman on the ninetieth, as Aristotle says in the IX Book of the Animals" (Aquinas, Commentary on III Sentences 3:5:2).


Aquinas was correct that the unborn receive their souls at conception; he was merely mistaken on when conception was finished, due to the lack of available science. As modern medicine has shown, conception in humans occurs almost instantaneously, as soon as the sperm and the ovum unite. This joining may occur as soon as twenty minutes after the marital act.


Aquinas and a few other medieval Western writers held the forty-to-ninety-day conception theory, but the biological discoveries of the nineteenth century proved it wrong. The view provides little comfort for abortion advocates today for a variety of reasons. It was based on primitive science. It draws a distinction between males and females that many today would regard as sexist. It was held by only a few writers. No single theologian (even Aquinas) speaks for the Church. The writers who favored the theory also opposed abortion as intrinsically evil at any stage.


At Conception


When viewed without the lens of Aristotelian science, the biblical view of ensoulment becomes clear. In the Old Testament, the psalmist assumes the humanity of the unborn child at conception when he says, "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5, NRSV). This indicates that the unborn child possesses a sinful, fallen nature at the time of conception (though it does not manifest in actual, personal sins until later; cf. Romans 9:11). Since sin is a spiritual phenomenon, the presence of a sinful nature indicates a spiritual nature and thus a soul, making the child a complete human being from conception.


The humanity of the unborn at all stages of development is also indicated by the biblical terminology used to refer to unborn children. The Hebrew term yeled, which means "child, son, boy, offspring, youth," is used to refer to the unborn child, regardless of the stage of development. (Cf. Ex. 21:22, where the Hebrew says literally "her children come out" instead of "she has a miscarriage," as in some translations.) The same is true of the term ben, which means "son, child, youth" (cf. Gen. 25:22).


From the biblical perspective, all children are children, whether born or not. The Jews neither had nor needed a specialized term for the unborn, whose humanity they saw clearly. Thus the Hebrew Scripture regularly refers to individuals existing in the womb ("I knew you in the womb," Jer. 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12, Ps. 139:13-16, Is. 44:2).


The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament (c. A.D. 70) states, "You shall not procure an abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (2:1). The Letter of Barnabas (c. A.D. 74) states, "You shall not murder a child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born" (19). Numerous other references in the early Christian writers condemn abortion as murder.


The possession of the soul at all stages of development is also indicated by natural reason, once one understands what a soul is. From an ultimate perspective, a human is comprised of a human soul serving as the substantial form of a human body (cf. Summa Theologiae 1:75:4), as indicated in Genesis 2:7. The fact that a soul is needed to turn a human body into a human has sufficiently penetrated the popular consciousness that people recognize the presence of a soul is tied to the right to life.


This leads to the argument in which pro-abortion individuals try to turn the concept of the soul against pro-lifers by arguing that there is no empirical way of determining the presence of the soul, making it a matter of faith or personal opinion.


One response to this argument is to discuss the concept of the soul. According to biblical theology, the soul (the spirit) is the life-principle of the body. As such, so long as a human body is alive, it has a human soul, for, as James tells us, "the body apart from the spirit is dead" Jas. 2:26). This point of biblical theology was infallibly proclaimed, using philosophical terminology, by the Council of Vienna (1311-1312). The Council dogmatically defined that the soul is the substantial form of a living human body — the metaphysical form that gives the body its humanness and its life (DS 902 [D 481], CCC 365). When the soul departs, the body ceases to be living, loses its integrity, and begins to decay.


Given this, a pro-life advocate may say that there is an empirical test for the presence of the human soul. Though the soul itself cannot be empirically observed, its presence can be detected (just as an electron itself cannot be directly observed, but the presence of an electron can be detected through various scientific means). The test is simple: If you have a living human body, it is made alive by a human soul. This reduces the issue to the question of biological humanness.


Another way to deal with the argument is to turn the abortion activist's assertion — that the soul is undetectable — against him. One may argue that if the soul is undetectable, then its presence or absence cannot be used as a test for humanness in a secular society. People cannot be allowed to terminate the lives of others based on their individual beliefs concerning whether their victims have souls. Therefore, we must rely on what we can test, which is whether a life form is biologically human.


This approach will often be more appropriate than arguing about the presence or absence of souls, especially when one is talking with a person of little or no religious faith. It also undercuts the argument that the rights of the unborn are a purely religious matter.



©2002 by Catholic Answers, Inc.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]"The souls of those who die with mortal sin or with original sin only descend immediately into hell." Ecumenical Council of Florence

"The souls of those who die with mortal sin or with original sin only descend immediately into hell to be punished with different punishments." Ecumenical Council of Lyons II[/quote]

These two quotes are 100% true.

It is also true that God has the power, in His mercy and if he chooses to do so, to remove original sin from us before our death - such as with baptism by blood or desire. In no way am I saying that this is what happens to all unborn children, but I am making the statement to disprove your rather authoritative statements that "it is also not logical to hope that they are saved since the Church has already stated that original sin itself damns." Of course it is logical to hope, regardless of however small that hope might be. Personally, limbo seems the most logical option of all, but I would never presume to say that another option is open to God, nor would I presume to dictate what option God will take. I will obey the Church, and pray that God will show mercy upon them.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Flash]

I think that what motherofpearl quoted is awesome!

[Guest JeffCR07]

me too! way to go cmom!

[amarkich]

Cmom, where does the Church teach (authoritatively) that we [i]should[/i] hope for their salvation (as opposed to the belief of some that we [i]can[/i] hope for their salvation; and even if we are allowed to, where is the proof that this is in accord with reason considering the declarations of the Church; can we also hope for the salvation of those who die in obstinate mortal sin)?

Jeff, I agree with what you said essentially. Obviously it is virtuous to hope for the salvation of all, but there are times when this is not true, e.g., Blessed Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors condemns the following "Good hope should be maintained for the salvation of those outside the Church." We see that there are times when hope should not be maintained. I still have an interior hope for the salvation of all, of course, but, as you said, I do not presume the mercy of God by saying that the souls who die with original sin only go anywhere but Hell. If the Church authoritatively teaches something [i]Ex Cathedra [/i]then we cannot make exceptions to the teachings of the Church, otherwise we can make the same argument that "The souls of those who die in mortal sin ... descend immediately into hell." is left up to God and that God can save those who die in a state of mortal sin. I doubt anyone would believe such a thing, but the two Councils group those who die with mortal sin and those who die with original sin only to the same fate. Those who die with mortal sin descend immediately into Hell (true, without exceptions). Those who die with original sin only descend immediately into Hell to be punished with different punishments [from the damned who die with mortal sin] (true, with exceptions?). How can this be true? If the Church groups the two (mortal sin and original sin only) together, who are we to say differently? I am sure no one would say "God can save a person in mortal sin from Hell if he chooses", but (almost) everyone says "God can save a person with original sin only from Hell." What is the basis for this (other than false speculative theology)? God bless.

Edited August 3, 2004 by amarkich

[MichaelFilo]

God can do anything. We cannot limit God to anything. While we have sufficient proof that mortal sinners are going to hell, I cannot say the same for those babies who are unborn and have original sin. You are overlooking the baptisms of blood and desire. Are we all not all born with a desire to go to God? God being a fair judge would take into consideration the mental capacity of an unborn baby, and also take into consideration the will of the child. While I agree that original sin is damnable, you are over looking the baptisms of blood and desire.

God bless,

Mikey