Would anyone care for frankenstein food?

[springbreeze]

Dear friend

Please refer to this website:

dnu.org/bishop/biochallenge.html

taken from the above:

**In the reflections of Pope John Paul II, however, the body is seen in terms of a first person viewpoint. In this context, understanding one’s human subjectivity includes the utilization of the body in such a way that a “language of the body” can be formulated that has practical consequences for the person’s affective behavior. The Holy Father describes the notion in this way: **“The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a whole — corpore et anima unus — as a person. These definitions not only point out that the body, which has been promised the resurrection, will also share in glory. They also remind us that reason and free will are linked with all the bodily and sense faculties.” 19

and…

**Earlier, Pope John XXIII had taught why the transmission of life must enjoy a special character of its own: **“The transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a personal and conscious act and as such is subject to the all-holy laws of God: immutable and inviolable laws which must be recognized and observed. For this reason one cannot use means and follow methods which could be licit in the transmission of the life of plants and animals.” 28

and this…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

taken from the above :

**60. Above himself and yet in the intimacy of his own conscience, man discovers the existence of a law which the tradition calls the “natural law.” This law is of divine origin, and man’s awareness of it is itself a participation in the divine law. It refers man to the true origins of the universe as well as to his own (Veritatis Splendor, 20). This natural law drives the rational creature to search for the truth and the good in his sovereignty of the universe. Created in the image of God, man exercises this sovereignty over visible creation only in virtue of the privilege conferred upon him by God. He imitates the divine rule, but he cannot displace it. The Bible warns against the sin of this usurpation of the divine role. It is a grave moral failure for human beings to act as rulers of visible creation who separate themselves from the higher, divine law. They act in place of the master as stewards (cf. Mt 25:14 ff) who have the freedom they need to develop the gifts which have been confided to them and to do so with a certain bold inventiveness. **

61. The steward must render an account of his stewardship, and the divine Master will judge his actions. The moral legitimacy and efficacy of the means employed by the steward provide the criteria for this judgment. Neither science nor technology are ends in themselves; what is technically possible is not necessarily also reasonable or ethical. Science and technology must be put in the service of the divine design for the whole of creation and for all creatures. This design gives meaning to the universe and to human enterprise as well. Human stewardship of the created world is precisely a stewardship exercised by way of participation in the divine rule and is always subject to it. Human beings exercise this stewardship by gaining scientific understanding of the universe, by caring responsibly for the natural world (including animals and the environment), and by guarding their own biological integrity.

I cannot find anything further than this presently. I will ask in the Apologists thread and they will be able to educate us further.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[rastell]

Springbreeze:

Let me congratulate you on the eloquence with which you have countered each of the arguments for placing human genes in food. Let me also reiterate a couple of your paragraphs:

**"You and I know it is already possible to feed the whole world with the food that is presently farmed, there just isn’t the political will, so in committing one evil of actually destroying food, we then go on to commit another evil and put human genes into food…two evils do not cure a wrong, they never will.

“If you truly believe that human genes should be present in the food chain that humans consume, that is your right, you can buy into anything you like. But I don’t agree with you and for the most part I believe that most humans would not want to sit down to lunch and eat food that contains ‘humanity’.”**

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

Dear friend

Please refer to this website:

dnu.org/bishop/biochallenge.html

taken from the above:

**. The Holy Father describes the notion in this way: **"The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a whole — corpore et anima unus — as a person. These definitions not only point out that the body, which has been promised the resurrection, will also share in glory. They also remind us that reason and free will are linked with all the bodily and sense faculties." 19

The Holy Father describes the notion in this way: **"The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a whole **

-Exactly! A human is that which is animated by a rational, immortal soul. Corpore ET anima. The ‘Et’ is critical here.

A gene is not human. Seperate from the body (which is human) it is not animated and therefore is not alive. It has no immortal soul, so it is not human.

Once again, I think you fail to grasp the meaning of ‘Human’ to a Catholic. The human is not genes. The human is not defined by genes. It is not defined by a body, it is not defined by a soul. It is defined by the union of body and soul. It is where the 2 connect that there is humaninty and no where else.

Hair isn’t human, the body isn’t human, the soul isn’t human; every gene in your is NOT human. It is the soul animating a body that IS the only thing that is human.

Read the above quote again to your self. See where JPII agrees with me.

I’ve been accused of being cold and clinical on this thread. I find that more in you. You view human as a biological entity only. That genes somehow define what a human is. That isn’t Catholicism, it’s secular humanism.

Even the term ‘human genes’ is an oxymoron. There can be no such thing to a Catholic. A gene is never human. It belongs to us no more than a glass of water we might drink one day, and discard the next. We are creatures of ontology, not biology.

