I just came upon an excellent quote from Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, PhD in an article, but I can't find the original source.  Pacholczyk says, like I have been saying on this blog, that procreation includes not just fertilization but “the entire act of marital self-giving with its attendant pregnancy, leading up to and culminating in the birth of a child.”

Right!  I need to read more from Fr. Pacholczyk.  This is the first time I have heard anyone other than myself contradict the currently popular belief that procreation (conception, the creation of life) occurs specifically at the scientifically definable event called "fertilization."

If anyone can tell me where this quote comes from, or can point me to the best writings of Pacholczyk, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks!

"The four-fold process created by God for becoming a biological family"

In her post, How close can we get, Rebecca Mayes writes:

How can we be certain that our efforts to create a family will be pleasing to our Lord?

The book of Genesis spells it out very clearly as Moses reveals how the first family came about. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh,” (2:24). Marriage came first. Then, in chapter 4:1: “Adam knew Eve his wife,” (sexual intimacy) “and she conceived,” (conception) “and bore Cain…” (birth). There you have it—the four-fold process created by God for becoming a biological family. This is how it was meant to be. Couples who are able to have children in this way need never doubt whether they are acting in accordance with God’s will.

Well said, Rebecca!  Again, I assert my contention that "conception" (procreation, the creation of new life) is a process that begins with the one-flesh union and extends all the way through birth, and that we have no business interfering with God's procreative purpose at any point along the way.  "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

When does a soul exist?

Regarding the question of when a human soul comes into existence and the distinction between "contraceptives" and "abortifacient birth control" discussed in recent posts, I found the following Roman Catholic support for my contention that the Church (and Scripture) has previously been silent on the question of exactly when a soul is created. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church appears to favor my argument that we simply do not know how or when a soul comes into existence. Nevertheless, they (and I) affirm that our moral judgment against birth control (abortifacient or otherwise) remains independent of any such answer. Procreation is a process we have no business interfering with.

Statement 7: 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.

...and Statement 13: "Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. "'The one who will be a man is already one.'"[20]

Endnote 20: Tertullian, "Apologeticum" (IX. 8 PL. 1, 371-372: Corp. Christ. 1, p. 103, 1, 31-36)

...and Endnote 19: " This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul."

Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 28, 1974, ratified this Declaration on Procured Abortion and has confirmed it and ordered it to be promulgated.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

The Red Herring of Abortifacients

More thoughts on ethics and contraception... It seems to me that God's law is intended to be something the average person can discern.  Almost without exception, it is only when legalism and Pharisaim are employed that the law becomes so complicated that one needs an expert to discern right from wrong.

If contraception is a morally neutral issue except when it comes to abortifacient means, we have a very complicated situation on our hands.  There are all kinds of methods, and many new ones coming on the market all the time these days.  It takes a scientific mind to understand the processes by which these methods work and discern whether there is abortifacient potential.  Thus we have 2004 LCMS Resolution 6-10 which asked the Board for Human Care Ministries to “review the various birth control products” and clarify which act sometimes or all the time as “abortifacients”.  Their first report was terribly flawed.  Even after a great deal of effort on my part, their final report was still not without its errors.

But, more importantly, who is even going to read that report, and how many who do will even understand it or care?  There is totally conflicting information coming from all directions, even within our synod, posted on the same Human Care "Life Resources" page.  Some even say the "morning after pill" is not abortifacient.

Is God really only against abortifacient means of birth control?  The church for two millennia said no, and taking all the discussions we have had recently about being unable to say with any certainty when ensoulment occurs, I'm not sure we really can identify with accuracy any methods as purely "contraceptive."

If conception is thought of as a term with theological implications, we must use the term as it is used in Scripture.  In Scripture "conception" does not refer to "fertilization" of an egg.  It is much more broad, including begetting - "fathering" - all the way through till at least birth.  It seems to me that even the "Billings Method" of avoiding pregnancy interferes equally with the biblical understanding of "conception", since it seeks to prevent a husband and wife from begetting children.  Do you think Onan would have been spared had he only employed "natural family planning"?

