In this week's edition of America magazine, (page 5), there is a curious little article entitled "N.Y. Bishops Accept Revised Bill on Emergency Contraception."

This article maintains that Catholic hospitals are allowed to prescribe "the morning after pill" to victims of rape as long as they are "not contraindicated, the woman is not pregnant, and it is within an appropriate amount of time from the attack."

This article maintains that this is consistent with church teaching.

Now, emergency contraception works by preventing implantation of an already fertilized embryo.

While recognizing the need for sensitivity and compassion toward the victim, is this really consistent with church teaching? I didn't know this.

Does anyone have any more information, insight, or illumination?

John

Believe it or not I read something about this the other day - will now see if I can find the article.

Anhelyna

No. It is the fertilization which counts. Th implantation is essential to the pregancy, but once the fertilization has taken place there is in that one cell the complete genetic code for a unique human being and according to the Church already has the right to life as a human being.

Fr Deacon John - I've been going crazy looking for the article - I can visualise it - but can I remember where I saw it ????

The best I can come up with , and I'm sure you are aware of it, is the Bishops Conference document

http://www.nccbuscc.org/bishops/directives.htm

The relevant section is Part 3 - professional and patient relationship - directive 36.

The article I did read [ well skim ] went into it much deeper - a discussion of the actions of the hormones used for emergency contraception and whether they were actually permissible under such circumstances.

I'll keep on looking 'cos I know I've seen it and I'm getting cross with myself.

Anhelyna

oops - that double post bug again

AMDG
Dear friends

This is not consistent with Church teaching at all.

This is worse than the Arian crisis.

The announcement itself may be in error--I wouldn't be surpised.

LatinTrad

The French were ahead of us as usual:

- - - - - - -

Vatican Condemns French Ministers� Emergency Contraception Plan

A November editorial in L�Osservatore Romano, the Vatican�s official newspaper, condemned the decision by French health and education ministers to provide emergency contraception in schools. Calling the decision perverse and hypocritical, Father Gino Concetti wrote, �No one can erase the perverse intention against the life of a human being.� Editorials in the newspaper are often considered to be semi-official pronouncements on behalf of the pope.

The French government�s move follows a decision earlier in 1999 to provide emergency contraception over-the-counter in pharmacies. Emergency contraception is also distributed free of charge with other contraception at family planning centers. Both moves are part of a �comprehensive sex education campaign,� according to Education Minister S�gol�ne Royal. The actions have created a backlash against the government, both from the church and conservative family groups. In a survey, 66 percent of those polled approved of the decision to allow school nurses to distribute emergency contraception. The support rose to 83 percent among 15- to 24-year-olds.

Religion News Service, �Vatican newspaper attacks French �morning after� pill for schoolgirls,� November 30, 1999

Debra S. Ollivier, �Sex education with a contraceptive chaser,� Salon, December 6, 1999

Le Monde, �La loi sur la contraception devra �tre modifi�e pour la pilule du lendemain,� December 29, 1999.

- - - - - - -

We have this statement from the following:

http://www.nyscatholicconference.org/news/2003/nr030619.htm

"Catholic teaching prohibiting the use of artificial contraception does not and has never applied to women who are raped. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops state: �A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.�

- - - - - - -

The key is:

PREVENTION of ovulation, sperm capacitation, or feritilization, NOT the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

There is a difference between the folks at French schools passing them out and administering them "after appropriate testing." One wonders if any form of "appropriate testing" would be done in the school rather than simply passing them out by 'family planning' groups.

John,

The USCCB website provides a "fact sheet" on EC. It states that the woman who is a victim of rape may receive EC treatment, as long as pregnancy/conception has not occurred. The fact sheet continues to state that EC would prevent/slow ovulation and/or incapacitate the sperm. If conception has occurred than the EC treatment is not permissible in Catholic hospitals.

As a physician are you saying that EC is effective only after conception, and does not prevent/slow ovulation or incapacitate sperm?

Here's the link to the fact sheet:

Fact Sheet: Emergency Contraception and Treatment of Victims of Sexual Assault [usccb.org]


John

Bisanto,

I hope Petrus comes back because I was confused, too.

It is my understanding that the so-called morning after pills often do the equivalent of a chemical abortion.

Are the bishops saying that if you are sure conception hasn't occurred, they are okay? Can you ever be SURE?

I dunno....I'm not a doctor, that's for sure!

Anne

Anne,

that is how I understand the directive. Apparently, there is a method whereby the hospital can determine if ovulation has occurred. The EC treatment would slow or inhibit ovulation. In other instances EC treatment would alter cervical mucus to incapacitate sperm. However, Dr Petrus seems to indicate that EC treatment is only effective to inhibit embryo implantation. Perhaps, I am reading him incorrectly.

John (not Petrus) Montalvo

Hi John, Anhelyna, Joe, Annie, and Arvid.

I didn't mean to post and run. Things are very hectic for me right now.

Anyway, I am a physician. I teach biomedical ethics, and more importantly, in a former life my wife was a Reproductive Endocrinologist and Infertility Expert. (Yes, it's true, my wife used to run around getting other women pregnant!)

There is no way to determine precisely when fertilization takes place. Think about it. You are drawing blood from the mother. Until the embryo implants, there is no relationship (OK no physiologic relationship) between embryo and mother. The earliest a pregancy can be detected is at about a week. In order for the "emergency pill" to be effective, it must be taken within 48 hours. Even if given immediately before ovulation, it would not prevent ovulation from occurring. I don't think it would prevent fertilization (but I'll have to ask my wife. She answers all my sex questions ). It works primarily by preventing implantation.

I promise to read the links you have entered. I just haven't had time yet; analysis to follow.

John

John;

I just read the fact sheet you provided and I can honestly say that the bishops are full of ...uhh... misconceptions. The serum test for progesterone may (repeat may) indicate whether or not a woman ovulated, but it does not indicate when. The urine test they are alluding to is a pregnancy test which typically becomes positive about two days after a serum pregnancy test. As I stated above this still takes about a week and the pill has to be taken within 48 hours of the rape.

Furthermore, it states that the woman must be clearly informed that this is not an abortifacient, that it will not work work simply by preventing implantation. That is impossible.

But the thing I find most fascinating is that the bishops allow it at all.

Are we seeing a "crack" developing in Humanae Vitae?

John

The bishops are also experts in economics.

Joe

The USCCB published "Life Insight," a publication of the NCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities (Vol. 9, No. 7 September 1998). Their straight-talk on when life begins seem to be ignored in their "Fact Sheet: Emergency Contraception and Treatment of Victims of Sexual Assault."

See:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/lifeinsight/sept98.htm

See also their fact sheet on "What is an embryo?":

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/fact298.htm

The first link points out that, "The The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists redefined conception in 1965." Pregnancy (or life) seems to begin only at implantation, not fertilization. But the ealier USCCB document states that fertilization (beginning of human life) can occur 15 to 30 minutes after intercourse and at least 6 days before implantation.

How in H-ll can one determine if fertilization occured 15 to 30 minutes after intercourse, in this case, a rape incident? What test is sure-fire that will determine that a 'Morning After' pill can be taken within 48 hours per the guidelines?

I'm beginning to see your point.

Our eparchy belongs to the USCCB. http://www.usccb.org/dioceses.htm Why don't you discuss these physiological/ethical issues with your bishop?

Joe

Hmm - it strikes me that two Deacons with the same name posting in the same thread is going to cause terrible confusion

OK - I used to teach NFP [ yup in a previous existence ]

Now my memories are the same - you cannot tell exactly when fertislisation occurs.

Professor Brown in Melbourne did produce an Ovulation monitor which when used with various solutions would give what I understood then, was pretty accurate urine Hormonal levels indicating that ovulation was approaching - or had occurred. It wasn't the easiest kit to use - but it did seem accurate - but had to be used by competent practioners/users of the Billings method. It's biggest drawback was expense and the necessary training.It could not give an instant answer as to Ovulation because several readings were required to allow a record to be plotted. Our Group in Scotland did use it over a period of about 6 months - but in practice it was not easy to use in the 'domestic ' situation.

Yes a few women can pinpoint ovulation - but I don't think this is very common.

So far I don't think anyone is able to say exactly when fertilisation/the start of life happens.

I do wish I could trace that article I had seen - none of the links that have been posted were it

I am also of the thought that the cracks are appearing - but I have to say that I do not know what the teaching about EC is on this side of the Pond - and frankly I don't know at this time where I would find it - but I'll have a good shot at it.

You have certainly raised a very interesting knotty problem.

Anhelyna

John,

with all due respect, ISTM the Bishops' misconceptions regarding conception stems from the ...misconceived information provided to them from the experts (read "medical profession") as to how and when a woman's reproductive cycle operates.

Anhelyna, you wrote, "few women can pinpoint ovulation." I am married to one who can, and after seven pregancies and six children, I daresay she can. Even her ob-gyn admits my wife "knows" more about her prenancy than the ob-gyn could tell my wife.

We practice periodoc abstinence, but sometimes we are forced to observe the "barrier method", i.e., one or more of the children happen to find their way between us in our bed.

JM

>>>I just read the fact sheet you provided and I can honestly say that the bishops are full of ...uhh... misconceptions...
But the thing I find most fascinating is that the bishops allow it at all.<<<


Sorry, but I don't see it as misconception. They always seem to be guided by someone else giving them 'wrong information'

I think the confusing wording has more to do with Medicare/Medicaid ie GOVERNMENT funding that is necessary for Catholic and/or any hospitals to run, especially in inner cities. The Abortion Agenda still hangs like an axe over their heads.

Sam

John

Anhelyna, you wrote, "few women can pinpoint ovulation." I am married to one who can, and after seven pregancies and six children, I daresay she can. Even her ob-gyn admits my wife "knows" more about her prenancy than the ob-gyn could tell my wife.

Note I did say few - yes quite a fair number can - and this is obviously helpful - I loved it when the client could identify ovulation - it made life so much easier for all.

We practice periodoc abstinence, but sometimes we are forced to observe the "barrier method", i.e., one or more of the children happen to find their way between us in our bed.

