Hybrid Clones Created in England - What about Original Sin?

[SeekingCatholic]

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?

 

[Camron]

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.

I would go with this first part here. Others may disagree with me, but I don’t think that Hybrid clones have a human “immortal” soul. Animals have souls like humans but not “immortal” souls. People’s souls are breathed by God and not produced by the biological union of there two parents. Sex, in this sense, is an invocation to God and an act of praising our Creator.

Here’s some De Fide Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on “The Divine Act of Creation” and “The Divine Work of Creation” :

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)

The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)

The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)

God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)

God has created a good world. (De Fide)

The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)

God alone created the world. (De Fide)

God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)

God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

The first man was created by God. (De Fide)

Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)

Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)

Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)

The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)

Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)

Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)

Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

Thoughts?

I think that even if there is no human soul, the Church still nonetheless recognizes that this is a defilement of God’s original plan to create humanity, actively using the essence of a human to create something which isn’t actually human.

Indeed, if man was created in the image of God, and Jesus Himself is true God and true man, then these hybrid clones would be seen as a direct affront on the whole purpose of the loving wisdom (including the reproductive order) in which God freely and willingly created the universe, the Incarnation of Christ.

In other words, I think it’s still an “affront to human dignity,” but not in the direction you seem to be observing it.

Good question by the way.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

I would go with this first part here. Others may disagree with me, but I don’t think that Hybrid clones have a human “immortal” soul. Animals have souls like humans but not “immortal” souls.

…

I think that even if there is no human soul, the Church still nonetheless recognizes that this is a defilement of God’s original plan to create humanity, actively using the essence of a human to create something which isn’t actually human.

A discarded skin cell is hardly the “essence” of a human. After you clip your fingernails or cut your hair, the clippings aren’t “human” in any sense. You can certainly use these to create whatever you wish.

Indeed, if man was created in the image of God, and Jesus Himself is true God and true man, then these hybrid clones would be seen as a direct affront on the whole purpose of the loving wisdom (including the reproductive order) in which God freely and willingly created the universe, the Incarnation of Christ.

To be honest, this sounds simply like Luddism to me. Technology is bad because it interferes with the “natural order” of things created by God.

In other words, I think it’s still an “affront to human dignity,” but not in the direction you seem to be observing it.

Good question by the way.

Well, if these hybrid clones aren’t really human, if they can provide a source of embryonic stem cells, and these stem cells can be used to cure disease, then I would argue it would be immoral not to cure disease when we have the technology to do so.

 

[Camron]

A discarded skin cell is hardly the “essence” of a human. After you clip your fingernails or cut your hair, the clippings aren’t “human” in any sense. You can certainly use these to create whatever you wish.

Catholic bioethics priest `cuts through spin’ on stem-cell debate

To be honest, this sounds simply like Luddism to me. Technology is bad because it interferes with the “natural order” of things created by God.

Actually, many things taught by the Catholic Church sound like Luddism to people today. Some technologies are indeed used for bad purposes precisely because it interferes with the “natural order” of things created by God-- it leads to death.

Well, if these hybrid clones aren’t really human, if they can provide a source of embryonic stem cells, and these stem cells can be used to cure disease, then I would argue it would be immoral not to cure disease when we have the technology to do so.

If you have created something which has the potential to become human life and you then deliberately stop this process from happening, then the “image of God” has been slain in the process.

I’m not sure what else can be said. If you do not agree with Catholic teachings then I suppose you can draw whatever conclusions you’d like to draw.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Catholic bioethics priest `cuts through spin’ on stem-cell debate

This doesn’t support your position at all.

“It is incorrect to say that the Roman Catholic Church is against stem-cell research,” he said to begin his talk. "It is only correct to say the Roman Catholic Church is against embryonic stem-cell research. The ethical concerns differ with the source of the stem cells, because you do have to destroy an early and vulnerable human to get embryonic cells."

But if the hybrid clone isn’t human, you are not destroying an early and vulnerable human to get embryonic cell. In fact it would be incorrect to refer to the stem cells obtained as “human embryonic stem cells”. They are, technically speaking, animal embryonic stem cells, for if the clone isn’t human, it is an animal.

Actually, many things taught by the Catholic Church sound like Luddism to people today. Some technologies are indeed used for bad purposes precisely because it interferes with the “natural order” of things created by God-- it leads to death.

But if a hybrid clone isn’t human, using it for stem cells can’t possibly lead to human death (assuming of course the stem cells are used correctly in subsequent medical treatments).

If you have created something which has the potential to become human life and you then deliberately stop this process from happening, then the “image of God” has been slain in the process.

But if a hybrid clone isn’t human, it also doesn’t have the potential of becoming human. I’m surprised you’re using the terminology “potential human life”. That’s exactly what pro-abortionists term fetuses as.

I’m not sure what else can be said. If you do not agree with Catholic teachings then I suppose you can draw whatever conclusions you’d like to draw.

