C.O. Trent says embryo has no soul?


#1

Where does it say this i’ve been trying to find it all morning.

My wife is taking an “ethics” class and her prof hates all forms of christianity especially catholics.


#2

The Council of Trent says no such thing.

Let him produce the document and back up his claims.


#3

The documents of the CO Trent are on the internet and are available to everyone. The burden of proof is on the prof, so ask him/her where you can find this.

I have heard pro-abortionists claim that the teachings of Thomas Aquinas supported abortion, but I have never heard them claim that the CO Trent did.

There has been controversy in the Church about the time of ensoulment or when the body receives its rational soul. The belief of medieval biology was that ensoulment occurred at quickening which was believed to be 40 days post conception for males and 90 post conception for females. This was the belief of Aristotle, and Aquinas expressed this view in his Summa. You will find discussions about ensoulment in medieval debates about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

The Church has always believed that abortion was intrinsically evil whether it preceded ensoulment or not. Here are some recent statements by the Vatican:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html
DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION

  1. 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.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN
AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION

Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time … to find its place and to be in a position to act". (25) This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote* resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted. 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 this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.(26)


#4

Oh, brother. Is this a Peter Singer-type ethicist? I wouldn’t waste my time in that class.


#5

Is is unethical to hate. Tell your wife to drop the class and DEMAND a full refund. That’s my advice.


#6

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.