I do remember a Franciscan nun who served in Korea for many years saying that the best barrier method she knew was the Korean Mother-in-law - she used to share the bed too
Anhelyna

Our Lady's slave of love<<I do remember a Franciscan nun who served in Korea for many years saying that the best barrier method she knew was the Korean Mother-in-law - she used to share the bed too>>

Oh, yukh!!! <puking>

OrthodoxEast

Hate to say it - But Sr whatsit said it was foolproof and perfectly normal. It was the Mothers in law who did the Family Planning - if they said that the offspring had had enough children that was it !

Mind the Nuns did teach Billings too - and that was appreciated.

What a topic of conversation today - makes a change from some of the others of recent note.

Everyone;

The thing I find most fascinating by this decision is the "moral relativity" it allows. In essence, the appropriateness of the contraception is determined by the attitude of the woman/victim. A procedure that would be unacceptable if the sexual encounter was consensual is acceptable if the encounter is unwelcomed or forced.

To me, this is profoundly different than the principle of "double effect." Let me explain.

In the 1930's, Pope Pius XI was approached with a moral dilemma. A terminally ill person is in extreme pain. A therapist has morphine available that can alleviate the pain, but if used aggressively, can inadvertently cause respiratory depression and thus accelerate the demise of the person.

Pope Pius answered with the above mentioned principle. He noted that the motivation for the morphine, alleviation of pain, was a noble and morally very appropriate one. The demise was inadevertent and unintended. Therefore, the moral high ground is to provide for the person's comfort; his demise, since it is unintended, is morally neutral.

One can use the same argument for a pregnant woman who has cancer of the uterus. A hysterectomy in this sense is life-saving, the death of the fetus is an unintended consequence, and therefore morally neutral.

In the situation of the rape victim, the contraception is the intent, and is morally acceptable because it is a consequence of a morally reprehensible act. This seems to be new ground and can have wide ramifications.

Cannot one argue for the death penalty? The death of the criminal is the intent and is morally acceptable because it too is a consequence of a morally reprehensible act.

Is the war against the Iraqis morally justifiable because it means to punish a morally reprehensible regime?

The ripple-effect seems endless.

John

I should note that my own personal beliefs are apparently aligned with the New York bishops. It seems to me that there is only one adequate explanation that exonerates this new teaching. It also places them more closely aligned to the Orthodox teaching on this subject.

I believe that life most appopriately begins with implantation. This is my argument.

Mankind was created for union. Union with our Creator, AND union with each other. We cannot achieve Union with God by exclusion of the other. We cannot achieve salvation of our own accord. Until the embryo implants, it is alone. It relates only to itself and to no other. Left to its own initiative, it will soon die. But with implantation, it establishes the consummate intimate relationship, that between child and mother. It has achieved union: personal, physiologic, symbiotic.

Can one be a person by himself/herself? Or are we only persons when we relate to another (or others?)

(Speaking for myself and not for the church,)

John

The good "Angela of Glasgow" clarifies the situation for me. Could you give us some information on the "Billings" method and what it entails? (In the U.S., 'billings' usually means something quite different!!)

I am also concerned that in cases of rape, there is also the possiblity of transmission of STDs, including the Papiloma Virus HPV (a known carcinogen) or Chlamydia (known to produce sterility when untreated) - and both of these are on the upswing in certain areas in the US. Could the treaments for these potential diseases also be abortifacient? And the conundrum deepens.....

Blessings!

Dr. John,

The Billings method is one of the "brand name" approaches to tracking fertility, approved for use in NFP, etc. Billings is one of the "sympto-thermal" methods, tracking basal body temperature and cervical mucus.

Treatment for STDs with antibiotics does not have abortifacient potential - as long as you don't use ABX contraindicated in pregnancy - and there really is good data if you care to look. (Not in the PDR, thank you!). Of course ABX treatment usually leads to a nasty yeast infection, so preventive measures should be taken for that. As for HPV, I do not believe there is any real treatment for that. There is some anecdotal evidence that taking relatively large doses of folic acid over time may serve to prevent HPV from causing precancerous cervical changes. As you probably know, HPV is somewhere between endemic and epidemic in the population.

ISTM that when ya come down to it, the good Bishops have taken the view that emergency contraceptives are acceptable as long as there's pretty well no chance that the woman was fertile at the time of the assault. In which case it wouldn't much matter if they provided contraceptives or peanut M&Ms.

Of course, most women in this day & age really don't have a clue when they ovulate. In fact it's a STUNNING fact that an awful lot of ladies dealing with apparent infertility have never charted their cycles at all - and some are put on powerful fertility regimens by docs who don't ask them to chart either! That's insane.

Oh well, I guess a little daily pill is the "modern" approach for most. Me, I think the modern approach is a digital thermometer.


Cheerz,

Sharon

I'll add/change a wee bittie of what Sharon has said as regards Billings method.

Over here Billings is taught as observation of cervical mucous only. Sympto Thermal goes beyong even a belt and braces system and some authorities consider the full Sympto Thermal Method as somewhat over the top and possibly too invasive with the attendant risk of ascending infection.

And yes - Sharon - we found it absolutely stunning how often by teaching Billings we lost a client - as she was no longer infertile - much to her joy !! As a result infertility treatment was not required. Fortunately one of the Consultants here used us as a first line of treatment - cos he knew it worked !

Angel of Glasgow, my guardian dear,

Personally I'm of the school that believes that "the more data points the better" as well as that lotsa ladies really don't have reliably discernable CM all the time. If you throw basal temp into the mix (or throw CM into the mix with BBT) you have a better complete pic. It's not exactly an onerous thing - maybe 60 seconds a day - 5 minutes if you have to search for a pen You can download free Excel spreadsheets that make charting either or both a snap.

I'm puzzled at how a full sympto-thermal approach would increase the risk of infection, assuming ordinary hygiene???? Enlighten me??

Have to laugh about your consultant - wish we had more like him. It seems stunningly obvious that before you go manipulating a system it makes sense to see how it works in the first place....

Cheers,

Sharon

Sharon,
<<Personally I'm of the school that believes that "the more data points the better" as well as that lotsa ladies really don't have reliably discernable CM all the time. If you throw basal temp into the mix (or throw CM into the mix with BBT) you have a better complete pic. It's not exactly an onerous thing - maybe 60 seconds a day - 5 minutes if you have to search for a pen You can download free Excel spreadsheets that make charting either or both a snap.>>

Ah yes - I had a friend who kept his local Pharmacist in luxury with the number of replacement thermometers that they had to buy. John shook it - she used it - the problem was he didn't have his glasses on and kept hitting the bedside table !

<<I'm puzzled at how a full sympto-thermal approach would increase the risk of infection, assuming ordinary hygiene???? Enlighten me??>>

Cervical palpation for tilt - messes up secretions and unless you are very careful can be risky. Not approved of by John and Lynn Billings

<<Have to laugh about your consultant - wish we had more like him. It seems stunningly obvious that before you go manipulating a system it makes sense to see how it works in the first place....>>

Well you see he helped train us and he had been trained by the Billings too and had worked in Australia

Oh those were the days.

Anhelyna

Ahhhh! Things become clear.

Don't know too many who go for the full cervical position check. Most I know just observe output, LOL.

As for them thar thermometers, I do dimly recall some in the vague and distant past which needed shaking. I haven't owned one for YEARS. What caused me to replace several of the cheap, electronic digital ones I use was the fact that my then-toddler discovered that the probe end fit PERFECTLY into the alan-wrench holes in the screws that hold my nightstand together. And they were deep enough that the tip would then break off when the aforementioned toddler further manipulated it. Doesn't work very well after that...

So are inexpensive digital electronic thermometers uncommon in Glasgow? You can pick 'em up practically anywhere over here.
Cheap.
Link to example of commonly available one:

http://www.bd.com/thermometers/

Two advantages for the sleepy NFP crowd (MEEEEEEEEEEEE!) : Audible signal (which wakes you out of the doze) when temp fully registers, and it remembers the last temp taken, so if you really CAN'T see it without your glasses, or if you don't remember, just push the button and there it is.

Cheers,

Sharon

John,

If attitude is the factor in determining if contraception is acceptable, could there conceivably be a number of wives who would claim EC because their husbands' advances were unwelcomed or perhaps even forced?

JM

Sharon
I haven't laughed so much in quite a while - I have this wonderful pic of a toddler exploring - reminds me of my nephew when 18 months old - his parents woke up to find him hanging pictures round the walls of their bedroom - the holes being at his height of course and a laaaarge hammer in his hands . By that stage he was starting on the fourth wall !

Oh I'm out of it now - but as digi thermometers came in we could not get low reading ones easily.

Kids - who'd have 'em -- no everyone don't answer that one - we all know the answer.

OK back on topic - sorry for the diversion folks

Anhelyna

Dcn John,

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Yes, it is "left alone" before it implants, but would you consider a helpless newborn not human because it would die if left alone? An infant needs another person for its survival, especially young ones. But we don't practice infanticide, do we?

Even if a fertilized ovum has not implanted itself in the mother's uterus, it has its own unique and single 'identity' known only to itself mapped out from its own genetics formula. It is NOT its mother and it is NOT its father. Nor is it merely protoplasmic rubbish.

No man/woman is an island. Even as adults we 'need' others. We are naturally social beings.

The Psalmist wrote in Psalm 22:9, "Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother's breasts."

Trust. It is upon a mother's breast whom infants learn trust. They trust that their mothers won't let them die. They trust that their mothers feed them, give them a home, and protect them. They are dependant upon their mothers for their very lives. They are united thru trust. A mother can still terminate their lives by simply withholding their source of food, both before birth and after birth.

Isaiah the Prophet writes, "Can a woman forget her nursing child And have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you."

Again, in Psalm 139:13, we read, "You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb."

Though the Psalmist didn't have your knowledge as a 21st Century physician, can we at least ask when the "knitting" began? Did it begin during implantation? after implantation? or before implantation when the sperm entered the egg at fertilization? The knitting continues for almost six days before implantation in the uterus. A lot happens in six days. My wife can "knit" a lot of afghan in six days.

