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

[mlchance]

This issue isn’t complicated. Embryonic stem cell research, in contrast with all other types of stem cell research, is human experimentation that kills the test subject. Under no circumstances can such research be moral.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Rosalinda]

PRmerger, The burden of proof still remains with you to prove your assertion that the Church is “talking out of both sides of her mouth” on the issue of ESCR.

There is no need to be confused or to confuse the issue. Neither is there a need for the Roman Pontiff to make an ex cathedra proclamation condemning the creation and destruction of embryonic human beings. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Church is ever going to reverse policy and approve ESC research anymore than she would approve of abortion, eugenics or euthanasia.

Lumen Gentium is an ecumenical document and therefore part of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church in action. It said that authentic teaching in addition to infallible teaching is still authoritative and must be accepted by Catholics. Now that should qualify as a definitive and solemn enough teaching even for PRmerger.

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.

The three pillars of the Church: Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium all defend human life from the beginning. Wonder no more.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, The burden of proof still remains with you to prove your assertion that the Church is “talking out of both sides of her mouth” on the issue of ESCR.

I’m sorry that I have not made myself clear on this issue. I don’t believe the Church is “talking out of both sides of her mouth” on the issue of stem cell research. In fact, I stated that the Church has been very clear about its opposition to ESC research (see my original post).

My point: there have been numerous examples in Church history of “teachings” which, though never formally and solemnly proclaimed, were part of Catholic culture.

What does this have to do with ESC research? Well, proponents of ESC research that are familiar with Church history may be able to point to our Church’s teachings of long ago and compare them to today’s teaching on ESC research. They may claim: perhaps the Church will change her mind, as she did so many times previously.

It is quite true that Church teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is quite authoritative. That is enough for me. I believe it. I try to live it.

I simply pray that it will be enough to convince all Catholic proponents of ESC research.

 

[bones_IV]

I’m sorry that I have not made myself clear on this issue. I don’t believe the Church is “talking out of both sides of her mouth” on the issue of stem cell research.

But you stated earlier

PRmerger:

Regarding infallibility of Church teaching, I must respectfully state that I think the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth.

.

You totally contradict yourself.

 

[PRmerger]

But you stated earlier
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger
Regarding infallibility of Church teaching, I must respectfully state that I think the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth.

You totally contradict yourself.

I don’t believe the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth on the issue of ESC research. She has proclaimed her views quite clearly.

I do believe the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth when it comes to proclaiming particular teachings (NOT ESC RESEARCH!!–see the examples I cited earlier). Initially, it’s taught, later it’s denied, and the excuse is given, “well, that was never infallibly defined by the Magisterium”.

 

[Rosalinda]

PR

I’m sorry that I have not made myself clear on this issue. I don’t believe the Church is “talking out of both sides of her mouth” on the issue of stem cell research. In fact, I stated that the Church has been very clear about its opposition to ESC research (see my original post).

Apologies accepted. In point of fact, your original post did not state ESCR.

regarding Church “teaching” on stem cell research–it seems quite clear what the Church is proclaiming,

Nor did you clarify your position when I directly requested on Sept. 15 that you state the type of stem cell research you are referring to. Rather choosing to use a rhetorical device favoured by advocates for ESCR who mislead the public into thinking opponents of ESCR are against ASCR (adult stem cell research) too.

Yes, you finally did state

I am against embryonic stem cell research…

yet maintained the Church needed to proclaim its teaching infallibly.

Thank you for clarifying your position on both counts. As for your other issues, you would do well to post your grievances in the apologetics forum avoiding such inflammatory language as accusing the Chuch of talking out of both sides of her mouth. You might just be accused of being a rabid anti-Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

Rosalinda,

I think my issue has been discussed fully in this thread, (and I do intend to pursue this in the Apolgetics forum) but would like to add one clarification:

You claimed that I did not specify that I was discussing only ESCR, not all forms of stem cell research.
*In point of fact, your original post did not state ESCR.

Quote:
regarding Church “teaching” on stem cell research–it seems quite clear what the Church is proclaiming, *

That’s quite true. I believe that Church teaching on stem cell research is quite clear–it is permitted in all its forms (there are at least 9 different lines of research??) except embryonic.

You asked what forms of stem cell research I was referring to, and I responded “all forms”, and I meant all forms. I wanted to address whether Church teaching on (all) stem cell research was indeed authoritative.

 

[Rosalinda]

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.

To the contrary PR the misunderstanding is yours. The Pope has reiterated his position on this issue many times including at the U.N. The new catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 2274 leaves no room for misunderstanding. The C.C.C. belongs to the Ordinary teaching as already referenced in the above post on Lumen Gentium 25.

More questions?
Summary of Categories of Belief in Professio fidei

… "Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the** ordinary and universal Magisterium**, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church

ewtn.com/library/Theology/SUMMARY.HTM

 

[Rosalinda]

PRmerger claimed:

In point of fact, your original post did not state ESCR.

Maybe I am having difficulty understanding your “one point of clarification” but if you would kindly scroll up to post #4, Sept.12, you will see the original article I posted from Crisis Magazine, "How to Talk to Democrats About Embryonic Stem Cell Research".

Thankfully you have since learned to use the wrap quote tags. (I still haven’t figured out all the features )

 

[Rosalinda]

PRmerger originally posed this question:[sign] 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**.[/sign]

Although PRmerger personally opposes hESC research the concern remains the Church may retreat from this position at some future time making excuses it was never a formal teaching in the first place.

