Do chimaeric people have two souls?

A chimaeric person started off as twins in the womb and the eggs fused together into one person. This person has two sets of DNA in their body.

it depends on how the present organism developed. If at one time there were two twins each had its own soul at the moment of ensoulment, which we presume but cannot prove to be the moment of conception. If at some point one twin died, that soul has separated from the body as in natural death, and then only the twin that remained alive is still united with its soul. If the twins remained conjoined but both developed and remained alive, with two distinct brains, personalities as in “Siamese” twins, then each is still ensouled.

I doubt there is an official teaching, but my guess (based on my understanding of the phenomena) is that a dominant twin absorbed the other (even if the joining seemed pretty balanced) and that the dominant soul perservered in the body while the soul of the non-dominant twin went on to its afterlife.

Interesting. I’m sure the Lord deals with it efficiently. We may know the right answer some day.

It wold make for good fiction, that’s for sure.

No, each person has only one soul. In this case, there were two separate persons and therefore two seperate souls. Unfortunately, through some disorder, one of these persons’ body was unintentionally devoured by the other. In the process the devoured person died and the soul was separated from the devoured body which continues to live on possessed by the other undevoured person’s soul. It is much like those sick people who receive organ transplants from generous organ donors who have died in a car accident. The dead donor’s soul has departed this world hopefully to heaven if they were good and strove to partake of the sacraments. In the case of the deceased twin who died in the womb, hopefully through the prayers of the faithful here on earth their original sin can be cleansed and they could be accepted into Heaven. If not, then they would spend eternity in a natural paradise without being able to see God face to face, this state or place we call “Limbo” which is in the very beginning edge of Hell and separated from the eternal suffering of the eternally damned.

The Catholic church doesn’t believe in Limbo anymore from what I’ve heard. Where did you get your information about this or are you just making this up?

Limbo was never an official Catholic teaching - it was a theological theory, and it has recently fallen out of favor as the current trend is to simply say that we trust these souls to the mercy of our gracious God.

People can give birth to their chimera’s offspring, there was one lady in the news that did that. So the chimera seems to be alive, even though they have been consumed by their sibling. I asked this sort of question before, I don’t think I really got an answer to it.

If one of them was baptized, would both be baptized? or is it only valid for the one that controls the brain? Perhaps the answer is related to the answer of twins, before the zygote splits into two.

Limbo is the fate of those who die in original sin ALONE. Original sin cannot be forgiven after death, only during life. Only venial sins can be forgiven in the age to come…

Limbo was never abolished, it is an ancient teaching. The Vatican has NOT at all abolished it, the Media reports about it were one MASSIVE misunderstanding, and COLOSSAL MISREPORTING. All that occurred was a Commission of Theologians met to discuss limbo, they made no judgment on it at all, all the did was present the case for its existence and against it. The Pope MADE NO DECISION ON IT.

The Commission stated that: “It REMAINS therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned.” --Second Paragraph of “THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED” by the International Theological Commission

The Commission states: “original sin is of itself an impediment to the beatific vision.” –ibid. Paragraph 36

to read it all go here vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Many Catholics have been falsely believing limbo was abolished, and some offer a false defense because of it saying that “it was never really church teaching.” However, this is not exactly true.

The Church does dogmatically teach that IF someone were to die in original sin alone they would go to a sort of “painless hell” or limbo as we would say.

Catholics are free to accept or reject limbo as a reality, since it is possible that no one can die in original sin alone, assuming God remits that for anyone in that case, this seemed to be the view of Pope Pius IX in his address to Italian bishops. This is the theoretical part. The dogmatic part simple says that IF someone DOES die with original sin ALONE, they go to limbo.

“It (The Roman Church) teaches. . . . . that the souls . . . . . of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Illorum autem animas, qui in mortali peccato vel cum solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen ac locis disparibus puniendas.) --Pope John XXII “Nequaquam sine dolore” to the Armenians, November 21, A.D. 1321 Denzinger 926 (493a) Latin English

“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”–Council of Florence

The Church also ruled against John Wyclif for saying believing limbo as a reality is “stupid”.

Catholics are still and probably will always be free to reject limbo as an actual possibility. However it is heresy to say anyone in heaven has original sin.

Thank you very much for clearing this up. I for one have been very confused about it.

In regards to my explanation on whether or not there are two souls in a chimaeric, I was merely making a personal, logical, non-authoritative explanation which seems to be common sense based on existing Church teaching. Certainly, the Church has not officially addressed the question. But, that does not mean that the Church does not address it implicitly. We can connect the dots from existing Church teaching on other things. It would not make sense that a Chimaeric person would have two souls anymore than the idea that an organ recipient has two souls in them. It’s the same case, just think of a Chimaeric person as an organ recipient. The one whose consciousness and reason controls the body is the only soul that is presently in the body. Whether or not a person has a soul depends on their faculty of reason. Certainly, some philosophers say that because of this principle then it follows that embryo does not have a soul yet. But, it appears to me that since the time of Pope Pius IX the Magisterium has been under the practical presumption that a soul is indeed present at the first moment of conception when the sperm cell fertilizes the ovum. I’m not aware of any officially pronounced teaching saying that ensoulment begins at the first moment of conception. But, I don’t think one could ignore the fact of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. If she was conceived without stain of Original Sin, then it follows that a soul is present at conception. Original Sin cannot be present before ensoulment.

Now, in regards to Limbo. One could legitimately reject the name “Limbo” or differ on the specific details of the place or state of being. But, one cannot reject the Church’s teaching on the fact that those with Original Sin alone go straight to Hell and that such a sin gets a very light punishment which is different from the personal sins of others. Since Original Sin is not a personal fault, then there would be a lighter punishment of course. Now, remember, the Church has not officially discarded “Limbo” and this concept has been taught by the Pope and many Bishops as is evident in the old Roman Catechism, Baltimore Catechism, and various writings of the Saints and also St. Augustine’s opinion. Such a concept, though not infallible per se, has the weight of the ordinary magisterium which demands religious assent. Though certainly, one can differ on the details, but the broader teaching behind it is still binding. All Pope John Paul II did was develop the doctrine by adding the possibility of hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants who die in the womb through the prayers of the faithful. Perhaps our prayers and penances, especially those of the parents, can act as a “baptism of desire” for them.

Yes I’m almost positive that the soul is formed at conception. And I guess I was wrong about Limbo (see posts above).:shrug:

I added a second paragraph to my post # 11, which you might have missed.

May God bless you.

Indeed it has!

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.