Well I am sorry but I can demand that Catholic teachings be logical and consistent. If Catholic teachings are illogical and/or talking out of both sides of the mouth I am going to disagree. Either hybrid clones are human, or they aren’t. If they aren’t then the proper ethical guidelines are those which apply to animal research. If they are then there’s a problem with the traditional formulation of the original sin doctrine.

 

[heisenburg]

The “DNA” was still created by Natural means when its donor was birthed, ergo, it is still subject to natural human origins, it is still subject to original sin…

All that occurred was an unnatural way of GROWING the natural entity…

Like twins… it may be identical genetically, but it will have it’s own soul…

Again, it is merely the method of GROWTH that is unnatural, not the process for creating the human DNA…

In other words… no issues with church teachings are created

In Christ

 

[SeekingCatholic]

The “DNA” was still created by Natural means when its donor was birthed, ergo, it is still subject to natural human origins, it is still subject to original sin…

All that occurred was an unnatural way of GROWING the natural entity…

Like twins… it may be identical genetically, but it will have it’s own soul…

Again, it is merely the method of GROWTH that is unnatural, not the process for creating the human DNA.

You cannot identify the human with the DNA. There was no “natural entity” to grow, in other words. A skin cell, or the DNA in a skin cell, is not a human ontologically. Moreover, the DNA took its origin from mitosis, not meiosis.

While the DNA in the somatic cell may have been created through natural processes, the zygote was not. The zygote (or embryo) did not take its origin from natural generation (meiosis of gametes and fertilization). And the question is the origin of the zygote, not the DNA in the somatic cell.

In other words… no issues with church teachings are created

In Christ

Yes, there are. The Church teaches that original sin is transmitted to each individual human through the act of natural generation by its parents. The Church teaches that are no true men on the earth that did not take their origin through natural generation from Adam.

And, when Craig Venter’s group synthesizes an entire human genome in the lab, what will you say then, I wonder?

 

[heisenburg]

And what makes a human a human…

It’s DNA…

So, if the DNA in the Nucleus is clearly human, that is its set of instructions…

All animal cells are effectively the same… the only real difference comes in two places…

Nucleus DNA,
Mitocondria…

The Mitocondria is more responsible for how the cell process proteins and sugars. In other words, its like the plant manager…

But the plant remains effectivly the same for all animal cells…

How the plant runs may vary slightly, but overall, it will behave the same

The DNA inside the nucleus is responsible for over all characteristics like hair color, shape, size, propensities…

If you ran a genetic test on this magic hybrid it would come out Human since the DNA in the nucleus is Human…

Now… how was that DNA created?

By natural means of copulation back when the DONAR was conceived…

It is DNA that makes the nonspiritual part of a human a human…

so, if the DNA is human, the body will be human with some side effects of their being a different animals mitocondria

so, yes, the DNA was created by normal means…

It is DNA that drives everything else…

so, it is simply the GROWTH of the animal that is unnatural… not the animal itself

In Christ

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Church teaches that original sin is transmitted to each individual human through the act of natural generation by its parents.

The Church teaches that are no true men on the earth that did not take their origin through natural generation from Adam.

Are you basing these statements on Humani Generis alone? Here’s the part of Humani Generis I assume you are referring to:

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

I don’t agree that this statement, on its own, means that the Church teaches that there can never be any men on earth who will not take their origin through natural generation. It is talking about the distant past, not the future where unnatural methods could be used.

I also don’t see anything that says that original sin has to be passed on naturally. Where does that come from?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Speculation, Speculation, Speculation…all of it…

We will not know for sure until they let one be grown completely and birthed…

 

[JoeyWarren]

The Church teaches that original sin is transmitted to each individual human through the act of natural generation by its parents.

In-vitro is not a natural process, so embryo that is created does not receive the taint of original sin?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Speculation, Speculation, Speculation…all of it…

We will not know for sure until they let one be grown completely and birthed…

I understand that these hybrids are between humans and cows. So if one came to term and was born and had all the physical attributes of a cow, would that make a difference? Wouldn’t it still be possible that it would have a human soul?

 

[JoeyWarren]

I understand that these hybrids are between humans and cows. So if one came to term and was born and had all the physical attributes of a cow, would that make a difference? Wouldn’t it still be possible that it would have a human soul?

I really don’t know. I personally can’t wait For P.B.XVII to make a statement about this…

 

[SeekingCatholic]

And what makes a human a human…

It’s DNA…

The Catholic Church does most certainly not teach that what makes a human a human is the DNA. So a human skin cell is a human, then, because it contains human DNA?

The Catholic Church does teach that what makes a human a human is a human soul, and what makes a human body a human body is its union with the soul, and its fitness for reception of a soul (considering the body as distinct from the soul).

Now… how was that DNA created?

By natural means of copulation back when the DONAR was conceived…

Hardly. The specific DNA strands in the cell were created by mitosis. You’re confusing the specific DNA strands with the individual DNA code shared by all cells in the body.