Bishop Sgreccia, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life made a DECLARATION ON THE PRODUCTION AND THE SCIENTIFIC AND THERAPEUTIC USE OF HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. In the Ethical Problems section he asks: "Is it morally licit to produce and/or use living human embryos for the preparation of EScells? He listed 5 reasons why it is not. #3 uses the strongest possible language one can expect from the Vatican.

Therefore, the ablation of the inner cell mass (ICM) of the blastocyst, which critically and irremediably damages the human embryo, curtailing its development, is a gravely immoral act and consequently is gravely illicit.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/00-08-25stemcells.htm

 

[Rosalinda]

From post #11, Sept.15, PR queried:

[sign]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?[/sign]

No, it is not OK.
In objection #5 of the aforementioned document from Bishop Sgreccia.

For Catholics, this position is explicitly confirmed by the Magisterium

of the Church which, in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, [Gospel of Life] with reference to the Instruction Donum Vitae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, affirms: A The Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity in body and spirit: >The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life’".
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/00-08-25stemcells.htm

 

[Rosalinda]

PRmerger proclaimed in post #23, Sept.22 the following:
[sign]My point: there have been numerous examples in Church history of “teachings” which, though never formally and solemnly proclaimed, were part of Catholic culture.

What does this have to do with ESC research? Well, proponents of ESC research that are familiar with Church history may be able to point to our Church’s teachings of long ago and compare them to today’s teaching on ESC research. They may claim: perhaps the Church will change her mind, as she did so many times previously.[/sign]

This should give you the reassurance you need to defend your position confidently as a loyal Catholic. It is the Pope’s speech today to the new German ambassador to the Vatican.

The Catholic Church, promised the Pope, will “never cease” to warn nations of the “ethical problems of embryonic stem cell research.”

lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06092807.html
May the :angel1: angels watch over and protect his every step.

 

[Adonis33]

I don’t believe the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth on the issue of ESC research. She has proclaimed her views quite clearly.

** I do believe the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth when it comes to proclaiming particular teachings** (NOT ESC RESEARCH!!–see the examples I cited earlier). Initially, it’s taught, later it’s denied, and the excuse is given, “well, that was never infallibly defined by the Magisterium”.

You need to provide a teaching of the Magisterium that contrisicts itself - not writings of specific Saints.

 

[PRmerger]

Rosalinda:

Although PRmerger personally opposes hESC research the concern remains the Church may retreat from this position at some future time making excuses it was never a formal teaching in the first place.

Yes!! You have articulated my quandary more eloquently than I ever did.

And thank you for your instructive comments. I am certain the next time a discussion on Church teaching arises at a family function, I will be much better equipped to defend my Church.

 

[Scottgun]

It is unfortunate that infallibility has become the argument that we base our obedience to the Church. It happens to be true, but it is a gift to the Church, not a strict necessity. While infallibility has basis in Scripture, we see Christ mainly establishing the Church’s *authority. *And authority should be enough for the faithful. Playing “infallibility gotcha” will only lead to heartbreak and bitterness.

 

[PRmerger]

It is unfortunate that infallibility has become the argument that we base our obedience to the Church. It happens to be true, but it is a gift to the Church, not a strict necessity. While infallibility has basis in Scripture, we see Christ mainly establishing the Church’s *authority. *And authority should be enough for the faithful. Playing “infallibility gotcha” will only lead to heartbreak and bitterness.

Yes, but you do see that the Church has also used it as a “crutch”. When a teaching that has been proven unfounded, the claim is then made, “well that was never taught infallibly”.

 

[Scottgun]

Yes, but you do see that the Church has also used it as a “crutch”. When a teaching that has been proven unfounded, the claim is then made, “well that was never taught infallibly”.

I’ve seen apologists use it as a crutch certainly. You may like this article:
Stop It! Apologetic Bad Habits and Their Remedies

 

[Rosalinda]

PRmerger, My thanks to you for challenging me to give a reason for my faith. Hopefully, this discussion will armour me to meet objections from my own family too.

 

[Rosalinda]

Back to Bones question on Sept. 12.

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

Just happened on this at The National Right to Life website concerning misconceptions and realities about human cloning.

MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch and Feinstein bills (S. 876, S. 1520) contain a “restriction” or “safeguard” that allows research only on “unfertilized” human eggs.
REALITY: This is just another word trick aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos produced by cloning will be “unfertilized,” because that is what cloning is: asexual reproduction – no sperm. Every cloned mammal in the world has been “unfertilized” from the one-celled embryo stage, and every one still will be “unfertilized” on the day he or she dies. If a human embryo created by cloning instead of fertilization is implanted in a womb, is born, and lives to be 50, she will still be “unfertilized.”

nrlc.org/killing_embryos/CloningMisconceptions.html#Past_Developments_in_Congress

 

[Rosalinda]

An editor made a rather snide remark about Bishop Sgreccia’s observation that a “totipotent cell” had the capability to become a new human person. I didn’t understand exactly the importance of that comment but Dianne Irving certainly did. In this article, entitled, Framing the Debates on Human Cloning and Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Pluripotent vs. TOTIPOTENT she explains it in detail.

The term "totipotent" does not *only *mean that a cell can produce “all the cells, tissues and organs of the later adult human being” (as with the single-cell human organism or zygote immediately produced sexually or asexually). It ***also means ***that if one (or more) of these cells separate from or break off of the whole developing organism it could possibly have its DNA “reprogrammed” (demethylated) back to that of a single-cell zygote, resulting in a new living individual human organism.

lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_100debatecloning1.html

Once more, :tiphat: to the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life. They have done their homework on the science of human embryology.