I would lean towards the idea that God would give these persons souls, because He gives souls to other persons conceived in sinful acts, unless you postulate that every illegitimate child has had no soul.
Yes, and Satan inspires people to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage, too.
Ahhh, that is not my understanding. Angels, being spiritual only, would be unable to have sexual relations, and
Haydock does not mention this sort of things, altho he quotes Early Church Fathers throughout his work.
However, I totally agree with you that we should have a very strict law against cloning, and against human genetic engineering intended to produce new people.
ETA: I forgot to include that I thought that we need to err on the side of caution when it comes to the idea of treating some genetically human individuals differently on the chance that God might not be giving them souls. Maybe God won’t give them souls–but we don’t know and cannot know in this world if that is the case, so they need to be considered and treated as if they do have souls.
I may have used hyperbole by equating the genetic cloning with the creation of giants. There were only a few early church fathers who literally thought the giants were the creation from fallen angels, eventhough the epistle of Jude seems to indicate the same.
When we are discussing the genetic manipulation of human DNA for the purpose of cloning or changing/adding to the DNA of humans we are speaking of at least two levels of difference between that and conception and ensoulment from a victim of rape.
The first level is conception itself. Not every evil rape results in conception, and this could either be the result of biological impossibility, or the divine intervention of God.to prevent conception.
The second level of distinction is that the fertilizations that take place in the science labs through the manipulation of human DNA have either been cloned, or modified. Such DNA has either been changed, or has been copied, and is not an original DNA creation of God that is the result of natural fertilization. The DNA that is artificially conceived could be taken from the human skin, from deceased bodies, or wherever human DNA can be retrieved.
We then have to ask ourselves whether science is tempting God when it is fertilizing something artificially in the labs of science that is a copy of human DNA and not an original creation, or else a distortion of the human DNA which God has created.
“Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God”. Is science tempting God to ensoul that which appears to be of human origin, but is not original, and is artificially produced without God’s participation?
Lastly, I think the Catholic Church has missed the boat on this whole issue of cloning and genetic engineering of human DNA. Instead of trying to prove that we should not abort the results of such engineering because the result **might be **a human person that
may be ensouled by God, the Catholic Church should be making it clear that the DNA manipulation of the original structure of **all life forms on earth **is an affront against the sacredness and sovereignty of God our Creator.
Unfortunately, there are too many vested interests in this country who have been given free rein in the genetic modification of plants and animals, eventhough in Europe genetically modified food is banned.
I am disappointed in the Catholic Church that she has not been an advocate of honoring the sacredness of the original DNA structure of all life forms that originate from our holy God and Creator. To allow science to become the creator of distortions of God’s original DNA structures or to clone those structures is in my view, a blasphemy against God.
God’s peace
micah
