PORTLAND, Ore. (CNS) — Cells taken from embryos hold therapeutic promise, but it is simply wrong to destroy human life in its early stages.
That’s the opinion of the chief stem-cell researcher at a medical school hospital in what some would say is one of the nation’s most liberal cities.
Dr. Markus Grompe, director of Oregon Health & Science University’s Stem Cell Center since 2004, is a devout Catholic and a member of St. John Fisher Parish in Portland.
"I support the church’s view on protection of embryonic life," Grompe told the Catholic Sentinel, Portland archdiocesan newspaper, in an interview in his office at the hospital. "That has sometimes put me in a difficult situation."
Grompe is looking forward to the day when a method is discovered to provide embryonic stem cells — or their equal — without destroying embryos. But for now, his lab works with cells taken from adults, and he is keen on those advances.
Grompe and his team are devising a way to repair diseased livers by injecting adult stem cells into the organs. The work has a special focus on children with genetic liver disorders. The method, which would nix the need for liver transplants, has worked in lab animals.
"There is a lot in favor of embryonic stem cells," said Grompe, a German citizen who studied at the University of Ulm in southern Germany. "But we need to make a choice based on ethics." He said the colleagues who disagree with him are not evil, but want to advance medicine.
The German-born Grompe has been active on the international level in the stem-cell debate. In April 2006, he went to the Vatican and addressed the Pontifical Academy for Life.
Grompe allows that the question of the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells is still open. But he insists that embryonic cells are likely to lead to a therapy that adult cells cannot reach.
"What makes embryonic stem cells so different is that they can be grown to unlimited quantities," he said. "You can make a lot of what you need to make and you can do it again and again. Adult stem cells don’t do that."
That potential makes the Catholic stand all the more difficult yet necessary, he said. "As Catholics, we need to stick to the facts and the truth. The reason we object to embryonic stem-cell research is not because the cells are not good or the adult cells are better. The real reason is that we have moral and ethical objections. We have to stick to our guns. Just because a medical procedure is immoral doesn’t mean it will not work."
This is an important point to make. Right now there is a lot of effort in the pro-life movement used in debunking ESCR because of the lack so far of actual cures. The main point should be that it is simply wrong to use a human person in experiments. Though you can easily understand by the ineffectiveness of ESCR so far has been much touted since it is an easy point to make. Much harder in the current culture to speak of the personhood of the human embryo. It is quite unlikely that in a sound bite society that arguments made by Peter Kreeft in his excellent article Human Personhood Begins at Conception are likely to be heard.
The January issue had a real good view of the science of ESCR and the fact that the morality of it goes beyond killing embryos for research and that it involved serious health risks to women who donate eggs for this research.
74 comments
Rebecca
//As for IVF children, the Church most certainly thinks they are precious. It is we (and the parents) who do not see them as the precious gift they are, but as man-made products.//
I see…those parents who wanted those children so badly that they were willing to spend thousands of dollars, go through numerous procedures, cry when they didn’t work, only to start over again…they don’t think of their children as precious? Who are YOU to say something like THAT? I can attest to the fact that the women I know who do have IVF babies, they love them just as much if not more than mothers who have conceived their children through natural intercourse. So, only the church is capable of holding life precious? Sigh…I can understand why people are leaving the Catholic Church in droves..it’s the arrogance.
//When you use ad hominem attacks it screams that you have no argument. Honestly, it makes you look bad and doesn’t really advance the debate.//
What attack? I asked a perfectly valid question! How many of these embryos do you plan on rescuing? This is not an attack. What do you want to happen to those embryos? You say they aren’t garbage, you claim they are human life. So do you want them frozen for eternity or do you think they should be given the chance to live as children? If you say they should live as children, then you should be willing to rescue them from a sure fate of being thrown away or left frozen or worse yet (according to you) to be used in research.
I guess you don’t have an answer to that.
If you want to talk about attacks…I was called a hypocrite by Jim…oh, but he did say “God Bless” afterward, I guess that makes it better.
The Catholic Church has long been accused of making broad statements about life. Lots of uproar over the culture of death. But when it comes to actually doing something about it…
Mary Ellen,
It isn’t the offspring that the parents implant and nuture that they do not see as precious, it is the offspring that the parents leave frozen or abandon totally or worse discard because they are genetically defective, or treat as harvestable biological material that I am refering to. This is where parents who use IVF fail to treat their offpsring as precious gifts from God, but as man-made products that are treated as property.
As for your ad hominem (I think you need to look that up) non-argument just because I cannot (or chose not to) have someone elses offspring implanted in my uterus does not mean that it is right to experiment on a human subject without their consent. It is totally irrelevant to the morality of embryo destructive research.
When ESCR cures come about, they better force parents to use them. It is high time the state start intervening when people’s belief in make-believe comprises their parenting. The same goes for JWs and Christian Scientists as well.
I hope you’re not in any political position.
Newsflash: not everyone’s pro-life beliefs are rooted in theology. I wasn’t taught to be pro-life by my parents or my local parish; I came to my views on my own.
