Pope Benedict XVI
Image: roblisameehan via Flickr
The Vatican released a striking bioethics document today that condemns not only embryonic stem cell research, human-animal hybrids, and human cloning, but also the commonplace practice of in vitro fertilization that many couples depend on to have children.
The document, titled "The Dignity of the Person," was released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is charged under Pope Benedict XVI to develop moral instructions for handling bioethical issues of the day. Few expected the instructions, whose official title is in Latin, to be forward-looking, but their striking position against in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogate motherhood may take many by surprise.
These instructions stem from two fundamental theological principles: that life begins at conception and that the origin of human life is the "fruit of marriage."
The first principle is well known for driving opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The document now makes clear that the morning-after pill, RU-486, and intrauterine devices (IUDs), which either intercept the embryo before implantation or eliminate it after implantation, "fall within the sin of abortion." While embryonic stem cell research is "a grave moral disorder," the document notes that parents may make use of a "vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin" when the health of a child is at stake as long as they voice their disapproval and request alternatives. And while the document supports somatic cell gene therapy -- that is, in cells other than reproductive cells -- it comes down against genetic modifications of the reproductive cell lines "in the present state of research" because they are too risky and would be transmitted to potential offspring. Genetic engineering, it also warns, may promote a "eugenic mentality" which would contrast with the Vatican's fundamental view of equality.
More difficult to grapple are the scientific and policy implications of that second principle, which links the creation of life to marriage and calls into question the morality of IVF. To find out more, we talked to Josephine Johnston, a lawyer and expert on reproductive ethics at The Hastings Center in Garrison, New York.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
What was the most surprising guideline issued in the document?
The most difficult thing for me to understand was the judgments on assisted reproduction, particularly in vitro fertilization. The document also mischaracterizes in vitro fertilization in a number of ways.
The Vatican says that in vitro fertilization is wrong at its core because it involves conception outside of a woman's body. Unblocking fallopian tubes, undoing a vasectomy, or giving fertility medicine that boosts egg production so the woman is more likely to conceive through intercourse is okay. But anything that involves conception happening in the lab: taking the eggs out of a woman, fertilizing the eggs with the sperm, and then putting one or two or three embryos back inside the woman. It is opposed to that for two reasons. It doesn't like the embryo loss that is often involved. That I don't agree with, but I understand the Vatican's rationale. But it also opposes IVF even if it doesn't involve embryo loss, because the Vatican is committed to conception that involves the conjugal act. This I don't really understand.
See what we're tweeting about
59 Comments
Add CommentYou would think someone in that group would have passed freshman (high school) science class, and realized that life does not "begin" at conception. Sperm are alive. Eggs are alive. Life simply continues if allowed to, in our species exactly the same way as any other. I understand it's romantic to think that when one strand of DNA merges with another, an invisible superbeing injects a little magic in the mix to make a supreme being, but erm...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, everyone should go to the vatican city at least once in their life. The experience reveals different things to different people. To some it is a worthy monument to the height of their lords magnificence, to others, it is a physical reminder of the greed and excess in the tyranny of the church run state exploiting the masses. Amazing marble work. But looked to as a base for scientific ethics it is not.
The Vatican, as is known, has enormous wealth at its disposal. It is also consistently clouded regarding the systematic sexual abuse of minors by its own priests. Unless and until it asserts moral leadership in these areas, how can it presume to provide a credible moral compass for the other areas which this article discusses?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't know enough about how Catholicism works in practice"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seem to me that someone who doesn't know much about something (Catholicism) shouldn't write an article about it.