So, I would like to suggest that perhaps "abortifacients" in particular are a red herring conceived by the devil himself.  We are so disturbed by the issue of abortion and abortifacients that we sometimes forget that it is the contraceptive mindset that gives birth to abortion.  The compromise which seeks to at least keep people from using abortifacient methods is like giving condoms to youth.  The thinking is very similar: "They're going to do it anyway, so lets at least give them a safe method."

Of course one will always raise the issue of "extraordinary circumstances."  What if a mother's life is in danger?  Well, obviously a non-abortifacient method would be a lesser evil than an abortifacient method.  I suppose it could be argued that for this reason it is important to identify those methods which are non-abortifacient, but as we all know, there is no method but total abstinence which has a 100% success rate.  If my wife's life was in sure and certain danger should she get pregnant, I could not engage in marital relations with her any more than I could point a gun at her with the safety on, even if I thought there were no bullets in it.

When does life begin?

From a commenter on my most recent post, γεννηθὲν:

"The ESV renders Ecclesiastes 11:5, 'As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.'

"As said above, we should think twice about claiming to know with precision what God says we do not know!"

This has direct bearing on this earlier post as well:  Contraception and Murder.

γεννηθὲν

I have had some discussions recently on how the currently popular notion that life doesn't begin until implantation is improperly centered on the state of the woman - "pregnancy" as signaled by the detectable presence of human chorionic gonadotropin. This made me think about the incarnation. The account of the angel speaking with Mary talks about the conception of Christ, but Joseph apparently doesn't find out about it until Mary shows signs of being pregnant.

I found it interesting that in Matthew 1:20, after Mary is found to be with child, Joseph is told by the Angel of the Lord that "the child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." Notice that the focus in Scripture at this point moves from the pregnant state of Mary back to the event of conception.

Looking up the Greek on this I was also struck by the fact that what is translated as "conceived" here is a word that is usually translated as "fathered". It seems to read: "the fathering was of the Holy Spirit."

Furthermore, sometimes this word is used in reference to birthing. More and more it seems the whole "conception" process as seen in the words of Scripture is all-inclusive, from the coming together of man and wife to the very birth of the child.

“Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

The word translated here as "has been conceived in her" is γεννηθὲν, from the verb γεννάω (gennaó): to beget, to bring forth.

Word Origin: from genna (descent, birth)
Definition: to beget, to bring forth
NASB Word Usage
bear (1), bearing children (1), became the father of (4), became...father (1), begotten (4), bore (1), born (41), Child (1), conceived (1), father (37), Father (1), gave (1), gives birth (1), produce (1).

As you can see, this same word is used for multiple stages and aspects of procreation, lending a greater sense of the whole than modern language and thought.

In contrast, we moderns want to split procreation up into definable steps, each with its own special word and level importance or inviolability. For example, we have gamete formation and the various steps of copulation, fertilization and implantation. Then we have at one point a zygote then an embryo and finally a fetus. And of course we have three trimesters and finally the process of birth.

Furthermore, each of these can be further divided up into other steps and processes, each with its own name. The result is that we lose the mysterious totality of God's fearful and wonderful act of creating a human being.

Is a person formed at fertilization? implantation? the first trimester? the second? at birth? Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes! God creative hand is at work, forming a human being throughout the whole process, from gamete formation, the love of husband and wife, the process of fertilization and all the way through the miraculous process of birth.

As we read in Hebrews 7, "One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him."  And, as the Psalmist sings: "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well."

And, as a commenter pointed out below, The ESV renders Ecclesiastes 11:5, "As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything."  We cannot claim to know that which God says we cannot know.  Even common sense itself tells us that we cannot observe or define the moment of a supernatural act.  Scripture does not specify the exact moment in the biological process at which the supernatural process of ensoulment occurs.

