Roe v. Wade and Catholic dogma


#1

I was reading the actual judicial opinion for Roe v. Wade and I came across an interesting quote:

“The Aristotelian theory of ‘mediate animation’ that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. The latter is now the official belief of the Catholic Church.”

Can somebody explain or refute this? Thanks!


#2

[quote=Genesis315]I was reading the actual judicial opinion for Roe v. Wade and I came across an interesting quote:

Can somebody explain or refute this? Thanks!
[/quote]

Well, the words are pretty big for me but I’m guessing that they might be referring to idea which was based on Aristotle’s bad idea which was basically just based on bad science that conception was a lengthy process taking something like 40 days for boys and 80 days for girls. It wasn’t really that he was saying that there was no soul at the moment of conception. He was just saying that conception took a long time. Here’s a little explanation. catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/pastoral/kerry-abortion2.htm

This is just my guess at what the opinion was mentioning.


#3

[quote=Genesis315]I was reading the actual judicial opinion for Roe v. Wade and I came across an interesting quote:

Can somebody explain or refute this? Thanks!
[/quote]

Perhaps Mr. Justice Blackmun had the Immaculate Conception in mind, thinking that Mary could not have been immaculately conceived unless at conception there was a soul to be immaculate.


#4

Actually, now that I’ve googled, I’m sure this is what this opinion was saying. Unfortunately, Blackman doesn’t understand that Aquinas believed in the soul at the moment of conception. The only thing differently than we believe now is that Aquinas thought conception was a long process taking so many days for a boy and so many days for a girl. Like I said, bad science.


#5

Obviously Catholic dogma has not changed. Is life starting at conception de fide? Was the “official” Catholic stance as Blackman says it was?


#6

[quote=bear06]Actually, now that I’ve googled, I’m sure this is what this opinion was saying. Unfortunately, Blackman doesn’t understand that Aquinas believed in the soul at the moment of conception. The only thing differently than we believe now is that Aquinas thought conception was a long process taking so many days for a boy and so many days for a girl. Like I said, bad science.
[/quote]

No more bad than the “science” the Supreme Court used in its decision.


#7

The early christians didn’t have the benefits of science and technology today.
Their beliefs concerning conception, pregnancy, and birth were limited to the vague/incomplete knowledge they had in these areas.
It is wrong for the justices to base this opinion on outdated belief based on bad science.
One doesn’t even have to be a christian to look at a sonogram and plainly see a human life.
Scientists understand that the first momen a person receives their unique DNA code is at the moment of fertilization.


#8

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.