It is DNA that makes the nonspiritual part of a human a human…

No, it is the fitness for reception of a soul. A human skin cell is not fit to receive a soul. Just a like a sperm or egg cell is not. A fertilized egg is. You get from sperm/egg to zygote via fertilization, which is “natural generation”. This is how a human body is formed, fit to receive a soul. Except now the hybrid clone is rendered fit for reception of a soul by an entirely new process, which is not natural generation; it is not fertilization.

so, if the DNA is human, the body will be human with some side effects of their being a different animals mitocondria

so, yes, the DNA was created by normal means…

It is DNA that drives everything else…

so, it is simply the GROWTH of the animal that is unnatural… not the animal itself

In Christ

If the body (the hybrid clone) is human, then that body has been created by a different process than natural generation. It is a huge category error, based on Church teaching, to conflate “human body” with “DNA”.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

In-vitro is not a natural process, so embryo that is created does not receive the taint of original sin?

The fertilization still occurs naturally, as did the formation of the gametes (meiosis).

 

[SeekingCatholic]

I understand that these hybrids are between humans and cows. So if one came to term and was born and had all the physical attributes of a cow, would that make a difference? Wouldn’t it still be possible that it would have a human soul?

It won’t have the physical attributes of a cow. The physical attributes are determined by the nuclear DNA, which is human.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Are you basing these statements on Humani Generis alone? Here’s the part of Humani Generis I assume you are referring to:

You didn’t quote the entire paragraph. The rest of it will help:

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

I don’t agree that this statement, on its own, means that the Church teaches that there can never be any men on earth who will not take their origin through natural generation. It is talking about the distant past, not the future where unnatural methods could be used.

Technically, you are correct. The document only refers to the past. However, if you read the rest of it, the opinion that there existed men in the past who did not take their origin from natural generation is condemned because “it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin”

Now if this opinion (of true men existing through another means in the past) can not be reconciled (or at least, it is in “no way apparent” how it can be reconciled) then the fact of true men existing today that derived their origin through another means presents the very same problem. Some one better find a way as to how such reconciliation can be made.

I also don’t see anything that says that original sin has to be passed on naturally. Where does that come from?

That’s exactly where Church teaching IMHO will need to be revised. Hybrid clones have forced the issue. Original sin therefore does not need to come about through natural generation, but can be seen as the sharing in a flawed human nature, which therefore obviates the need for monogenesis to preserve the doctrine. If after Adam there had existed true men (but not his descendants) how could they have had original sin, Pius XII’s argument goes. Now this argument is rendered moot.

 

[heisenburg]

Seeking… it seems you are reading into what I am saying. niot what I am saying…

You are dead set on your opinion… you do not seem to want to hear what I am saying for what ever reason…

I understand how DNA works… Nuclear DNA determines species…

If they replace its Nuclear DNA… it is still a human…

The PHYSICAL nature was create by normal means… just its growth is abnormal…

You do realize that twins are nothing more than NATURAL clones… It is just a far more effective way to clone a human than anything we can do. One entity was formed… then it split to create two… identical… one clone of the other. would you argue that only one twin has a soul? No, so why would you say that only one branch of identical DNA has a soul…

nothing abnormal in the physical creation occurred… only how that physical creation was fostered…

the hybrid would still be fully human in the Church sense with all its advantages and disadvantages…

In Christ

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You didn’t quote the entire paragraph. The rest of it will help:

…]

That’s exactly where Church teaching IMHO will need to be revised. Hybrid clones have forced the issue. Original sin therefore does not need to come about through natural generation, but can be seen as the sharing in a flawed human nature, which therefore obviates the need for monogenesis to preserve the doctrine. If after Adam there had existed true men (but not his descendants) how could they have had original sin, Pius XII’s argument goes. Now this argument is rendered moot.

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’

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Seeking… it seems you are reading into what I am saying. niot what I am saying…

You are dead set on your opinion… you do not seem to want to hear what I am saying for what ever reason…

I understand how DNA works… Nuclear DNA determines species…

If they replace its Nuclear DNA… it is still a human…

The PHYSICAL nature was create by normal means… just its growth is abnormal…

And you’re not hearing what I’m saying. The physical nature of the human was not created by normal means, certainly not by “natural generation”. Physical nature of humans != physical nature of DNA.

You do realize that twins are nothing more than NATURAL clones… It is just a far more effective way to clone a human than anything we can do. One entity was formed… then it split to create two… identical… one clone of the other. would you argue that only one twin has a soul? No, so why would you say that only one branch of identical DNA has a soul…

Identical twins also pose a similar problem but one could argue the splitting is an extended part of the natural generative process, that the zygote has one life in actuality, and possibly more lives in potentiality, which are actualized by the splitting. Admittedly this seems a philosophical “hack” to get around the problem.