Here is the conversation I had with Ben, which is an applied debate about what I was going to lecture upon [addressed to Ashley]; additionally, there is a large smattering of Divine Providence: Ben: So I am taking a class in cell and molecular biology, and we started with a discussion of stem cells. So I was wondering if you knew the basis of the churchs teaching on life beginning at conception. Specifically, when does life begin and how do we know? Justin: Holding as we do that, while knowledge of any kind is a thing to be honoured and prized, one kind of it may, either by reason of its greater exactness or of a higher dignity and greater wonderfulness in its objects, be more honourable and precious than another, on both accounts we should naturally be led to place in the front rank the study of the soul. The knowledge of the soul admittedly contributes greatly to the advance of truth in general, and, above all, to our understanding of Nature, for the soul is in some sense the principle of animal life. Our aim is to grasp and understand, first its essential nature, and secondly its properties; of these some are taught to be affections proper to the soul itself, while others are considered to attach to the animal owing to the presence within it of soul. (De Anima i, 1) Your long answer is here classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html . The short answer is that the body actually comes before the soul (As Aristotle proves). However, this is only a logical and holds good that instantly upon production of the body that the soul is infused, in order to give form to its substance. First of all, we can say that in Genesis, mans body was formed first then his soul was infused, boom Holy Writ agrees... Other points seem unnecessary, we need not speak of this anymore: the body precedes the soul logically. But now youre like, So why conception? Well, as previously stated, the body precedes the soul only logically. Further, the body cant have form without the soul, since the soul moves the body to form (to wit, the form of the essence. Accidental traits, such as skin tone, are determined by accidental causes-- environment, genetics. Further the accidentals dont cease upon the soul leaving, i.e., death, because the soul does not cause these). Now a thing is said to be alive if it moves itself, and perfectly alive if it doesnt have any movement upon itself, i.e., God-- unmoved mover. Now, we see that something moves itself if it converts potentiality into actuality. Just as when a baseball player decides to swing a bat, he converts his potential to swing into actually swinging (we are glossing over potentiality, but this should suffice for now). Upon observance of the conceived cell, we see that it moves itself, because it grows. Now, it is only using the vegetative portion of its soul because it needs to become perfectly nutritive before it can proceed unto the next stage and finally become rational, but there are not multiple souls in a single body (which can be observed by these two humorous arguments at the bottom aquinasonline/Topics/Humor/com-humr.html) Further, in things we see that higher beings contain all being of those below the higher being. Because of these things, we can say that the conceived cell is indeed of rational nature by nature of its conception (seminal virtue), that it moves itself, that it has one soul (which must be rational, but it is only using the nutritive function in its current state). Objections? Ben: After conception, the embryo begins to divide and at a certain point, it consists of eight separate cells. If any of these cells were to be removed from the embryo and raised on its own, it would develop into another person. So if there is a single soul in the embryo, does another soul come when a part of that embryo is split off into the new embryo that has been created? And you only seem to have proven that the embryo is alive. We know it is alive, no one disputes that it is alive. The bigger question is is it human? Justin: Addressing the question of fission. It is evident that what you say is true about the split embryo coming to be two people; this is most manifest from identical twins. Observe a similar case, when a man eats the flesh of a dead boar. Now we see that there is a difference between the matter that was introduced into the human digestive tract and the product thereof-- feces. We must therefore cede that part of the initial matter came to be in the man (either materially or energetically, probably both). And so we see that Mans body comes about by recycling other matter. We therefore seem to have no quarrel about the split embryo having the ability to be a body (since a body is none other than livened matter); and we know it to be alive-- no one seems to dispute it to be alive. Now, just as when your skin flakes off, it ceases to be truly human, since the soul is no longer in correspondence with it. The same is true of the separated cell of the embryo, it is no longer under possession of the first soul. But we know that from experience, as stated above, that the separated cell is indeed alive; therefore, we must cede that a new soul is introduced to the system, seizing either the single cell or the seven cell body, depending upon which body the first soul remained with. Now as stated way above, there is only one soul in a body (and really Im trying to clarify why the embryo is human, because it was essentially answered above). Now, since there is only one soul in the body, there cannot be another soul in the body. Now, when the body of subject is in the womb-- zygote, embryo-- it exhibits the traits of the vegetative soul (it acts like a plant in terms of just taking in nutrients and growing. This is a much larger topic that you would just have to read De Anima to understand better. Hopefully this is sufficient). When the body is a fetus and dumb-- unable to speak intelligibly-- the body seems to be in a state of the sensitive soul (it has senses like other animals, it can feel; it also contains the vegetative soul because it continues to grow and or proceed with energy seized from other matter). As the child grows, he becomes more and more able to express intelligible things, and we then say that the rational soul is active (which contains the vegetative and sensitive parts also). Now since there is only one soul in a body, and that the highest part is always considered in defining species (this is a more broad use of species than you are accustomed to) We must say that the soul was always rational, just not actively so. But if a soul is rational, it is capable of beatitude and therefore sacred. Questions? Ben: So essentially, the fetus has one soul that does not change, and that soul is eventually capable of rational thought, therefore it was always a rational soul and human. New question, after conception a large number of embryos die without even implanting in the mothers womb. Does this mean God creates a human, then destroys it almost as quickly? Why? Can this soul even be judged? Justin: Addressing the first post: Regarding the first level of potentiality (take the analogy: a boy has the potentiality to learn math, whereas a snail does not.) the subsistence does not change; regarding the second stage of potentiality (a boy learned in mathematics has the potential to do mathematics, whereas an uneducated boy does not.) the subsistence changes; regarding actuality (a boy is actively doing math, whereas a different boy is not) the subsistence changes. Nonetheless your conclusion is true: it must always have been a human soul. Addressing