Hoodlum,
You might try to actually read Peter Kreeft’s article and try to refute what he says instead of just spouting off. As Professor Kreeft mentions there are no arguments against the personhood of the embryo and fetus that would not apply to a newborn. So by your logic you could harvest the organs of an infant just as long as you can save some other infants lives.
Hoodlum,
Oh and by the when I was an atheist I became pro-life based on zero religious arguments. There are also pro-life atheist groups out there and people like atheist Nat Hentoff. So instead of throwing terms like make believe, offer actual arguments against personhood.
I am sure you did Jeff, just like you found religion in the face of death, like the old cilche, right? Or how you studied Ayn Rand in the face of your weakening atheism, just like the old claim atheists read stuff like that to stay atheists.
See how Hoodlum again dances around a substantial response. It’s amusing.
My opinion is not going to be a popular one on this blog, I’m sure. I’m not adding my comment in order to harass or troll. I am a Catholic. I can say, that I am a devout Catholic who practices my faith with great love and respect for our Lord God Almighty. Where I separate, is regarding the use of stem cells for research. I see absolutely no reason not to further scientific study using stem cells. If I recall, and my numbers may be wrong, there are about 400,000 stem cells that are already frozen and will be disposed of if not used for research in the future.
Those cells may hold the key to a cure for diabetes or other diseases. Those cells are not human embyo’s, they cannot produce a child. I think the church is being short sighted in this endeavor. The church understands that science is not evil, we’ve come a long way since the days of condemning those who practice science. To blindly say that no good could come of this research, when it is barely off the ground is irresponsible and in my eyes, wasting the gifts that God has given us.
I will continue to support the research on stem cells and will vote for any party or politician who can make this come to light. I will also hold my head up proudly and continue to follow my Catholic faith. Destroying stem cells, throwing them into the trash is a tragic waste of resources. Using those frozen stem cells may be hope for those in need.
I think the church is dead wrong on this one and should stop trying to interfere in lives of those who do not follow their, oftentimes, archaic ideals.
Mary Ellen,
The claim that “they will be destroyed anyway” is one of the biggest problems with and fallacies about ESCR. While it may hold true for RESEARCH, if any cure using ESCRs were to be developed, doctors would have to CLONE nearly 100 new human beings for EACH patient treated. Talk about a human massacre! You can’t take generic stem cells and inject them into anyone. There is the problem of tissue rejection and one of the “advantages” of embryonic stem cells (which also holds true for adult ones) is that they would have the exact genetic make up of the patient.
A second problem is that embryonic cells contain the “computer” code to develop into a full, diverse organism and not just a type of tissue. Turning off most of these instructions is excruciatingly difficult resulting in cancers and tumors.
Finally, embryonic stem cell lines are copyrighted while adult ones can’t be. What you have is greedy corporations waiting to make a killing (pun intended) while duping the taxpayer out of investing money.
I can say, that I am a devout Catholic who practices my faith with great love and respect for our Lord God Almighty.
followed by
I think the church is dead wrong on this one and should stop trying to interfere in lives of those who do not follow their, oftentimes, archaic ideals.
Well then, good to see such devotion to the faith that you call it archaic.
Also, it seems from your post that you assume the Church is opposed to all stem cell research, which is not the case – She only opposes embryonic stem cell research. I may be mistaken, but from your post it seemed you thought the Church’s opposition was total.
Mary Ellen,
Funny you should say “dead wrong”
Unfortunately you spouted the common misperceptions of the culture of death and a lack of understanding of ESCR.
Please read Kreeft’s article I linked to and tell me where he is wrong when it comes to the fact that personhood starts at conception.
Hoodlum posted:
“I am sure you did Jeff, just like you found religion in the face of death, like the old cilche, right?”
It’s cliche’.
It is also not to our choosing when nor where the Holy Spirit will reveal things to us. Why not in the face of death? Seems like a good time to me.
Paul Zummo
Why am I not surprised that you would automatically judge my faith? Last I heard, those who judge harshly, will be judged harshly themselves. You have no right to question how devout I am in my faith. That is a very personal thing. Your comment is not any better than those of other Christian faiths who say that I am going to hell because I haven’t been “saved”.
Stating that I think the Catholic Church has many archaic laws is not a sin. I did not say that I don’t believe in the Creeds of the Church. There is nothing in the Creeds that say I have to wear a veil when going into church. Laws of the Church change…it takes a long time, but they do change, because they are ARCHAIC!
Get over yourself, Zummo!
Stating that I think the Catholic Church has many archaic laws is not a sin. I did not say that I don’t believe in the Creeds of the Church. There is nothing in the Creeds that say I have to wear a veil when going into church. Laws of the Church change…it takes a long time, but they do change, because they are ARCHAIC!
Repeat “archaic” 1,000 times and maybe some point it will become true without a rational argument. Veils and objective moral teachings are two different things.
Scott
Jeff
I have read his article and I’m not at all convinced of any “personhood” being present in those cells. I don’t believe in abortion, but this is not abortion. I do see, however, a man who has invested his time and money into working on the research of another type..adult stem cells. That’s fine and I hope he is successful and I’m sure he doesn’t like the competition of other scientists who may find a better, more viable way to get what is needed from their research. I see a man who is afraid of competition, not a man who is concerned about the nature of the embrionic cells.
I am very concerned over those who use “the culture of death” so often. It waters down the effectiveness of what the real message is. It is a sin to have an abortion…that IS killing a person, this research isn’t. It is a few people of the church who have decided against science because they are afraid of it. Mark my words, if there is a cure for diabetes in embrionic stem cell research, there will be plenty of Catholics, priests, and Bishops using that research to cure their own diseases. Suddenly, it won’t be the “culture of death” they that proposed earlier.
I have read his article and I’m not at all convinced of any “personhood” being present in those cells.
There doesn’t necessarily have to be proof that there is personhood, there only needs to be a possibility. That is, the best the pro-ESCR people can say is that we don’t know if it is a person or not. Basic morality says (don’t even need to make a religious appeal) we don’t destroy things when we are not sure. It is the same if a hunter fires into rustling bushes without knowing what he is firing at.
It is a sin to have an abortion…that IS killing a person, this research isn’t.
What pray tell is the difference between destroying an embyro in the womb and destroying it in a lab?
It is a few people of the church who have decided against science because they are afraid of it.
There may be people afraid of science, but that does not bear on the correctness of Church teaching which is that science as great as long as the means to doing science is moral. Destroying embryos ain’t.
Mark my words, if there is a cure for diabetes in embrionic stem cell research, there will be plenty of Catholics, priests, and Bishops using that research to cure their own diseases.
So? Just because Catholics don’t act morally, doesn’t negate the teaching.
Mary Ellen:
I am not judging you, merely contrasting two statements which seem rather contradictory. If one is deeply committed to one’s faith it seems odd to then call it archaic, for the word archaic has deeply negative connotations in context. The rest of your post assumes presumptions that I do not make, so I will merely let your comment stand as its own testament.
Mark my words, if there is a cure for diabetes in embrionic stem cell research, there will be plenty of Catholics, priests, and Bishops using that research to cure their own diseases.
I should nuance my answer here a bit. Supposing the world does go down this evil path and through the destruction of embryos discovers the knowledge to prevent diseases. As far as I know it would be acceptable to treat diseases based on the knowledge, but it would not be acceptable to treat disease if the treatment itself involved the destruction of embryos.
Just because “there will be plenty of Catholics, priests, and Bishops using that research to cure their own diseases.” if ESCR comes to that, doesn’t mean it isn’t morally wrong to utilize those treatments. Currently, there are “plenty of Catholics” using the pill and/or sinning against God in any number of ways, does that make it objectively right? God gave us all the gift of “judging” which behaviors are right and which are wrong in all aspects of all our lives. I have a funny feeling that those people who “judge” your faith are not afraid to have theirs be judged so no worries there. Jesus didn’t say we would go to hell for judging, just that we’d be judged.
Mary Ellen,
I too used to not understand why the Church did not support embryonic stem cell research. However I decided to trust the Church and her wisdom, because I do not have the same amount of wisdom.
Thank goodness I did trust Church teachings because after reading a 38 page document on conception by an embryologist I was completely convinced of life beginning at conception. I also happened to do a lot of research which convinced me of how EXTREAMLY morally WRONG embryonic stem cell research is.
It is exploiting to women who are paid to donate their eggs, who then who face high percentages of heath problems and sterility. Contrary to what the mass media insinuates, there are few embryos available for research. Only 2.2% of an estimated 400,000 embryos currently frozen can be used for research. Also, if a cure were to be found for diabetes, thousands of women would need to donate their eggs. This is a painful, risky and exploitive process.
You mentioned that embryonic stem cells could cure diabetes, well ADULT stem cells already have shown hope in doing this. No humans need to be destroyed or exploited in the harvesting of adult stem cells.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5648/1223
To harvest embryonic stem cells the human embryo must be killed/destroyed. In Nuremburg, Germany doctors did research at the expense of human life and dignity. Personally I would rather not sacrifice other people’s lives for my own life.
//That is, the best the pro-ESCR people can say is that we don’t know if it is a person or not. Basic morality says (don’t even need to make a religious appeal) we don’t destroy things when we are not sure. It is the same if a hunter fires into rustling bushes without knowing what he is firing at.//
There is no way to ever know when the soul enters into the body. The church does not outlaw invitro fertilization. In order to do that procedure, many of those same embrionic cells are thrown away after harvesting them….the church can’t have it both ways. They are well aware that this is the exact same thing.
//Supposing the world does go down this evil path and through the destruction of embryos discovers the knowledge to prevent diseases. As far as I know it would be acceptable to treat diseases based on the knowledge, but it would not be acceptable to treat disease if the treatment itself involved the destruction of embryos.//
You’ve already made up your mind that this is an evil path without knowing if these embrionic stem cells have a soul. That’s not erring on the side of caution, that is closing your mind to a different viewpoint. I’m open to finding out when life begins…let me know when the church has that one figured out and when they are going to quit turning their backs on the suffering of those who can benefit from a cure to their diseases.
Elizabeth
//You mentioned that embryonic stem cells could cure diabetes, well ADULT stem cells already have shown hope in doing this. No humans need to be destroyed or exploited in the harvesting of adult stem cells.//
When a scientist finds a cure for diabetes using adult stem cells, then the necessity to use embryonic cells will cease. I suggest they get cracking. In the meantime, I won’t close my eyes to other possibilities.
//I too used to not understand why the Church did not support embryonic stem cell research. However I decided to trust the Church and her wisdom, because I do not have the same amount of wisdom.//
Wisdom of the Church? The Church is run by human beings who have made a multitude of errors and sins. How did that wisdom work when the Church allowed children to be molested by priests, time and time again? Where was the wisdom of the Church when people were dying of AIDS in Africa and the Church said…suck it up. Where was the wisdom of the Church when they did nothing but promote our current President in two elections? This is the same President that cut aid to the needy, sent thousand of our soldiers to their deaths in a war that was based on lies for political and financial gain to companies that are in the pockets of those crooks? Where was their wisdom then?
THE CHURCH HAS BEEN WRONG ON MANY THINGS!!!
I think they are wrong on this one. I certainly could see through Bush, I can also see through this claim that this is a culture of death, when there is no proof that these embrionic stem cells are a “person”.
The church does not outlaw invitro fertilization.
I’m not sure what you mean by outlaw – after all, the Church doesn’t have the secular power to “outlaw” anything – but the Church most definitely condemns the practice.
There is no way to ever know when the soul enters into the body. The church does not outlaw invitro fertilization. In order to do that procedure, many of those same embrionic cells are thrown away after harvesting them….the church can’t have it both ways. They are well aware that this is the exact same thing.
Uhh.. The Church does forbid IVF. So this argument goes down right out of the gate.
You’ve already made up your mind that this is an evil path without knowing if these embrionic stem cells have a soul. That’s not erring on the side of caution, that is closing your mind to a different viewpoint. I’m open to finding out when life begins…let me know when the church has that one figured out and when they are going to quit turning their backs on the suffering of those who can benefit from a cure to their diseases.
The Church teaches that life begins at conception. Case closed.
Wisdom of the Church? The Church is run by human beings who have made a multitude of errors and sins.
Yes, Church members commit sin, but the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching and binding the faithful to error.
How did that wisdom work when the Church allowed children to be molested by priests, time and time again?
Yes there was a failure here, but the Church teaches that molesting children is wrong. Having wisdom doesn’t mean the Church can make so that no one commits a sin.
Where was the wisdom of the Church when people were dying of AIDS in Africa and the Church said…suck it up.
They didn’t say suck it up. They call for vigorous treatment of the disease, compassion for the sufferers and remind everyone that the only sure-fire way to avoid the disease is to uphold chastity. Very wise.
Where was the wisdom of the Church when they did nothing but promote our current President in two elections?
Err…not even remotely.
This is the same President that cut aid to the needy, sent thousand of our soldiers to their deaths in a war that was based on lies for political and financial gain to companies that are in the pockets of those crooks? Where was their wisdom then?
If you will remember correctly, JPII said that Iraq does not meet just-war criteria.
THE CHURCH HAS BEEN WRONG ON MANY THINGS!!!
Not when teaching and binding the faithful on the Faith and morals. If they are wrong on these as you say, pray tell, how do you know they are not wrong about say, the Trinity, or the very existence of Our Lord Himself.
Wow, I read further and can’t help but note a whole bunch of new errors spouted by Mary Ellen. First of all, she confuses domgamtic teaching versus cultural practice, ie. the veil issue. Then there are the litany of terribles that supposedly contradicts Church teaching.
Wisdom of the Church? The Church is run by human beings who have made a multitude of errors and sins. How did that wisdom work when the Church allowed children to be molested by priests, time and time again? Where was the wisdom of the Church when people were dying of AIDS in Africa and the Church said…suck it up.
Let’s see, first of all, the molestation scandal is truly horrifying, but the sins of a few do not mean that the Church is wrong when it speaks on dogmatic issues. Secondly, the idea that the Church said “suck it up” is so silly as to necessitate no response.
Where was the wisdom of the Church when they did nothing but promote our current President in two elections?
This is so wrong that I don’t know where to begin. The best that can be said is that some American bishops and clerics made clear that promotion of abortion is a grave evil, and thus tacitly endorsed the Republicans over the Democrats in previous elections. But, if anything, American bishops have signalled their hostility to the Bush administration on a great number of issues, especially the War. And it’s fairly obvious to all that the Vatican is no big fan of the current administration.
This is the same President that cut aid to the needy,
I really don’t want to get into this bit of a non sequiter, but I’m not sure that the Preisdent who increased domestic spending by 10%, created a new Medicare drug entitlement, and who has tripled monetary aid to Africa can truly be said to have cut aid to the needy. But then again, you actually think the Church has somehow “promoted” the President, so your familiarity with facts is somewhat wanting.
Has Hoodlum started posting under a new name?
Mary Ellen:
Where did you get the idea that the Church does not outlaw (or condemn) invitro fertilization? Don’t tell me some priest told you that. Show me an official Church document that teaches that, and I’ll show you several that condemn the practice. Unfortunately, we have a plethora of priests in the world who prefer to teach their own doctrine.
Also, don’t quote me Aquinas, who did not have the scientific knowledge about conception, genetics, or DNA. He was theologian, but not part of the teaching Magisterium.
Scott
The church does not forbid IV, there was an enclyclical, not written by the Pope. This encyclical was based on the same one that “condemned” contraception….which now, they do allow the use of condoms…a form of contraception. The Church, iteself, contradicts its rulings on a regular basis. All life is sacred…when it is life. Stopping sperm from entering the womb by using a condom is not killing life. If there is a problem with Europe and how many children are being produced, that is something they have to work on…but is all of Europe Catholic? Do all people have to follow a faith they don’t believe in or laws that aren’t laws of their own faith or Church? These laws that you are all stating are man made laws from an institution, they are not God’s laws. You aren’t killing life if there is no life. Thou shalt not kill does not come close to IV (which brings life) or stem cell research, which doesn’t kill a human.
Jim:
When did I quote you Aquinas? I stated my views, I don’t need to quote a saint to use my brain, I actually have my own opinions.
I’ll trust the church’s wisdom when the church wises up.
Paul
//This is so wrong that I don’t know where to begin. The best that can be said is that some American bishops and clerics made clear that promotion of abortion is a grave evil, and thus tacitly endorsed the Republicans over the Democrats in previous elections. But, if anything, American bishops have signalled their hostility to the Bush administration on a great number of issues, especially the War. And it’s fairly obvious to all that the Vatican is no big fan of the current administration.//
Wrong. The Catholic Church (just listen to EWTN) has endorsed Bush. During both elections I had to sit through many a sermon extolling the virtues of Bush and telling us how we should vote…Republican. There was even campaign info on the pews when we came in, encouraging everyone to “vote for life”. The Catholic church took ONE issue and used it to promote a man that cared nothing for life. How did Bush and your Republican Congress and Senate do with the abortion issue, eh? See any abortion clinics closing down? See any new legislation outlawing it? I didn’t think so. The Pope was eeerily quiet..and was quite happy to involve himself in the photo op with Bush and Cheney.
The church does not forbid IV, there was an enclyclical, not written by the Pope. This encyclical was based on the same one that “condemned” contraception….which now, they do allow the use of condoms…a form of contraception.
Aside from the utterly confusing way in which this sentence was written, it’s also demonstrably untrue. Where does the Church allow the use of condoms?
I’ll trust the church’s wisdom when the church wises up.
But remember folks, she’s a faithful Catholic. Don’t let her comments tell you otherwise.
Paul
//created a new Medicare drug entitlement//
Can’t let this one go….
This so called Medicare entitlement did nothing but give money to the drug companies. Let me tell you how much more my mother is paying for her drugs because of this “entitlement”. She was paying only $58 per month for all her drugs. One of those drugs was necessary to keep her from a recurring breast cancer. She now has to pay $262 just for the cancer pill. The other pills for heart, and blood thinning and others adds up to an additional $128 per month. She had to stop taking the cancer pill and only takes one pill that is supposed to be taken every day, only three times a week to stretch them. Yeah…entitlement.
You guys need to wake up.
Wrong. The Catholic Church (just listen to EWTN) has endorsed Bush.
I apologize Mary Ellen. By repeating the trope again you obviously proved me wrong. No supporting evidence needed. Oh wait – the Pope allowed himself to be photgraphed with the President, which obviously means he endorsed them. Dang it, that’s just incontrovertible evidence right there.
As for the lack of abortion mills being closed – you see there’s this Court case called Roe vs. Wade that made abortion the law of the land. The federal government, because of said case cannot outlaw abortion (well, they can’t because of the way we’ve let the SC become the final arbiter of law, but that’s another topic). Now, said case was an atrocity even according to some pro-choicers, but sadly we have to live with it until it is overturned, which it might be thanks to two of the Presiden’t SCOTUS selections, though we won’t know for sure until abortion law comes before the Courts again. Now, if you’d like the President to declare martial law to shut down the abortion clinics, be my guest, though that would just seem to affirm the view of an imperial Presidency. Catch-22 indeed.
The bash-Bush tact is off-topic. Let’s get back to the issue at hand: this so-called encyclical not written by a pope that allows condoms and IVF. Where is it?
Scott
Paul
Again you can’t separate Church from faith.
Lets look at this…when there is a Holy Day of Obligation, we are required to attend Mass, which I do. However, some churches will say, it’s on a Sunday so you don’t have to. Some will say, well, it’s on a Sunday, but you have to go on Saturday for the obligation. Some will say you don’t have to go at all. Gee…who’s running the show? So, is God going to call those who listen to one and not the other a sinner? Don’t think so.
I already told you that the Pope is considering allowing condom use in Africa to ward off AIDS. Now..that announcement would not have been made to the public, if he wasn’t going to do it. So…it’s not a sin to prevent AIDS in Africa, but it is in other parts of the world?