We Christians have been vilified since the time of Caesar Augustus so your comments come as no surprise. I shall keep you in mind when I pray.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: the "beginning" of life - this aspect of bioethics refers to the onset of "a single new being", not the continuation of living DNA. Do you not understand the individual nature "soul" of each human as distinct from all others? The Catholic teaching - that "(a new) life begins at the moment of conception" is in part based on the doctrine of probabilism (see Thomas Aquinas) and certainly debatable, as I know of no 'ex cathedra' pronouncement mandating Catholic assent to this current teaching. I prefer to believe a new life begins "at the moment of infusion of the soul" and it seems most logical to me this would be upon viability (the likely ability of the fetus to exist outside the mother), gestational time can only be approximated, but at least requires a few months for organ development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Church thinks it is right regardless of whether people do what it says, but it seems to be somewhat out of step with the behavior of modern Catholics." Modern "Catholics" need to get in step with the Church. As Christ said to Peter: "Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven . . ." Being Catholic requires that you buy the whole doctrine and teaching of the Church. If you don't buy the whole, you are not Catholic. It is a sorry state of affairs when the media, political leaders, and many in the laity cannot see the wisdom of the teachings. Of course, it requires that the inquiring mind start with the Church Fathers and study right through to the more modern encyclicals - a chore too daunting for the selfish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It seem to me that someone who doesn't know much about something (Catholicism) shouldn't write an article about it." - CMG
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen tell me how the Vatican has even the most remote entitlement to regulate the work of researchers? When was the last time an institute of Max Planck attempted to guide the efforts of the Vatican? I have absolutely nothing against anyone who tries to do anything they feel is right. Unless it involves negatively affecting someone else. It seems to me as though we should draw a line in the sand. Science on one, and the Vatican on the other.
I don't understand why all of you non-catholics have such a problem with the teachings of the catholic church. Every thing we believe has a foundation in the bible and tradition from the begining of the christian faith. After all did not christ ordain Peter to be his rock to build his church on. There has been an unbroken line since Peter. And since he ordained the pope does the pope not speak for him. Until recent times everyone believed that live began at conception. How hard is that!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA point to consider on 'viability'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe womb IS the natural environment of a fetus. Whatever/whomever one holds has determined it to be that way and however you view the relationship to the host/mother.
In life, we are all dependent on our natural environment. An astronaut does not cease to be a viable life-form when he dons a spacesuit and envelopes himself in a bubble of his bare-minimum natural environment. Or, does he? Or, are we not cosmically 'viable' until we can/do leave our planetary womb,,, sans environment?
cints, whether your comment is a direct reply to myself or to hotblack, I would suggest that instead of taking refuge in the familiar victim role, you as a Christian make your voice heard about the injustices which I mentioned. The Catholic Church interferes with science while sweeping under the carpet the many lives ruined by its priests. A close friend of mine was raped by a priest when he was twelve. Now in his fifties he's still marked psychologically, and knows he can expect no justice. So why is the Church now making a show of 'safeguarding' human life, as this article describes? If you reply to me I would respect a reasonable answer on this point, rather than victimised history lessons about Caesar Augustus. My friend and many, many others like him are true victims of the Church, not your frivolous historical invocations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thing: to offer prayers for someone who has neither asked for them nor wishes them is obnoxious and sanctimonious. Please don't.
Oh, this tears it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm joining the First Amalgamated Church!
Systematic sexual abuse? No, that is a very, very inaccurate way to describe it. The sexual abuse that has happened is very sad, and the way they handled priests known to have done so (as in forgiving them and placing them elsewhere) was very poor. Those priests were mentally sick and should have been sent away from the general public.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishotblack, I'm sorry but that little account of yours actually has nothing to do with biology at all. I'm pretty sure in biology (maybe not where you went?) that they don't teach that life just continues. In fact, they separate different life based on DNA. Since both the sperm and the egg have completely different DNA (in half the chromosomes) than an embryo, they are not human, merely part of the body they came from. The embryo on the other hand has its own, completely unique DNA, so it is in fact the start of a new being. Whether or not you believe it has a soul is up to you, but science is science.
and Robert Mugabe says there is no cholera in Zimbabwe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaith trumps logic and empirical knowledge among the faithful without exception. Why are any of us surprised that a very conservative dictator who runs a very conservative government writes or signs off on a reactionary proclamation? Why are any of us surprised that the faithful - even those who think of themselves as scientists - accept the dogma as a pronouncement of their God?* To paraphrase someone (Dawkins, I believe): Religion exists so that some men can control most men and all women.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*I don't want to get into an argument over upper vs. lower case G.
The real problem is the way some churches--both conservative Catholics and right-wing evangelical Christians--have a habit of attempting to hijack the legislative process in order to force their religious views on everyone else. They pose a much greater threat to religious freedom than any atheist, feminist, or proponent of gay marriage. If we wish to avoid living in a fascist theocratic state (and despite Obama's win, we are far from out of the woods), we had best stop electing people who will cater to the religious whims of a minority at the expense of the majority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is likely that the preferred Catholic method of contraception, 'the rhythm method' or 'natural procreative technology (NFT)' (I love the sciency name of the latter) could be responsible for a 'child holocaust' in the 100s of millions. That is if you believe an embryo is a child, along with the findings of this bioethics paper found at this site: http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/32/6/355. I wonder if Herr Ratzinger has read it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is likely that the preferred Catholic method of contraception, 'the rhythm method' or 'natural procreative technology (NFT)' (I love the sciency name of the latter) could be responsible for a 'child holocaust' in the 100s of millions. That is if you believe an embryo is a child, along with the findings of this bioethics paper found at this site: http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/32/6/355. I wonder if Herr Ratzinger has read it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe topic was Health not religion, can you do a better job of putting this together? Maybe, like news but, Health? Please try and make sense after all you are the Scientific American not MSNBC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are lots of badly informed entries here. Yes. The Church has had some particularly dark periods in its history – the most recent of which is the priest predator abomination and the bums who shuffled those monsters around from parish to parish. I have a sibling who was a victim. If I ever find that “priest” I will choke him. However, the follies of men are not the doctrine of the Church, nor should the Church’s dogma be challenged on the basis that some of her priests were dogs. The Holy See is designed to survive the presence of monsters in the sacristy – “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” One must separate the excellence and perfection of Christ’s Church from the few evil nitwits who are found in the various dioceses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no conflict between the Holy See and science. In fact, a scholar of any worth will tell you that the Church has been at the forefront of science for centuries. One need only Google “Jesuit Scientists” to see dozens of members of the Society of Jesus who have contributed to the knowledge of our universe – in harmony with God’s plan. And that’s just the Jesuits! Then, there are Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, and dozens of lesser known orders of monks and religious – all have had their great scientists and thinkers. Like it or not, the Roman Catholic Church (not just its laymen but priests) has been the greatest single contributor to the sciences in history.
I recommend that some of the readers get their anger under control. You sprout off thinking you have all the answers and you don’t know half the questions. Get a grip. When you attack the Church unjustly you demonstrate your profound ignorance. Now, if you have a brain, read “Humanae Vitae” (Of Human Life – Paul VI) and Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life – John Paul II). They are available online. If you are capable of critical thinking you will see the progressive logic of the Church’s doctrine as recently published in “Dignitatis Personae”.
There are lots of badly informed entries here. Yes. The Church has had some particularly dark periods in its history – the most recent of which is the priest predator abomination and the bums who shuffled those monsters around from parish to parish. I have a sibling who was a victim. If I ever find that “priest” I will choke him. However, the follies of men are not the doctrine of the Church, nor should the Church’s dogma be challenged on the basis that some of her priests were dogs. The Holy See is designed to survive the presence of monsters in the sacristy – “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” One must separate the excellence and perfection of Christ’s Church from the few evil nitwits who are found in the various dioceses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no conflict between the Holy See and science. In fact, a scholar of any worth will tell you that the Church has been at the forefront of science for centuries. One need only Google “Jesuit Scientists” to see dozens of members of the Society of Jesus who have contributed to the knowledge of our universe – in harmony with God’s plan. And that’s just the Jesuits! Then, there are Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, and dozens of lesser known orders of monks and religious – all have had their great scientists and thinkers. Like it or not, the Roman Catholic Church (not just its laymen but priests) has been the greatest single contributor to the sciences in history.
