Vatican: ‘breakthrough Technique’ In Embryonic Research Does Not Satisfy Moral T

[bones_IV]

Amen! The vatican tells it like it is.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=70566

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Amen! The vatican tells it like it is.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=70566

The problem is that the Culture of Perversion does not care about the truth. They do not lets facts get in the way of the agenda.

PF

 

[bones_IV]

The problem is that the Culture of Perversion does not care about the truth. They do not lets facts get in the way of the agenda.

PF

yes. Their claim is that “embryo’s don’t have free will.” I’m like, huh? I know that’s not right.

 

[Rosalinda]

This article **How to Talk to Democrats About Embryonic Stem Cell Research **by Eric Pavlat at Crisis Magazine gives a good overview and points to many of the facts the press neglects.

…Few people are aware that there were no federal laws or regulations governing medical research until Senator Edward Kennedy cosponsored the National Research Act in 1974, which created the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects. The passage of that bill meant that the conditions described by Shapiro could not recur, and that all persons would be granted protection from being turned into “human guinea pigs,” regardless of their social status.
Times have changed. Once again, medical experimentation is being carried forward on those who are not judged to be “full persons” and are not granted “the same rights and respect that others [enjoy].” This time, though, it’s performed on those whom the legal system won’t even grant a lawyer: the human embryo.
…

crisismagazine.org/

 

[bones_IV]

This article **How to Talk to Democrats About Embryonic Stem Cell Research **by Eric Pavlat at Crisis Magazine gives a good overview and points to many of the facts the press neglects.

crisismagazine.org/

One person told me that deriving stem cells from unfertilized eggs is not stem cell research. How do I answer that?

 

[Rosalinda]

I would ask for further clarification to be sure you are both talking about the same thing. My first question would be how can you derive stem cells from a single female germ cell? Correct me if I’m wrong but are you speaking about an oocyte which is an unfertilized egg cell? What do you hope to obtain?

On the face of it, the question is nonsensical as it seems to suggest the impossible. How can one extract several cells from a single cell? Is your interlocutor talking about an enucleated oocyte which is an egg cell from which the nucleus has been surgically removed? If so, he may be suggesting a cloning technique. On the other hand, he may be suggesting the creation of a biological artifact which has embryonic -like stem cells but which does not require the destruction of human embryos.

Ask more questions.

 

[bones_IV]

I would ask for further clarification to be sure you are both talking about the same thing. My first question would be how can you derive stem cells from a single female germ cell? Correct me if I’m wrong but are you speaking about an oocyte which is an unfertilized egg cell? What do you hope to obtain?

On the face of it, the question is nonsensical as it seems to suggest the impossible. How can one extract several cells from a single cell? Is your interlocutor talking about an enucleated oocyte which is an egg cell from which the nucleus has been surgically removed? If so, he may be suggesting a cloning technique. On the other hand, he may be suggesting the creation of a biological artifact which has embryonic -like stem cells but which does not require the destruction of human embryos.

Ask more questions.

I quoted and pasted what you said in your original post. And sent it to him.

Here’s a quote of the email he sent me:

"Yes Nick,

I saw that, but thanks for pointing that out. And I think we should all make an effort to undertand the science as the Vatican has. I sent an e-mail to EWTN regarding deriving stem cells from unfertilized eggs - which was recently reported as a possibility. Seems to me it would still be illicit even though it is not “embryonic” research. If you are interested, there’s a series of articles in Communio (I think from last year) on the subject of “OAR”.

Take care.

James "

 

[bones_IV]

My understanding is that MSU talked about the possibly taking genetic material from an unfertilized egg and combining it with other cells to produce stem cells. They also talk about the possibility if they’re able to discover the process of stem cell generation to do it without even having to use a human egg. I have problems with this obviously. Does it appear to involve cloning? You bet it does. This would obviously be illicit since it involves egg donation and cloning. The science Michigan State does here makes no sense.

 

[Rosalinda]

Bones_IV, I haven’t seen the article from Michigan State. If you could post the link on a new thread?