So, why do Satan, the world, and our sinful nature want to split the whole of procreation up into little definable stages and states of being? Why? So greater or lesser degrees of respect for the inviolability of each step can tempt us into believing we have the "right" to interfere with the miracle of procreation at this or that point. Some people think they have a right to end the process at any point up until the baby's head exits the womb. Some people think the end of the first trimester ought to signal the final opportunity to exert a woman's "choice". Some people think life begins at implantation, and others think fertilization. Some people even think they have the right to decide to only have sexual relations with their spouse when procreation is virtually impossible.

In contrast, the Bible talks about the process of procreation as a unified whole, from the loins of the father to the womb of the mother all the way through birth.  Anything that interferes with God's procreative purpose at ANY point is seen as sinful in Scripture.

Contraception and Murder

 .

In order to guard ourselves from defending an argument that is possibly based on a false or unverifiable premise, we must always first define and defend the first principles upon which our arguments are based.  In order to achieve this, I often write down my arguments on matters simply for the purpose of discovering the premises upon which they are based.  Online discussions like we have here can serve such a purpose well.  After putting my arguments down in black and white, I often discover assumed premises that I was totally unaware I subscribed to without evidence.  Sometimes opponents make me aware of these wrongly assumed premises by arguing with me.  These hidden premises are, more often than not, assumptions of the secular culture that I have wrongly accepted without criticism. 

The premise I am having the most difficulty with in our most recent discussions on abortifacients is the one upon which the distinction between contraception and abortifacient birth control is based.  Since abortion was legalized just before I began learning about the science of reproduction in public school "sex ed" and biology classes, I simply have always assumed that it was a clear and defensible religious premise that the "conception of life" is the moment when an egg is fertilized.  Birth control was presented as a moral choice, even a social responsibility.  Abortion, being legal, was presented as debatable only from a religious perspective.  Abortion could be considered murder if one believed the religious tenants that "life begins at conception" and "conception equals fertilization"  In fact, birth control was always presented as a way to decrease the demand for abortion.

In recent years, reflecting back on the history of the acceptance in our culture of birth control and then abortion, I have come to believe that the premise that a new soul is conceived at the "moment" of fertilization is guided more by expediency than principle.  Sexual reproduction, and even fertilization itself, is a biological process with many stages.  The Bible indicates that we are sinful from the moment we are conceived, but the Bible is totally silent regarding what point in that biological process a new human soul is "conceived."  Without such knowledge, how can we definitively state that one act is contraception while another is murder? 

Perhaps more importantly, even if we could discern from Scripture, with the help of natural law and human reason, the moment at which this distinction could be made, what is the real difference theologically between contraception and murder?  The laws of civil government, including portions of the Mosaic law, make distinctions of that sort for the purpose of applying secular punishments.  In God's eyes, however, if we despise our neighbor we are just as guilty of murder as if we actually murdered him.  How much more can you despise others than to wish they were never born, or to hope they never will be?

The government should use civil law differently in regard to various criminal acts to address the temporal consequences in a just manner.  However, we do not make such distinctions when it comes to the care of souls.

From a theological or pastoral perspective, actual murder can be a sin that one succumbs to in a moment of rage, just as adultery can occur in a moment of sinful passion.  Often these sins are followed by virtually immediate contrition and repentance.  Contraception, on the other hand, is by its very nature much more premeditated.  One doesn't stumble into a contraceptive act.  One plans it and justifies it. 

Again, I think St. John Chrysostom was right on the money when he stated:

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives].... Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation." [Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 24, A.D. 391]

Wolferinus and the defining of the beginning and end of life

.

I have a further concern with something we have been assuming in the recent discussions about abortifacient birth control. That is, the definition of a point in time at which "contraception" becomes "abortion" - the specific scientific moment in time when new life begins.

