Does the soul enter the embryo, and if so when

Were our Hearts Not Burning? (Lk 24:32)
Fr. Paul Ward Home

Reply to a question

Q: Dear Fr Paul

I am N., a [woman] Catholic Doctor in Africa. […]:

When does the soul actually enter the embryo?

I write in the hope that you can see a way to the practical catechesis of such a mystery.

I am dealing with articles published in South African magazines which present arguments for and against the presence of the soul at conception, and I do understand that they are trying to be ultra accurate with definitions.

But most lay people reading these magazines are left thinking they ought to be guided by doubt. That for the sake of justice, they should adopt a non-committal view. Doctors and patients alike have read these articles and claim that whatever they do is justified because there is reasonable doubt about the presence of a soul in the embryo.

The article in our Catholic periodical Trefoil says that social concerns, not morality , should be our guide for legislation on stem cell research.

My concern is the daily practical application of the catechism in protecting embryos.

I wish such articles would conclude with the clear directive of the Church:

Don't take the risk of harming a human soul that might well be present: therefore treat the embryo as if the soul were present. Whatever doubt there is, should serve to increase the protectiveness towards the embryo, not lessen it.

Thus the practical argument is not:

It doesn't matter what you decide because the human soul is not proven to be present.

But:

Take great care, because a human soul might well be present!

I deal with many who are illiterate, or who certainly could not grasp philosophical arguments. An old African gave me this image: the human body is like a boat crossing a river, to carry the soul from this bank of life to the next life. Whether the soul is in the boat at the time you sink it, or not, you have destroyed the vessel that would have carried the human soul.

This image is philosophically unsound, but the simple people grasp the sacredness of this allegory at a depth that we literates might never!

I would be interested in your comments or advice.

Yours sincerely, N.

N., in Christ,

Thank you for writing to me. I’m not a scholar, like Dr. Smith; in fact, there are some small details here about which we have entered into a discussion or debate, but rest assured the topic deals with something the Magisterium has not spoken, and both of us love the Church and converse with the greatest spirit of charity, unity, and love and obedience to the Catholic Church. The point is, I’ll offer you some points of view as I understand it, but I do not enjoy the charism of infallibility the Pope enjoys, and I therefore regret any lack of clarity or defect in my humble opinions. Dr. Smith, however, is far more educated than I, a sincere lover of the truth, and a true specialist in matters of life and bioethics, and I therefore take her assertions and opinions very seriously.

In summary: people often take pro-abortion positions for reasons that are not philosophical or theological; appealing to them at levels and manners most apt TO THEM is fair game in the labor of conversion. Having deeper arguments at hand, however, is important, so that when they ask, you can offer reasons, persuading them deeply to love the truth and effecting a more lasting and real conversion. These arguments are basically that human life is in itself a spiritual, “ensouled” life, and this is proper to the nature of the human person, not only added on to him; furthermore, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, repeatedly stresses that from CONCEPTION, the entity conceived enjoys human LIFE, human DIGNITY, and is truly a human CHILD.

Below I offer a more complicated series of considerations in which I amplify this “summary” (perhaps too much!); I don’t really know if you will enjoy them or get anything out of them. Indeed, the world at large wants the simplistic “sound byte,” lazily and superficially casting aside the important work of deep thought. But it’s right there, at that level of deep thought, where it’s all at. And because we are so reticent to demand deep philosophical thought from students in elementary, secondary and superior educational institutions, the enemy (Satan) is very clever to provide them with a philosophy of his own. We really need to get to work.

(At the end, I have some links that might be useful for you, or at least of interest, to good resources on the internet.)

Well, I’m not going to offer you a sound byte. Here goes...

1. I first of all want to thank you, on behalf of the unborn babies past and present, for your beautiful and strong witness to the Gospel of Life. Never loose that, and never let the assaults of the enemy (Satan and his friends and servants) discourage you or dissuade you. Be not afraid!

2. You distinguish well two levels of discourse: the first, the most important, is “where does the truth lie?”, and the second, important but only in a secondary way, “How can I convince the others of the truth?” which you call the “practical argument.” I like you approach, and I think it’s effective for convincing people. It’s OK that persuasive arguments at first aren’t well polished philosophical statements that take all things into account. These arguments are necessary, however, because when one listens to the more “rhetorical” argument and realizes he may have to change his mind about something, he will then ask for more, and, looking for more, it is imperative that he find a rock solid truth, presented in all its philosophical and theological beauty, lest the initial movements toward conversion be cast aside and lost in vain.

