AmericanPapist Comments
What I expect to find at most is a qualified provision for extreme cases (perhaps based on faulty contemporary biology and the dangers of childbirth at the time).
I think that is extremely likely considering that the repeatedly made reference to early abortions. I would be quite surprised if it was a reference to abortions after the time when Aristotle thought ensoulment occurred.
Also, as you suggested allowing direct abortion for the sole purpose of saving the life of the mother, while not kosher according to Catholic teaching, is hardly what any actual pro-choicer would ever consider remotely "pro-choice." Assuming everything that has been claimed about St. Antoninus is true and accurately presented, if he is then a "pro-choice saint", that would mean the South Dakota legislature is "pro-choice" too since there's a life of mother exception in the abortion ban they passed. Somehow I doubt USA Today will make that claim.
Once again, we have a very liberal Protestant pastor quoting a very liberal Catholic ex-priest in a major US publication telling Catholics worldwide that it is ok to be in favor of an abortion. Heck, the pro-choicers even have a patron saint, and where are the bishops?
Where there is silence there is consent?
The saint could have been referencing an idea on the lesser of two evils for all we know. Given the medicine situation of the time and that he is a moral theologian, I could see this as an example of choosing the lesser of two evils.
"Where are our bishops?" is an excellent question.Our bishops should be out in front vigorously addressing this claim.
These people are way out of context. The saint was refering to the case where you have to operate on the mother to save her life and the unintended effect of the operation is the result of the baby dieing. Principle of double effect.
I am sure no doubt that that was written by Daniel C. "Let Terri Schiavo Die" Maguire. So he is not exactly a reliable guide.
I am sure your research will reveal the Saint referring to cases of where double-effect would apply. Where the point is saving the mother and the end is not abortion itself, a view still held today.
The other problem with the article is that declaring a person a saint does not mean that everything they have ever said becomes infallible. They are canonized for heroic santity, their writing are not canonized.
I' am not an OB/GYN, but both my father and wife are. I quite pointedly asked each of them just the other day under what circumstances could an early abortion actually benefit a pregnant women. After racking their brains, they cam up with one such fantastically rare situation (that requires a very modern medical understanding).
So, the idea that an early abortion could save a mother's life is statistically ZERO. It is a red herring. Please do report back what you find regarding Saint Antoninus.
You might find this article useful. It is written by John Haldane and Patrick Lee. Both are solid Catholic philosophers. I think Haldane teaches at the University of St. Andrew (Scotland) and Patrick Lee teaches at Franciscan University in Steubenville.
The article focuses on St. Thomas Aquinas, but St. Antoninus is mentioned.
http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/ ..._ensoulment.htm
The old Catholic Encyclopedia has a good treatment of the issue, without mentioning Antonius specifically: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
01046b.htm
This kind of selective traditionalism is pretty dishonest. I doubt the same author would appeal to centuries-old saints' opinions on heretics, Jews, or Muslims.
Yeah, the sidebar's claim is like someone citing a 13th century scientist's beliefs about a flat earth to say that there is no authoritative scientific consensus on the flatness of the earth. It would be absurd if it were not so pernicious.
Both the publication and this guy need to be held accountable for their deceptive writing.
I just emailed USA Today a request for a correction to be published. I suggest others do the same.
I can't find a personal email for Ehrich, but he can be emailed at tom@onajourney.org. He needs to hear how offensive his deceptive representations of our faith really are.
peace
MaGuire could not teach the truth if his life depended on it. The fact that the MSM resorts to seeking his opinion and the opinions of the likes of "Fr" McBrien should tell us something.
Anyway, Thomas, I have a a couple of copies of Summa Theologiae Moralis (and other interesting volumes) that I could scan and email to you. However, the text is Latin. I'll see if I can find where it might be in the books, unless you can point me in the right direction.
LRS-
To the best of my knowledge, Fr. BcBrien is just that, FR. I know I don't agree with him all the time (probably most of the time), but he is a priest, not a "priest."
This is all very exciting. My hobby is Church History. I really want to find out what St. Antoninus said.
I suspect that his alleged agreement to abortion has to do with the fact that ensoulment was believed by some to occur after 40 days. That's an abortion up to 6 weeks. Given that there is (on average) 2 weeks from conception to the observation of a missed period, that would have meant that a non-ensouled being would have been aborted.
But you must remember that abortion's sinfulness not only hinges on the belief that it is the death of a human being. St. Augustine condemned abortion, but was not certain if an early abortion was homicide because he wasn't sure if the embryo was ensouled. Abortion is also a contraceptive practice. That by itself makes it sinful, regardless of the status of the embryo.
Daniel Maguire.
Do we really have to say anything more?