]“The transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a personal and conscious act and as such is subject to the all-holy laws of God: immutable and inviolable laws which must be recognized and observed. For this reason one cannot use means and follow methods which could be licit in the transmission of the life of plants and animals.” 28

Is a gene ‘life’

it cannot be. Does one transmit ‘life’ when one transmits genes. No.

Life is caused by the soul. Aquinas list three types of souls.

The Animative - which give life to plants
The Sensative - which gives life to animals
The Rational\Immortal - which gives life to humans

Thomas Aquinas defines life as that which is animated by a soul.

Is it your premise that a gene is animated by a soul? Such that a the genes in a hair clipping retain animation.

If it is not, then the transmission of a human gene is NOT transmission of human life and this statement does not apply.

What the Pope John Paul II was refering to here was actions like artificial insemination; the use of which is licit for animals, but is illict for humans.

and this…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

taken from the above :

**60. . **

61.and 61

I agree with this wholeheartily Teresa,

To let people go hungry while we have the means to feed them is bad stewardship.

And the Vatican supports science as a tool to do so.

I cannot find anything further than this presently. I will ask in the Apologists thread and they will be able to educate us further.

Agreed

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Et cum Spiritu tuo.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

I must reiterate,I do not care how you paint this picture:nope: If the genes are coming from a human then it is deplorable:nope: I think the scientific community are letting pride and the ability to do things overlook whether you should do them.God Bless

 

[MugenOne]

My family is in the agricultural business. I know some of the secret trade practices that are used to boost production yield. You can’t feed the world of 7 billion people if you don’t genetically modify seeds, plants, feeds or raise farm animals in an scientific and industrial manner. Something has to give when you have so many mouths to feed without so little resources. Greed by big agro-corporations also play a part too. By the way, milk cows need to be pregnant and given birth before milking them. They have to be constantly milked after giving birth.

MugenOne

 

[Brendan]

rastell:

**", we then go on to commit another evil and put human genes into food…two evils do not cure a wrong, they never will.
**

Where has this been defined as ‘evil’?

But I don’t agree with you and for the most part I believe that most humans would not want to sit down to lunch and eat food that contains ‘humanity’."

Like I said before, are you defining genetic material as ‘humanity’?
is that what ‘humanity’ is to you??

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

I cannot find anything further than this presently. I will ask in the Apologists thread and they will be able to educate us further.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

FYI,

I fired this question off one of the Professors of Moral Theology at the Seminary I study at

Dr. Latkovic,

I’m in the Diaconate program at SHMS, and I came upon an interesting moral theology question related to genetic engineering.

Science is placing human genes into other organisms. The two most prevalent are the human gene of insulin production being placed in E.Coli bacteria to mass produce human insulin.

The other case is a gene for a human liver enzyme being placed in rice to provide greater resistance to pesticides.

My question is this: Is the use of human genes in other organisms by itself intrinsically immoral?

Would the apparent good of inexpensive insulin or greater food production be cancelled by inherent immorality in the means?

Many thanks!

Brendan

here is Dr. Latkovic’s Bio
Link Here

I chose him because he is the specialist in Medical\Biotheics at Sacred Heart.

Any objections?

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

A gene is not human. Seperate from the body (which is human) it is not animated and therefore is not alive. It has no immortal soul, so it is not human.

Hair isn’t human, the body isn’t human, the soul isn’t human; every gene in your is NOT human. It is the soul animating a body that IS the only thing that is human.

QUOTE]

Dear friend

I need say no more to you, if you believe what you have written as above to be the truth of Catholic teaching, then you surely have an odd view of what is sacred. If you believe this as above then we should then show no reverance nor hold the dead body as sacred…your statement goes against Catholic teaching. Incase you missed it the late Holy Father talks of the UNITY of the body and soul and all is sacred, the body making a share in the ressurection and NOT to be seperated…how did you manage to translate it as anything other…I wonder…

I may as well do this:banghead: as discuss with you. You eat food with human genes, I won’t do that ever and I can only say that is the most prudent thing to do…You have no answers to any of it, you grasp at straws to justify a wrongful stance…

AND…

Still you have NOT answered me why these genes are not being taken from other sources, yet are being taken from humans…why do you ignore questions I ask you? why do you persistantly do that?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[rastell]

MugenOne:

My family is in the agricultural business. I know some of the secret trade practices that are used to boost production yield. You can’t feed the world of 7 billion people if you don’t genetically modify seeds, plants, feeds or raise farm animals in an scientific and industrial manner. Something has to give when you have so many mouths to feed without so little resources. Greed by big agro-corporations also play a part too. By the way, milk cows need to be pregnant and given birth before milking them. They have to be constantly milked after giving birth.
MugenOne

I have not been opposing “genetically modify seeds, plants, feeds or raise farm animals in an scientific and industrial manner.”, although I certainly think that is debatable too.