3. The question is, then, “When does the soul actually enter the embryo?” Be careful: the question, as you put it, takes for granted that it’s not there at one point and then it is at another; hence the conclusion is implicit in the premise. How can we re-phrase the question, to be fair to both sides? I recommend this: “Does the embryo have a soul?” That way those that affirm it and those that deny it can have a meeting point and begin arguing fairly. I won’t articulate the position in contra, I have a feeling you’ve seen a lot. I will attempt to demonstrate this in a number of ways. Furthermore, I won’t argue the position of probability or possibility, it seems you understand that: for it is always immoral for us to act on an unsure conscience in such matters, and if we are even slightly unsure it is a human, it is immoral to treat it in an inhuman way; the great document Donum Vitae discusses that position as well (see references at the bottom)

a. It is obvious to all that an embryo is alive. Life is much like being in this: as between being and not being there is no third alternative (Aristotle’s Metaphysics does great in demonstrating this, a principle called “tertium exclusum” in academic circles), so too between living and not living there is no third alternative. There are not degrees of life. If a thing lives, it is alive; if it does not live, it simply is not or does not exist, even though some or all of its parts might exist and in some way live. This living thing grows, enjoys a certain degree of independence, it nourishes itself in one way or another, and so forth. This is true even when the entity we are discussing is only one cell big.

It is also obvious to the scientist that the embryo is human. New advances in science help us further distinguish this: we see that there is a living thing with a human chromosomal structure living within another human person, yet with a completely unique DNA structure. It is reasonable to expect, therefore, that a woman bear a human being, and not a cat, a flower or a piece of quartz. It’s not a tumor or a cancer. And, all things being equal, this growth is completely healthy for the host.

Only extreme rationalization, therefore, could doubt that an embryo, or zygote or fetus, is a human life. Of course, by rationalization, it is possible to doubt all things, even the most evident, and to come up with logical arguments to defend one’s position.

Perhaps I’m naïve, but I think that most serious and normal people can agree that the embryo is alive, and that its human.

b. The next step we have to take, therefore, is whether this living, human thing has a soul. The summary of my position is that it’s impossible and a clear contradiction to say “something is human” and “it has no soul,” as the soul is essential to the human being.

However, there are some problems that arise in this debate, and I think many of them happen at the level of semantics, of the words used; and I don’t disparage that, it is important for us to be clear about the words we use, for words have meanings and express being, truth and reality.

- “Human” may be taken by the atheist or pro-abortionist or whoever in an exclusively biological, positivist way. And so such a person deems “human” to be a species classification, one among many other classifications such as cocker spaniels, monarch butterflies or crab grass. This position can be refuted not by calling such a scientist “wrong” in his definition, but by holding him to his field: “If you say this attending only to biological characteristics, then your starting point (“only biological characteristics”) in itself excludes any philosophical, non-observational, non-measurable, non-sensate dimension. Your starting point has limited you, which is fine for biological research. But these limitations to not apply to all things in all cases in all times and places; this limitation is a choice you made. Since you began excluding spiritual realities, it is not to be hoped that your science can demonstrate spiritual realities.” And indeed, science can never prove the soul; its methods are not proportionate to its objects.

Human is a word which is not the exclusive property of biologists. It has more meaning than the biologist may wish to give it.

- “Soul” is another word which can have many definitions. We know much about the soul by divine revelation, and revelation is the most sure of all truths that man (male or female, of course) knows. But weak minds will not admit revelation. So what the soul is and that it exists can only be answered by philosophy, which is still more certain than any of the positive sciences. What does philosophy say about the soul? There’s no need for me here to summarize the history of philosophy on this point, I’ll only go to the best treatise on the soul I’ve ever been privileged to read, the De Anima of Aristotle. He demonstrates clearly that the soul is “the first grade of actuality of a natural body having life potentially in it” (412a27), or again “an actuality or formulable essence of something that possesses a potentiality of being besouled” (414a27). [I encourage you to read Aristotle, especially with St. Thomas Aquinas’ comments on Aristotle’s works as a guide to decipher his sometimes cryptic and dense line of thought.] He associates soul with life. Anything alive has a soul.

