Hybrid Clones Created in England - What about Original Sin?

[SeekingCatholic]

Thanks for pasting the rest of the paragraph from Humani Generis. While it says that original sin is passed on through ‘generation’, it doesn’t say that

1. it must be natural generation
   or, that
2. original sin can only be passed on through ‘generation’

Exactly right; it wasn’t said directly. But it was implied; otherwise there would be no reason to say that it would be “in no way apparent” how the opinion that there were true men existing after Adam not descendants of him could be reconciled with traditional doctrine on original sin.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Exactly right; it wasn’t said directly. But it was implied; otherwise there would be no reason to say that it would be “in no way apparent” how the opinion that there were true men existing after Adam not descendants of him could be reconciled with traditional doctrine on original sin.

The pope was saying that if Adam was only one man among many, then when Adam committed the first sin, original sin would only have been propagated to Adam’s descendants, but not to the descendants of the other men.

But these hybrid clones have a human parent to receive original sin from, and they are all descended from Adam. So I don’t see how that statement applies.

I do agree with you, though, that it will be interesting to see a more specific definition of how exactly original sin is passed on. But presumably it would be passed physically through the DNA, rather than passed to anything that shares human form. In fact if it was passed automatically to every human being without a physical parentage being necessary, then the pope’s argument in Humani Generis wouldn’t stand.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The issue can be avoided no longer. Hybrid clones have been created at Newcastle University in England.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7323298.stm

Hybrid clones are created when the nucleus from a human somatic cell (skin cell, in this case) is inserted into an animal egg cell, and then cell division is stimulated. The reason for the use of this technique is that embryonic stem cells can be obtained. The clone has human nuclear DNA, but animal mitochondrial DNA.

So the question is this:

1. If the clone does not have a human soul, which means it isn’t human, then this research cannot possibly be objected to on the grounds of “affront to human dignity” or some such. It should be perfectly ethical and moral in that case. It’s objectively just a scientific procedure. Yet the Church is objecting vigorously to this.
2. If the clone does have a human soul, which is free from original sin, then we just created a super-race. We would have “saved ourselves” so to speak.
3. If the clone has a human soul with original sin, then the Church will be forced to revise its doctrine on original sin and on human origins. The Church teaches that original sin is transmitted through natural generation. Hybrid clones do not come about via natural generation, via meiosis of gametes and fertilization. Moreover the Church also teaches (cf. Humani Generis) that there are no “true men” that did not take their origin through natural generation, going all the way back to Adam. Here are “true men” that did derive their origin from another process.

Thoughts?

This cloning is clearly not creation ex nihilo. It is merely combining genetic material **from a human being **with that of an animal.

To the extent that it is human, it carries Original Sin.

 

[rwoehmke]

It’s been over 40 years now since I had a discussion with a seminary prof about cloning. We concluded that if ever a human was cloned(at the time they were just talking frogs) there would be a tempest in trying to apply the old categories. I guess that has come to pass. First question: If original sin is passed naturally, just how is naturally defined? Could make a huge difference. Second Question:If it looks human, behaves human, emotes as a human, why wouldn’t it be considered human? Thirdly: Since the human soul comes into existence simultaneously with the new human, why is it not able to be considered the mechanism by which the new human receives original sin? Original sin does not exist in any of the physical parts that make up the human cell or body. At least like the soul, I don’t think anyone has ever measured or identified an original sin as something physical and discoverable by science. So just maybe the coming together of certain physical parts in the process has naught to do with it at all, but that with the soul it joins the creature at the first spark of life. So it does not matter how one creates a humanoid body, it matters only if that body has human life.

Sorry if this is all dumb stuff, but I know little about biology and even less about theology.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

The pope was saying that if Adam was only one man among many, then when Adam committed the first sin, original sin would only have been propagated to Adam’s descendants, but not to the descendants of the other men.

But why would that be, if original sin were not thought to be limited to natural generation as the means of transmission or propagation? It could have propagated to the descendants of everyone else via some other mechanism.

But these hybrid clones have a human parent to receive original sin from, and they are all descended from Adam. So I don’t see how that statement applies.

But the hybrid clones don’t have human parents, in the sense that we need. These parents became parents genetically through another means than natural generation. The parents could even be dead when the cloning occurs.

I do agree with you, though, that it will be interesting to see a more specific definition of how exactly original sin is passed on.