I recommend that some of the readers get their anger under control. You sprout off thinking you have all the answers and you don’t know half the questions. Get a grip. When you attack the Church unjustly you demonstrate your profound ignorance. Now, if you have a brain, read “Humanae Vitae” (Of Human Life – Paul VI) and Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life – John Paul II). They are available online. If you are capable of critical thinking you will see the progressive logic of the Church’s doctrine as recently published in “Dignitatis Personae”.
I'm guessing the church will always be the same ole arrogant blowhard they have always been and think they have the authority to speak to the world. If they were speaking only to their own people, it would be a simple matter to send a reminder memo to each one of their churches....but no, their conceit shows them simply to be men who show their asses in public by presuming to speak to us all and would love to have the power to do just that which is proof and witness to the fact they bullied their parsishioners into voting for Bush. And you see what kind of shape we're in now. I admire persistence. However to keep beating your head against a brick wall when it is evident you will never knock it down only reveals your stupidity and can only lead to your death. That changes it from persistence into insanity and I think your church's leaders are officially ready for the old strait jacket. You will never run our politics here in America and indeed there are enough of us willing to pick up arms against such who are ignorant enough to try. Capice?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe gates of hell doesn't have a quarrel with the church. Indeed, they are already working with the devil it's master. How can Satan fight against Satan? As Jesus once remarked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLuke 11:17
But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
Mark 3 (King James Version)
23And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
24And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
26And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
27No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
Indeed. As someone who passionately devoted 22 years of their life to Catholicism, your assumption that I need or desire your unsolicited prayer is beyond erroneous. Presently, catholics have plenty of their own shortcomings to pray for. Walking around assuming that all unbelievers are less intelligent/simply inexperienced/entirely selfish/or any of the other easy, arrogant assumptions made to inflate our sense of superiority as a gods chosen children, while simultaneously playing the "poor oppressed christian minority" card, when it's the third largest religion in the world, and even in Roman times, got their desired revenge. This attitude is a disgrace to even the constructive aspects of your faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider for a moment, that most christians do not remain practicing christians for very long, and it's not because we're tempted by satan. It's because we've seen the destructive consequences of that life, and discovered the causality in that religion that leads to those consequences. Life is cause & effect.
Jeannieben1, until recent times, we believed millions of things that turned out not to be accurate either. Especially those things that were too small for our eyes too see in plain sight. Everything you believe may have a foundation in the bible, but make no mistake, you are not everyone. And that bible that formed your worldview wasn't the first time those parables and fables were told either. Quite a thick history, your religion. Once you step out of it and can view it with impartial eyes, you may see the big picture. It is not hard, you are right.
If you are broken looking for something to believe in, there is no shortage of churches that will be happy to give you therapy to cure your emotional needs. But like always, you get what you pay for. Which is why scientists perform medical research and and not Popes and bishops.
Ancient religions contain ancient wisdom, but they also contain plenty of ancient ignorance as well.
Because we have a problem with people who pretend to be our spiritual 'SUPERIORS' and don't follow the bible. Such as the fact they regularly ignore this scripture: Matthew 23:9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
But your leaders absolutely INSIST on being called what only GOD demands to be called and ONLY he be called.
What? I think you mean everything in Christianity has a foundation in an earlier religion, think off all that stuff the bishops added when they got together in the 3rd century that had nothing to do with what Jesus taught and everything to do with controlling people and adding members by taking from other religions that people practiced (like Christmas). Do some reading about the Bible rather then just in it; You will either say: yeah "whatever" or it will blow your mind how the Bible has evolved over the years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you not know about the doctrine of Constantinople? The document proclaiming the Bishop of Rome become Pope? It was forged by the bishop so that he would gain control the church. How can you be Catholic and not understand the history of your own religion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTruth be told, the Cross is not even an actual Christian symbol, but rather one of Rome's eternal Right to the earthly judgment of mankind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEarly Christians met under the signs of the fish and the anchor. The Cross was a sign of terror and oppression, an instrument of torture.