I seem to remember Jesus telling the Jews they had too many stupid little laws…pay attention to the most important commandments, Love God with all you might, with all your heart…love they neighbor as thy self. Remember? Well, keeping AIDS from spreading IS loving thy neighbor. Allowing the research need for a cure of diseases such as diabetes IS loving thy neighbor. Exalting God for the brains he gave us to do these things IS loving God.
Condemning people to die a horrible disease because the Church is too pig headed to realize that stopping sperm is not killing a life is not a sin. Stopping the spead of AIDS is more important than some archaic law that the church wants to hold on to.
Really…I love the Catholic faith, I just hate what the EWTN set is doing to it. I used to watch that show until I was sickened by the promotion of a political hack who claimed to love God, but was not above lining his pockets with money from Jack Abramoff. But, gee..he looked like such a nice guy,eh?
I don’t go for gullible, I look at the facts and I can see through a phony a mile away. EWTN apparently weren’t able to do that. I have no trust in people who can support and have a guy like that on their show, and then tell me that they know better than the scientists if embryonic stem cell research is killing a human being.
Lets look at this…when there is a Holy Day of Obligation, we are required to attend Mass, which I do. However, some churches will say, it’s on a Sunday so you don’t have to. Some will say, well, it’s on a Sunday, but you have to go on Saturday for the obligation. Some will say you don’t have to go at all. Gee…who’s running the show? So, is God going to call those who listen to one and not the other a sinner? Don’t think so.
This is merely variations between the Universal Church and the local ordinary. It in no way argues that there is no universal deposit of faith.
I already told you that the Pope is considering allowing condom use in Africa to ward off AIDS. Now..that announcement would not have been made to the public, if he wasn’t going to do it. So…it’s not a sin to prevent AIDS in Africa, but it is in other parts of the world?,/i>
First of all this is pure rumor, there is no expectation that B16 is going to allow condom use, so this is non-evidence.
I seem to remember Jesus telling the Jews they had too many stupid little laws…pay attention to the most important commandments, Love God with all you might, with all your heart…love they neighbor as thy self. Remember? Well, keeping AIDS from spreading IS loving thy neighbor. Allowing the research need for a cure of diseases such as diabetes IS loving thy neighbor. Exalting God for the brains he gave us to do these things IS loving God.
Yes, but the MEANS to prevent AIDS from spreading must be moral. Condoms ain’t, so we must find another means. The MEANS for curing diseases must be moral. Killing embryos ain’t, so we must find another means.
Condemning people to die a horrible disease because the Church is too pig headed to realize that stopping sperm is not killing a life is not a sin. Stopping the spead of AIDS is more important than some archaic law that the church wants to hold on to.
The Church condemns no one by teaching Truth. The Truth is that God did not make us for fornication. Remaining chaste is a vitual guarantee against spreading AIDS. Using a condom is like playing Russian Roulette with your life. It is the boatloads-of-condoms advocates who are condemning people to death.
Really…I love the Catholic faith, I just hate what the EWTN set is doing to it. I used to watch that show until I was sickened by the promotion of a political hack who claimed to love God, but was not above lining his pockets with money from Jack Abramoff. But, gee..he looked like such a nice guy,eh?
Frankly, we need to stop talking about EWTN as they are not the Magisterium and really don’t bear on the argument itself. Even if they got some chucklehead on their as you charaterize, it doesn’t mean the argument against ESCR is wrong. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Scott
The problem with the Church trying to makeup laws which they think is in the best interest of God is that they don’t know the mind of God. The churches vision of what is moral and what isn’t does not mean that this is God’s vision. The church has made numerous errors in the past while saying they are following the laws of God. It wasn’t all that long ago that the Church thought that homosexuality was a choice. Now, they are saying..well, people may be born homosexual, but they can’t act on it. Excuse me? They are born this way because this is how they are created by God, yet they cannot love another like we can love our husbands or wives? God makes them this way and then says..too bad? I don’t think God says that..only the men of the church who have decided to interpret it that way. Perhaps what God wants if for those who are not heterosexual to live as he made them. I’m not saying to have orgies whenever they like…but to live as a couple, to love as a couple.
That said, until the church can prove to me that they know that embyonic stem cells are a person, then I will listen. The church is run by human beings with flaws. They’ve made grave mistakes in the past, and I think they are making another one by trying to force their views on the world. The Catholic church has no right to force their morals on those who aren’t of the Christian faith..or any faith for that matter. If those of the Catholic church don’t believe in stem cell research..don’t be involved, don’t take advantage of that research. If they have diabtetes and the cure involves using embyonic stem cells, refuse the cure. Even if the Church condemns the use of embryonic stem cells fo research, there is nothing they can do about it. Church laws don’t apply to the public.
For those politicians that you believe are going to stop abortion or this research, look again. They want your vote, not your opinion. They won’t go against the majority of voters. That’s where their bread is buttered. Besides, the Catholic church lost all credibility in the voting booth for backing Bush and his ilk. That’s not a Bush bash, that’s just the truth. The guy lied to you…get used to it.
The problem with the Church trying to makeup laws which they think is in the best interest of God is that they don’t know the mind of God. The churches vision of what is moral and what isn’t does not mean that this is God’s vision. The church has made numerous errors in the past while saying they are following the laws of God.