Yes, I think it’s necessary.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

From Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide).

The Council of Trent says: propagatione, non imitatione transfusum omnibus. D 790. In the baptism of children that is expurgated which they have incurred through generation. D 791.

As original sin is a peccatum naturae, it is transmitted in the same way as human nature, through the natural act of generation. Although according to its origin, it is a single sin (D 790) that is the sin of the head of the race alone (the sin of Eve is not the cause of original sin) it is multiplied over and over again through natural generation whenever a child of Adam enters existence. In each act of generation human nature is communicated in a condition deprived of grace.

The chief cause (causa efficiens principalis) of original sin is the sin of Adam alone. The instrumental cause (causa efficiens instrumentalis) is the natural act of generation, which gives rise to the connection of the individual human being with the head of the race. The actual concupiscence associated with the act of generation, the sexual pleasure (libido) is, contrary to the view of St. Augustine (*De nuptiis et concup. *I 23, 25; 24, 27) neither the cause nor the inescapable condition for the reproduction of original sin. It is only an accompanying phenomenon of the act of generation, which in itself alone is the instrumental cause of the transmission of original sin. Cf. S. th. I II 82, 4 ad 3.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

From the Summa Theologica, Prima Secundae Pars, Q. 81

Article 4. Whether original sin would be contracted by a person formed miraculously from human flesh?
Objection 1. It would seem that original sin would be contracted by a person formed miraculously from human flesh. For a gloss on Genesis 4:1 says that “Adam’s entire posterity was corrupted in his loins, because they were not severed from him in the place of life, before he sinned, but in the place of exile after he had sinned.” But if a man were to be formed in the aforesaid manner, his flesh would be severed in the place of exile. Therefore it would contract original sin.

Objection 2. Further, original sin is caused in us by the soul being infected through the flesh. But man’s flesh is entirely corrupted. Therefore a man’s soul would contract the infection of original sin, from whatever part of the flesh it was formed.

Objection 3. Further, original sin comes upon all from our first parent, in so far as we were all in him when he sinned. But those who might be formed out of human flesh, would have been in Adam. Therefore they would contract original sin.

On the contrary, They would not have been in Adam “according to seminal virtue,” which alone is the cause of the transmission of original sin, as Augustine states (Gen. ad lit. x, 18, seqq.).

I answer that, As stated above (1,3), original sin is transmitted from the first parent to his posterity, inasmuch as they are moved by him through generation, even as the members are moved by the soul to actual sin. Now there is no movement to generation except by the active power of generation: so that those alone contract original sin, who are descended from Adam through the active power of generation originally derived from Adam, i.e. who are descended from him through seminal power; for the seminal power is nothing else than the active power of generation. But if anyone were to be formed by God out of human flesh, it is evident that the active power would not be derived from Adam. Consequently he would not contract original sin: even as a hand would have no part in a human sin, if it were moved, not by the man’s will, but by some external power.

Reply to Objection 1. Adam was not in the place of exile until after his sin. Consequently it is not on account of the place of exile, but on account of the sin, that original sin is transmitted to those to whom his active generation extends.

Reply to Objection 2. The flesh does not corrupt the soul, except in so far as it is the active principle in generation, as we have stated.

Reply to Objection 3. If a man were to be formed from human flesh, he would have been in Adam, “by way of bodily substance” [The expression is St. Augustine’s (Gen. ad lit. x). Cf. Summa Theologica TP, 31, 6, Reply to Objection 1, but not according to seminal virtue, as stated above. Therefore he would not contract original sin.

According to the Angelic Doctor, we may have just created a super-race!
[/quote]

 

[AndyF]

SeekingCatholic:

Not really a complex issue.

Outside of medical purposes involving legitimately married couples who are trying to conceive, anyone who attempts or assists the conception of a human outside of a sexual act between male and female who are legitimately married through the Sacrament of Matrimony commits a mortal sin.

There is no unique case here. Still falls into tampering with God’s design.

AndyF

 

[JoeyWarren]

It would be interesting for the Protestants to chime in on this one, especially those that overtly oppose the idea that Genesis contains two accounts of creation.

This presents a delimna with them. Adam and Eve therefore were not the first man and first woman, since they were created outside the six days of creation. Men and women in general were created on the sixth day. Adam and Eve were created sometime after God’s day of rest. Therefore those men and women created on the sixth day apart from Adam and Eve did not inherit original sin.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Since original sin is a hereditary stain which causes death, could it just be a sequence of genes that cause the body to deteriorate?

