|
Note the difference in the emphasized words: The English version says that Mary was free from sin from the first moment of her conception, whereas the Latin says that she was free from sin in the first instant of her conception. On this tiny preposition rests a doctrine.
Where There Is Sin, There Is A Soul
The first thing to consider is that sin inheres in the soul: Therefore, anyone who has sin also has a soul. The next thing to understand is that a doctrine is not just an idea; the Church teaches that a doctrine is the actual words in which it is defined. An individual may say in his own words that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the fact that Mary never had sin; but that is not the doctrine. The doctrine is the exact words quoted above --in Latin --that express that fact. And those words include "in the first instant of her conception."
If the words said that Mary was free from original sin "from the first moment of her conception, they certainly would mean that she did not have sin in the moment of her conception. But they could also imply that, if she did not have a soul in that instant, then she did not have sin at whatever later time she did acquire a soul. But by limiting the freedom from original sin to "in the first instant of her conception," the actual doctrine means only that she did not have sin in that moment. It cannot mean that she was freed from original sin at some later time.
If sin exists in the soul, and if human beings do not have souls "in the first instant" of their conception, they could not have sin then, either. That being the case, no one would have sin in the first instant of his conception, and the doctrine of Mary's immaculate Conception" would be meaningless, since everyone would have an "immaculate conception."
Note, though, that the doctrine (i.e., the actual words) says that Mary's sinlessness "in the first instant" of her conception was "singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio," correctly translated as above: "by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God." That is, every other human being has sin "in the first instant" of his conception.
The logic is inescapable. If sin inheres in the soul and every human being (except Mary) has sin "in the first instant" of his conception, then every human being must have a soul in that instant.
It may be true that the Church has never issued a formal statement saying something like, "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine that a soul is infused into a body by Almighty God in the instant of conception is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful." But in Ineffabilis Deus, the Church has certainly implied exactly that.
What Difference Does It Make?
At this point, a true Catholic might ask, "So what? Whether or not the Church has ever defined --or will ever define --the moment of ensoulment really makes no difference to me. I have always been free to believe (and most devout Catholics do, in fact, believe) that God infuses a soul at conception. In any case, I certainly would not act as if it were otherwise."
But the point is important. In the abortion debate, some people pretend that the non-definition of the moment of ensoulment matters. For example, the group that shamelessly calls itself Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) publishes materials claiming that the act of abortion is not really all that serious, since what is destroyed in an abortion is not necessarily a "person" --"personhood" being equated with the state of having a soul. However absurd this argument is as a rationale for keeping abortion legal, it has been used by non-Catholic, and even nonreligious, public figures; for example, the Catholic Church's "nondefinition" of the moment of ensoulment was cited in at least one official opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as by former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, who, as a state legislator in 1967, introduced the first permissive abortion law in the country.
Note that I refer to the position taken by such persons as a "pretense." The fact is, the issue of ensoulment means nothing to them. If the Church does define ensoulment as occurring at the moment of conception, these hypocrites would certainly not recant their pro-abortion advocacy. But at least such a formal definition would force such frauds to admit publicly that their allusions to the Church's "nondefinition" were a sham all along. (And who knows? Some gullible people who were actually convinced by the "non-definition" charade might even reconsider their positions.)
What Is "Conception"?
But if the Church does make such a pronouncement, she would be well-advised to take care about terminology. When Pope Pius IX used the word conception in Ineffabilis Deus, everyone in the world understood it to mean the moment when a sperm from the father penetrates the egg from the mother and a new human being ("ensouled" or not) comes into existence.
An insidious thing has happened to that word (and many others) in recent years, however. As contraceptive technology "progressed" in the early 1960s, its proponents knew that some of their products, like the IUD and most of the pills, did not always act by preventing the union of sperm and egg; sometimes they acted by preventing that living, growing human embryo from implanting into the lining of the mother's uterus. This knowledge presented them with a dilemma: They could either stop promoting such abortifacient agents or they could admit that they really didn't care whether or not the agents killed living embryos. Either way, they would hurt their cause (to say nothing of their income).
But in 1964, abortion guru Dr. Christopher Tietze offered them a third alternative: They could simply lie to people about the products. At the Second International Conference on Intra-Uterine Conception (!), he suggested that "if a medical consensus develops and is maintained that pregnancy, and therefore life, begins at implantation, eventually our brethren from the other faculties will listen." Less than a year later (that is, right on cue), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published its first Terminology Bulletin, which included this definition:
"Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum."
This semantic nonsense notwithstanding, the fact is that the "implantation of a fertilized ovum" into the uterine lining of a woman occurs several days after the actual fertilization itself. By the time implantation is complete, the newly created human may have undergone as many as eight "mitoses," or cell divisions, in which case he could have 256 cells -cells that are already differentiating into nerve cells, muscle cells, and so on.
But for the population controllers, abortionists, and contraceptionists, such facts were irrelevant. By defining conception as "implantation," they effectively defined contraception as anything that thwarts the week-long process from fertilization to implantation. Yes, a "contraceptive" may prevent the creation of a new life by preventing fertilization, but it may also destroy a new life by preventing the implantation of a growing embryo.
When pro-lifers discuss these issues, they should be careful not to speak of life's beginning at "conception," but rather at "fertilization" (and even that word is being reconsidered by the social planners). And if the Church issues a statement on the subject, she, too, must be careful about terminology.
Return to: PAGE 1 Return to: PAGE 2
Detraction, Calumny, Scandal - Accusations by Catholic Lawyer with Responses
See Also: Defining the Catholic Church
See Also: Levels of Authority & Beliefs
See Also: All Authority is from God
See Also: Obligatory Disobedience to Unjust Authority
HOME Site Map
E-MAIL:  Editor
Copyright © 1993-2000 by Father David C. Trosch - All Rights Reserved
Permissions granted for non-profit purposes.
Books and Religious Gift Items
Document provided as a service of:
LIFE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED
(A 501-c-3 Non-Profit Organization)
P. O. Box 850307
Mobile, AL 36685
U. S. A.
|
|