I am here only talking about placing HUMAN genes into them.

 

[springbreeze]

I have not been opposing “genetically modify seeds, plants, feeds or raise farm animals in an scientific and industrial manner.”, although I certainly think that is debatable too.

I am here only talking about placing HUMAN genes into them.

Well said

:clapping:

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[rastell]

Brendan said: “I’ve been accused of being cold and clinical on this thread. I find that more in you. You view human as a biological entity only. That genes somehow define what a human is. That isn’t Catholicism, it’s secular humanism.”

No, it’s scientific fact and the Church has no quarrel with what Springbreeze has said on this forum. I am afraid the same cannot be said of you.

---

**By the way, for you to equate human genes with a piece of hair is absurd and you know it. One is the essential component of each cell in the body, the other is a dead piece of tissue. **

---

I am starting to reach the opinion that you are just debating for the sake of debating and wish to prove your superiority by winning a debate, taking a position you know is wrong. I remember a college course I took where students were instructed to do just that.

**

**

 

[Brendan]

Brendan said: “I’ve been accused of being cold and clinical on this thread. I find that more in you. You view human as a biological entity only. That genes somehow define what a human is. That isn’t Catholicism, it’s secular humanism.”

No, it’s scientific fact and the Church has no quarrel with what Springbreeze has said on this forum. I am afraid the same cannot be said of you.

It might be a ‘scientific’ fact, but it is not the Truth of the Church.

Pope John Paul said a human was ""The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a whole — **corpore et anima unus ** "

There is no human without a soul. That is what science, and you forget. Sure ‘science’ defines us as a collection of genes, I don’t.

---

**By the way, for you to equate human genes with a piece of hair is absurd and you know it. One is the essential component of each cell in the body, the other is a dead piece of tissue. **

So a gene is alive?? Is that what you are trying to say?

Yes or No?

And is a gene an ‘essential component of each cell in the body’? How about red blood cells. And even so, is a cell ‘human’. If I do a cheek scraping and colonize the cells in a petri dish, I have human genes there, do I have human life?

When you discard hair, you are discarding genes.

---

I am starting to reach the opinion that you are just debating for the sake of debating and wish to prove your superiority by winning a debate, taking a position you know is wrong. I remember a college course I took where students were instructed to do just that.

No I am debating because the position I see demonstrated here is diametrically opposed to the Church understanding of what ‘human’ and ‘humanity’ is.

You see things strictly biologically, I see ontologically.

I see souls as what defines ‘human’, you see genes. I see ‘corpore et anima unus’, you see ‘sola corpus’; which view is the Catholic one?

as I mentioned above, I’ve ping a moral theologian to get the Church’s take on this. He probablt won’t answer for a week as we are on semester break now

 

[rastell]

Brendan:

It might be a ‘scientific’ fact, but it is not the Truth of the Church.

**What the heck does that mean? **

There is no conflict between scientific facts and the teachings of the Church!

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

Once again, I think you fail to grasp the meaning of ‘Human’ to a Catholic. The human is not genes. The human is not defined by genes. It is not defined by a body, it is not defined by a soul. It is defined by the union of body and soul. It is where the 2 connect that there is humaninty and no where else.

What else is the building blocks of the human body if not the genes? Why did scientists spend so much time mapping the HUMAN genome if it was ever going to turn up to be anything but human, this is purely an absurd statement you have made here.

I’ve been accused of being cold and clinical on this thread. I find that more in you. You view human as a biological entity only. That genes somehow define what a human is. That isn’t Catholicism, it’s secular humanism.

No i do not view the human body as purely biological, I have stated repeatedly that it is also sacred, that it is part of the Body of Christ both body and soul, Christ Himself is fully human as well as fully God. Do you fancy taking the genes of Christ Jesus and putting them in rice? No? Well if that is not the case don’t take any other human beings genes either. The term HUMAN is defined by it’s enterity, body and spirit. Even after death the human body does not cease to be a human body, be it all a dead human body. It still retains as that, that it is, a human body without the spirit, it still is sacred.

Even the term ‘human genes’ is an oxymoron. There can be no such thing to a Catholic. A gene is never human. It belongs to us no more than a glass of water we might drink one day, and discard the next. We are creatures of ontology, not biology.