In Ecclesiastes 11:5, we have, "Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things."

When do bones form in the womb? When does an embryo's gentials form? It is a process, a continuum. When does that process begin? Are we (ever) there yet?

Again, I think you are personally mistaken. If life begins at implantation, then you also have to profess the corollary, that there is no life between the moment of fertilization and implantation, that the power didn't turn on until this dead, non-living entity implanted itself in its mother's womb. Life does not occur spontaneously. The womb/uterus cannot produce life on its own; it can only nurture life. It should be a safe-haven for what is already alive.

I know rape is a difficult issue as well as any conceptions resulting from it. But my reply is only in answer to your bold statement that life begins at implantation.

God bless!
Cantor Joe Thur

In the case of the conception, who is being punished?

Joe

Joe,

I would have to add, it is the Teaching of the Catholic Church that "One may not do evil so that good may result from it."

Here is the revelant paragraph from the CCC.

1756. "It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. "

The use of the "morning after pill" is not being used as a contraceptive, it is an abortifacient.

The definitions from the Merriam-Webster Dictonary are:

contraceptive: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation

abortifacient: an agent (as a drug) that induces abortion

As the "morning after pill" is given after the sex act takes place, it can not prevent conception. It is used to cause an abortion.

Abortion is murder, it is never right.


David

David,

I am just shocked at the suggestion that life begins at implantation and not fertilization. This is absurd. It is a new angle down the slippery slope.

Joe

Like you Joe , I have also always been of the impression that life begins at ferilisation - even before I was received into the Catholic Church. In very simple terms it has to be - cells divide and multiply --- surely that is life ?

When I taught about contraception in School and I explained what EC did [ and for that matter what an IUD did] a student would always shout at me and tell me that both were abortifacients. Now those were 16/17 yr old kids.

Sorry - Life begins at implantation - NO WAY

Anhelyna

Anhelyna,

I believe we found the crack to Humanae Vitae with the 'implantation' theory. I am surprised at the little response that this got. Down the slippery slope we go!

Joe

Joe ,

I have to say I really do not understand where this 'implantation is the start of life ' thing came from.

I do know that over here Fertilisation is the start [ at least in NFP Circles ]

Perhaps our revered Clergy could come back in at this stage and enlighten us poor mortals.

After all - what do I frequently say - let the education .........

Anhelyna

Anhelyna,

That is where the 'implantation' theory started.

Joe

How very true Joe

But could they please explain it

Calling Petrus

...... Look at the mess you have got some of us into - please help us understand what you have said and then look at it in the light of what we have always understood .

Anhelyna

You are a deacon. You lost that distinction the day you were ordained. You are preaching heresy and you should be disciplined. I say this not out of spite but out of charity that your conscience may be reformed according to the teaching of the Church.

anastasios

Does "heresy" cover moral/biological questions? I thought heresy had to do with theological questions about who God is and what flows from it, not about biology.

Anastasios,

I think you owe Fr. Deacon John an apology. One, he is not preaching. Two, he is not dealing with theology but biology and the ramifications it may have for theology, so he cannot be accused of heresy. Three, in such an area one may have a private opinion that differs from that of the Magesterium as long as one does not publicly and officially oppose it.

The Church is wise in taking caution and demanding nothing be done once fertilization/conception happens. However, they are many unresolved issues of which Deacon John raises only one. The Church teaches that souls do not divide or unite but a fertilized egg or eggs may do just this. How do we reconcile this with the above teaching. The issue comes down to when does God ensoul a person. The Church to my knowledge does not actually teach when it occurs but states it does not know and because it does not know, life must respected from the moment of conception. While we must uphold the Church's teaching, it is not heresy to review our understandings as scientific evidence sheds new light, otherwise one would be a heretic for believeing the earth is round and rotates around the sun.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

AMDG

Lemko, heresy does cover moral questions. It covers practical questions as well as speculative ones.

Anhelyna, to help you out of your uncertainty, the CDF authoritatively taught in the early 1990's that we must hold that human life is present from the moment of conception.

Petrus, you are on very dangerous ground. Very dangerous. Your arguments on this thread have been irresponsible at best. We cannot justify using EC as "the result of an immoral action." Using EC is a choice on the part of a rational agent; it is not a "result" in Moral Theology terms.

It seems that certain bishops in New York have (not for the first time) led their flock astray. I would not be surprised, however, if this whole "permission for the use of emergency contraception" were just the product of an authority-less subcommittee that somehow got media attention. That has happened before (e.g. "Always Our Children," "Environment & Art in Catholic Worship," and the document last year about not evangelizing Jews).

We are living in dreadful times and must distinguish the authentic voice of the Magisterium from the masquerades.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

AMDG

Subdeacon Lance posted while I was typing.

With all due respect for both Sbdcn Lance and Fr Dcn John, one must adhere to judgments of the Magisterium with "religious submission of mind & will" (LG) and conform one's actions to the Magisterium's judgment. Thus, even if you want to argue that the Magisterial teaching here has not been promulgated with infallible force, you could not justify acting in a manner contrary to the Church.

Subdeacon Lance, it is possible to commit heresy with respect to "biology," and the Magisterium NEVER taught that the Earth was flat or that the sun went around it. The infamous Galileo trial is one of the most misunderstood episodes in Church history. What so many people fail to realize is that his prime offence was not scientific but theological; he put the inerrancy of Scripture in doubt. The Church never bound the faithful to believe in a geocentric universe; she merely had to reconcile the heliocentric model with Scripture before it could be taught in Church-sponsered schools.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad,

And with all due respect here, will you please quit talking down to us like we need to be reminded that we are "Catholics after all?"

If all Latin Catholics followed their Church's teaching on abortion, it would really cut down on those terrible acts say, in Catholic Quebec, for one place.

Now that I got that off my chest . . .

How are you today?

"Heresy" is formally tied to matters of faith, as you know.

In matters biological, there is a qualitative difference in what is being committed. The penalties are the same e.g. a person is excommunicated for having an abortion, just as much as for denying the Trinity etc.

But, certainly, it all comes down to whether we submit to the Church's teaching on faith and morals.

Heresy is ultimately the sin of pride in saying otherwise.

Can you show how Subdeacon Lance's summary of the situation is in any way at variance with the Church's teaching on this subject?

I would worry about some of your own Latin bishops, if I were you, you know . . .

Pax Vobiscum!

Alex

AMDG

Alex, I am sicerely sorry for this third post that offended you, but I really don't see how I was talking down to anybody. I think you perceive me in a certain way and it colors your view of my posts.

I think you are incorrect if you think that the Church's moral teaching is somehow less binding than the Church's teaching on articles of Faith.

I also don't understand why you are coming at me with such hostility. Maybe the stuff I said about Ukraine was wrong, but I admitted that that might be the case.

I have never tried to offend anyone here, or be hostile in any way. The only "controversy" (not the Filioque thing a couple months ago, which was meant to be humorous) in which I've been involved here was the HUGE controversy on homosexuality that occured while you were gone.

In that controversy, I sought to present to Tradition of the Church as contained in Scripture, the Magisterium, and the writings of the orthodox Fathers.

If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong, instead of getting offended and nasty.

I have always respected your erudition as far superior to my own, and looked forward to your return to the forum. I don't know how I got on your bad side.

Sadly,
LatinTrad

Dear Trad Lat,

I apologise - I'm only teasing!

You mentioned that stuff about frustration. I thought about it and decided you were right - and then decided to take MINE out on you!

Don't you RC's have a penitential theology about victim souls, offering oneself up for punishment etc.?

I'm just putting that to the test here!

And I NEVER said what you are saying I said, I say . . .

I'm just introducing a qualitative difference between heresy as a matter involving faith and morality that involves disorder.

I think that if a person preached that abortion was O.K. for Catholics, that would be a heresy.

But the person who commits an abortion is no heretic, but is excommunicated as such.

Matters of faith and morals need to be submitted to by Catholics.

That is why my gentle castigation of you (I can't get at you with a whip ).

It seems in some instances you feel that Vatican II is something that happened to other people in the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry to upset you.

I must confess that knowing that I caused you upset does give me a surge of energy right about know

Yes, I know, I need help.

Next time I'll refer you to Diak and see how you hold up under that Eastern gauntlet!

(Am I going to get into trouble again?)

sinful Alex

Latin Trad,

You state:
"With all due respect for both Sbdcn Lance and Fr Dcn John, one must adhere to judgments of the Magisterium with "religious submission of mind & will" (LG) and conform one's actions to the Magisterium's judgment. Thus, even if you want to argue that the Magisterial teaching here has not been promulgated with infallible force, you could not justify acting in a manner contrary to the Church."

I did not suggest otherwise. As clerics our duty is to teach what the the Church teaches.

The problem is how can the Church approve of EC if it cannot be determined when fertilization occurs. Deacon John proposes that the Church could, based on scienc and theology, possibly change its position and state that life starts at implantation rather than fertilization making sense of the allowance of EC. If it does not than EC could not possibly be allowed, because it would be an abortion.

I think that relying on purely physical factors like fertilization or implantation is wrong. We are brought again to ensoulment. When does it happen? Honestly, we don't have a good answer. Again what do we make of zygotes that split or reunite? Or the millions of zygotes that for natural reasons aren't implanted and are lossed?

Again I think the Church is wise for siding with caution and demanding life be respected even in the most difficult cases of rape and incest. Our position is certainly more consistent than what ones finds in the Orthodox Church. I post from the OCA's website and ask for comments:

"The control of the conception of a child by any means is also condemned by the Church if it means the lack of fulfillment in the family, the hatred of children, the fear of responsibility, the desire for sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful satisfaction, etc.

Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. Here again, however, such a couple cannot pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God.