I would contend that we only do this because of the acceptance of birth control. Because almost everyone had already declared birth control to be morally acceptable, the nature of the abortion debate caused us to have to make a distinction of when an act of despising God's blessing of children is "contraception" and when such an act is "abortion." The pro-life side of the abortion debate chose "fertilization" as the moment a person is "conceived." I'm not saying I disagree when forced to choose sides, but I've never been very comfortable with defining things in that way. Contraception is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Why do we need to make such a distinction between the two unless it is to ease someone's conscience or decide what type of criminal penalty (or penance) should be applied?

Do we truly know when a new soul's existence begins? Is this not a supernatural divine event that is unobservable? If so, for what reason do we point to the scientifically observable event of "fertilization" as the moment a soul is implicated in the flesh? As far as I know, Scripture does not answer the question of what scientifically observable event signals the exact moment life begins. If any of you believe Scripture does answer this question, I'm all ears. We have an equally difficult time defining the end of life.

I have briefly voiced this concern of mine before in various discussions and writings, but I believe I may have found a very helpful way of looking at this. I would argue that choosing the exact moments or events in time when life begins and ends is no less problematic than choosing the exact moments or events in time when the presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine begin and end in the celebration of the Sacrament.

Please review the following excerpt from Luther's second letter to Simon Wolferinus, July 20, 1543, with which I'm sure most of you are already familiar:

...such a definition of the action would bring about infinite scruples of conscience and endless questions, such as are disputed among the papists, as, for example, whether the Body and Bood of Christ are present at the first, middle, or last syllables. Therefore, one must look not only upon this movement of instant or present action, but also on the time, not in terms of mathematical but of physical breadth, that is, one must give this action a certain period of time, and a period of appropriate breadth of time, as they say, “in breadth.”

Therefore, we shall define the time or the sacramental action in this way: that it starts with the beginning of the Our Father and lasts until all have communicated, have emptied the chalice, have consumed the Hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the Priest] has left the altar. In this way we shall be safe and free from the scruples and scandals of such endless questions. Dr. Philip defines the sacramental action in relation to what is outside it, that is, against reservation of and processions with the Sacrament; he does not split it up within [the action] itself, nor does he define it in a way that it contradicts itself. ...

You can see where I am going with this, but let me substitute a few words in this text to make my point crystal clear regarding the problems of declaring that life begins at the union of egg and sperm:

...such a definition of the beginning of life would bring about infinite scruples of conscience and endless questions, such as are disputed among those who approve of contraception but oppose abortion, as, for example, whether soul becomes present at fertilization, implantation, or at the moment when the heart begins to beat, or when the brain cells begin showing activity, etc., etc. Therefore, one must look not only upon a movement of instant or present action, but also on the time, not in terms of mathematical but of physical breadth, that is, one must give this action a certain period of time, and a period of appropriate breadth of time, as they say, “in breadth.”

Therefore, we shall define the time of God's action of creating and sustaining life in this way: that it starts with the conjugal union of husband and wife, and lasts through the entire life of the person created through that act, until the person's heart stops beating, all efforts to resuscitate have failed, and until the loved ones have been dismissed from the deathbed. In this way we shall be safe and free from the scruples and scandals of such endless questions. We must define the creation of life in relation to what is outside it, that is, against the separation of any of the purposes of the conjugal union, because Scripture does not split it up these purposes in a way that it contradicts the nature of the whole. What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

This is another reason why I believe the question of what is or is not abortifacient birth control is a much more complicated subject than it ever needed to be. What made me start thinking about this is having written a warning to readers of the list of abortifacient birth control that new drugs are always being invented. Fertilization itself is more a chain of events than a single, isolated phenomenon. What happens when a new drug is invented that doesn't prevent a sperm from uniting with an egg (fertilization), but rather inhibits one of the many subsequent cytological events of zygote formation, such as one of the many observable processes before, during or after nuclear fusion?  How would we decide whether that is an abortifacient drug?

We don't have to answer such questions if we understand that it is not our business to be messing with any of it.  What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

Much more could be said on the subject, but I'll leave that for the comments.
.