If you reject the biological make-up of a human being you also reduce it to nothing more than a bunch of cells, you do this that is the same argument pro-abortionists use. There is no single gene that exists purely as a gene with no association to a living creature as such is similarly defined by the creature of which it makes up the genetic character of therefore that, that is inside a human being is a HUMAN gene even if there is commonality within other species, because that gene is within a human. The gene is defined by it’s place of origin, not the gene defined by it’s own nature. You cannot make the argument one of seperateness form the origin of the gene, that is most certainly a very protracted argument you pose.

Is a gene ‘life’

it cannot be. Does one transmit ‘life’ when one transmits genes. No.

We are not talking about giving life nor transmitting life, where do you get this concept from, we are talking about placing human material however small inside another species. I do not give you life if I allow you to have some of my blood, my life is not transfered to you, you may well still die, I cannot create new life by purely giving blood, but to transfer genes can in some instances create life, such as in cloning and transfering genes to other species as we are talking about here into plants is to transfer the very building blocks of human life into a plant.

If it is not, then the transmission of a human gene is NOT transmission of human life and this statement does not apply.

It is transimission of ‘Humanness’ of the basis of ‘human’ into another species…can you not see that you are taking ‘something’ out of a human and putting it into another species…it is not permissable, whether it be an eye, an ear, a heart or a gene!

What the Pope John Paul II was refering to here was actions like artificial insemination; the use of which is licit for animals, but is illict for humans.

So I refer to my last comment , what is licit to do with animals is not licit to do with humans,so cross breeds are made in nature though like the previous poster I would question how far that has gone as well, it is not licit to use human material however small even if it is a gene and put it into another species, plant or animal.

And the Vatican supports science as a tool to do so.

It doesn’t support all aspects of science as you well know, it does not support IVF, Cloning, etc etc…you find the evidence to show me the Church supports this evil you are advocating and I will concede and offer apology. I guarantee you will find no such evidence. All I am hearing is your ideas, your thoughts, your perceptions which I believe support a great evil and I am hearing nothing of what actually the Church states. You don’t even understand the nature of humanit to confuse what the Holy Father has said…Please back up your statements with Church teaching. I do not believe you can.

QUOTE]

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Brendan]

**What the heck does that mean? **

There is no conflict between scientific facts and the teachings of the Church!

The genes are a blueprint to the human body, which is all science is concerned with.

The Church view a human as a union between a body and a soul.

biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/A/AQUINAS/SUMMA/FP/FP075.HTM#FPQ75OUTP1

Specifically the Angelic Doctor’s reply to objection 1

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

The genes are a blueprint to the human body, which is all science is concerned with.

The Church view a human as a union between a body and a soul.

biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/A/AQUINAS/SUMMA/FP/FP075.HTM#FPQ75OUTP1

Specifically the Angelic Doctor’s reply to objection 1

Dear friend

What are you saying this for? The Church has no dispute with any scientific facts at all, the facts of science are the facts and the Church accepts them as facts, it doesn’t agree with all available procedures or experiments, but it does not dispute that they are possible nor that they are scientific facts.

If you wish to state that Science purely sees genes as a blue print of the human body and does not recognise the soul, well that surely does insult all of those Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Christian etc etc scientists and medics out there!!

You talk as if all science supports this evil leap in genetic engineering, well it doesn’t there are scientists campaigning against this evil of genetic manipulation and this is first of all BETWEEN humans not to mention the fact of human egentic engineering within animals and plants, here’s one example:

gefree.org.nz/docus/hartsubmission.doc

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

Dear friend

What are you saying this for? The Church has no dispute with any scientific facts at all, the facts of science are the facts and the Church accepts them as facts, it doesn’t agree with all available procedures or experiments, but it does not dispute that they are possible nor that they are scientific facts.

If you wish to state that Science purely sees genes as a blue print of the human body and does not recognise the soul, well that surely does insult all of those Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Christian etc etc scientists and medics out there!!

You talk as if all science supports this evil leap in genetic engineering, well it doesn’t there are scientists campaigning against this evil of genetic manipulation and this is first of all BETWEEN humans not to mention the fact of human egentic engineering within animals and plants, here’s one example:

gefree.org.nz/docus/hartsubmission.doc

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Teresa,

What defines ‘human’

Is a gene or genes.

Or is it body and soul together.

If human is defined as body and soul together, then a gene is not human, correct?

It does not define what a human is, it only descripts the Accidents, not the Substance.

It tells, how tall, what color hair, what chemical the liver produces, but not what it actually is.

All of these are Accidents, descriptions of what is ‘Really Real’. They have no bearing on the Substance of Humanity. They have no more bearing on what a human is than the ‘breadness’ of a Host defines the Eucharist.