If that’s the case then it would be passed through DNA regardless of natural vs. manmade generation.

When St. Thomas says

But if anyone were to be formed by God out of human flesh, it is evident that the active power would not be derived from Adam. Consequently he would not contract original sin: even as a hand would have no part in a human sin, if it were moved, not by the man’s will, but by some external power.

his reasoning is that if the new person is made by God rather than by an action of man, then he would not have original sin. In the case we’re dealing with, this new human is still created by a choice of man.

 

[Awake]

SeekingCatholic:

Not really a complex issue.

Outside of medical purposes involving legitimately married couples who are trying to conceive, anyone who attempts or assists the conception of a human outside of a sexual act between male and female who are legitimately married through the Sacrament of Matrimony commits a mortal sin.

There is no unique case here. Still falls into tampering with God’s design.

AndyF

It’s so hard to have an intelligent conversation when people say “it’s wrong because the church says so.” While this may be true, it’s just a cop out to answering the real question.

SeekingCatholic makes a lot of valid points. What I think is unclear to some people is that somatic cells are cells that are not involved in reproduction. We lose millions of these cells every day and every one has an exact copy of our DNA (barring any abnormalities in genetic makeup). And if I were make a clone using on my somatic cells, it would have almost the exact same genetic structure as me.

So what are these creatures that are created using human somatic cells and the eggs of a cow? Humans? I don’t know. Perhaps there’s really no real way to decide from a philosophical standpoint. That’s why most people seem to be relying on the wisdom of repugnance.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The issue can be avoided no longer. Hybrid clones have been created at Newcastle University in England.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7323298.stm

Hybrid clones are created when the nucleus from a human somatic cell (skin cell, in this case) is inserted into an animal egg cell, and then cell division is stimulated. The reason for the use of this technique is that embryonic stem cells can be obtained. The clone has human nuclear DNA, but animal mitochondrial DNA.

So the question is this:

1. If the clone does not have a human soul, which means it isn’t human, then this research cannot possibly be objected to on the grounds of “affront to human dignity” or some such. It should be perfectly ethical and moral in that case. It’s objectively just a scientific procedure. Yet the Church is objecting vigorously to this.
2. If the clone does have a human soul, which is free from original sin, then we just created a super-race. We would have “saved ourselves” so to speak.
3. If the clone has a human soul with original sin, then the Church will be forced to revise its doctrine on original sin and on human origins. The Church teaches that original sin is transmitted through natural generation. Hybrid clones do not come about via natural generation, via meiosis of gametes and fertilization. Moreover the Church also teaches (cf. Humani Generis) that there are no “true men” that did not take their origin through natural generation, going all the way back to Adam. Here are “true men” that did derive their origin from another process.

Thoughts?

My personal opinion here:

1. If it’s alive it must have a soul.
2. It would have an animal soul.

No Original Sin, the soul ceases to exist when the animal dies.

It would essentially be a Duck (Rabbit, Mouse, etc.) with a human physical characteristic, (skin, hair, etc.)

If we find a hair or piece of skin and analyze it we can say it’s human. We do not say it’s a human being, but that it is human hair or human skin.

 

[Alexius]

Why are they doing this, anyway?

 

[JoeyWarren]

To Harness true stem cells in bulk, I think.

Read the Article:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7323298.stm

 

[AndyF]

It’s so hard to have an intelligent conversation when people say “it’s wrong because the church says so.” While this may be true, it’s just a cop out to answering the real question.

Cop out or prudent avoidance. Whats to answer if the occasion is not created or conceptualized.? The Church stresses people use Wisdom than knowledge. Maybe God meant that by delving further into unknown waters my/society curiosity would be peaked to the point I cannot resist the experimentation of giving a cow a human head.

I already know I’m in trouble when I start using words like “Perhaps”, since on such a crucial issue as replacing God’s job, I should “Know”. I already know I’m in trouble if my intellect can form a connection between making a cow/man from my somatic cells, making my mind’s motive suspect. And it goes on, all indicators I’m somewhere I shouldn’t be. My mistake will need a mop up of course, and I will throw my hands up in despair discovering what I already was warned against, and now the world is left with the aftermath and the endless debates on what that creature in the back yard is, a person or a cow, and it’s burden on the societal pocketbook as if that were not already overburdened. Has it goes, my name will be entered in the annals of the past disobedient people. I have become the African Bee keeper of the new age. But I had my fun, never mind the cost.