Back to our original story about the claims made by Advanced Cell Technology. Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute has written this article: The Hard Cell- Reports of a major breakthrough in the science of stem cells were premature, and wrong which shows us how wary we have to be when reading such “breakthrough” stories. Sometimes that is all they are stories: not facts.
[The Hard Cell | Discovery Institute(name removed by moderator)age](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...am=DI Main Page - Article&callingPage=discoMa(name removed by moderator)age)

http://www.discovery.org/bioethics/graphics/iTitleArrow.gif
[Printer Friendly Version](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...am=DI Main Page - Article&callingPage=discoMa(name removed by moderator)age&printerFriendly=true)

 

[bones_IV]

Bones_IV, I haven’t seen the article from Michigan State. If you could post the link on a new thread?

Back to our original story about the claims made by Advanced Cell Technology. Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute has written this article: The Hard Cell- Reports of a major breakthrough in the science of stem cells were premature, and wrong which shows us how wary we have to be when reading such “breakthrough” stories. Sometimes that is all they are stories: not facts.
[The Hard Cell | Discovery Institute(name removed by moderator)age](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...am=DI Main Page - Article&callingPage=discoMa(name removed by moderator)age)

http://www.discovery.org/bioethics/graphics/iTitleArrow.gif
[Printer Friendly Version](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...am=DI Main Page - Article&callingPage=discoMa(name removed by moderator)age&printerFriendly=true)

If your interested, try reading the Church document Donum Vitae.

Link shown here.

www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHUMAN.HTM

 

[PRmerger]

Regarding infallibility of Church teaching, I must respectfully state that I think the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth. On one side she claims, “this is Church teaching”, yet when history has borne out an error, apologists will maintain, “that was never formally and solemnly proclaimed by the Magisterium” or “that was a disciplinary concern, not dogmatically defined.”

So, regarding Church “teaching” on stem cell research–it seems quite clear what the Church is proclaiming, yet one could also maintain that no formal and solemn proclamation has come forth from the Magisterium on this issue. Is this then ok for Catholics to disagree on this issue?

 

[Rosalinda]

PRmerger, Before I answer your question would you kindly answer mine?

#1. Which stem cell research are you referring to?

#2. On this issue, can you demonstrate how, where, when, and who declared what you declare to be “speaking out of both sides of her mouth”?

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, Before I answer your question would you kindly answer mine?

#1. Which stem cell research are you referring to?

All forms of stem cell research.

#2. On this issue, can you demonstrate how, where, when, and who declared what you declare to be “speaking out of both sides of her mouth”?

For example, in the 1960’s, interracial marriage was frowned upon. The excuse is given that there was never any solemn, formal proclamations from the Magisterium that this was actually forbidden, yet it was rather hard to find a priest who would marry an interracial couple in the U.S. in the '60’s.

Another example: St. Thomas Aquinas advocated banishing a woman for adultery. I answer that, Our Lord permitted a man to put away his wife on account of fornication, in punishment of the unfaithful party and in favor of the faithful party, so that the latter is not bound to marital intercourse with the unfaithful one."
newadvent.org/summa/506201.htm

Yes, I know that this also was never a formal teaching professed by the Magisterium.

Regarding attitudes in the Church towards mental illness: Mental . . . illnesses were attributed as much to overwork, overeating, and overindulgence in sexual activity as to climactic conditions, magic spells, and demonic possession" (1973, p. 281). However, such illnesses were still viewed as products of sin; counsel provided by priests, repentance, and even exorcism were considered the most efficacious remedies. Penitential literature, voluminously produced during this period, played a large role in mental healing. These works discussed a wide variety of indiscretions and prescribed specific acts of penance.
socwel.ku.edu/candagrant/Papers/Catholic.htm

Again, I know that this also was never a formal teaching professed by the Magisterium.

My point: there has not been any solemn, formal proclamation from the Magisterium regarding stem cell research. Thus, are we free to disagree with Bishop’s statements/informal teaching on this issue?

 

[Rosalinda]

PRmerger, The issue on this thread is the experimentation and destruction of 16 embryonic human beings and the deliberate obfuscation and falsification of the facts to the public. Your authority issues with the Church should be addressed in the apologetics forum.