And that is where science falls short. It thinks that genes define a human, where it does not.

I could take an Accident of bread and incorporate it into another Substance, but would that make it Eucharist.

No, there is something more in Eucharist there than cannot be described by science, even by the best science.

It is a scientific fact that the Host I recieve at Mass is just bread. But science is wrong.

It is a scientific fact that genes define a human, but science is wrong.

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

Teresa,

What defines ‘human’

Is a gene or genes.

Or is it body and soul together.

If human is defined as body and soul together, then a gene is not human, correct?

No wrong, You cannot seperate the ‘human’ out and say the gene is not of ‘human’ by itself, the soul is not ‘human’ by itself, the ‘body’ is not human by itself, they are not meant to exist seperately, they are meant to exist in entirity and you are trying to seperate the gene out of the human and thus classify it simply as a gene with no human connection, but if not for the other ‘aspects’ of humanity, the gene would have no purpose nor significance, it is therefore only truly known in it’s context with humanity and therefore is not meant to be extracted and used in other species. You are looking at the gene as though it is something you can extrapolate from the ‘humanness’ of it’s context. You cannot look at the human soul and say it is not a human soul even if you address it seperate from the rest of what makes a human, it still is a human soul as is the body when examined singularly seperately from the entire human, so it is with the human gene. I have a human arm, you chop it off and make it seperate from that which define’s my entire ‘humanness’, it is still a human arm. What you are trying to say is if the entirety of what we define ‘human’ to be is not present it is therefore not of human, well that is just not correct, it is still of human and from human, it still intrinsically possesed by human character as it is from that which is fully human. The parts of which is the sum are defined by that which they belong to, not simply in their own context. What a ludicrous argument you have presented and even more protracted than those previously presented.

It does not define what a human is, it only descripts the Accidents, not the Substance.

God did not make me an outward Accident! He made me human in His own image…is the Image of God an Accident? Please! You cannot apply metaphysics to that which is physical and spirit…you can apply metaphysics to the Eucharist because this is something that appears outwardly ‘the accident’ to be one thing but in reality is Christ Jesus, Body Blood Soul and Divinity. It is mystery. Whereas I, as a human am not such a metaphysical mystery I am outwardly seen to be what I am, which is human and inwardly seen to be what I am, which is human.

Though I will say humans are pleasant mysteries to be unwravelled…I will say there is no mystery to my flesh and blood status, nor to the fact I have a soul, this is fact as revealed by God, there is no doubt or mystery in that! It is no mystery I have genes, we now know this fact of science and the Church upholds this fact.

I think this has gone way way too far down the protracted for me! I have seen, to make a pun on your words, nothing of SUBSTANCE to your claims regarding any of this. I do like your statement that science is wrong, it has been before and it will be again and it is wrong to take human genes and implant them in plant life and animal life.

AND STILL…you have not answered my questions and one of the other posters questions…why are they using human genes at all if their is such commonality in other species and plant life???

Please take your time, but I would like a reply to this question.

QUOTE]

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

Brendan:

Teresa,

AND STILL…you have not answered my questions and one of the other posters questions…why are they using human genes at all if their is such commonality in other species and plant life???

Please take your time, but I would like a reply to this question.

QUOTE]

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

I have already answered it.

In the case of rice, the scientists wanted a human liver enzyme that is particularly effetive in breaking down toxins.

In the case of insulin; that one is very easy. They needed human specific insulin to provide inexpensive life saving medication for diabetics, and that must be made with a human gene.

Diabetics developed an immunity to the animal insulin obtained from slaughtered animals and slaughtering pigs and cows did not gain enough insulin for all the worlds diabetics.

Now diabetics worldwide have a safe, plentiful supply of insulin at a prices that are affordable to provide to the 3rd world as well.

That can only be accomplished with a human gene. How would you propose it be done?

I would like to hear your answer to that question

Pax tecum.

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

Brendan:

Teresa,

What defines ‘human’

Is a gene or genes.

Or is it body and soul together.

If human is defined as body and soul together, then a gene is not human, correct?

No wrong, You cannot seperate the ‘human’ out and say the gene is not of ‘human’ by itself,
It does not define what a human is, it only descripts the Accidents, not the Substance.

Can you morally destroy a gene?

Yes or No.

God did not make me an outward Accident! He made me human in His own image…is the Image of God an Accident? Please! You cannot apply metaphysics to that which is physical and spirit…

Sure he did. All your appearance is an Accident. Does your hair color define you as a human? Does your height?

All of those are genetic and all have zero bearing on your humanity.

Genes control what you appear to be, not what you are.

Pax tecum

-Brendan