As to abortion, the Church very clearly and absolutely condemns it as an act of murder in every case. If a woman is with child, she must allow it to be born. In regard to all of the very difficult cases, such as a young girl being raped or a mother who is certain to die, the consensus of Orthodox opinion would be that a decision for abortion might possibly be made, but that it can in no way be easily justified as morally righteous, and that persons making such a decision must repent of it and count on the mercy of God. it must be very clear as well that abortion employed for human comfort or to stop what a contraceptive method failed to prevent, is strictly considered by the canon laws of the Church to be a crime equal to murder."

I seem to be terribly late coming back to this thread today but I can't let something go past me

LatinTrad said But isn't that exactly what Joe and I were both saying ?

OH and BTW what does CDF stand for - remember I am across this little puddle and sometimes Abbreviations are not the same in this enlightened country.

Still - for those NC Folk Like me

Happy Feast of the Assumption everyone

( And I err referred to it [ the Feast that is] to my my Parish Priest as the Dormition - hmm - he has said nothing yet - but........)

Anhelyna

Anhelyna,

CDF refers to the Congregation on the Doctrine of Faith, in earlier times known as the Holy Office. It is headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

We NC BC's refer the feast as "Dormition," how did you err? However, there is an GO parish in Scottsdale that is dedicated to the Assumption.

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

I think the point that our brother, Fr Dcn John the physician is making is this: EC cannot with "accuracy" work to prevent conception by slowing ovulation or incapacitating sperm, but it does work to prevent implantation. To me, he is calling into question the fact sheet on EC from the USCCB (United States Catholic Conference of Bishops) website which I had posted earlier in this thread. As a physician by profession, Fr Dcn John is trying to make sense of the directive.

If, EC cannot prevent or slow ovulation, nor incapacitate sperm, there is a problem with the directive. But here is the dilemna in my opinion: Should the female rape victim continue to be victimised by having to endure a pregnancy, which is not the result of a loving encounter with her husband? Can a pregnancy resulting from a rape really be "a gift" from God? I think the question is this, "Can this EC treatment to prevent implantation be a legitimate defense in the case of rape?" If yes, why? If not, why not?

JM

To all:

Here is a 'primer' on the topic (if you didn't already know):

On Fertilization - the beginning of new life:
http://www.femalehealthmadesimple.com/FileFiveFinal.html

- - -

On Implantation:
http://www.femalehealthmadesimple.com/FileSixFinal.html

"An interesting fact is that fertilization does not occur in the womb , but at the opening of the tube near the ovary. That sperms swim all the way from the vagina, through the womb and upstream through the fallopian tubes.

After fertilization the fertilized egg cell is slowly sucked through the fallopian tubes into the cavity of the womb. It only arrives in the womb about five days after conception. The egg than attaches itself to the endometrium ( the lining on the inside of the womb.)."

- - -

Lance,

By simply relying on the 'implantation' theory, there is no need to include the role of the father's seed. He is out of the picture because 'life' is solely dependant on the mother's willingness to provide a hospitable environment for that life. Your ease at fluffing off biological specifics is part of that slipery slope. Identity of a person, used by medical and the police, is being based on more and more on DNA and such. A person's unique genetic make-up begins at fertilization, not implantation.

The 'morning after pill' is a steroid, which may disrupt the endometrium enough so implantation does not occur. It prevents life from finding a home to be nurtured even after fertilization has occured five to six days earlier.

One becomes 'pregnant' at fertilization. Can you state unequivocally that the fertilized egg is not life? that it is a dead, unliving entity though it has all the genetic code it will ever need to be a unique individual/person until its death?

Please read Biology 101:

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/biology.htm

A mother's uterus adds NO-thing to the identity of that new life. She can only nurture it, which is no different from breast-feeding a newborn. That newborn, however 'dependent' on its mother's milk/food, is still a separate person/life having its own identity.

The 'implantation' theory is defrinitely a crack in Humanae Vitae and the first step down the slippery slope. It is an innovation.

Here is an interesting website that is related to the topic's issue:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_10.asp

I hope it can stimulate more debate since this question is becoming center-stage with the Catholic bishops' statement.

Here is a blurb regarding semantics:

- - -

But isn�t "conception" different from "fertilization?"

Ever since its discovery 150 years ago, both words were used to mean the union of sperm and ovum. In the 1960s the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American College of OB & GYN agreed to attempt to redefine "conception" to mean implantation. "Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization." E. Hughes, ed., "OB & GYN Terminology," Philadelphia: F. A. Davis,1972

This made it possible to call an intrauterine device a "contraceptive" even though it was an abortifacient (see chapter 29).

But in 1982, lengthy hearings in the U.S. Senate and the two-volume report of the Human Life Bill defined "conception" and used it exclusively to mean the time of union of sperm and ovum. "Human Life Bill," U.S. Senate Common Judiciary, Subcommittee of Separation of Powers, 97th Congress, S-158, April-June 1982, Serial No. J-97-16

This "American" semantic distortion is not accepted in many other nations where "conception," "fertilization," and "fecundation" are all used interchangeably.

- - -

Here is an interesting webpage regarding the pill:

http://www.pfli.org/brauer_sellingthepill.html

It states that:

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has decreed that pregnancy begins with implantation. [5] It is confusing to read the current literature in this field, because many of the authors also utilize the word conception synonymously with implantation. Abortion, to this group, is the interruption of pregnancy (after implantation). Quite a number of newer medical dictionaries, bowing to this usage, now allow two definitions of conception: 1] the formation of a viable zygote, and 2] the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of the blastocyst. The word contraceptive is therefore applied to any drug or device that prevents pregnancy- all the way up to the time of implantation. The Ob-Gyn Association's understanding of the term differs from that of the general public."

[Footnote 5: "Hughes, E. C., Ed, Committee on Terminology, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Obstetric-Gynecologic Terminology. F. A. Davis Company, Philadelphia, 1972."]

- - -

From http://www.w-cpc.org/sexuality/chemical.html

"Although most people think of conception as the joining of egg and sperm to form new life, in some circles the word "conception" has an alternate meaning--the implantation of the embryo into the uterus.[2]"

[Footnote 2: "The FDA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology now define 'conception' to mean implantation instead of fertilization. Under this definition, all hormonal methods and IUDs would be contraceptive. JC Willke, Abortion: Questions and Answers, Revised 1990 Ed., Hayes Publishing Company Inc., Cincinnati, OH, 1990, p. 42-43."]

- - -

From Priests for Life:

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=72

Fr. Frank writes:

"... efforts have been made over the years to use the word "conception" to refer not to the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, but rather to the implantation of the blastocyst (the newly developing human at about a week after fertilization) into the uterine wall. Hence one reads in OB & GYN Terminology, "Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization" (E. Hughes, ed., Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, 1972).

What's the importance of this? It re-defines pregnancy and abortion. In other words, if pregnancy or conception does not start until implantation, this gives some the excuse to call the killing of a new human life in the first week of its existence "contraception" rather than the name it deserves, "abortion." In law, statistics, and public relations efforts, such a move can mask countless abortions."

- - -

The above article regarding the "single cell" should make us reflect on logic. Can life begin as a multi-cell entity with no recourse to it beginning (fertilizatioin)?

The National Right to Life people (NRLC) is fighting the redefinition of 'conception." Here is a blurb on that:

http://www.euthanasia.com/conc.html

The Human Embryo:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_11.asp

Fetal Development:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_12.asp

Theologically, what do we mean when we celebrate St. Anne's Conception? What does Joachim have to do with it if life only begins at implantation?

Theologically, what do we mean by the Annunciation? Is this a celebration of Mary's divine conception with the Holy Spirit or the implantation only? We profess that Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary." What does that conception mean? What does the Holy Spirit have to do with it if life begins at implantation? Who or what was the "source of life," the uterus or the Holy Spirit?

On a more personal note, this issue was a major factor in my life recently. I am currently unemployed. I received a contact from a pharmaceutical rep who was getting a big promotion and who needed a new guy to fill his shoes. The customer base was already there, the territory was in my backyard, the salary/commissions were much higher than I ever made in my previous engineering jobs. The rep knew that I had an MBA and was willing to go into sales if given the opportunity. Unfortunately, his company produced such pills and I would have nothing to do with promoting/selling them. I passed up a lucrative career at my doorstep and I am still unemployed. Such is life (no pun intended).

There would become a wider, bigger lucrative market in selling such pills if the Catholic bishops gave the thumbs up. If it is moral for rape victims, then it is moral for all women. It can successfully open the Pandora's Box that Humanae Vitae has kept shut for several decades.

Deacon John (bisantino) writes:

"Should the female rape victim continue to be victimised by having to endure a pregnancy, which is not the result of a loving encounter with her husband?"

I don't think you meant "husband" if you are talking about a "rape victim." Anyway, this can be another Pandora's Box. How many wives can then decide if they would have to endure a pregnancy if they didn't think their husbands loved them? or that their 'encounter' was less than expected? The judgment is no longer based on conception/fertilization, but on whether love is present. If we have such a difficult time trying to determine/recognize the definition of "conception," how successful do you think we will have in defining the presence of "love?" How do you measure love? How does the love criterion stand up in court? in the medical lab? outside the context of faith and belief? This will muddy what is already a mess.

Is there love present when men impregnate their girlfriends only to cut out of town ignoring their fatherly duties when pregnancies occur? My wife and I were the only ones at our LaMas(sp?) classes where I was the actual daddy. No sooner did the other women get prego that their male partners (or whatever they were at the time of their 'encounter') hit the road. Can we see the longer slippery slope when 'love' is the criterion? A mother says, "I don't love you, therefore I can now terminate your life." or "Your daddy doesn't love you (or me), therefore I will abort you." or "Your daddy and I didn't really love each other while we enjoyed the marital privilege while not being married, therefore we will prevent you from implanting in my womb."

Deacon John Petrus' statement that, "I believe that life most appopriately begins with implantation," has to be challenged.

Joe

Joe,

Just one wee little point - rapists usually don't stop to find out if their target is married. Single women are raped. Married women are raped. And yes, some married women are raped by their husbands.