This goes back to a question I asked earlier: How do you know that the Church is wrong about this, but right about the Trinity, or that Our Lord even existed at all? That fact is, you can’t be a Catholic and pick which ones they are right about and which they are wrong.
It wasn’t all that long ago that the Church thought that homosexuality was a choice. Now, they are saying..well, people may be born homosexual, but they can’t act on it. Excuse me? They are born this way because this is how they are created by God, yet they cannot love another like we can love our husbands or wives? God makes them this way and then says..too bad? I don’t think God says that..only the men of the church who have decided to interpret it that way. Perhaps what God wants if for those who are not heterosexual to live as he made them. I’m not saying to have orgies whenever they like…but to live as a couple, to love as a couple.
The errors keep mounting. The Church has never officially declared the cause of homosexuality because it frankly is irrelevant to the question of the morality of the act itself. Even if the dubious proposition that people were born gay is proven, it would not make homosexual acts acceptable. It is the same if one has a genetic disposition to alcoholism–it does not make his drinking morally acceptable.
That said, until the church can prove to me that they know that embyonic stem cells are a person, then I will listen.
Why settle for such small fish when there is a giant one staring you in the face? Instead say, “until the Church can prove to me that God is a trinity, then I will listen.” See? Your decision that they are right about one thing but wrong about another is altogether random and arbitrary.
The church is run by human beings with flaws.
Protected by the Holy Spirit from binding the faithful to errors regarding the Deposit of Faith.
They’ve made grave mistakes in the past, and I think they are making another one by trying to force their views on the world. The Catholic church has no right to force their morals on those who aren’t of the Christian faith..or any faith for that matter.
Mega-error. The Church is not forcing anyone to do anything. There are no Catholic Sex Police breaking into bedrooms arresting people for putting on a condom and there never will be. What the Church teaches is Truth. If people refuse to listen, that is in a manner of speaking, not their problem.
If those of the Catholic church don’t believe in stem cell research..don’t be involved, don’t take advantage of that research. If they have diabtetes and the cure involves using embyonic stem cells, refuse the cure. Even if the Church condemns the use of embryonic stem cells fo research, there is nothing they can do about it. Church laws don’t apply to the public.
If someone claims to be Catholic they need to be obedient to its teachings or get out. Just as we would expect someone who adopted racist beliefs to quit their membership in the NAACP, so we would expect someone who didn’t believe Catholic teachings to go to a different church with different beliefs.
For those politicians that you believe are going to stop abortion or this research, look again. They want your vote, not your opinion. They won’t go against the majority of voters. That’s where their bread is buttered. Besides, the Catholic church lost all credibility in the voting booth for backing Bush and his ilk. That’s not a Bush bash, that’s just the truth. The guy lied to you…get used to it.
Repeat the unproven Catholic Bush support. Answered already. Move on please.
The problem with the Church trying to makeup laws which they think is in the best interest of God is that they don’t know the mind of God. The churches vision of what is moral and what isn’t does not mean that this is God’s vision.
Sorry, I had to stop reading after this statement, and I know you’re going to be upset with the following, but tough.
You CANNOT be a Catholic of good faith and hold this view. Either you accept that the Holy Spirit inspires the apostles and their sucessors and is working within the Church, or you do not. This view essentially signals your disbelief in the premise of the Holy Spirit’s working to guide and form the Church, and that’s simply unacceptable.
At least Hoodlum has the decency to admit what he is. I’m sorry to say the same cannot be said of you.
Mary Ellen,
Although many people in the Church are sinners, including myself. It is still important for a Catholic to follow Christ and the Body of Christ, the Church.
The teachings of Christ and the Church are clear. Life begins at conception, and we must follow God�s commandments, which include not killing our neighbor.
You shall not kill.5420:13; cf. Deut 5:17.
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55Mt 5:21-22.
From the Compendium of the Catecim of the Catholic Church:
1703- Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul,5 the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.”6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.
2258
“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”56
2270
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person�among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74Ps 139:15.
2269
The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
2273
The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80CDF, Donum vitae III.
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”81CDF, Donum vitae III.
//This goes back to a question I asked earlier: How do you know that the Church is wrong about this, but right about the Trinity, or that Our Lord even existed at all? That fact is, you can’t be a Catholic and pick which ones they are right about and which they are wrong.//
There is historical proof that Jesus existed. There are preserved writings that show those who followed him and knew him directly told of his life and what he said. I believe that and in those writings, the Lord Jesus spoke of those things, the Trinity, God, etc. Just as I believe that George Washington existed and the history written by those who knew him were correct.I don’t need to hear Washingtons voice to know what he said. You should know this yourself, Scott, this is the same thing I’ve told atheists who think I’m nuts for believing in God.
//The errors keep mounting. The Church has never officially declared the cause of homosexuality because it frankly is irrelevant to the question of the morality of the act itself. Even if the dubious proposition that people were born gay is proven, it would not make homosexual acts acceptable. It is the same if one has a genetic disposition to alcoholism–it does not make his drinking morally acceptable.//
This is not an error. At one time the church would not allow a person who is a homosexual be a part of the sacraments of the church. Now they do. What they do with their sexual life is between them and God. But, created them that way, you can’t compare a homosexual to an alcoholic. Alcoholism is a disease, homosexuality is not.