Converting Christianity to Rome was a politically expedient way to perpetuate an Empire through hearts and minds that could no longer be held by the point of a sword.
( This from a Christian )
' These instructions stem from two fundamental theological principles: that life begins at conception ..." '
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this guy serious? The statement that 'life begins at conception" is not theology. This can be found by picking up any book on embryology written in the last 50 years. This is the closest thing to "scientific dogma" that one will get. The Catholic Church is merely reminding us of something science has been telling us for decades. The Catholic Church is one of the few still standing up for this basic 'dogma' of science - which is ironic considering some of the comments to this article.
Christians have been villified for good reason - like the burning of the library at Alexandira and the continuous attack against science and reason ever since.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis vatican article is just one more feeble step in that long, ignorant march.
All that was said and written, about science in general, before Darwin and (Galileo) Einstein is totally obsolete, I don't belive in hell (nor in a supernatural being that dispose of my life) but if it (the hell) should exists I wish it is big enough to engulf, black hole-like, all the priests, the bishops, the vatican and the pope, excluding the magnificent architectonics that house all of them, and they preach poverty for others, but not for themselves. Dear "ad majorem dei gloriam" u sound like a bishop, wake-up we are living in the 21th century not in the Middle Ages, I am positive that in the following half century the church establishment and all that it stand for will decrease in power and vigor, its two millenia history not withstandig. I am born a free man, I live my life in freedom, respect for every living being, and I like to die free including my right to end my own life when and as I see fit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am atheist and pro-choice, but I completely understand the Vatican's position. (Why we listen to the Vatican at all on ethical issues over other world religious institutions evades me, but that's another topic.) They are sticking to a position about interfering with what they think is the miracle of life and birth. If you truly believe it is God's plan to have children the biological way, then you would, in fact, be against abortion, in-vitro fertilization, egg implantation, eugenics, etc. What I can't understand is why they are in favor of fertility drugs, which also interfere with natural conception. It seems to me that drawing the line at fertility drugs is arbitrary. If the Vatican believes in unequivocal fairness, then the Vatican should stand behind the position that infertile couples are infertile for a reason and should not procreate. With the world population growing by one million people every four days, the Earth's resources will not be able to sustain our species for much longer. Taking a position against any fertility treatments should be foremost in the minds of our ethical leaders simple because it hinders our species' success for longevity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts nice to finally see some consistency in the opinions of the church in my opinion. While I don't agree with their stance the double standard many religions hold is beyond frustrating to me (i.e. abortions and stem cell research are immoral, but IVF is okay).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also agree that the opinion of the author and what he does and doesn't understand about the thoughts of the Catholic church are distracting from the article when he freely admits "I don't know enough about how Catholicism works in practice."
Well put, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam. There are many ignorant of history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that those priests who have abused their authority and molested children need to be punished, but I do not think anyone can judge toe whole Catholic religion as wrong because of their actions. That would be the same as saying all farmers are murderers since Cain was a farmer and he killed Abel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese guidelines are put in place by the Vatican for the Catholic Church and its followers to abide by. If you disagree, then that is your choice. I was raised as a Catholic, but am not now. I do respect their views and believe it is necessary for each religion to give guidelines to their followers for which to live by. If you can't ask your Church for guidance, then why even attend?