Sharon

Joe,

I am not fluffing off biological specifics but trying to make sense of them. Yes at fertilization a unique combination of DNA exists. However, until around 14 days after fertilization that cell may twin (or more) and after that it is possible they may recombine. The Church teaches that souls do not split or recombine. So how do we reconcile our teaching about souls with biological evidence. Also, biologists estimate that over 50% of fertilized ovum never get implanted and simply pass out in the menstral cycle. Karl Rahner questioned whether it is reasonable to believe that over 50% of human beings exist and die without our ever knowing it.

I will concede the whole arguement is partly semantical. What does the word conception mean? Should it mean fertilization or implantation? I don't know. I bow to the authority of the Church to decide such matters. But it is unfair, given the above information, to call someone, especially a doctor and deacon, a heretic for trying to make sense of a teaching that is seemingly contradicted by biological evidence.

My arguement is that we should not base a theological teaching on a biological factor alone. The body exists for the soul, not the soul for the body. God alone creates life. We provide the body, God provides the soul. Without the soul, the body is without life. When does God infuse the soul? We do not know for certain, but given the teaching about souls not dividing or recombinig and the biological fact that a fertilized egg may do this, the evidence leans towards implantation.

However, this should have no effect on contraception or abortion. The Church condemns non-abortive birth control as much as possibly abortive and abortive birth control. Abortion teaching would be left unaffected as well.

Please see the CDF's Declaration on Procured Abortion:
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/df75ab.htm

Below, I post the relevant sections:

"7. In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine--the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed "on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb."[9] The Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: "That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived."[10] St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that abortion is a grave sin against the natural law." At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life "which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator."[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."[17] The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church "has not changed and is unchangeable."[18]

13. To this perpetual evidence--perfectly independent of the discussions on the moment of animation[19]--modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, there is established the program of what this living being will be: a man, this individual man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its capacities requires time--a rather lengthy time--to find its place and to be in a position to act. The least that can be said is that present science, in its most evolved state, does not give any substantial support to those who defend abortion. Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. "The one who will be a man is already one."[20]"

The document does not specifically address cases of rape or incest. However, and the whole point of this discussion in the first place, if the Church allows for emergancy contraception, how can it justify it? The only reasonable answer seems, and I believe this was Deacon John's point, is that the Church be willing to redefine conception as implantation. It would allow for emergency contraception as an act of economy because it would not be killing an unborn life, yet Church teaching on birth control and abortion in ordinary circumstances could remain intact because to interfere with the act of conception or risk harm to the unborn is a gravely sinful act.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

First, what happens naturally is one thing (the same goes for miscarriages); what is purposely induced is another.

Second, it wasn't I who called Deacon (Dr.) John Petrus a heretic. That was Anastasios (please read previous posts). I called to task his statement that life begins at implantation, not fertilization.

Joe

Sharon,

My comment about rapists was in regard to biantino's comment about the husband in conjunction with the issue of rapists, especially those that are mentioned in the recent bishop statement. Yes, rape can occur between anyone. The bishops, I believe, were not writing a statement only on husbands, though they can be included. Just a jot and tittle.

What did you think of the rest of my post? Do you agree? Is my argument against the 'implantation' theory wrong?

Joe

Lance,

I really don't know how the 'soul' generates. The issue is about life, not spiritual matters. Even an atheist can be a biologist.

The argument is getting semantical only because a re-definition of "conception" is a lucrative and legal opportunity. The re-definition of homosexuality as no longer being an abnormal behavior in 1973 and Roe vs. Wade's reliance on a lie can do a lot of damage. Words such as "protoplasmic rubbish," "result of pregnancy," and the like served to reduce the consciouisness of the reality before us. Hitler's media machine used similar less-than-human terms to refer to the Jews in order to justify their termination. A simple semantic alteration can lead to legal protection.

I posted this link earlier in the thread:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/lifeinsight/sept98.htm

Its amazing what happens in only five years.

But you asked for Church teaching. Please read:

"This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: FROM THE TIME THE OVUM IS FERTILIZED, A NEW LIFE IS BEGUN which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already."

The entire text of "Donum Vitae" can be found here:

http://www.catholic-family.org/documents/Donumvitae.htm

- - -

From the "DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION" issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974.

"From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already."

The entire text can be read here:

http://www.catholic-family.org/documents/ProcuredAbortion.htm

- - -

From Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, we read the following:

"60. Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time--a rather lengthy time--to find its place and to be in a position to act".[57] Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?"."

Part III of the text can be read here:

http://www.catholic-family.org/documents/EV3.htm

- - -

The Pope states, "Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, ..." This is important since it considers your soul issue. It doesn't matter when one is determining life. The Pope doesn't base his argument on the generation of the soul, nor will I.

Going back to my philosophy days, the logic of, "It would never be made human if it were not human already," is quite basic. Life can not generate via implantation, but rather, via fertilization. Its genetic code is received from two separate identities, the egg from its mother and the sperm from its father.

Read the book of Genesis and see how important the notion of 'seed' is. It is intimately tied to the generations (toledoth) of man and the promise.

Joe

Joe,

I know it was Anastasios who called Deacon John a heretic. While you did not call him a heretic, you obviously feel he is in error for holding a position that, as far as I can see, the Church allows because it does not teach a definite moment of ensoulment which is the criteria for personhood, not unique genetic material as is produced at fertilization or the entering of a relationship with the mother as happens at implantation. I am only concenred with how biology can help lead us to theologically sound teaching.

You still have not provided a response to the contradiction between our teaching on souls and what can happen with a fertilizied ovum.

Yes what happens naturally is different from what is induced, but the question still remains is it reasonable to believe that over 50% of human beings come into and out of existence in a few days with no one knowing them.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

What is the teaching on souls? Don't they need to be fed until they are at least seven years old?

The issue is when life begins, not the 'implantation' of souls.

My argument sticks to the topic. If my replies seem to indirectly charge someone of heresy, then that is your reasoning. Petrus provided us with a definition of the beginning of life, not the beginning of souls. I have a right to challenge that proposition. The intention of my reply or your perceived view on heresty-hunting is yours. I quote the above Church documents on the beginning of life (at fertilization, not implantation). Sticking to that argument and definition, I leave it up to you to challenge it.

Joe

Joe, what then happens in the case of genetic twins? How (and when)is it that they come to produce distinct characteristics and individual identities? Your comment sweeps a lot of developmental biology under the rug.

djs,

Are you suggesting that the uterus is responsible? Does genetic code originate from the uterus? I don't follow.

The issue is whether implantation is the beginning of life. I believe my linked sources above is ample reading material to determine the 'mind of the Church.' To speak otherwise is not to speak according to the mind of the Church.

Joe

"The issue is whether implantation is the beginning of life. I believe my linked sources above is ample reading material to determine the 'mind of the Church."

Actually you raised a bunch of issues including biololgical ones about which your knowledge is limited. And you have downplayed the conundrum raised by Lance that is certainly relevant: any understanding of the beginning of life, requires an understanding of "life".

OK. Maybe one more reference related to the issue of "verbal engineering":

- - -

Planned Parenthood also knew that many people would reject contraception if they knew it could operate as an abortifacient instead of a contraceptive. In 1962, Dr. Mary Calderone, PP�s medical director said "if it turns out that these intrauterine devices operate as abortifacients, not only the Catholic Church will be against them, but Protestant churches as well." (Ibid. page 292)

Consequently, PP turned to verbal engineering to counter this problem. They worked to change the definition of conception and pregnancy from fertilization to implantation. This way, those devices that can operate by preventing implantation of a conceived embryo could be called "contraception" instead of abortion. It�s strategy worked and in 1965, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology embraced this new definition in the first issue of its publication Terminology Bulletin, which stated "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum".

Clearly, this redefining of conception was ideological, not scientific as was pointed out by Dr. J. Richard Sosnowski, head of the Southern Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a member group of ACOG, in his 1974 presidential address: "I do not deem it excellent to play semantic gymnastics in a profession�It is equally troublesome to me that, with no scientific evidence to validate the change, the definition of conception as [fertilization] was redefined as the implantation of a fertilized ovum. It appears to me that the only reason for this was the dilemma produced by the possibility that the intrauterine contraceptive device might function as an abortifacient." (ibid, page 293)

- - -

The entire text can be read here:

http://www.nebcathcon.org/pastoral_plan_pulse.htm

Follow the money ...

Joe

djs,

Thank you for reminding me that I cannot or do not have the capacity to understand due to my lack of medical license. With that fallacy in mind, we can also ignore the bishops on family matters because they don't know squat about being married.

Then the Pope and the bishops are fools for making such silly statements since they aren't doctors and are not in the capacity to teach what is "life."

Joe

I have not criticized their statements.
And your statements are not limited to quoting theirs.

djs,

I see where this is leading.

Lance asked about where this is mentioned in the Church. I believe I have provided the answer.

But why are we so sure when life does NOT begin than when life DOES begin?

Joe

I have not made any comment about your "capacity". Nor any suggestion that such capacity is linked to having a medical degree. As such your comment about the bishops and family matters is completely unconnected to my posts.

The issue, again, is whether life begins at implantation. The deacon/doctor mentions something about a 'union.' How does that correspond with the above church documents?

Joe

For me, this boils down to man wish to define something that he has no way of knowing.

That is, when does life start, fertilization or implantation.

I don't know and I find it hard to believe that anyone out there can know. So I err on the side of caution and say it is at fertilization.


David

Joe,

You provide many valuable citations but I wish to expand on one from Donum Vitae:

"Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magesterium has not expressly committed it self to an affirmation of a philosophical naturebut it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable."

The Church once taught that a baby was not ensouled until 40 days after fertilization and therefore was not a person, i.e. not a life. It still forbade abortion. Now the Church teaches that life begins at fertilization, without commiting to a moment of ensoulment which to me is contradictory because one can not have human life without a soul. The Church could forbid abortion without teaching that life begins at fertilization.

