12/31/2023 0 Comments Fr tad pacholczykIt is a matter of simple empirical observation.Īll of us began as embryonic human beings, and such human beings are never to be instrumentalized for stem-cell extraction or other destructive ends. This is a scientific affirmation which does not ultimately depend on religion, value systems, or imposing anything on anyone. It is not a zebra type of being, a plant type of being or some other kind of being. We know exactly what the embryo is, namely, a human being, a being that is clearly and unmistakably human. Because there's a chance the embryo is a person, we can't risk destroying it.” This is a problematic summary of the Church's position, however, because she actually embraces a much more forceful line of argumentation, namely: that we know exactly what is in the bushes, and therefore we cannot ever shoot. The Church's perspective on this matter is sometimes characterized in these terms: “If we don't know whether the early embryo is a person, we shouldn't destroy it, in the same way that we shouldn't shoot into a patch of dark bushes, because it might be a person making the rustling noises. More relevant to the discussion is the fact that we do not need an answer to this fascinating and speculative question in order to grasp the essential moral conclusion that human embryos are absolutely inviolable and deserving of unconditional respect. In the final analysis, it is salutary to realize that it is God's business as to when he ensouls the human embryo, and we may never categorically resolve the matter from our limited vantage point. Even today in various quarters, the discussions continue, with new embryological details like twinning and chimaerization impinging on the debate, and new conceptual questions arising from the intricate biology surrounding totipotency and pluripotency. Augustine seemed to shift his opinion back and forth during his lifetime between immediate and delayed ensoulment. Aquinas, for example, held that ensoulment occurred not right at the first instant but at a timepoint removed from the beginning, in order to allow the matter of the embryo to undergo development and become “apt” for the reception of an immortal soul from God. The matter has been discussed for centuries, and delayed ensoulment was probably the norm for most of Christian history, with immediate ensoulment gaining some serious momentum of its own only in the 1600s. Why this rather subtle, nuanced position, instead of simply declaring outright that zygotes are ensouled, and therefore are persons? Because, as the declaration stresses, there has never been a unanimous tradition on this point. It must be treated as if it were a person from the moment of conception, even if there exists the possibility that it might not yet be so. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent …”Īnd the moral affirmation of the Church is simply this: that the human embryo must be treated as if it were already ensouled, even if it might not yet be so. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. For some it dates from the first instant for others it could not at least precede nidation. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. “This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. The “Declaration on Procured Abortion” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974 phrases the matter with considerable precision: The Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place. Mills' comments are emblematic of a rather common misunderstanding about the Catholic Church's teaching on ensoulment. I look forward to reading an explanation of his comments in a future edition of your paper. I wonder if Father Pacholczyk has had his opinion considered by a panel of theologians. Am I wrong in my interpretation? It seems to me that you can't be human without a soul. I always thought the Church's teaching was that at the moment of conception an embryo is ensouled and is considered life, and if it is life it is human. The last sentence of the above quote got more than a raised eyebrow from me as I read it. Whether it's a person yet at the moment of conception, whether it's been ensouled - those are very interesting intellectual discussions but they're not ultimately relevant.” I was somewhat taken aback when he said, “An embryo is a human being, a being that is human, that is not some other kind of animal. I found Father Pacholczyk's interview to be fascinating (“The Little Flower Blossoms in Yale Neuroscientist,” Inperson, May 4-10).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |