Would anyone care for frankenstein food?

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

Teresa,

My question is this “Is the use of human genes in other species objectively immoral?”

Yes I have said it is. I have not said in any place it is acceptable.

Is it immoral in all cases, including the production of insulin?

Yes it is, I have stated that the bacteria used to make insulin is already functioning in the human body without any genetic manipulation to produce insulin. It is present and not foreign to the body it is essential it exist in the body it is not a foreign object to the body and this bacteria is allowed to replicate by the body, there are other ‘friendly’ bacteria that live on and within the body which the body requires to maintain health. However this bacteria is not ‘human’

I would not advocate any genetic manipulation, I have already said this.

I asked this of Rastell and I ask it of you. Exactly which laws are being broken?

If it is a natural law, then it will be declared so by a competent science body, such as Newton’s Laws, Ohm’s Law, Boyle’s Law, Law of Conservation of Mass\Energy, etc…

There is no naturally occuring cross-breeding of humans with any other species, period. What is it about this that puzzles you so much? Unless humans intervene in an unnatrual manner such genetic manipulation does not occur naturally.

If it is God’s Law, then it will be declared so by the Vatican.

I am sure it will be.

I would like to see the specific instance of violation of Law.

Since when did you see any plant exhibit human behaviour of resisting pesticides, unless it has been genetically engineered, it is not it’s natural function nor would it ever be unless natural law is broken and man interves wth genetic engineering.

You or I cannot declare something to be ‘evil’. We have no Authority…

If I cannot declare an evil as per my faith then by that precept neither can you declare it good. That does not mean that it is not evil. Very transparent argument.

As I mentioned above, and I would like an answer on this.

I have issued a dubium to a Moral Theology Professor at Sacred Heart Seminary, where I am a student.

I know you have, I read what you typed in the previous post

It will take a few weeks, but we should have a official response.

Perhaps you won’t get any response, perhaps the Vatican nor any other person is prepared at this stage to give you verbatum on this, perhaps you will be waiting realistically more than one week! In the light of how the Vatican hold the human in their entirety to be sacred I hope you are not dissappointed with their repsonse should you get one and forced to not eat this new wonder food that contains human genes should it be brought into the public sector for consumption. I feel, as you have defended this new concept so fervently, you will find it hard to back down, whereas from my stance it makes no difference if you are right or wrong, I just won’t eat the stuff! It is innate to me that all of it is wrong and believe me I am no progress phobic.

I will also post their response here.

Is that acceptable?

If the Vatican respond and give a definitive answer then yes that is acceptable, no other response is , whether they are secular or Catholic.

If you have another resource you are aware of, or would prefer, please feel free to contact them.

No I will wait to see what the Vatican teaches.

Your pastor could recommend such a person.

That would be my Priest and he is far too busy to deal with me and this right now

I will say for most of the answers I have given you, you have not responded to them I am presuming because you have no answer or simply decline to discuss them further.

It does appear friend that as a Catholic you are supporting something that goes against your belief system. I am wondering why you are so pro-implantation of human genes into plants, it simply is not just to feed people, that would be very naive as everyone knows there is enough food already in the world to feed the entire human population.

Just because you are studying something doesn’t mean you are equipped to fully understand nor debate it. It still reads in every one of your posts that you hold a view of dehumanisation and if it can be done it should be done because we are afterall just a body.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

Et all,

There are a few links from the PAV website

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_28091998_cloning-notes_en.html

netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000113.html

Now I agree that this only refers to genetic engineering in general being acceptable, not specifically to insertion of human genes into other organisms.

I would note that the first comment, on reproduction of human DNA segments begin licit. You will note the lack of restrictions, it does not specify how and to what purpose human genes may be replicated.

Dear friend

If you were in court the judge would throw this evidence out as inadmissable!!! It would be recorded in court transcripts and likely repeated efforts like this would lose you your case and I would receive the positive ruling

It does not have any context in what we are discussing here , which is HUMAN genes…not genes from any other place! Until you can provide Vatican teaching, don’t try and provide Catholic teaching that is not applicable to what we are discussing, at worst it is misleading and at best it is a fly in the ointment of the debate.