the second post: It does indeed mean that God creates these humans and then almost as quickly ceases to give them life (destroy isnt really proper because creation is constant. e.g. If God were to cease to will us, we would instantly annihilate; but this wasnt a negation, rather a cessation.) I can tell you why generically but not specifically (I may be able to conjecture in a particular case with lots of information, but this is an abstract situation so in no way can i do this.) God does this ultimately because it is glorifying to him. Lots of people have difficulty with that. Allow me to illustrate, however. Your Grandmother looks fat in her new dress (Gram-grams is like 80). She asks you, Ben, does this dress make me look fat? You have two options: Grams you look fat; easiest observation of my life., No dearest Grandmother, you do not appear to be fat. Let me tell you indeed that you choose the latter, and this is the better option. But why? It is because more truth is contained in the second reply, and therefore goodness. This is because while indeed she looks fat, by natural law and positive law even-- culturally established laws (, which are relevant as long as they are truly laws) you are ordered to please your grandmother, and it is not abhorrent to withhold the state of her physique. We also observe that the function of law is to make its subject good--virtuous-- (rather lost in modern law, but still extant.) The Psalmist also struggles with this: newadvent.org/bible/psa087.htm And many other places in the Bible. Basically, these things are beyond your understanding on a piercing level. Can these souls be judged? Yes. This is a problem with eliminating Purgatory. Because this is presumably what happens to most of them. But with a fair degree of confidence we can say that some of these souls go straight to Heaven, because of the witness of Zelie Martin, who is the mother of Therese de Lisieux, doctor of the church. Her child that died at the age of five-- before the age of reason-- went straight to heaven, according to her prayerful account. This can happen because God is just that intelligent. I didnt realize (and still dont) how much so absolutely infinite meant until recently. Basically, respecting the embryo that doesnt implant, God knows exactly what that person would have chosen (God or not God). And so he has no difficulty in judging these cases. Further God holds the perfection of justice, so that we can say that in no way could he be injust in judgement. Questions? Ben: So Gods judgement is independent of our choices? Justin: Gods judgement can be said of in two ways. In the first, we see that because God is the only self-actualizing being, he is nowise dependent upon something else, and thus our choices. In the second way, we cannot say that Gods judgement is dependent upon our choices, but that God allows us to choose either Heaven or Hell. [ADDITION FOR CLARITY: Accordingly, this is a complete definition of justice; save that the act is mentioned instead of the habit, which takes its species from that act, because habit implies relation to act. And if anyone would reduce it to the proper form of a definition, he might say that justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will: and this is about the same definition as that given by the Philosopher [Aristotle] (Ethic. v, 5) who says that justice is a habit whereby a man is said to be capable of doing just actions in accordance with his choice.-- St. Thomas] It is as if a man is in a society and the judge (God) places laws (precepts) and says, follow the rules and youll be just fine (Heaven); but if you violate the rules, you will be punished (Hell). We must say this because our free will proceeds from God to begin with, since we are constantly created. However in the case of a person who has not yet reached maturity of reason before death, some have found difficulty, since seemingly there has been no choice. But this is absurd for two reasons. The first being that God knows every possible scenario that could have and would have resulted, if life were deigned upon this being that he has complete license over: he owns this being and all other things, even things that are not created that he knows about. Secondly, God is outside of time, as can be proven naturally and has many mentions in Holy Writ, which means that Gods judgement bears no issue with something not actually happening in time, since his judgement is outside of time. As an expoundation, I present a corollary: God is the most perfect unity, which presumes that God is one single act of himself. But if God is one single act, then he nowise can change; and if he cannot change, we forthwith realize that God has already created everything and we are only living out what we have already chosen, through the medium we call time. I recommend you read all of this: newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm . But it should be sufficient to read this: newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm#article4 newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article8 newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm#article3 . Questions? Ben: Then why allow us to exist at all? If our choices are irrelevant, then why create us in the first place? Why not just let us be created, exist for a day, then die. The rest is irrelevant because our final destination is all that matters anyways.I get predestination, but the absence of choice doesnt allow for judgement. Maybe I am stuck in a human mindset, but it just doesnt make sense. Justin: We are brought into existence to glorify God. The why to this is that it is innate of Gods nature to spread goodness about. We observe this most manifestly in how species perpetuate themselves, the same is analogically true of God since the effect (nature) redounds upon the cause (God). Our choices arent irrelevant, as previously stated. However, we will revisit the subject in a slightly different aspect that may help your understanding of ontology; for you are indeed stuck in this human mindset of Judgement, whereas Judgement is of the Godhead. Consider this: God is outside of time; further God exists at the same vicissitude (time) that time does. We therefore see that all of time is known to God in an instant. Further God is one simple act, as previously stated, among other reasons, because he is immutable. Because of these things, we therefore see that in light of Judgement that we humans are only experiencing the choices that we have already made. (For example, by my free will I have already made the choices for 60 year old Justin, with respect to the Godhead.) Now in the case of one who has not actually lived a lengthy life, it matters not in light of Judgement whether or not this life had materially actuated, because God already knew all of our virtual choices: only the physical experience of the person is absent. And since in judgement we do none other that make a decision based upon our knowledge, the same is true of Judgement. Therefore, these souls are justly judged. We dont just exist for a day and then die because it is more glorifying to the Godhead that those of us who do experience life do. In the case where the life of one who was supposed to experience a full life is cut short, Jesus pointedly replies in Mark 9:41 newadvent.org/bible/mar009.htm . Regarding the second post, it seems the reply is clear; for it is evident that all of the choices have been made; at the very least virtually, and this is sufficient.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:38:28 +0000