The Catholic stance is arbitrary, they are making this up as they go along and I suppose they are hoping that in the fullness of time God will reveal that they are right about this issue... Instead of just admitting that they really aren't sure about when a person becomes a person they draw a line in the sand, erring on the side of caution and tell the sheep that if they stand on this side of it they are moral. It's also interesting that the role that a woman's body puts into forming a person from an embryo is not even a footnote! Only the 30 secs "moment of conception" is all these morons can conceive of as what's involved in creating a human life. I must not have enough "faith" because that just sounds like an adolescent male perspective. My lack of "faith" must be driving me to think a cell is not exactly the same as a living, breathing, conscious human. Does God really want me to be an idiot? The way they swing this idea around as a threat to everyone who sees they are wrong and bully those that want to be a part of the Catholic community but might like to believe in reality, too, is the real sin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieve it or not, I'm a live and let live type of person myself when it comes to religious beliefs. However, I have noted the extreme urgency they have when it comes to insinuating their personal religious OPINIONS into our politics and try to force EVERYONE to abide by their beliefs; even those who DON'T belong to their church, and it bothers me. EXTREMELY so. And they have no right to try and brainwash the rest of us. But they will never stop trying to convert the world if they have to stoop to politics to do it. Which Christ never meddeled in, I might also mention. Politics I mean. And I DO have the right to draw the line and protest their religion when it interferes with MY religious beliefs!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFuturopolis, your statement that "All that was said and written, about science in general, before Darwin and (Galileo) Einstein is totally obsolete" means that you throw out Copernicus, the Father of Astronomy, who formulated the "heliocentric theory" that Galileo believed. In fact, Copernicus, himself a third order Dominican, would never would have published the theory had it not been through the insistence of a Bishop and a Cardinal because they knew it was such valuable work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt also means that you throw out Andreas Vesalius, the founder of Modern Human Anatomy, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, a polymath who finvented the concept of the infinitesimal and of relative motion, and whose writings were essential for the discovery of calculus. You also throw out Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press and a Franciscan Tertiary, Bishop Nicole Oresme, one of the principal founders and popularisers of modern science prior to the scientific revolution, who formulated the first correct theory of wave mechanics of sound 300 years before Huygens. You also throw out Bishop William of Ockham (have you heard of Ockham's Razor?), and Roger Bacon, a franciscan friar who is considered the forerunner of the modern scientific method. You also throw out Saint Albert the Great, the great Doctor of Science, the greatest German philosophy of the middle ages, who was amongst the first to note the importance of direct observation (contrary to the 'scientists' of the day, who insisted that Aristotle was the last word in all things related to science), and was considered the most knowledgeable man of all time.
You even through out (Bishop) Robert Grosseteste, who was the first to ever write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment.
Of course, Galileo, who blamed scientific rivals for his problems, not the church, and died a devoted Catholic, is properly known as Father of Dynamics, not Astronomy like many people think, for a work he wrote under supposed 'house arrest' (so that gives you some idea of how bad the house arrest was. So bad, he could do pretty-much anything he wanted, including write his most famous treatise). After Galileo, there are a truck load more Catholics, and other Christians, to whom science owes its existence.
You would throw all that out? Including the scientific method itself, which owes its existence to the work of Catholics prior to Galileo?