//Why settle for such small fish when there is a giant one staring you in the face? Instead say, “until the Church can prove to me that God is a trinity, then I will listen.” See? Your decision that they are right about one thing but wrong about another is altogether random and arbitrary.//
Again, Jesus already proved to me that there is a Trinity, He said so and it is in the historical writings that He did. Just because I don’t believe the church is incapable of telling me about life, doesn’t mean that I believe that Jesus is incapable. He’s the Son of God, He’s already proven that to me by his death and resurrection.
//Yes, but the MEANS to prevent AIDS from spreading must be moral. Condoms ain’t, so we must find another means. The MEANS for curing diseases must be moral. Killing embryos ain’t, so we must find another means.//
I see, so how’s that working Scott? Are you telling me that without the use of condoms, all of the sudden people who were raised in a totally different culture than ours is going to stop having sex unless they are married? Yeah…tell it to the baby born with AIDS that the church thinks that wearing a condom is immoral.
//If someone claims to be Catholic they need to be obedient to its teachings or get out.//
So, you’re telling me that I have to leave the Church? Hmmm…Who died and made you God? You are wrong on so many levels with that one. I was Baptized as Catholic, I received and STILL receive Communion, I attend Mass more than just the obligated Sundays and am a part of the Perpetual Adoration adorers in my church. All of this with my priest giving me his blessings to be in YOUR church. I never had an abortion, I never DID research on embryonic cells and I am not a homosexual or performed homosexual acts. So, tell me why I should leave YOUR church, Scott? I have four children and three grandchildren…should I pull them out of YOUR church, Scott? All because I question the authority of the church? You really should think about that Scott before you start driving more people from the Church of Curt Jester.
Elizabeth:
//”Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”56//
Where does it say that God said life begins at conception? Where is it that He said that embryonic stem cells are life? He said that He is God alone from the beginning of life until death. He doesn’t say when the beginning of life is.
Paul
//At least Hoodlum has the decency to admit what he is. I’m sorry to say the same cannot be said of you.//
Now I’m an atheist? Honestly, the only time I’ve seen such indignant judgement came from a Johova’s Witness who told me I was going to hell because I was Catholic. Now I have the Catholics telling me I’m an atheist. My gosh, I’ve never seen so many deities in one place in my life!
Take my word for it, Paul…you don’t have to follow lock step with the church to be a part of it. If that were true, we would have no priests or Bishops. This is the Catholic Church, not Nazi Germany. It’s ok to question authority.
Wow. Where, exactly, in the Bible, did Jesus explicitly define the Trinity?
Actually, all he left us were some good hints. Thankfully, he also left us the Holy Spirit, a teaching tradition passed on in oral and written forms, and empowered his Church to do the intellectual heavy lifting to explicitly describe the nature of the Trinity.
BTW, my son is supposed to make his Confirmation at the end of this month. I’m glad he never ran into anyone like you guys who are so quick to kick people out of the church for not agreeing with you. He would never want to be a part of such zealotry.
//When did I quote you Aquinas? //
You didn’t, but I was anticipating that you might, since many people who share your opinion often do when talking about the soul.
//I’ll trust the church’s wisdom when the church wises up.//
Wises up to what? Who do you trust? Earlier you were questioning Scott using expressions like “YOUR (Scott’s) Church” But you’re doing the same thing. In your mind, you’ve created your own church with visibly looks like the Catholic Church, but doesn’t have its heart. You’ve just chosen to celebrate your religion in the Roman Catholic Church, which holds a different set of principles than you. I pray that you’ll be open someday to understanding this. Otherwise, you’re being a hypocrit (sorry to be so blunt).
It’s not my church, it’s not Scott’s, it’s not yours. It’s not my or Scott’s interpretation either. The teaching of Jesus’s church are pretty well documented.
Thank you, though, for lighting a fire and engaging us in discussion.
God Bless You!
Jim
The problem with THEM, the bad guys, the old geezers, the idiots, the idealists, the conservatives, the deceitful guardians of the archaic, the Church is that they don’t agree with you, Mary Ellen? It must be so. Your language and your tone say that you have stepped outside of the Church, at least for the moment. Listen to yourself. As soon as you’re angry, your pronoun changes from ‘we’ to ‘they’. Hence the defensive reactions.
As for the “garbage” argument, that’s my most hated argument for embryonic research and IVF! Just because something or someone is thrown away, that doesn’t mean it or he/she is garbage! If someone were to throw you away, would that make you garbage? No, it would be an atrocity! If IVF makes garbage of the human embryo, it is clearly a horrible practice.
As for Peter Kreeft, in what way has he invested materially in explaining the truth of our need to respect life beginning at conception? He’s a philosopher, not a scientist. Although, given all the times he has mended my poor brain via his written philosophy, he could charge me medical fees!
Oh, yeah. That part about the Pope not saying he’ll consider s’thing unless he’s actually going to do it? Since when? I think he wants us to know that he’s listening and thinking and praying about all sides of the issue.
Comments are closed.