Not exactly someone thinking with the mind of the Church.
Interesting about St. Antoninus - probably "double effect" as stated above.
Not surprising--the junk mainstream media using junk info from a junk modern theologian and claiming that ratifies the junk pro-abortion position held by activist left-wing Catholics, many on the Playboy payroll such as the Catholics for a Free Choice.
Let's not forget that we're dealing with a saint from 15th century who was largely shaped by the prevailing Scholastic commentators of the era. The Scholastics such as Aquinas, Bonaventure and Duns Scotus DID NOT hold that the soul is brought into existence at the moment of conception (which is one of two major reasons Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception).
It was not until a much better scientific understanding of conception emerged in the West that the zygote was considered a full-fledge human person.
That said, even if St. Antoninus did in fact hold the view that abortion is licit in same qualified cases, we must realize that he most likely did not view a zygote or an embryo in early stages of development as a complete human person. If he had at his disposal a more informed view of conception and its process, he most likely would have condemend abortion (I imagine the same is true of Aquinas). So let's not get too worked up over this. Besides, moral theology in 15th century was beginning to ossify due to the advent of manual theology--nothing to write home about. The bigger issue and disappointment is the general lack of historical honesty and responsibility. Accuracy is boring to many in the media. Shock is splendid.
Aside: Maguire's a quack...he's lucky Marquette protects him.
Evangelical Theology
Thank you for your willingness to investigate this sensational claim about St. Antoninus. I feel the article in USA Today deserves a rebuttal. I hope you are able to deliver it. I am a very busy pastor and unfortunately have little time for scholarly research into St. Antoninus and medieval theology. I would greatly appreciate any clarification you can provide on this issue.
Great blog! Rock on, Dude!!
I highly doubt that Duns Scotus did not believe in immediate ensoulment, as he was the Scholastic who proposed the theology that vanquished Thomistic objections and made it clear that the Immaculate Conception is Truth.
Many early Fathers believed in ensoulment at conception, such as Tertullian and Lactantius, and many believed all abortions were homicide, such as St. Basil. We can't just assume that because Aristotle believed something, all Scholastics did. There is Traditional grounds to believe ensoulment occurs at conception.
I did a search on Google and found some interesting stuff.
In his Summa Theologica Antoninus (1389-1453) Archbishop of Florence, and like Aquinas a Dominican, considers whether homicide can be justified to avoid another evil. His examples include the case of abortion, and he maintains that if a foetus is animate then it is impermissible to kill it so as to save the mother, and impermissible for the mother, even though she may be going to die, to accelerate her death to save the foetus (ST, II, 7, 8). Another Domincan, Silvester Prieras (1456-1523) in his widely referred to Summa summarium draws the distinction between abortion pre- and post-hominization, and offers the direction that in circumstances where it is uncertain which may have been performed the penitent should be required to confess to and be absolved of the greater sin,.but punished according to the lesser one.
http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/
..._ensoulment.htm
Sounds to me like Maguire is basing his position on faulty biology.
SUZANNE,
Actually, Scotus did not view the origin of the soul in conception. He argued that there is a brief moment after conception before a soul is enfused into the body.
And the teaching does not come from Aristotle. Aristotle did not believe there is a soul in the Platonic or Christian sense. Aristotle's soul simply referred to the animating principle within animals capable of some degree of self-movement. The notion that the soul does not have its origin at conception comes from the PreSocratics and Plato, the latter of whom taught the pre-existence of the soul. I don't believe there are any Church Fathers who teach that the soul is created at the moment of conception. Most of the Fathers, including Basil, operated in a Neo-Platonic framework so while they denied the pre-existence of the soul, they were silent as to the precise moment the soul was created for the body.
Let me add that had the Fathers understood the nature of conception, they would most certainly have believed the soul is created by God at conception. We just have to realize that the Fathers and the Scholastics did not have the scientific background that we do, which is why we do not find comments by Catholic theologians on the soul's origin in conception until after the 17th Century. Did many of the Fathers and the Scholatics reject abortion? Yes. Did they know the precise mechanics of conception? No, which is why there was no agreement on "ensoulment".
Michael: S. Thomas Aquinas did not deny the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, he defended it. He speculated whether she was freed from original sin at the moment of her conception or at a later time of her infanthood in her mother's womb.
And the teaching does not come from Aristotle. Aristotle did not believe there is a soul in the Platonic or Christian sense. Aristotle's soul simply referred to the animating principle within animals capable of some degree of self-movement.
"Self-movement" is the Christian understanding of the soul. That's how Aquinas understood it.
I don't believe there are any Church Fathers who teach that the soul is created at the moment of conception.
There are actually quite a few. Lactantius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria all believed in the simultaneous creation of body and soul. Tertullian was an especially strong proponent.