Mom’s advice to stay away from the stove element made sense, but you know “Perhaps”(gosh that word again) whatever awaits my experimentation, maybe I can pull myself out of any predicament, …then again…what the heck, the world will take the brunt of my fun.

All this tells me the Western world has much too much leisure time on it’s hands.

AndyF

 

[AndyF]

It would be interesting for the Protestants to chime in on this one, especially those that overtly oppose the idea that Genesis contains two accounts of creation.

This presents a delimna with them. Adam and Eve therefore were not the first man and first woman, since they were created outside the six days of creation. Men and women in general were created on the sixth day. Adam and Eve were created sometime after God’s day of rest. Therefore those men and women created on the sixth day apart from Adam and Eve did not inherit original sin.

Assuming that our view of time as it plays out in consecutive events and sequences is viewed by God in the same perspective, or even has relevance.

AndyF

 

[JoeyWarren]

Assuming that our view of time as it plays out in consecutive events and sequences is viewed by God in the same perspective, or even has relevance.
AndyF

How it is viewed by God is irrelevant since we cannot know how God views things.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The final opinion of the angelic doctor was wrong on the count of the immaculate conception of Mary – for in his view the generative power came from her father, which was seminal, and therefore impossible for her not to have contracted original sin.

Just so, since this is the same topic which led to the error in her case – I wouldn’t quote St. Thomas as a major help here – he is also quoted in Roe. V. Wade in support of abortion … because of the hypothetical “vegitative” state he imagined in conception, which isn’t there…

It also looks like Ludwig Ott is writing ideas into St. Augustines head which are popular misconceptions about what Agustine said… but anyhow:

St. Thomas’ idea, which I think has merit, is that the “movement” eg: control, of the child’s body by its parent is what makes it suffer original sin. In the case of genetic engineering, whose hand, but a sinner’s was fashioning the clone?
(If it isn’t seminal power, than what power is it?)

So, even under St. Thomas – one would still be in trouble with SCNT / stem cells.
That quote, however, is even one more reason I am not a Thomist.

Again, virii can attack cells and infect them with foreign RNA/DNA which benignly inserts itself into the DNA of the body and remaining latent for some time.
Since they can even attack a one celled embryo, virii have undoubtedly caused slightly modified DNA beings to exist – but this has been known for some time, and I have never heard church officials worrying over whether that means another immaculate conception could have occurred…

Again, once a sperm leaves the body of its host whom created it – what moves the sperm except an animal soul? The will of the father can’t control it – it moves on its own autonomously and it is dying from the moment it leaves the body.
It is no different genetically than a skin cell which is detached from the skin.
But, there is more to this – epigentics – that is the “state” of the cell has a huge impact on what the cell IS.

The whole idea of stem cells is that the state is “reset” as much as possible (which is NOT necessarily “entirely”) so that the cell can be coaxed into converting into other kinds of tissue. No one is medically saved by a stem cell alone, but only by one programmed to become something different which was diseased in the body and which it is to replace.

Some tissues are quite far removed from the original stem cell and require LOTS of coaxing, and the failure rate at each stage is such that it doesn’t look like the best way to approach the problem anyway from a practical standpoint – but politically, it’s a wonderful bomshell for atheists and agnostics to use…

The root problem with the idea of “original sin” is that the formal definiton of the church is that given by Agustine in the CCC – that it is only a sin by analogy, and to be more specific – by deprivation. The flesh of the parent did NOT have the original justice and holiness in a “natural” way to pass on to the offspring.
How then, are “justice” and “holiness” created in a test tube, and conferred on the “cow chimera” being discussed? What gave the scientist the power to create these immaterial things in a test tube?

Or again, when Adam fell – because he was king of the WHOLE NATURAL WORLD – including , EVE, animals, plants, etc. The WHOLE WORLD was condemned to futility through Adam (not eve who was genetically distinct) – yet rabbits, dogs, cats, and eveything else were not created from Adam’s genitals, how then did they fall?