Aristotle distinguishes plant-soul from animal-soul from intellectual-soul, three different forms of life. The human person evidently has all three, for he demonstrates natural acts corresponding to all three souls. One thing not often considered however, and extremely important, is the UNITY of the soul in man. Man grows, smells, digests, thinks and loves all with the same soul; still more, with the same soul-body composition which he is.

The specific characteristic that distinguishes man in this entire universe is that he has an intellectual soul, which knows universals, which can reflect upon itself, which apprehends the truth and moves towards the good (a motion we call love). Just because a human being is not or cannot exercise such wonderful powers does not mean he stops being human. If the non-exercising of these intellectual powers in a man were to mean he were not human, then all of us could be treated like animals or plants when we were asleep, right? Or it would be OK to “put to sleep” those who were retarded, uneducated, or apparently incapable of communicating or showing love. But such is an example of rationalism, where abstract thinking fails to resemble the reality that is outside one’s thoughts.

So an embryo, too, being human, must have an intellectual soul, even though it is incapable of exercising the faculties and powers proper to its nature due to its limitations. It is impossible to be human and not have an intellectual soul. The argument for the immortality of the soul might be good here, too, but that would add on a lot to this essay, which would be unnecessarily tedious.

(In fact, in an attempt to abbreviate my demonstration, I fear I may have assumed a few logical steps that my poor reader might not have made. In case of confusion, just ask, and I’ll attempt to clarify.)

4. Let’s look at some of the teachings of the Church. The document I mentioned earlier, Donum Vitae, has two important passages. They are:

a. “How could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature.” Notice the term here is “person,” not soul. Yet personhood is that which is a substance, subsisting in itself, separate from others, and of a rational nature (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 16, 12 ad 2). A person is that substance which has a rational soul. The first question, obviously rhetorical, is very important; and just because there hasn’t been an “express” declaration of the Magisterium doesn’t exclude the possibility that the Church really believes that a human individual is, in fact, a human person. I think, in fact, she does, not only because of this “rhetorical question,” but because of other indications I find in other places. Some of these places now follow (b. – d. below).

b. “"the human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life" (Instruction Donum Vitae, 79; cf. Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 60).” I treat you “as” a person because you “are” a person; the word “as” therefore denies nothing. Furthermore, “his rights” are discussed, not “his presumed or probable rights.” A thing can only have rights as a person if it is one.

c. The Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 366 says “The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God, it is not produced by the parents.” The presence of the soul in the embryo does not seem, in such an expression, to depend on any biological phenomenon. This I cite only as something that “hints” in the right direction.

d. On April 3, 2000, the Pope spoke to a group of gynecologists and others saying, “your Congress considers the fetus in its full human dignity, a dignity which the unborn child possesses from the moment of conception.” So we say we have a human LIFE from conception (Donum Vitae), a human DIGNITY from conception. Later in the same discourse he says, “but whatever the mode of conception - once it happens - the child conceived must be absolutely respected.” A CHILD is conceived, so the Pope asserts.

I think much more material like this can be found, but these cites of Church teaching will suffice for now.

After my signature below, I include a number of references that you might find useful, leads that will open up more avenues for your personal investigation. If there isn’t a leading African bioethicist, perhaps God is calling you to exercise leadership in this field. Consider it.

I apologize for the long and boring discourse. I can get complicated and boring sometimes, it’s too easy for me. I only hope my thoughts can, at the least, help you and encourage you to fight for the Gospel of Life with courage, intelligence, passion and love.

For all this I invoke my priestly blessing upon you and your work.

In Christ, Fr. Paul Ward

Some resources:

1. Donum Vitae: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

2. Conference of April 3, 2000: http://priestsforlife.org/magisterium/papal/00-04-03fetusaspatient.htm

3. A great article on some of these topics by Bernard McNamee came out in Homiletic and Pastoral Review August-Sept 2004. You can get a copy from Ignatius Press, see http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/HPRHistory.aspx?SID=1&.

4. On my own web site, I recently addressed the responsibility voters have for avoiding pro-abortion voting. See my editorial (at www.fatherpaul.org) or a later Homily I delivered on the same topic (http://www.fatherpaul.org/Homilies/C,%20Ord%2024,%20St.%20Paul's.htm).

5. Check out the “Priests for Life” website, always full of good sources http://www.priestsforlife.org/.

I’m sure that these leads will bring you in touch with many other people that can answer your questions better, and hopefully more succinctly!, than I have.