 

[Brendan]

[Rastell]

I really do not see how anyone cannot be horrified by the
mixing of human genes in animals and even plants.

[Brendan]

Why should I be ‘horrified’. Should I be horrified to see
diabetics have a plentiful supply of human insulin?

I may be mistaken, but I think Rastell was fearing the rather chevalier attitude that usually accompanies the mentality of “my body is just chemicals, so I can do anything I want to it, so long as it doesn’t obviously influence the human soul (by death, etc.)”. Pope John Paul II wrote rather extensively about this (rather Manichean) mindset which allows these thoughts.

I wouldn’t suggest that any possible manipulation of our genes is necessarily immoral… but some of the arguments which you (and others) have used to defend the option are rather eerily reminiscent of the dualist “I can do whatever I want with my body” idea. Comparisons such as your comment of:

…leave the impression that chemicals are chemicals, regardless of whether they were united to a human body or not. That, I’m afraid, is rather a slippery slope. When an apple is eaten and assimilated into a human body, for example, then its constituent chemicals become a part of a human body which is intimately and substantially united to a human soul.

And there lies the crux.

What happens AFTER these chemicals are outside the body. Yes, a carbon that is animated by the soul has a special relationship to the human essence.

But how about after the carbon, or the chemical or the enzyme has left the body. Does it still retain a special relationship to the human essence, the soul\body.

Hair on one’s scalp has that special relationship. Does that apply to hair clippings after a hair cut.

That apple you mention has the special relation while it is in the body. Does it retain that special relationship after the waste has been discarded.

I can assure you that I have no cavilere attitude towards any matter than is animated by my soul, or any other rational soul. It is matter than is not so animated that I have little concern for.

Our bodies and souls make a unity, not a loose confederation of spirit and matter. As such, any manipulations of “mere chemicals” of a human body are far more grave than are any manipulations of the exact same chemicals in a non-human object.

Yes! That is part of the point I am trying to make. ‘Human’ really is more than genes. It is a union of the body and the soul.

Rastell and Springbreeze seem really hung up on genes defining a human, when it is this unity that really defines what a human is.

I would really like to hear you (name removed by moderator)ut on this. Does this unity extend to a gene OUTSIDE the body.

If one reviews the Vatican article I posted about from the PAV, it declares the replication of cells and segments of human DNA to be licit, as long as the purpose is not an attempt at human reproduction.

That would seem to imply that the genetic material, once “separated, without doing any damage” from a person, then becomes outside the body\soul bonding that defines a human.

The very word used by the Vatican, seperated from the person indicated that is is no longer part of that union, it has been seperated from the ‘person’.

I don’t mean to imply that all physical manipulations of the human body (including genetic) are necessarily wrong, by definition; I do mean to imply that the proportionate reasons for doing so must be far more grave.

That is my position as well. What I object strongly to is the assertion presented here, that such genetic manipulation is ALWAYS immoral.

I’d strongly encourage everyone to read the Holy Father’s Theology of the Body (or Christopher West’s excellent adaptations of it); it covers a great many of these (rather difficult to spot) implications.

[qupte]Just as a teaser: do you think it would be permissible to tear apart and alter bits of a consecrated Host? According to the world, it’s just a collection of carbohydrates, and such. And yet, no one could argue that we’d be “killing anyone” by doing so, correct? The only offense would be an outrage against the dignity of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

No, of course not. Such an outrage against the Blessed Sacrament would render the act immoral.

A question for you. Would it be an offense to reproduce as particular Accident of the Host, as long as it is done without affecting or altering the Host?

Say to use a photograph to record the Accident of color, so another food could have a identical color?

Assuming a worthy intent, can the Accidents of the Eucharist be replicated elsewhere as long as the Substance is not affected?

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

…leave the impression that chemicals are chemicals, regardless of whether they were united to a human body or not. That, I’m afraid, is rather a slippery slope. When an apple is eaten and assimilated into a human body, for example, then its constituent chemicals become a part of a human body which is intimately and substantially united to a human soul.

And there lies the crux.

