Expert: Edward Bode - 11/30/2011

Question
QUESTION: Ineffabilis Deus condemns "a distinction between the first and second instance of conception and inferred that the conception which the Church celebrates was not that of the first instance of conception but the second". Yet it immediately quotes Alexander VII, that the doctrine is "based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul's infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin". Isn't Alexander making that distinction between first (active) and second (passive) conception (i.e. at animation)?

ANSWER: My grammatical analysis of the Latin wording by Alexander, "her soul in the first instant of creation and infusion into [her] body" is that the words "creation and infusion," indicate that both took place at the same time.  His Bull goes on the recognize the "feast of her conception."  I would take "conception" as equal to "creation and infusion."  I see here tno reference or implication of a first and second distinction which you mention.
The solemn definition of the dogma by Pius IX speaks of "the most blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception ...."  Nothing here about a distinction, as you noted.
So, I do not see a disconnect between Alexander and Pius.
A side note: Now in the USA, some pro-life people are starting to use "fertilization" rather than "conception" in order to counter the in-vitro practioners who distinguish fertilization [union of sperm and egg]from conception [implantation -- which in reality adds nothing to the internal makeup of the child, only a change of location].
I hope that I have answered your concern, Stephen.  If not, please feel free to write again.
Nice to hear from the UK, where I enjoyed a visit many years ago.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I took the wording in Ineffabilis Deus to condemn a distinction between "active" conception (the generative activity of her parents) and "passive" conception (when the soul is created and infused into the body) - which I thought would seem to condemn what Alexander says. If the papal bull is not talking about active conception but a distinction between two moments of passive conception, that makes a bit more sense - but the feast is celebrated 9 months before the Nativity of Mary so that makes it even more confusing!

I hope you can visit the UK again!

Answer
I have no more information to add.  
However, Do the writings of Alexander or Pius reflect any concern about the proposal of active and passive conception? I do not know the answer and do not have any resources to pursue the matter.  Possibly, some dogma professor at a major seminary near you might have a clue.
Concerning the two dates of the feasts:  I am not sure which feast came first.  I would suppose that after the one was set, then the other was set for nine months becasue of the usual period of gestation.  In any case, the dates of the feasts do not affect the meaning of the dogma.  We do know that the feast of Christmas was not set because of historical knowledge about the day and the month of Jesus' birth.
I have no travel plans now but another visit would be worthwhile  -- I have a distant cousin living in London.
Nice to hear from you again, Stephen.  If you wish more, please let me know.
Happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception next week!