Is a Catholic “free” to think ESC research constitutes a good, rather than an objective, intrinsic, moral evil? The Catechism of the Catholic Church is instructive on the formation of an informed conscience:

"1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel, (Pope John Paul II wrote extensively on this passage of scripture in his encyclical The Gift of Life.)

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers."

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6D.HTM

No wiggle room for sophistry.:nope:

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, Your authority issues with the Church should be addressed in the apologetics forum.

Agreed. I just thought you said you’d answer my questions if I answered yours.

Is a Catholic “free” to think ESC research constitutes a good, rather than an objective, intrinsic, moral evil? The Catechism of the Catholic Church is instructive on the formation of an informed conscience:

Certainly. I just wonder what Catholics, years from now, will think when shown current Bishops’ statements which decry embryonic stem cell research. Will future apologists be claiming, “Well, there really was never any formal document which made ESC research forbidden.”??

 

[Rosalinda]

“Honesty suggests that if one specific course of research has already demonstrated conditions for success and raises no ethical questions, it should be pursued before embarking on another that has shown little prospect of success and raises ethical concerns.
Resources in biological investigations are limited. “Therapeutic cloning” is an unproven theory that may well turn out to be a dramatic waste of time and money.
Good sense and the need for goal-oriented, serious basic research therefore calls on the world’s biomedical community to allocate the necessary funding to research using “adult” stem cells.” Position Paper of the Holy See: The U.N. general assembly debate, 2004.

PRmerger wonders

what Catholics, years from now, will think when shown current Bishops’ statements which decry embryonic stem cell research…

It is the Holy See which opposes ESC research. Following the horrors of unscrupulous Nazi doctors preceding and during WWII the international community condemned human experimentation. Remember The Nuremburg Treaty Prmerger?

The Catholic Church wisely warns the faithful of the inherent totalitarian risks of nanotechnology which ignores sound reason and the natural law in the pursuit of fame and fortune.

 

[PRmerger]

It is the Holy See which opposes ESC research.

Let me preface any further discussion with this point: I am against embryonic stem cell research and am a devout Catholic loyal to Magisterial authority.

I simply wonder how authoritative is the Church’s opposition to ESC research? I have not seen one document which solemnly and infallibly proclaims: ESC is gravely immoral. In fact, the Church very carefully safeguards any misunderstanding about magisterial infallibility by asserting that only what is solemnly defined is considered to be infallible teaching.

There have been numerous examples in Church history (see above) of “teachings” which, though never formally and solemnly proclaimed, were part of Catholic culture.

 

[Orogeny]

Hello, PR.

First off, I don’t believe that the Church has opposed all stem cell research, only that based on an line of stem cells derived from embryos. Research on adult stem cells is not opposed as far as I know.

Regarding the examples you gave of things taught by the Magesterium that are now considered wrong. If the Church (not a saint or a part of the Church but the universal Church) has not held something as infallible, there is room for correction at a later date if additional information becomes available that shows the Church’s position to be incorrect.

I don’t expect that the Church’s teaching on the value of human life will change. Since an embryo is a human being, I doubt that the Church will ever approve of it’s destruction for scientific research or treatment.

Peace

Tim

 

[Rosalinda]

Regarding the infallibility of Church teaching which has been called into question. The new Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 892 states the following:

“Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”

The footnote is from Lumen Gentium 25 a Vatican II document. Examing the context we read:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents,** from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine,** or from his manner of speaking.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2church.htm

The Church has taught, always, everywhere and to everyone, that “human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God”. Divine Revelation admonishes, “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” Gen.9

Not even the Pope himself has the power to rescind God’s commandment.

 

[PRmerger]

Regarding the infallibility of Church teaching which has been called into question. The new Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 892 states the following:

“Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”

Hmmm…this does seem to contrast a bit with what a Catholic Answers tract on Papl Infallibility([catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp]](http://catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp]) has to say. This tract makes it quite clear that infallibility is enjoyed only when **solemnly and definitively **proclaimed by the magisterium.

This explains my quandary. On one hand the Church is saying “even when we don’t expressly proclaim infallibility, the faithful must assent” and also says, “well, we did say ________ at one time (see above examples), but now we say __________, and it’s ok because when we did say ________, it wasn’t solemnly and formally proclaimed.”