A friend sent the Latin to me:

Utrum quod in utero formatum adhuc est, animatum posset intellegi.

80. (21, 22–25) Si autem litigabunt duo viri, et percusserint mulierem in utero habentem, et exierit infans eius nondum formatus; detrimentum patietur, quantum indixerit vir mulieris, et dabit cum postulatione.

Mihi videtur significationis alicuius causa dici haec, magis quam Scripturam circa huiusmodi facta occupatam. Nam si illud attenderet, ne praegnans mulier percussa in abortum compelleretur, non poneret duos litigantes viros, cum possit et ab uno hoc admitti, qui cum ipsa muliere litigaverit, vel etiam non litigaverit, sed alienae posteritati nocere volendo id fecerit. Quod vero non formatum puerperium noluit ad homicidium pertinere, profecto nec hominem deputavit quod tale in utero geritur.

Hic de anima quaestio solet agitari, utrum quod formatum non est, ne animatum quidem possit intellegi, et ideo non sit homicidium, quia nec examinatum dici potest, si adhuc animam non habebat.

Sequitur enim et dicit: Si autem formatum fuerit, dabit animam pro anima. Ubi quid aliud intellegitur, nisi, et ipse morietur? Nam hoc et in caeteris ex hac occasione iam praecipit: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, manum pro manu, pedem pro pede, combustionem pro combustione, vulnus pro vulnere, livorem pro livore: talionis videlicet aequitate. Quae Lex ideo constituit, ut demonstraret quae vindicta debeatur. Nisi enim per Legem sciretur quid vindictae deberetur, unde sciretur quid venia relaxaret, ut dici posset: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris? Debitores igitur Lege monstrantur, ut quando ignoscitur appareat quid dimittatur. Neque enim debita dimitteremus, nisi quid nobis deberetur Lege indice disceremus. Si ergo illud informe puerperium iam quidem fuerit, sed adhuc quodammodo informiter animatum (quoniam magna de anima quaestio non est praecipitanda indiscussae temeritate sententiae), ideo Lex noluit ad homicidium pertinere, quia nondum dici potest anima viva in eo corpore quod sensu caret, si talis est in carne nondum formata, et ideo nondum sensibus praedita. Quod autem dixit: Et dabit cum postulatione quod maritus mulieris, informi excluso, dandum constituerit, non est in promptu intellegere: quippe, quod graecus habet, pluribus modis intellegitur, et tolerabilius cum postulatione dictum est, quam si aliud diceretur. Fortassis enim postulabit ut det, ut eo modo satis Deo faciat, etiamsi maritus mulierve non expetat.

This is my own rendering:

Whether what is not yet formed in the womb can be understood as being ensouled.

80. (21, 22-25) “If two men quarrel and strike a pregnant woman, and the child (infans) that is not yet formed is expelled … he will pay whatever penalty the woman’s husband declares, and he will render it upon request.”

It seems to me that this is said for the sake of signifying something rather than that Scripture is concerned about deeds of this kind. For if did address it, so that a pregnant woman who has been struck would not be forced to miscarry, it would not suppose that there were two men fighting since this could also be perpetrated by one, who fought with the woman herself, or even if he did not fight with her, still willingly acted to harm another’s offspring. But it did not wish to regard the death of an unformed child as homicide, nor did it think what is borne in the womb to be a man.

Here the question regarding the soul usually comes up, whether what is not formed cannot be understood as ensouled, and therefore it would not be homicide since it cannot be said to be determined, if it still did not have a soul.

For it goes on to say: “If it was been formed, he will give a life for a life.” What else then should be understood except that he also should die? For it has established this already in the other cases of this type: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a would for a wound, a bruise for a bruise”: namely the justice of retribution. So the law established it to show what retributions would be owed. For unless it is known by the Law what retributions are owed, how would it be known what a pardon looses, as can be said: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive those in debt to us”? Debtors, therefore, are shown by the Law, as when it is not known it would be apparent what would be forgiven. For we would not forgive debts unless we had learned what is owed to us as the Law indicates. If therefore the offspring was unformed, but still in a certain way formlessly ensouled (since the great question concerning the soul must not be bound by the fear of an untested opinion), therefore the Law has did not wish to regard it as homicide, because it cannot yet be said that there is a living soul in a body that lacks sense, if it is such, not yet formed in the flesh, and therefore not yet provided with the senses. But, however, it said: “And he will render upon request what the woman’s husband established would be given for the expelled unformed offspring.” It is not easy to understand: naturally “Asioma,” what the Greek holds, is understood in several ways, and “upon request” is said to be more tolerable, than if it were said to be something else. For perhaps he would offer to render something, in order to satisfy God in this way, even if the husband or the woman did not ask.