A man and woman are MALE and FEMALE in their spiritual souls, and they marry to form a spiritual unity. This isn’t just whether or not one has a certain body part, but a reality of the SPIRITUAL soul which informs the body. The DNA and other aspects are not the entire cause of being masculine or feminine. And where does one get the power to be truly male or female, expept by something they obtain from their parents (whether womb or hand, I care not).

Also,
The earlier mentioned idea of twins is contorted – one can’t effectively argue that either of the cells after the split is the original cell that was there before – where once was one, now is two. It is reasoable to assume that one cell created one other cell – but it is also reasonable to assume that one cell really died, and two completely new ones came into existance. Either position is a fair hypothesis.

SCNT, the same method that was used to clone Dolly, does not produce a “child” of the parent sheep in the normal way. The defects are well known, and horrendus. The result is a sheep.

I do not see that it is impossible for God to place a human soul in a cow hybrid should the human DNA truly be that which drives the formation of the human, any less than I believe there to be a soul in an in-vitro conceived child.
The are rational beings whom we have met, and rational requires a soul.

Those who commit the act, though, are responsible for the suffering they inflict on any such child.

Also, in the case of the chimera mentioned – the mitocondrial apparatus, and the shell of the original oocyte are not human, and likely not implantable. How many will die inside a human mother’s womb, or a cows, before people realize what an abomination this is? Stem cells do not become humans once they are begun to be grown on mouse tissue as a pseudo-womb. They become infected with mice viruses and die…

Dolly was one success after “HUNDREDS” of failures, and even she had severe problems and died early – she was literally born old. We are nowhere close to a human being in a Cow cell yet – and the horrors are yet to come…

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s so hard to have an intelligent conversation when people say “it’s wrong because the church says so.” While this may be true, it’s just a cop out to answering the real question.

Which is why I try to use non-religious reasons. For example, even an athiest will agree that murder is wrong. Then I point out that murder is the killing of an unoffending living human being – and the unborn child is just that:

Living – if it weren’t we wouldn’t be discussing it.

Human – it has human DNA.

A being – it has it’s own DNA, not it’s mothers.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I was just looking at the documentation available online for the issue, and there are a few points I would like to add which may or not be useful to others in discussing the topic.

To start with, here is a page showing a normal cattle development embryo:
vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/reprod/fert/cleavage.html

Notice especially the picture described as the 8 cell sage, and the one following it with 20-30 cells.




compare these two photos against the one shown for the hybrid:



During this time, there isn’t growth of the cells, just divisions – the size of the original oocyte is not changing much because there is nothing to feed on for it to grow. So all that is happening during the first 8 cell formations or so is that the cell walls are being re-organized into smaller compartments and the DNA is being copied. The difference in cells has not yet occured.

Notice that in the compaction stage which is where cells stop being autonomous, and begin being relational creatures – the shape of the oocyte becomes deformed from a sphere to a mulberry shaped one. This is/is very near the point where the cells begin to decide which ones WILL become the body of the child/cow vs. which ones will become the placenta – which gets cut off after birth. Up to this point, any cell could become anything – after that point, the decision is fixed.

Those who would defend Thomas’ vegetative state might argue that before the blastocyst is formed, all the cells could be placental cells …

In the picture from the BBC this process does not appear to have begun.
In fact, the article that brags the most about the issue says that the most successful cell progressed only to the 32 cell stage – which could in fact be the start of a blastocyst. Too close for comfort – because once the cells form the body inside the blastocyst vs. outside, that which is going to be the body – vs. the umbilical cord and placenta are determined – and to me, some type of animal/human was formed rather than just a tissue sample.

This brings up the question of what is “ensoulment” of an animal vs. a rational soul, vs. what is cutting of the placenta (an animal part or a human part). etc. These are questions that I don’t think St. Thomas answers effectively.

The mechanism by which cells decide which one becomes what has to do with the relationship between the amount of chemicals available – and therefore the size of the original oocyte – and may be very affected by that so called 1% cow material still available…

But I do find it interesting that the BBC picture does not appear to show the champion oocyte which reached the compaction stage – yet someone out there certainly would like us to think it already happened.

Just after the blastocyst is formed – the part which forms the placenta begins to separate so that it can attach to a food source and for the first time, the creature will actually begin to grow and the coordination between random cells and bodily organs will occur.

Rather than focus too much on my opinion, I would like to ask what others think of those cells which become part of the placenta and are cut off – what is the difference in dignity between the cells at this stage. It is something I have never thought of until now.