We just have to realize that the Fathers and the Scholastics did not have the scientific background that we do, which is why we do not find comments by Catholic theologians on the soul's origin in conception until after the 17th Century.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers had something to say of it. Again, Tertullian addresses this very idea in De Anima.
Did many of the Fathers and the Scholatics reject abortion? Yes.
They all did.
Michael: S. Thomas Aquinas did not deny the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, he defended it. He speculated whether she was freed from original sin at the moment of her conception or at a later time of her infanthood in her mother's womb.
As we define it, Thomas Aquinas rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The redemption of Mary in the womb was universally acknowledged in the Church. The Orthodox accept it as well. The issue was whether she was redeemed the moment she was created (i.e. at conception), and Thomas' answer was "no".
As an Antonio, I´m personally offended.
"Lactantius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria all believed in the simultaneous creation of body and soul. Tertullian was an especially strong proponent."
Where do you find this in any of their writings? And why only these second century Fathers along with Lactantius (two of which held very little influence in the predominant development of Christian anthropology in the Eastern Church where our earliest dogmas come from!)? What about more influential Fathers such as Augustine, Jerome, John Chrysostom and Maximus the Confessor, all of whom laid the foundation of Scholastic theological anthropology (consider the very first Scolastic treatments of man in Sts. Anselm and Bernard). And how through the countless of volumes of Scholastic writings, most of which are in Latin volumes, can you claim that ALL rejected abortion? Have you forgotten about Ockham?
'"Self-movement" is the Christian understanding of the soul. That's how Aquinas understood it."
Let's be consistant here, is 'self-movement' Aquinas' view of the soul or Christianity's? Also, a quick read of Aquinas' De Anima reveals a very different concept of the soul than you attribute to him. I think you may be conflating an Aristotelian term for animation "self-movement" that is inclusive of EVERY animal with an amorphous description of the human soul (see Aristotle's De Anima and Metaphysics). Aquinas actually augments "self-movement" with NeoPlatonic/Augustinian categories. In fact, one of Thomas' main philosophical breaks with Aristotle is in his view of man.
I don't have the references handy, as I found the quotes in David W. Bercot's A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs and I believe he uses chapter number from the Early Church Fathers from Migne to cite the quotes-- not the names of the works.
But I have at least one of the quotes handy, from Tertullian:
Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (De Anima, 27).
Irenaeus wrote: "Both [body and soul] are revealed to the world as but one. For the soul was not prior to the body in essence.Nor, in regard to its formation, did the body precede the soul. Both of these were produced at the same time."
Clement of Alexandria wrote:
"The soul, then, which is produced along with the body, is corruptiblem as some think."
Have you forgotten about Ockham?
I don't normally think of Ockham as a source of Catholic teaching. But okay, what did he say?
I think you may be conflating an Aristotelian term for animation "self-movement" that is inclusive of EVERY animal with an amorphous description of the human soul (see Aristotle's De Anima and Metaphysics).
I was speaking of "soul" in general, not the human soul specifically.
The one passage that you provide a source for does not refer to conception in our sense.
In Tertullian's time--just as in Aquinas'--it was thought that the seed of man contained the potential human. The early Fathers, who relied on the biology of the PreSocratics and Aristotle, did not know that the egg actual comes from the woman. It was thought that the man desposits his seed into the woman and, after a time, it grows into an infant. Thus, when they use the word "conception" they refer to when the woman's belly swells, that is, when pregnancy is obvious. The Fathers do not use "conception" to refer to the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm. To think that Tertullian means the same thing as us when he employs the term "conception" is just the same as assuming that what Aquinas means by "soul" is the same thing Aristotle meant by "soul".
Why do you not consider Ockham a source of Catholic teaching, yet you trust Tertullian? Both were "heretics" by conventional standards and both influenced the thought of their Catholic contemporaries.
To think that Tertullian means the same thing as us when he employs the term "conception" is just the same as assuming that what Aquinas means by "soul" is the same thing Aristotle meant by "soul"
Aquinas says that ensoulment does not happen at the same time at the beginning of biological life. Tertullian is saying that biological life and the life of the soul begin at the same time. Whether Tertullian believes that a sperm grows into a human or whatever, when the Being (in a metaphysical sense) in question becomes biologically human, it is physically human, too. He says it very plainly "the soul begins at conception". Aquinas didn't believe the soul was infused at conception.
Why do you not consider Ockham a source of Catholic teaching, yet you trust Tertullian? Both were "heretics" by conventional standards and both influenced the thought of their Catholic contemporaries.
