RITE & REASON: The moment of ensoulment has been the subject of debate throughout history.
From
the vehement assertions of some on the “pro-life” side of the abortion
debate, it could be assumed their views have always been Catholic
teaching. It is not so.
In fact some of the church’s greatest
teachers and saints believed no homicide was involved if abortion took
place before the foetus was infused with a soul, known as “ensoulment”.
This was believed to occur at “quickening”, when the mother detected the
child move for the first time in her womb.
In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV
determined it at 166 days of pregnancy, almost 24 weeks.
The
Catholic Church’s current position on abortion was established only 143
years ago, in 1869. Then Pope Pius IX outlawed abortion from the moment
of conception.
This is said to have been influenced by science’s
discovery of the ovum in 1827 and the human fertilisation process in the
1830s, neither of which gave any indication as to when ensoulment took
place.
Among those who had a different view on the matter to that
currently held by the church are some of its most eminent thinkers.
These include at least three of the 33 “super saints” – Jerome,
Augustine and Aquinas – all of them “Doctors of the Church”.
St
Jerome (died 420) wrote, in his Epistle, “the seed gradually takes shape
in the uterus, and it does not count as killing until the individual
elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs”.
St
Augustine (died 430) wrote in On Exodus that early abortion should not
be regarded “as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body
that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed”.
St
Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) held “the vegetative soul, which comes first,
when the embryo lives the life of a plant, is corrupted, and is
succeeded by a more perfect soul, which is both nutritive and sensitive,
and then the embryo lives an animal life; and when this is corrupted,
it is succeeded by the rational soul introduced from without (ie by
God)”.
This view of Aquinas was confirmed as Catholic dogma by the
Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been officially repudiated by
Rome.
Indeed, in 1974, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith acknowledged that the issue of ensoulment was still an open
question.
It is not an impression given by many on the “pro-life”
side of this debate. What both sides can agree on is that human life
begins at conception.
Where there is disagreement is on whether that
collection of chemical elements constitutes a person. It has been
estimated that up to 55 per cent of fertilised ovums miscarry soon after
conception. If it is held that the fertilised ovum is a person why
were/are none of these “people” afforded any funeral rites?
But to
look at the issue from another perspective, in his 1995 encyclical
Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life) Pope John Paul II wrote that “no
one can renounce the right to self-defence” and that “legitimate defence
can be not only a right but a grave duty . . .”
He continued
“unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor
incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this
case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action
brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because
of a lack of the use of reason”.
He is referring there to someone who, because insane, is morally innocent.
A
foetus is morally innocent and yet can be a direct threat to the life
of its mother.
Has she “not only a right but a grave duty” to protect
herself?
Patsy McGarry is Religious Affairs Correspondent with the Irish Times