No, in fact I’ve never heard about the Church’s stance on genetic engineering. Please describe it to me. I’ve know about selective breeding and such to develop natural immunizations between animals and plants but how can the Church be against that?This was suggested to me by an atheist. We all know the Church’s stance on genetic engineering, with it being frowned upon. However isn’t the majority of the meat we eat optimized by selective breeding, which is in essence a much slower and drawn out branch of genetic engineering? So are all of us Catholic meat eaters hypocrites? Any thoughts would be much appreciated
Okay, I admit to being poorly catechized, but I don’t remember hearing anything about genetic engineering. Could you explain the Church’s objections?We all know the Church’s stance on genetic engineering, with it being frowned upon.
When I read the term “genetic engineering” I think of inserting genes from different species, which is quite different from selectively breeding the genes within a species. For example, corn hybrids are developed by selective breeding within the species of corn, but BT corn is genetically modified - it it incorporates a gene from a bacterium which codes for a protein which is poisonous to the corn borer, a major pest.However isn’t the majority of the meat we eat optimized by selective breeding, which is in essence a much slower and drawn out branch of genetic engineering?
But disease could be prevented by detecting people/plants/animals that are genetically prone to certain hereditary diseases, and preparing for the inevitable. Also, infectious diseases can be treated by implanting genes that code for antiviral proteins specific to each antigen. Animals and plants can be ‘tailor made’ to show desirable characteristics. Genes could also be manipulated in trees for example, to absorb more CO2 and reduce the threat of global warming. And what happens when a human is born with a random mutated gene, aka evolution, that in a sense makes them superior to another? Like this superboy from Germany. There’s also been other documented gene mutations that made the individual faster, smarter, more sociable, advanced hearing, and a reduction in pain when inflicted. Are all these natural and random gene mutations considered a problem?The problem only arises when one is attempting to mess about with human genetics to breed a super human or to cross a human with an animal. Genetic engineering would also be a different discipline than gene therapy for an individual.
Huh?. We all know the Church’s stance on genetic engineering, with it being frowned upon.
As a consequence, the sacrifice of animals can be justified only if required to achieve an important benefit for man, as is the case with xenotransplantation of organs or tissues to man, even when this involves experiments on animals and/or genetically modifying them.
Also, from the section on TransgenesisHowever, even in this case, there is the ethical requirement that in using animals, man must observe certain conditions: unnecessary animal suffering must be prevented; criteria of real necessity and reasonableness must be respected; genetic modifications that could significantly alter the biodiversity and the balance of the species in the animal world must be avoided
It goes on to list several criteria, such as responsible care for the animals, that care be taken to ensure transgentically modified animals do not join the general genetic pool.**As we have already observed, the possibility of working out such genetic modifications, using genes of human origin as well, is morally acceptable **when done in respect for the animal and for biodiversity, and with a view to bringing significant benefits to man himself. Therefore, while recognizing that transgenesis does not compromise the overall genetic identity of the mutated animal or its species, and reaffirming man’s responsibility towards the created order and towards the pursuit of improving health by means of certain types of genetic manipulation, we will now enumerate some fundamental ethical conditions which must be respected:
From memory, not too long ago the Pope came out and said that genetic engineering was a mortal sin.No, in fact I’ve never heard about the Church’s stance on genetic engineering. Please describe it to me. I’ve know about selective breeding and such to develop natural immunizations between animals and plants but how can the Church be against that?
I’ve heard a Christian suggest that if we could artificially clone a human being than that clone would be without a “soul” and it would also be absolved of “original sin”. Is that the reason why they’re against it?
Your source has it wrong. It was Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti who made that statement, when he proposed a set of social sins.From memory, not too long ago the Pope came out and said that genetic engineering was a mortal sin.
fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/pope-declares-genetic-engineering-a-mortal-sin/
Only for humans.But disease could be prevented by detecting people/plants/animals that are genetically prone to certain hereditary diseases, and preparing for the inevitable. Also, infectious diseases can be treated by implanting genes that code for antiviral proteins specific to each antigen. Animals and plants can be ‘tailor made’ to show desirable characteristics. Genes could also be manipulated in trees for example, to absorb more CO2 and reduce the threat of global warming. And what happens when a human is born with a random mutated gene, aka evolution, that in a sense makes them superior to another? Like this superboy from Germany. There’s also been other documented gene mutations that made the individual faster, smarter, more sociable, advanced hearing, and a reduction in pain when inflicted. Are all these natural and random gene mutations considered a problem?
No, in fact I’ve never heard about the Church’s stance on genetic engineering. Please describe it to me. I’ve know about selective breeding and such to develop natural immunizations between animals and plants but how can the Church be against that?
I’ve heard a Christian suggest that if we could artificially clone a human being than that clone would be without a “soul” and it would also be absolved of “original sin”. Is that the reason why they’re against it?
Even if Godless minded arrogant scientist’s could and possibly already have cloned human beings, such a being WOULD NOT BE WITHOUT A SOUL. And NO again such a human soul whose body was cloned would not be automatically be absolved from original sin. Who do you think gave these Neanderthal scientist’s the intelligence to think period.I’ve heard a Christian suggest that if we could artificially clone a human being than that clone would be without a “soul” and it would also be absolved of “original sin”. Is that the reason why they’re against it?
well I am part of “we” and I don’t know this. source pleaseThis was suggested to me by an atheist. We all know the Church’s stance on genetic engineering, with it being frowned upon.
Yep, read the link I posted above, it IS from teh Vatican. Section 15 of the doc covers genetic engineering, specifically transgenesis (the insertion of genes from one species into another. The Vatican doesn’t have a problem as long as it fits certain criteria.well I am part of “we” and I don’t know this. source please
the link to the food democracy site gives no reference or quote of an acutal papal document, and instead grossly misstates and misinterprets a press release from the Vatican into something that was never said
In all honesty I don’t care. Meat is tasty it is filling and does the best job of anything to keep my hypoglycemia at bay.This was suggested to me by an atheist. We all know the Church’s stance on genetic engineering, with it being frowned upon. However isn’t the majority of the meat we eat optimized by selective breeding, which is in essence a much slower and drawn out branch of genetic engineering? So are all of us Catholic meat eaters hypocrites? Any thoughts would be much appreciated