The Church bases its current teaching on the fact that at fertilization a unique genetic code is formed that contains all that is necessary for a person to exist. However, the Church also seems to ignore the biological fact that a fertilized egg can split into twins or two eggs can fuse. The Church's agruement of a unique individual is undermined by this fact. The document asks: How can a human individual not be a human person? The answer is a unique physical form is present but it is not a person until God infuses a soul into it. Again, since zygotes can twin or fuse from fertilization till implantation (about 14 days)the most theologically sound case for ensoulment is implantation. A person cannot have "life" without a soul, so "life" would not begin until implantation. Since the Church once taught something similar and still fobade abortion, it could opt to do so once again.

Please note I do accept the possibilty that ensoulment occurs at fertilization and twinning and fusing may be something beyond our biological and theological understanding. I simply object to Deacon John being accussed of heresy, error, what have you, for holding a postion the Church has not defintively ruled on. In any case, the Churches teaching on respect for life and forbidding abortion remains intact.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

First, I don't think you will find the topics of abortion and implantation in any Creed. So far, the Pope, the Vatican, and the bishops have consistently maintained or given instructions that human life begins at conception/fertilization, not conception/implantation. Our Byzantine Catholic bishops have not written any declaration or instruction on their own separate from the Conference (not synod) of bishops.

As for a 40-day soul implantation, would this be related to the 40-day departure/toll-houses doctrine? I have a different idea why 40 is used, but it isn't based on biology.

Joe

Joe,

You keep sidestepping the main question, How can life be said to exist without a soul? If the Magesterium is unwilling to commit to a moment of ensoulment, it should not commit to a moment of life, but simply state that abortion is wrong even if life/ensoulment has not yet occured. This is what the Church previously taught.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Lance,

You definitely raise another issue worth deliberating about. Yet, the beginning of life (bios, not pneumatikos) is the issue. Pope John Paul II has even written about this in Evangelium Vitae. See my link and quote that I provided above.

He wrote:

"Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?"."

What aspect of his statement, "the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained," didn't you understand? Even the Holy Father does not base his argument on the issue of the soul. But you have turned the issue of the beginning of life to an argument when souls appear. Thomas Aquinas might be better at answering that question as well as a few more speculative ones.

Am I really sidestapping the question? Not really. I don't think the soul argument will prove to be good enough to convince governments and physicians. As Christians, we do believe in souls or the like. We also believe in Theosis, becoming partakers of the divine nature. But the issue remains: when does life begin? fertilization or implantation? When the Pope and our bishops are for one side and Planned Parenthood, physicians, legislators, and pharmaceutical companies are on the other side, then we have to pause and see where this is heading. It is not a matter about souls. It is about the commencement of life.

Of course, you can fault me for quoting the sources I give. They may not be as interested in the argument of souls as you would like to see. You may want me to include this issue in my replies, but it still doesn't alter the phsyiological events of fertilization.

You mention the point of the many fertilized ovums that get swepped away without anyone knowing. There are many still-borns too as well as miscarriages. Can we include them in this group? Were they not human too? The local Catholic cemetary has a plot for unborn fetuses.

I think the Church doesn't have to commit to the moment of ensoulment as much as it shouldn't have to commit to the moment of Transubstantiation. Its all a mystery. The Church HAS commited itself to defining when life begins. If you have a problem with that, then you should debate them and not me, a simple messenger.

Joe

Joe,

You can't be a messenger of what the Church doesn't teach. The documents you cite themselves declare they do not to take a philosophical position. Yet, Deacon John's philosophical position is attacked. Further you try to polarize the issue into the Magesterium on one side and abortionists on the other, which is unfair and wrong. The Church formerly maintained the position that life started later than fertilization but still forbade abortion. One can argue that the Church be theologically consistent and still uphold its teaching on contraception and abortion. The concern of the documents is with maintaining the Church teaching that contraception and abortion are sins.

You state we are talking about bios and not pneumatikos, I do not think the two can be seperated. There is no bios without pneumatikos. The Fathers are clear on this, so I don't need Aquinas. To hold that fertilization=life, and ignore the implications twinning and fusing has on such a statement is theologically irresponsible.

You also state:"What aspect of his statement, 'the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained,' didn't you understand?" It was a question, not a statement, and I understood it perfectly. Science alone cannot tell us when ensoulment takes place. It can however,provide us with the information as to when is the more likely time for this to occur. Therefore, experts may suggest the Church review this.

And to answer your question yes of course miscarried, stillborn, and aborted babies are human persons. I resent the implication of such a question as I am firmly prolife.

The Church does not need to commit to an exact moment of ensoulment, but just as the Church has committed to saying the Gifts are most certainly transformed by the end of the Anaphora, it should commit to saying the zygote is ensouled at least by some point, not: we don't know when it is ensouled but life begins at fertilization. That is a contradictory statement. No soul=no life. If the Church wants to define ensoulment at fertilization it should do so, if biological evidence (twinning and fusing)suggests otherwise it should go with implantation. Either way abortion at fertilization still remains a sin just as contraception is a sin. If it is sinfull for a man to pull out and waste his sperm, it certainly sinful to waste a fertilized egg even if life hasn't begun or ensoulment hasn't occured. This is consistent with the Fathers and is theologically sound.

The original question remains unanswered. Emergency contraception, if only preventing fertilization, is allowable. If it is abortive is unallowed. The question is then if it prevents implantation is it allowable. If ensoulment occurs at fertilization it cannot be allowed. If ensoulment occurs at implantation, economy may justify preventing implantation in cases of rape and incest. Therefore, it is not wrong for an expert like Deacon John to suggets the Church review this in light of biological evidence. Current Church teaching forbids preventing implantation and I accept this teaching as I am sure Deacon John does.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Then we finally agree.

First, I only convey what the Church teaches regarding life beginning at fertilization. Did you not read the links and quotes I provided? Do you think I make these things up? Show me where the Church states that life begins at implantation.

Second, notwithstanding taking a philosophical position, the Church has stated that life begins at fertilization, not implantation. It was not apt to define it in relation to souls.

Third, Deacon John's philosophical position is attacked because it does not agree with the Church. Show me how his statement agrees with previouis church declarations, encyclicals, and instructions.

Fourth, the abortionists/pro-choice crowd and the Church was already polarized before I graduated from highschool. One cannot be an abortionist and pro-Life at the same time. The statements and instructions from the Church have been in response to governments, legislators, physicians and pro-choice advocates over the years. Read their documents. If there was any polarization it was when conception was re-defined as implantation, not fertilization. Did you not read their arguments? They are not originally from me. They continually bring up that little bit of "verbal engineering" time and time again. The Church was already polarized when I had my personal conversation ... err, confrontation with Fr. Charles Curran back in the early 1980's.

Cantor Joe Thur

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

I cannot for the life of me conceive why this is such a hot question. Growing cells (as Sharon points out) are the beginning of a new human being. I think this is approaching the beginning of a new "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" controversy.

The only practical usefulness seems to be the ability to condemn someone for an abortion depending on when it is determined that "life" begins. Perhaps it is just another exercise in patristic one-ups-manship?

Otherwise, why is it so important and why the vehemence?

Blessings!

//I cannot for the life of me conceive why this is such a hot question.//

It goes back to Roe vs. Wade, stem cell research, abortificants, etc. You probably did not read all the quotes and links I provided, so I can understand why you would have a problem conceiving (no pun intended).

//Growing cells (as Sharon points out) are the beginning of a new human being.//

Growing cells? I think both the Catholic and the Orthodox communion of churches have stated that fertilization was the beginning of life. This is where the sperm and egg meet. Growth occurs once the fertilized egg splits.

//I think this is approaching the beginning of a new "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" controversy.//

Maybe for you, but it is an ethical issue in the real world. If life begins at fertilization, and someone gives the OK for preventing that life from implanting in the mother�s uterus, what do you call it? I don�t think you can just shrug off this important issue as a joke relating to speculations about angels and pinheads.

//The only practical usefulness seems to be the ability to condemn someone for an abortion depending on when it is determined that "life" begins.//

The Church isn�t in the business of �condemning� people. The Church IS in the business of defending life. There is a quantum gap between defending life and condemning it. I think you have the two mixed up.

//Perhaps it is just another exercise in patristic one-ups-manship?//

Not really. Maintaining �tradition� (the handing down of the faith) and protecting human life and values is not a mere exercise of �patristic one-ups-manship.� It is a matter of consistently being pro-life.

//Otherwise, why is it so important and why the vehemence?//

Because people like you don�t seem to see the importance and will probably support public schools handing out �morning after pills� because it is only a matter of condemning and one-ups-manship.

I strongly urge you to read all the quotes and links I provided on this thread. They reflect a common teaching about the beginning of life and our duty to protect it.

Joe Thur

Sorry to make it sound like I was being dismissive of the issue, I truly am not. But there is a root question and that is: is there a criterion by which we determine one position or another to represent the truth? There are certainly several different understandings of procreational activity; penetration of the ovum and subsequent calcification; DNA uncoating and first combination; subsequent first cell mitosis of the "newly created" DNA. Any one of these could be determined to be the starting point of a new life. How do we make the determination, and more importantly, how do the theologians make the determination from a theological perspective? And why are certain theological perspectives determined to be more 'valid' than others? Why 'fertilization' vs. 'implantation' only?

It is for this reason that I used the 'angels on the head of a pin' reference; I see argumentation, and even the H-word being used; and I find this frightening when the components being debated are subject to constant, even daily discoveries.

I wonder if this is one of those questions to which there is no definitive answer possible on the science/theology axis. Will the theological answer be evolving over time as we are more able scientifically/medically to both detect and save life at earlier and earlier times? And how can we determine when God bestows a soul upon the new life? Our current understanding of biology/medicine is bound to be superceded over the course of time; a hundred years from now, the people will look back at our 'understanding' as quaint, in much the same way as we look back at medicine in 1903. I am afraid that by being overly dogmatic based upon our current understandings, we place the Church in danger of publicly 're-interpreting' past teaching, and will force the Church to make emendations based upon future discoveries.

As Pius XII noted in 1952 (a congress on uses of the atom), there can be no conflict between theology and true science.

But let's not err in using current scientific knowledge to make definitive theological statements. The science will definitely change; the theological reality should not.

Blessings!