What happens AFTER these chemicals are outside the body. Yes, a carbon that is animated by the soul has a special relationship to the human essence.

They wouldn’t be outside unless someone excised them! Null and protracted argument.

But how about after the carbon, or the chemical or the enzyme has left the body. Does it still retain a special relationship to the human essence, the soul\body.

Genes are not waste products, null and protracted argument

Our bodies and souls make a unity, not a loose confederation of spirit and matter. As such, any manipulations of “mere chemicals” of a human body are far more grave than are any manipulations of the exact same chemicals in a non-human object.

Yes! That is part of the point I am trying to make. ‘Human’ really is more than genes.

Rastell and Springbreeze seem really hung up on genes defining a human, when it is this unity.

Hung up on protecting the humanness of a human that is partly in place by genes (as well as soul etc)…!! I’d rather be hung up as you describe than take your viewpoint This is reptative arguing and you have tried to describe a gene as something that is not human when that clearly is not the case.

I would really like to hear you (name removed by moderator)ut on this. Does this unity extend to a gene OUTSIDE the body.

If one reviews the Vatican article I posted about from the PAV, it declares the replication of cells and segments of human DNA to be licit, as long as the purpose is not an attempt at human reproduction.

That would seem to imply that the genetic material, once “separated, without doing any damage” from a person, then becomes outside the body\soul bonding that defines a human.

That is my position as well. What I object strongly to is the assertion presented here, that such genetic manipulation is ALWAYS immoral.

I’d strongly encourage everyone to read the Holy Father’s Theology of the Body (or Christopher West’s excellent adaptations of it); it covers a great many of these (rather difficult to spot) implications.

[qupte]Just as a teaser: do you think it would be permissible to tear apart and alter bits of a consecrated Host? According to the world, it’s just a collection of carbohydrates, and such. And yet, no one could argue that we’d be “killing anyone” by doing so, correct? The only offense would be an outrage against the dignity of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

No, of course not. Such an outrage against the Blessed Sacrament would render the act immoral.

A question for you. Would it be an offense to reproduce as particular Accident of the Host, as long as it is done without affecting or altering the Host?

Yes it would, how can you even think of doing such a thing.

Say to use a photograph to record the Accident of color, so another food could have a identical color?

A photo is not genetic manipulation, boy this is getting more and more far fetched!!

Assuming a worthy intent, can the Accidents of the Eucharist be replicated elsewhere as long as the Substance is not affected?

No not ever, it would be against Church laws and the Code of Canon Law. Yes it would be immoral, only a Priest can confect the Eucharist, it would be illicit!

In Christ,
Brian

I could reply to all the points you make here but it is not addressed to me, but I am amazed at how little regard you have for the human body and it would seem for the Eucharist. I find this post of yours highly offensive.

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

And there lies the crux.

What happens AFTER these chemicals are outside the body. Yes, a carbon that is animated by the soul has a special relationship to the human essence.

They wouldn’t be outside unless someone excised them! Null and protracted argument.

Really.

But how about after the carbon, or the chemical or the enzyme has left the body. Does it still retain a special relationship to the human essence, the soul\body.

Genes are not waste products, null and protracted argument

They are in waste products. Hair clippings, flaked off skin. All contain genes.

So if there are genes in these waste products, it would mean one of two things

The genes are included as waste
The waste products are not really waste

Hung up on protecting the humanness of a human that is partly in place by genes (as well as soul etc)…!! I’d rather be hung up as you describe than take your viewpoint This is reptative arguing and you have tried to describe a gene as something that is not human when that clearly is not the case.

A human is in place because God animates the body with a Rational Soul, and for no other reason.

I

Just as a teaser: do you think it would be permissible to tear apart and alter bits of a consecrated Host? According to the world, it’s just a collection of carbohydrates, and such. And yet, no one could argue that we’d be “killing anyone” by doing so, correct? The only offense would be an outrage against the dignity of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

No, of course not. Such an outrage against the Blessed Sacrament would render the act immoral.

A question for you. Would it be an offense to reproduce as particular Accident of the Host, as long as it is done without affecting or altering the Host?

