Catholic teaching on blood transfusions

  • Thread starter Thread starter snavemarc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

snavemarc

Guest
I think this is quite a delicate topic but I would like to understand the Church’s view on this. As a Nurse I am aware that Jehovah’s witnesses will decline to have blood transfusions. I decided to take a look at the reasons why they do this and this came up;
Genesis 9:4 With this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood, in it.
Leviticus 17:10 If anyone of the House of Israel or any resident foreigner consumers blood of any kind, I shall set my face against that individual who consumes blood, and that person shall be cut off from the people
Acts 15:28-29 It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves not to impose on you any burden beyond these essentials. you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from illicit marriages. keep yourself from these, and you will do well. Farewell.
So what is the Church’s stance on use of blood products. Personally I have always felt that if I desperately needed it I would accept. I have also administered blood products to patients.
 
Last edited:
I think this is quite a delicate topic but I would like to understand the Church’s view on this.
It isn’t a delicate topic at all.

There is no Church teaching about blood transfusions. They are perfectly fine.
As a Nurse I am aware that Jehovah’s witnesses will decline to have blood transfusions.
As a Catholic, what JWs do is irrelevant.
So what is the Church’s stance on use of blood products.
It doesn’t have one.
 
Here is a searchable copy of the Catechism. It may be useful for your research.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

The Church speaks on organ donation, blood donation is also a very generous thing!:

[2296] Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.
 
Nice one, thanks for the snappy response 🙂

Sorry I am still finding my feet. I just wanted to explore everything.
 
Next time you meet a JW, tell them that by Genesis logic, they should also accept circumcision and kosher dietary laws. Talk about selective theology.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, why did you post this in “traditional Catholicism” rather than “moral theology”? I do not imagine that traditional Catholics would have a different view of this subject than any other Catholics.

I fear that you are taking Acts 15:29 out of context. It is not prohibited for Christians to consume blood today. Since you are British, you will be familiar with black pudding, your native variety of blood sausage. It is now entirely permissible for Christians to eat black pudding and other varieties of blood sausage. Why? Because the verse that you are citing is part of a summary of the conclusions reached at the Council of Jerusalem. This council addressed disputes arising between Jewish and gentile Christians in the early Church. The prohibition against consuming blood therefore pertains to the specific situation of Christians who belong to a community comprising both Jews and gentiles. It was a temporary measure intended to settle a dispute pertaining to a specific situation. The gentiles did not have to obey the whole of the Jewish law, but they were to refrain from consuming blood as this was considered particularly offensive by their Jewish brothers and sisters. Unless you belong to a congregation that includes a substantial number of Jewish converts who observe the dietary laws and feel that the consumption of blood by gentiles puts their Christian faith in jeopardy, you no longer have to obey this regulation. Therefore, this verse not only has nothing to do with blood transfusions, but does not even impose a prohibition that is binding upon Christians today.

In general, I would avoid paying too much attention to what the Jehovah’s Witnesses say. They do not belong to the mainstream of Christianity. Whereas the Church of the East, the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, Protestants, and Old Catholics all agree on fundamentals such as Christology and the Trinity, Jehovah’s Witnesses have diverged so far from fundamental Christian beliefs that it is debatable whether they are really Christians. For example, they believe that 144,000 people will live in heaven, while everybody else will rise from the dead to live in an earthly paradise, and that there is no hell. They also believe that the invisible Second Coming of Jesus took place in October 1914, when he supposedly commenced his kingship in heaven. These are just a couple of their very peculiar beliefs that illustrate just how far removed they are from what most people would consider to be Christian beliefs.
 
Yet Judaism not only allows blood transfusions but REQUIRES them if they are necessary to saving a human life. The same goes for eating non-kosher food and working on the Sabbath or Yom Kippur. Saving or healing a human life supersedes these commandments.
 
Last edited:
Those all refer to consuming blood, not receiving transfusions.

However, if you are interested, Bonfils has a blood drive at many parishes every few months if you are interested in donating 👍🙂
 
Next time you meet a JW, tell them that by Genesis logic, they should also accept circumcision and kosher dietary laws. Talk about selective theology.
JWs also use a few scattered verses from the New Testament but overall the theology is very much selective and confused.
 
Honestly, I have never heard of one getting a blood transfusion for fun 😉
 
Yet Judaism not only allows blood transfusions but REQUIRES them if they are necessary to saving a human life. The same goes for eating non-kosher food and working on the Sabbath or Yom Kippur. Saving or healing a human life supersedes these commandments.
Thanks for clarifying that.
 
So what is the Church’s stance on use of blood products. Personally I have always felt that if I desperately needed it I would accept. I have also administered blood products to patients
we aren’t under the Mosaic law. A blood transfusion isn’t the same as ‘eating’ blood.
 
I’m interested in knowing more about it
How do you mean? The Church has no problem with blood transfusions. And I’m sure one or two Popes would have received them after operations or injuries. For example I’d imagine Saint JP11 needed one after the assassination attempt on him.

Or is it the various prohibitions in Leviticus that interest you (and which don’t apply to us, of course.)
 
Last edited:
Can I go slightly off topic but remaining in the range of bodily fluids. I’ve been reading through the vast resources on the Catholic Answers website tonight and come across something rather interesting. Sperm & Egg donation is considered immoral. Can someone explain the reason behind this? Again Im new and interested in exploring these topics.
 
A blood transfusion saved my life when I had my hysterectomy. The surgeon refused to operate without it. I’m sure grateful that blood was available for me. Nothing wrong with donating blood or organs to help others. It might save more lives than one thinks.
 
Those verses deal with The Mosaic Dispensation, which is no longer in effect. The Verse from Acts deals with Church discipline that has been abrogated.
Blood transfusions are fine.
God bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top