Quite true - but it is the advances in science that have made the teachings of religion - in this area, at least - seem more and more plausible.

The ultrasound, for example, has been a MAJOR factor in the growth of the pro-life movement. The ability to see that the "mass of cells" has a head, arms and feet makes a big difference.

//a root question and that is: is there a criterion by which we determine one position or another to represent the truth?//

The Church. I have given you about a dozen statements from the Church, Catholic and Orthodox, whereby they all agree: fertilization is the traditional understanding of conception and is considered the beginning of life.

//I see argumentation, and even the H-word being used; and I find this frightening when the components being debated are subject to constant, even daily discoveries.//

�Conservative� and �liberal� is used too, but those are political terms having nothing to do with �orthodoxy� or �heterodoxy.� Heresy in its base understanding only means a different opinion/position. Today, it has a distinctive antagonistic tinge to it. In the context of church teaching or instruction, one can certainly take a stand that isn�t in compliance with the mind of the Church. It doesn�t mean they are positively taking a heretical stand for the sole purpose of declaring church teaching wrong. They can place themselves in a position where their position is NOT in the ball park of church teaching. When the Church is unanimous across the Orthodox-Catholic spectrum on when life begins (and I am sure they use their scientific experts too) and one takes a position diametrically opposed to it, then we have a problem. Does that person know something that the entire church missed? Did this one medical professional discover something that no other medical professional was aware of in the rest of the Church? Inquiring minds want to know.

//I wonder if this is one of those questions to which there is no definitive answer possible on the science/theology axis.//

Science is still trying to determine an astrophysical explanation of the beginning of the universe. Big Bang? Oscillating Universe? Contracting Universe? Static Universe? All based on the same data, but different interpretations. There is a much longer tradition on the source of life outside the parameters of scientific inquiry. Consider the notion of �seed� in the book of Genesis. Seed is intimately connected to the notion of promise to Abraham. The many genealogies in Genesis point to an intimate connection between generations. They didn�t know the technical aspects of how the seed brought new life, but they did know it took two people (a man and a woman). They knew what they knew form agriculture, hence the great number of pagan cults where acts of sex were done for religious reasons. Yeah, right! What is disturbing today is that thousand years of understanding of the connection between seed and impregnation is being disturbed. We, in our highly technical and medical knowledge actually believe that there is a void of life between fertilization and implantation. We actually believe that life ceases or holds its breath between the act of intercourse (and the few moments before fertilization) and when that new entity, having its own DNA identity, implants itself in its mother�s womb. An argument can truly be made that it IS truly the mother�s body and she can do anything to that new living entity. A mother�s womb no longer becomes a safe-haven in today�s advanced(?) civilization.

- - -

Consider this article about Professor Plantinga:

"A letter from Plantinga, a philosophy professor, and Huston Smith, a religion professor at Berkeley, moved the National Association of Biology Teachers to remove anti-religious language from its statement on evolution.

For years, the association's official position read: "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process."

Recently, after Plantinga and Smith objected that "unsupervised" and "impersonal" go beyond scientific evidence, the association dropped those words."

...

"There is so much heat in this area -- people's faith, people's ideology is involved-- that often straightforward, rational discussion doesn't work well." Plantinga and Smith are among a growing number of Christian scholars, including scientists, who challenge what they consider the unscientific presuppositions of modern culture with respect to evolution.

"I think the main thing to see about it is that it is by no means merely a scientific doctrine at all," Plantinga says. "It is about naturalism vs. theism, naturalism vs. American religious belief, naturalism vs. Christianity.

"They think science has shown that human beings are not really created by God. That's not true at all. That's not science. That's theology. It's bad theology because it's theology confused with science."

That's the point he and Smith argued successfully about the biology association's position.

"A good bit of it was theology, not science," Plantinga says. "There's no way, simply on the basis of physical science, that you could have discovered that the process is unsupervised or impersonal.

The entire article can be read here:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/98/feb/022098/local_ar/41706.htm

- - -

So, it was science that was playing the role of theology where it shouldn't.

Thank God for philosophers!

//And how can we determine when God bestows a soul upon the new life?//

It has been quite unanimous in Christian anthropology that man (in the generic sense) is not a dualistic entity, but rather a singular entity. If life begins, then ensoulment is included.

//Our current understanding of biology/medicine is bound to be superceded over the course of time; a hundred years from now, the people will look back at our 'understanding' as quaint,//

For years, the notion of �conception� has always been the beginning of life. As our understanding grew on the bio-physiological details, we understood fertilization to be the beginning of life. What is dangerous in our culture of death is the purposeful transfer of the beginning of life from fertilization to implantation. Consider the impact of doing such. Many in the science community STILL consider fertilization to be the moment when a new life begins. Planned Parenthood and pharmaceutical companies enjoy the idea of knowing their products or programs don�t push abortion. Contra-ception sounds better than abortion or the termination of life, especially with regard to �morning after pills.� In many textbooks today, fertilization is still taught as the beginning of a new life.

//by being overly dogmatic based upon our current understandings, we place the Church in danger of publicly 're-interpreting' past teaching, and will force the Church to make emendations based upon future discoveries.//

Nobody is being dogmatic. I am personally unaware of any �dogmas� being proclaimed in any cathedral. I think the West may have some problems latent from their days of Aristotle and Aquinas. The Greeks already knew that the earth was round and St. Gregory of Nyssa already stated the inseparable nature of body and soul. What would be dangerous, if not scandalous, is if the Church decided to teach that implantation was the beginning of life rather than fertilization. Can you imagine the public outcry and pew-tossing that would result?

Try this one too:

- - -

"THROUGHOUT OHIO AND in one Georgia school district this year, children will be learning the creation theory of "intelligent design" in addition to evolution.

The Cobb County, Ga., science texts now include the following disclaimer: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Intelligent design, which has been touted as a crucial link between science and theology, is a theory of creation first espoused in the 1980s. Contrary to Darwinism, its premise is that nature displays abundant evidence of design by an "intelligent agent" rather than by undirected natural causes.

This approach also will be included in this year's science curriculum throughout Ohio, whose educational standards committee has voted to include more than just Darwin's theory of evolution in the state's classrooms."

The entire article can be read here:

http://www.geocities.com/gregoryjrummo/evolutioncobbcounty.htm

- - -

We often confuse theory with fact. Lately, it has been some sectors of the science community that has made their theories into dogma, especially in our school textbooks. Today, a number of challenges are being made regarding the dogmatic status of certain theories. A "theory" is just a "theory." We must recognize that.

//As Pius XII noted in 1952 (a congress on uses of the atom), there can be no conflict between theology and true science.//

And what is true science? The same goes for archaeology. Many archaeological discoveries are now challenging biblical dictums. Some suggest, like Tommy Thompson, that Abraham never existed.

//But let's not err in using current scientific knowledge to make definitive theological statements. The science will definitely change; the theological reality should not.//

How true. Science, in itself, can make NO theological statement. Such things are outside its nature and discipline.

Alvin Plantinga reminds us of the great divorce between philosophy and Christian/theistic belief that running current. Someone brought up the question of philosophy and such. So, I post this little blurb from Plantinga's reply to the Pope's encyclical on Faith and Reason (Fides et Ratio):

"Once we come to modern philosophy, however, with post-Kantian and post-Humean turning away from Christian or even theistic belief, doesn't it look as if much of philosophy is less an incomplete approach to Christian belief than arrogant apostasy? One branch of this apostasy culminates in the philosophical naturalism dominating most of the most important contemporary American philosophy departments, a naturalism that explicitly rejects not just Christian truth but theism generally. The other branch perhaps culminates in Friedrich Nietzsche's subtle and modulated observations that God is dead, and that Christian belief both fosters and arises from a sort of sniveling, servile, cowardly, evasive, duplicitous, and all-around contemptible sort of character that is at the same time envious, self-righteous, and full of hate disguised as charitable kindness. (Not a pretty picture.) Neither group is best seen as making an approach to Christian truth but just falling a bit short."

Cf. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/9b4/9b4032.html

- - -

Isn't this the common picture we see of the Church and Christianity in today's media? Unfortunately, this is what we have to work with.

Joe Thur

TG,

And today it isn't the post-circumcision pic (with frown and all) for boys that is first taken of our new babies, but the ultrasound pics.

God bless!
Layman Joe Thur

To all,

When I started this post, I was in the process of moving my family across town. I made an entry on August 11, 2003 which was meant to initiate discussion. I was trying to be clever and provocative. However, as moves tend to be, it was hectic and I was without internet service for a couple of weeks. I forgot all about this thread. Recently it was pointed out to me that the following entry of mine required revision or retraction. That is the reason I once again open this thread.

To refresh your collective memories, here is a copy of my entry which I guess did initiate some "discussion" (that is whatI intended). I just never closed the loop.
_________________________________________________
Quote:

"I should note that my own personal beliefs are apparently aligned with the New York bishops. It seems to me that there is only one adequate explanation that exonerates this new teaching. It also places them more closely aligned to the Orthodox teaching on this subject.

I believe that life most appopriately begins with implantation. This is my argument.

Mankind was created for union. Union with our Creator, AND union with each other. We cannot achieve Union with God by exclusion of the other. We cannot achieve salvation of our own accord. Until the embryo implants, it is alone. It relates only to itself and to no other. Left to its own initiative, it will soon die. But with implantation, it establishes the consummate intimate relationship, that between child and mother. It has achieved union: personal, physiologic, symbiotic.

Can one be a person by himself/herself? Or are we only persons when we relate to another (or others?)

(Speaking for myself and not for the church,)"

__________________________________________________


Rereading this, not only is this not the Catholic Church's teaching on this subject, it is not mine either. What I had initially intended to say was that life achieved its "fullness" at implantation as that is when the fetus is in relation to its mother, and it is only when we are in relation to another that we are "fully" human. The kind of life that exists from conception to implantation is of another kind or another aspect; a "potentiality" in progress.