Yes it would, how can you even think of doing such a thing.

So it’s immoral to take a picture of the Blessed Sacrament and make a copy of that picture.

That is exactly what I am taking about. A replication of the Accidents. In this case the Accident of color.

Say to use a photograph to record the Accident of color, so another food could have a identical color?

A photo is not genetic manipulation, boy this is getting more and more far fetched!!

I said nothing about genetic manipulation in my example, did I?

My question is, Can Accidents be Replicated

Yes or No?

Assuming a worthy intent, can the Accidents of the Eucharist be replicated elsewhere as long as the Substance is not affected?

No not ever, it would be against Church laws and the Code of Canon Law. Yes it would be immoral, only a Priest can confect the Eucharist, it would be illicit!

Do you understand the difference between an Accident and the Substance?

In the Eucharist, and in any metaphysical being, including humans, there are Accidents (descriptions of how it appears) and Substance (the Essence of the being, what is actually is)

I didn’t say that I would replicate the Eucharist, only some aspect of how the Eucharist appears to our senses.

Is it immoral to make bread that tastes like the Eucharist. Is it immoral to make a fluid that has the same color as the Precious Blood.

I could reply to all the points you make here but it is not addressed to me, but I am amazed at how little regard you have for the human body and it would seem for the Eucharist.

Now you are being Rude.You have a strong misunderstanding of the Doctrine of Transubstation as well a misconception of Accidents vs. Substance and use that to accuse me of a lack of regard for the Eucharist?

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan

I have not been rude or offensive at all, I have stated my offense at your last post and your line of argument. You win your argument, you win because I cannot debate with you further. I was going to drop out of this thread two days ago, but didn’t.

You donate your genes Brendan and eat those. Who is going to step forward to keep donating their genes to place in this loosely termed ‘food’, not me that’s for sure!

After all this debating you have shown nothing to be fact. I can still maintain that humanity is sacred, body and soul.

The Eucharist is sacred, you want to mess with it and replicate it in any shape or form, sorry I find that offensive as I equally find genetic implantation of human genes into plants offensive and against every fibre in my body, if that makes me uneducated as you imply then I am happy to be as you imply whether you are correct or not.

Good luck with your course.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
.

 

[paladinan]

Hi, Brendan!

You wrote:

Brendan:

What happens AFTER these chemicals are outside the body. Yes, a carbon that is animated by the soul has a special relationship to the human essence.

But how about after the carbon, or the chemical or the enzyme has left the body. Does it still retain a special relationship to the human essence, the soul\body.

Well… that’s an interesting point (and I’ve seen you debate it with others on this thread), but that wasn’t quite where I was going, with my own idea.

I wasn’t commenting specifically on the “state of dignity” of any human bodily material after it has been removed. In order for it to be “already removed”, someone or something has to do the “removing”; I was specifically commenting on that morality of that. The dynamics of the “already separated material” are part of another issue (which I may address later, time and brain-power permitting ). More on that, below…

Hair on one’s scalp has that special relationship. Does that apply to hair clippings after a hair cut.

My own point was this: every action which removes constituent matter from a human body must be justified by a proportionately grave reason. In addition, it is never morally licit to treat such material exactly as one would treat other “non-human” matter. Just as a taste of that idea:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.

Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects’ potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him. (CCC 2294-5)

This doesn’t directly address transgenic plants which incorporate human DNA, granted… but it does give a “backdrop” for the Church’s mind on this matter, regarding the grave dignity of the human body (even after death) and its warnings not to treat it as a mere “commodity”.

That apple you mention has the special relation while it is in the body. Does it retain that special relationship after the waste has been discarded.

Well… the waste was never fully incorportated into the body, or else it would not have been excreted. The contents of my colon (forgive the gross example… I hope nobody’s eating lunch! ) are not a part of “me”, as such. The mere fact that it is “in” my body (in the sense of being contained in my GI system) doesn’t make it a substantial part of me; so that example would be somewhat moot.

Yes! That is part of the point I am trying to make. ‘Human’ really is more than genes. Rastell and Springbreeze seem really hung up on genes defining a human, when it is this unity.

I didn’t walk away with that impression, after reading their posts; I took their meaning to be something to the effect of “manipulation of human matter is, and should be, substantially different than would be manipulation of non-human matter.” With a few ambiguously-worded exceptions, I didn’t see them insisting that humanity is defined completely by genetics. Neither Rastell nor Springbreeze, for example, ever suggested that a rational soul was irrelevant to the definition of humanity.

I would really like to hear you (name removed by moderator)ut on this. Does this unity extend to a gene OUTSIDE the body.

Well… my initial objection was more concerned with “how did it get outside the body in the first place?” It is morally licit for me to shave my head so as to give a cancer victim a wig (especially since it will grow back… though not as fully as I might like (prodding receding hairline with fingers)), but it is not licit for me to cut chunks of flesh from my body in order to feed someone who merely wants a snack. The mere “willingness” of the donor isn’t a complete veto of all other moral concerns, nor is an external need (such as hunger) always a “trumping” factor.

More later… must dash!

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

Brendan

I have not been rude or offensive at all, I have stated my offense at your last post and your line of argument. You win your argument, you win because I cannot debate with you further. I was going to drop out of this thread two days ago, but didn’t.

After all this debating you have shown nothing to be fact. I can still maintain that humanity is sacred, body and soul.

The Eucharist is sacred, you want to mess with it and replicate it in any shape or form, sorry I find that offensive as I equally find genetic implantation of human genes into plants offensive and against every fibre in my body

Good luck with your course.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
.

Teresa,

Of course the Eucharist is sacred. It’s Substance changes from Bread to Jesus. That’s why it is called Transubstantiation.

The Accidents remain. It looks like bread, tastes like bread.

But they are independently of the Substance.

That is what is so frustrating. You seem to think that replicating the Accident is replicating the Substance.

Making something that has the same taste as the Eucharist (an Accident), is NOT and never shall be, an attempt to make the Eucharist.

The exact same thing is true for genes. They describe an Accident of human, but they are not the Substance of Human.

Replicating an Accident of Human (a particular liver enzyme) is NOT replicating equally not replicating ‘Humanity’

Independently, this lack of knowledge of yours on the Eucharist scares me.

Print out this thread and take it to a priest, any priest. Have them explain it to you.

You do have a big misunderstanding of what the Church teaches on this, and it would do you good to fully understand it.

 

[Brendan]

paladinan:

My own point was this: every action which removes constituent matter from a human body must be justified by a proportionately grave reason. In addition, it is never morally licit to treat such material exactly as one would treat other “non-human” matter. Just as a taste of that idea:

I think the Vatican address that in the article on what was permissible with human cloning

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_28091998_cloning-notes_en.html

Only the reproduction of cells starting from cells taken and separated, without doing any damage, from a human individual (who is procreated naturally and not purposely cloned to provide cell lines), is to be considered licit, as well as the reproduction of DNA fragments for which, however, the cloning of a human individual is not foreseen as a premise or an aim in order to obtain them.

That would seem to imply that cells or fragments of DNA may be experimented with, as long as the method of extraction did not damage the source.

My personal take would be that something like biopsy is permissible, else a lot of oncologists would be in big trouble

This doesn’t directly address transgenic plants which incorporate human DNA, granted… but it does give a “backdrop” for the Church’s mind on this matter, regarding the grave dignity of the human body (even after death) and its warnings not to treat it as a mere “commodity”.

The human body, yes, but then again, it goes back to the issue of extracted matter.

Well… the waste was never fully incorportated into the body, or else it would not have been excreted. …The mere fact that it is “in” my body (in the sense of being contained in my GI system) doesn’t make it a substantial part of me; so that example would be somewhat moot.

The waste I was more thinking of would be discarded cellular matter, hair clippings, nail clippings, peeled skin ect…( again, I hope no one is eating lunch

Does that need to be treated more reverently than other waste?

I didn’t walk away with that impression, after reading their posts; I took their meaning to be something to the effect of “manipulation of human matter is, and should be, substantially different than would be manipulation of non-human matter.”

To what extent? In high school, we did an ‘experiment’. we scrapped the inside of our cheeks for cells, and then cultured them in a petri dish.

How should such a culture be treated differently, than, say a culture of algae?

Well, we can dump both in the trash after we are done, correct?

Certainly, the attempting cloning of a new human is prohibited per Humane Vitae, but the vatican allows for cloning individual cells (see above link). And genetic work in general is permitted (ibid).

Specific guidlines on what manipulation of the genetic material into other organizims is what is lacking.

The Vatican has given general approval to genetic engineering overall, the question remains to what extent.

I think that other documents, and general practices show that specific genes themselves are subject to manipulation. That shows that the do not benefit from the overall defense of human dignity. A gene can be extracted from a single cell; licitily manipulated (as long as the intent is not human cloning), and even destroyed with no moral implications.

Certainly, a just to serious reason is necessary (I would not go as to require ‘grave’ reasons, but that’s just me)

Insulin production for diabetics and food production for hungry regions seem to meet that requirement.

I would fully support environmental testing as well, but that issue has no bearing on the overall objective morality of human genes in
other organisms.

Well… my initial objection was more concerned with “how did it get outside the body in the first place?”

See the above quote from the Vatican
.

-Cheers,

Brendan

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

Teresa,

Of course the Eucharist is sacred. It’s Substance changes from Bread to Jesus. That’s why it is called Transubstantiation.

The Accidents remain. It looks like bread, tastes like bread.

But they are independently of the Substance.

That is what is so frustrating. You seem to think that replicating the Accident is replicating the Substance.

Making something that has the same taste as the Eucharist (an Accident), is NOT and never shall be, an attempt to make the Eucharist.

The exact same thing is true for genes. They describe an Accident of human, but they are not the Substance of Human.

Replicating an Accident of Human (a particular liver enzyme) is NOT replicating equally not replicating ‘Humanity’

Independently, this lack of knowledge of yours on the Eucharist scares me.

Print out this thread and take it to a priest, any priest. Have them explain it to you.

You do have a big misunderstanding of what the Church teaches on this, and it would do you good to fully understand it.

Dear Brendan

Just how are you going to do all of this unless you use a Eucharist for this purpose and that would be IMMORAL! That’s SCARY! I have no problem with my Catholic teaching or morals

End of discussion.

Wishing you well, God Bless

Teresa

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

Dear Brendan

Just how are you going to do all of this unless you use a Eucharist for this purpose and that would be IMMORAL! That’s SCARY! I have no problem with my Catholic teaching or morals

End of discussion.

Wishing you well, God Bless

Teresa

Take a picture for example. that records color, which is an Accident.

And I still highly encourgage you to take a copy of this conversation to a priest. What do you really have to lose?

If I’m full of bunk on Accidents and Substance issue, the priest will tell you so, you can even relay that back and I will happily admit my error (and then go and correct my Scholastic Philosophy and Sacramentology professors as well)

And if you are mistaken, then you will gain new knowledge of the Church’s understanding of the Eucharist. Truth is always something to be valued and sought after.

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

Take a picture for example. that records color, which is an Accident.

And I still highly encourgage you to take a copy of this conversation to a priest. What do you really have to lose?

If I’m full of bunk on Accidents and Substance issue, the priest will tell you so, you can even relay that back and I will happily admit my error (and then go and correct my Scholastic Philosophy and Sacramentology professors as well)

And if you are mistaken, then you will gain new knowledge of the Church’s understanding of the Eucharist. Truth is always something to be valued and sought after.

Brendan!!!.. I understand the Eucharist, I don’t need you to explain it to me, my Priest and the Priests before him after done a good job of that for almost 35 years!

What you are not understanding in my statement is that you would have to tamper with a consecrated Eucharist to achieve what you are suggesting…what sort of a parallel was that to draw? I found it offensive. I have remained calm thorughout all of this thread and conversed with you amicably, but my patience with your support of the EVIL is waining, so I’m off!

Really don’t reply to my posts again on this subject or in this thread. I am finished discussing it with you, you twist and misinterpret almost everything I type

I hope you come to appreciate the little things in life as much as the greater things.

God Bless