I didn’t have a lot of time, so there may be errors.

Thank you, Your Excellency, for everything.

“Quantum potes, tantum aude.”

Sanguis vetatus, by the way.

By the way, my writing is characteristically male, though it was honestly a close call.

Also, I translated some responsa ad dubia for a friend of mine. Of course, I lost the file and had to start over at one point.

I really need to work on my thesis now…

Basically, my point was this: We need to avoid an approach that makes the stories in the Gospel generic. They’re not fables or fairy-tales. They contain archetypes, but they’re archetypal only secondarily. They are only exemplary because they are first concrete and unique occurrences in history.¹ When interpreting the Annunciation, for instance, we can’t let our preaching reduce it to a model of being called by God to do something that seems impossible or hard. Yes, it is a model, and the model applies to all of us, whereas none of us is going to be called to be the Mother of God. Nevertheless, it is first a unique event. The Annunciation is not only a species of the call-scene genus, it is more like the perfect form to which all other call-scenes are what they are by resemblance.

In a similar way, today is important to me not because it is an instance of “one’s mother’s birthday” but because it is my mom’s birthday.

Next mission: Take a cab and argue about the price.

Unrelated notes:

They put ketchup on pizza. We went to Mass and ate supper at the seminary here, and they brought out big bowls of ketchup for the pizza. This was the second time we saw that, so we figured it was not just a fluke. The Mexican seminarians couldn’t figure out why we didn’t use ketchup. ¿Porqué no? the would ask. We were unable to give them an answer other than No es la costumbre in Los Estados Unidos.

Here are the Most Rev. Raymond Burke’s words:

June 27, 2008 – Memorial of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Bishop and Doctor of the Church

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ARCHDIOCESAN CURIA:

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

Today, at noon in Rome (5 a.m. CDT), it was announced that His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, has named me Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, effective immediately. With the announcement, I ceased to be the Archbishop of Saint Louis.

I am deeply humbled by the trust which His Holiness has placed in me, and, in priestly obedience, I have pledged to serve our Holy Father to the best of my abilities. Although you will no longer pray for me as your Archbishop, I ask your continued prayers for me, that I may faithfully and generously cooperate with God’s grace in fulfilling my new responsibilities.

Leaving the service of the Church in the Archdiocese of Saint Louis is most sad for me. It has been an honor and gift for me to serve the Archdiocese over the past four years and five months. It had been my hope to serve here for a long time, but, as the Bishop who called me to priestly ordination often remarked, “Man proposes, but God disposes.” I trust that doing what our Holy Father has asked me to do will bring blessings to the Archdiocese of Saint Louis and to me. Saint Louis is a great archdiocese which will always have a most treasured place in my heart.

In a particular way, I am saddened to leave you who have worked so closely with me in the pastoral care and governance of the Archdiocese. I thank you for your faithful and generous cooperation and collaboration with me.

With regard to the governance of the Archdiocese, the College of Consultors will meet, in the early afternoon, to elect an Archdiocesan Administrator who, with the help of the Consultors, will govern the Archdiocese, until the new Archbishop is appointed and installed. Please pray for the College of Consultors and for the Archdiocesan Administrator whom they will elect.

Although I am not fond of long farewells, it will take me some time to put my papers in order and to make the transfer to Rome. I will travel to Rome on July 1st next and will return to the Archdiocese on July 10th next. After that time, I will have to dedicate myself intensely to preparing for my definitive departure for Rome, which is scheduled to take place on or around August 22nd next. Also, as you may be aware, I am committed to the celebration of the Solemn Dedication of the Church of the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe at La Crosse, of which I am the founder, during the last days of July and the first days of August. I, however, trust that, before I depart for Rome, I will have an occasion to express to you, personally and directly, my heartfelt gratitude.

Again, I ask your prayers. You can count upon my daily prayers for you and for the Archdiocese of Saint Louis.

Asking God’s blessing upon you and your service of the Church, I remain

Yours devotedly in Christ,

(Most Rev.) Raymond L. Burke
Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis

There is a press conference this morning at 11:00 CST, I believe.