An embryo can be removed from its mother's body, or even formed ex utero, frozen in a suspended animation for an amazingly long time, implanted into a foreign uterus, even a postmenopausal one (with the proper hormonal priming) before it achieves the fruition of its potentiality. This is unlike any other human life which cannot survive without the other.

The point that I had planned on making was that it reminded me of our Eucharistic practice. The conceptus/embryo is very much like the sacrifice of the Lamb during Proskimedia. The "Lamb" is not the body and blood at this point. It becomes so only with the invocation of the Holy Spirit. That is, it achieves It's fullness only in relation with the Other. It is the Body and Blood of Christ only in Union with the Holy Spirit that images the Father. It is only when we are in relation to an "other" that we are fully human. God exists only in relation and so do we.

The "life in potentiality" of the embryo and from the moment of conception is still deserving of utmost reverence for one cannot have the stage of implantation without the requisite earlier stage of conception. Furthermore, there is no other "mode of being" that can substitute for this earlier stage. This too is analagous to our Eucharistic practice. There is no other earlier stage that can substitute for the Eucharistic elements themselves.
**************************
Finally, a note in further support of this theological perspective. Earlier this year the Pope gave a speech on the proper treatment of persons in "vegetative state." In it he exhorted the continued and full support of such persons even if their neurological condition was permanent using this "humanity in its potentiality" concept.

In order for a definition of human life to be complete and correct, it has to be applicable at the beginning and at the end of life. And it seems to me that the Pope may be there.
*******************

My original intent was to provide a theological/ethical perspective of this issue and from the Eastern mind. I simply forgot to do so.

I defer the Western perspective to the New York bishops, et al. Again, I meant only to be provocative, not heretical.

I truly and humbly beg your forgiveness.

John, a most repentent deacon


*****************************

Please forgive me if this has caused you any distress or sorrow.

Morally, the end never justifies the means.
Stephanos I

Dear Fr. Deacon John Petrus,

//Rereading this, not only is this not the Catholic Church's teaching on this subject, it is not mine either.//

Your statement, �I believe that life most appopriately begins with implantation. This is my argument� sure did cause a stir. It was so clear and distinct. However, I still think your post is not satisfactory.

//What I had initially intended to say was that life achieved its "fullness" at implantation as that is when the fetus is in relation to its mother, �//

Either the fetus is life or it is not. Mothers also abort their fetuses. Does this mean that the fullness of life is solely dependent on the mother�s will? If a woman willingly engaged in the sexual act and an egg was fertilized, then does a mother have the right to negate what she did willfully? When did the fertilized egg loose its �relation to its mother?� You still don�t seem to acknowledge life�s reality independently of others. We are social beings, who do rely on others, but we are either living entities or beings or we are not. Does society define life or does life define society? Which is it? I am greatly troubled by your use of the term �achieved.� First, we are always in the process of growth and development. It would behoove me to expect growth and development as being the criteria of human fullness. What is I begin to think that certain ethnic people are not fully human? Or people of a particular race? Or people with certain handicaps or missing and/or deformed limbs? I can now begin to think of other traits that can be used to determine how we can classify the human-ness of �other� people. Our tradition of infant communion demonstrates that one�s own �age of reason� or rational faculties should not be a criterion of worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus asked for the little children to come to him. Adults always seem to have a manipulative way of controlling who should or who should not be considered human or worthy of God�s relationship. There is nothing more silly or stupid than to Baptize and Chrismate our little ones and then excommuicate them (deny them spiritual life) for seven years. Do we stop feeding our newborns and infants simply because they cannot hold a discussion about theology yet? Do we deny implantation of an embryo because pharmaceutical companies can make a mint if the definition of conception was altered? Your argument still makes room for the Implantation Theory because it relies on whether the mother will be open to continue the relationship she was already intimately involved in at the get-go.

//� and it is only when we are in relation to another that we are "fully" human.//

We are fully human when we, under the Divine Physician�s care and medicine, become who we really are: partakers of the Divine Nature. Fullness is achieved when we cooperate with the Holy Spirit (synergy). Western minds consider humans as being a few bricks short of a load. But this brings us back to theologies on anthropology. If our human fullness is dependent on the whims of one�s mother, then we are in trouble, especially those 40+ million who were aborted. Isn�t the decision to abort supposed to be a decision between a woman and her physician? Where-o-where is the father in this? What if he wants to be related to his newly conceived/fertilized child? See the can of worms you opened?

//The kind of life that exists from conception to implantation is of another kind or another aspect; a "potentiality" in progress.//

What do you mean by "another kind" or "another aspect?" How many �KINDS of life� are there? Please list them. Life 'develops' and humans 'grow,' but we can�t determine life on the basis of existentialism. In that case, when is full human potentiality realized? How do we know? Infants can�t feed themselves, so does that lack of full human growth make them less human? Elderly folks who can�t care for themselves may seem to have lost their potentiality. My neighbor had to have a hysterectomy because of internal bleeding that could have killed her. After the surgery, her neighbor kindly asked her if she felt like less of a woman. Maybe she should have been asked if she felt less of a human since she lost an organ or two? Life is life. If life begins at fertilization, then the realization of life�s potentiality is something different. Oh, yes. I remember the fathers of philosophy at the seminary warning us about such a �potentiality� in progress argument and its cousin, �delayed animation.� If what you mean by �potentiality� doesn�t lessen the human living reality of that fertilized egg, then OK. But if you are confusing the progress or realization of potentiality with the degree/fullness of how much human that reality is, then not OK. I don�t think Christianity agrees with the Hindu caste system. We are ALL made in the �image� of God. His �likeness� is to be determined. Is the embryo's DNA still the embryo's? Where does the notion of "person" come into play?

//An embryo can be removed from its mother's body, or even formed ex utero, frozen in a suspended animation for an amazingly long time, implanted into a foreign uterus, even a postmenopausal one (with the proper hormonal priming) before it achieves the fruition of its potentiality. This is unlike any other human life which cannot survive without the other.//

We can also feed newborns with cow�s milk, not human milk. We can also keep premature newborns alive for weeks or months too. Life can be sustained with care and technology and ways that may seem to be a-normal or a-typical. But even then this technology and care are being given by "others."

//The point that I had planned on making was that it reminded me of our Eucharistic practice. The conceptus/embryo is very much like the sacrifice of the Lamb during Proskimedia. The "Lamb" is not the body and blood at this point.//

This is a poor analogy. Simply put, you are saying that the embryo is not life. The Lamb analogy bespeaks of another time and place when we Byzantines loved symbolic interpretations of the liturgy. Technically speaking, the bread is still ordinary leavened bread; the wine is still ordinary wine. Returning to �conceptus�/embryo, does this really mean that there is just plain ordinary DNA and protoplasm without the filler? Blanks? James Hitchcock wrote a masterpiece on the use of terminology in regards to human life back in the late 70s that I think you might be interested in. Ordinary protoplasm without life is just ordinary protoplasmic rubbish.

//It becomes so only with the invocation of the Holy Spirit.//

Review the quotes I posted regarding the Eastern view. It has always been understood that human life is a UNITY, not a bundle of molecule, DNA, and neurons awaiting the magic moment of infused life sometime later. This means that the soul/spirit is intimately tied to the body, but not in a dualistic sense. We are not imprisoned in our bodies like some sort of Platonic notion. Delayed animation seems to be a slippery concept from the West. The Implantation Theory is a close cousin of it.

//That is, it achieves It's fullness only in relation with the Other.//

You are forgetting that life can also be a �fruit� of marital love between a man/husband and woman/wife. There ALREADY is a relationship between two people here. In our Byzantine tradition, marriage is a covenant between the couple (husband and wife) and God. How much fuller can one get than that? Once we begin to divorce life from its natural home (marital love and relationship), we introduce trouble. No man is an island; the same goes for embryos. Before and after conception/fertilization, an embryo has already found a natural home in its mother�s womb. We pray, �Blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus� in our Marian prayer. Any rejection of that fertilized embryo by purposeful prevention of implantation is a rejection of a life that already began days before and that was also begun with the (hopefully) loving relationship between its mother and father.

//It is the Body and Blood of Christ only in Union with the Holy Spirit that images the Father. It is only when we are in relation to an "other" that we are fully human.//

Again, we are only fully human when we reached theosis. A monk or single person, however recluse, still has some sort of relationship to others � even if in prayer.

//God exists only in relation and so do we.//

God doesn�t need us, but we do need God.

//The "life in potentiality" of the embryo and from the moment of conception is still deserving of utmost reverence for one cannot have the stage of implantation without the requisite earlier stage of conception. Furthermore, there is no other "mode of being" that can substitute for this earlier stage.

And why should this embryo be deserving of our reverence? And what exactly do you mean by "mode of being?" Can you unequivocally state that life should be respected from the beginning of fertilization because it is life? I am weary of referring to humans in a modalistic fashion. Either we are talking about human life or we are not.

//This too is analagous to our Eucharistic practice. There is no other earlier stage that can substitute for the Eucharistic elements themselves.//

But using your poor analogy, the bread is just that: bread. And the wine is just that: wine. If we are to use your analogy in the correct way, then that Eucharistic change took place when the unity of body and soul was conceived at fertilization. Isn�t it odd how we have always made a fuss over the unconsecrated elements during our Great Entrance? Earlier Patriarchs referred to the laity as �stupid� simply because the elements were NOT yet the Body and Blood of Christ. Yet we, in turn, have a difficult time making a fuss over the already living unity of body/soul at fertilization, but willfully either prevent implantation or abort that life. We are �stupid,� no?

//My original intent was to provide a theological/ethical perspective of this issue and from the Eastern mind. I simply forgot to do so.//

What exactly IS the Eastern mind on this issue? What do you think of my earlier posts on this Eastern mind/approach? Even Fr. Deacon Lance seemed to be satisfied.

// I meant only to be provocative, not heretical.//

Personally, I lived and fought through these arguments in a variety of experiences. But I should also admit that I am more confused, if not un-satisfied, by your latest reply. It is suggestive, theoretical, but not as declarative as your earlier statement that started it all: �� that life most appopriately[sic] begins with implantation.�

God bless,
Joe Thur