Tertullian is a historical witness of what the Early Church believed. A Church Father, by himself, is not a source of Tradition; Church Fathers, collectively, are. When Tertullian agrees with a bunch of other Fathers, and especially when he expresses a doctrine that has been handed down by the apostles, he's a source.
Ockham, on the other hand, is extremely far removed from the Original Church. His word is only as good as the Magisterium says it is. The popes have sung the praises of Bonaventure, Aquinas, St. Albert and others, but Ockham is never mentioned. When you don't have to look to a heretic for a source of doctrine, it's probably best not to.
Tertullian has a metaphysics??? Tertuallian had no knowledge of metaphysics as a discipline--the metaphysical and ethical writings of Aristotle were lost by the 2nd century AD. And who can glean a metaphysics from Plato?
How does a human being become "biologically human"? I was under the impression that a human is in every case a biological being, which is why we say life (bios) begins at conception.
And what has being (esse) and the creation of the soul have to do with our discussion? The soul has no individual subsistence, and it is the composite of man as body and soul that is considered a being (ens) that participates in being itself (esse ipsum). I'm not sure where you are going with the ontology talk.
I didn't realize that a thinker had to be mentioned by a pope in order to have a function in our conversation. There goes Bercot! Have you managed to read all the papal addresses, letter and decrees from the 15th century until today? Or are you guessing that Ockham isn't mentioned by a pope? Which popes have sung the praises of Tertullian?
Look, I'm tossing in a bit of sarcasm to create some levity. I think neither of us is willing to concede a point to the other, even though one of us (or both of us) is wrong. My point here is that I am beginning to think that you are making sweeping claims about Fathers and Scholastics without being able to verify these claims. My best suggestion (since you love Church history) is to read the primary sources themselves. I think you'll find that the cultural, philosophical and theological milieu in which these men wrote did not provide the concept of conception that you read back into your historical studies.
In the end, you and I defend life. That's what counts. It's the history that we're trying to work out here.
Tertullian has a metaphysics???
No,I was making a point using metaphysical language so as to avoid confusion. But I guess I failed.
How does a human being become "biologically human"? I was under the impression that a human is in every case a biological being, which is why we say life (bios) begins at conception.
I expressed myself badly in my post. It should have read:
Tertullian is saying that biological life and the life of the soul begin at the same time. Whether Tertullian believes that a sperm grows into a human or whatever, when the Being (in a metaphysical sense) in question becomes biologically human, it is psychically human, too. (i.e. it has a soul!).
And what has being (esse) and the creation of the soul have to do with our discussion?
The Being I was referring to was the human conceptus. I capitalized "Being" not to divinify it, but because I wanted to distinguish it from human being.
The soul has no individual subsistence, and it is the composite of man as body and soul that is considered a being (ens) that participates in being itself (esse ipsum). I'm not sure where you are going with the ontology talk.
That's precisely Tertullian's point, in less metaphysical language.
My point here is that I am beginning to think that you are making sweeping claims about Fathers and Scholastics without being able to verify these claims.
I have asked what Ockham said about abortion. If you know of Fathers and Scholastics who approved of abortion, by all means, enlighten me. I mean that sincerely. I deduce, based on the Church's overwhelming condemnation of abortion, they would be in line with that Magisterial teaching. But if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, present it. I am most eager to see what you present.
I didn't realize that a thinker had to be mentioned by a pope in order to have a function in our conversation.
If you're going to appeal to authority, as you're trying to do, there are levels of authority, and those writers who are proclaimed orthodox and Doctors of the Church are more credible than those who are not, especially who've been condemned.
There goes Bercot!
Bercot's book is a compilation of quotations.
Have you managed to read all the papal addresses, letter and decrees from the 15th century until today? Or are you guessing that Ockham isn't mentioned by a pope? Which popes have sung the praises of Tertullian?
Again, it has to do with those writers the Church has proposed as generally orthodox. Ockham's attacks on the papacy certainly didn't make him any friends. Tertullian is a historical witness. I explained that. His orthodoxy is not the point.
My best suggestion (since you love Church history) is to read the primary sources themselves.
But I do. I just haven't gotten around to reading the Scholastics, as I am a mother of two. Historians gener
In Tertullian's time--just as in Aquinas'--it was thought that the seed of man contained the potential human. ...
Well, some people have certainly thought pretty much precisely that, but it's not a very clear account of the view of Aristotle and Aquinas themselves. For them, the seminal fluid contains a sort of energy that acts upon the material provided by the woman to form a baby - until such time as the baby is sufficiently formed to take over the direction of its own development. That isn't the same thing as the "seed" view.
I would also say that while Aquinas modifies Aristotle's understanding of the soul somewhat, he doesn't do so as sharply as some of the above comments suggest.
Hm. My message got cut off. Sorry about that.
Commenting by HaloScan