I don't believe the vatican is moraly ersponsable by the conduct of it's priests. The vatican is part of a hierarchy, a hierarchy that is needed in order to maintain a structure that deals with millions of people. The same way a international company can't be blamed for an illicit act of one of it's employees, i don't the believe the vatican should be blamed as well. People change during their lifetime, and a person how became priest at the age of 25, when he reaches 40 or fifty, many things can change. 50 years fighting against the need for a healthy sexual life will most probably bring psychiatric problems. In this point i really believe the vatican should allow priests to get married (but that would go against their belief that when a men decides to be priest, he chooses to abdicate his social life in order to live only for the bible). But, even though they assume that position, if you take a look to all the 5 religions of the world (catolic, jewish, hindu, budist and muslim) , you will see that no other religion is as open-minded as the catolic (with all of it's vertents: roman, protestant, ortodox...). Therefore i believe this document is coerent with their beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho care about this Middle Age institution ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd by the way adoption has its own problems (see FP november/december issue)
Why would we waste our time listening to anything the Catholic Church has to say about anything scientific any more than we would listen to the FBI giving us lessions on religious topics? Each are out of their elements in these fields. People need to learn how to think logically and ask questions of the approporiate bodies if they want to acquire knowledge. Separating dogma from reality is apparently beyond the grasp of most religionists, whether Catholic, Christian, Jew, Muslim or almost any other organized religion. If you need to listen to a "holy" man speak, you would be far ahead listening to the Dalai Lama, an educated man in today's world. At least he is not stuck with a 2000-year-old book of "truths" that hinders his ability to think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would anybody waste their time listening to anything the Catholic Church has to say about anything scientific any more than they would listen to the FBI give lessons on religion? Each is out of its element on these topics. If advice from a "holy man" is what moves someone, they would be a lot farther ahead listening to the Dalai Lama, an educated man who makes a lot more sense than the Pope. At least he is not hobbled by a 2000-year-old book of "truths" that has some history included but nothing in the way of useable knowledge. Like all Christians, the Pope picks and chooses which parts of the Bible he chooses to believe. When was the last time he instructed you how to treat your slaves?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI scanned each of the submissions to get a feel for the responses to this article, and since I know that god does not exist, as he is only the creation of mans imagination, and as such is created in mans image I can not help but feel crushed at these responses. I was raised as a devout catholic, but soon could not accept the hipocracy, and manipulatiion of modern religion. For the longest time I let myself drift on this issue, not wanting to be ostracised for my beliefs, but after fourty yearsof ignoring the issue, I was confronted and finally decided that if i was to take this decision regarding my belief, then I had better research the matter. After several years of reading ancient history ( Babylon, Assyria, Egypt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI scanned each of the submissions to get a feel for the responses to this article, and since I know that god does not exist, ( some of you will stop reading now ) as he is only the creation of mans imagination, and as such is created in man’s image, I can not help but feel crushed at these responses. I was raised as a devout catholic, but soon could not accept the hypocrisy, and manipulation of modern religion. For the longest time I let myself drift on this issue, not wanting to take a controversial stance and be ostracized for my beliefs, but after forty years of ignoring the issue, I was confronted by a friend and finally decided that if I was to take this decision regarding my belief and my life, then I had better research the matter. After several years of reading ancient history ( Babylon, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc ) and reading historic documents, and research contradicting Christianity in particular, and religion in general ( 4000 estimated religions ), I no longer subscribe to these beliefs. I am dumbfounded by the religious, who live by the word of the bible, a collection of texts, that were edited and selected ( while rejecting others ) by a biased clergy; texts that were written in various languages, and then rewritten several times by redactors, who changed words as they saw fit, or in many instances mistakenly translated the original documents. Even to this day, new and contradictory or alternative versions of these texts are being discovered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe church and religion in general is irrelevant.
The laws that control mankind are of it’s own logical and reasoned making, not an outdated set of rules. These are serious issue that require serious and labored decisions, and an honest, open policing by all parties.
"They are very attached to the embryos they create. They are highly invested in their survival. They do everything they can to make sure as many embryos develop after fertilization."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe notion that a technicians attachment to an embryo conceived in vitro can be equated to the love and commitment of parents is comical if not absurd. How many lab technicians have been on call for the night-time feedings and diaper changes following the birth of their beloved IVF baby?
The statement I don't know enough about how Catholicism works in practice, but it seems that thus far these kind of pronouncements don't have a huge amount of impact on the way Catholics behave is an honest admission that the writer has failed to grasp Catholicism but an unfortunate generalisation revealing insufficient attention to how millions of Catholics practice their faith. Generation upon generation of Catholics take to heart and follow Catholic teaching and will continue to be guided by the Holy Fathers pronouncements . Furthermore, to define all modern Catholics by the contents of a press release issued by a group that in conscience has already excommunicated itself from the body of the Catholic faithful and Catholic teaching is misleading and lacks intellectual honesty and credibility.
The question should be are YOU ready to do your share AS WELL?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I see it, the whole of humanity has stopped from advancing when it met with puberty...
Any (& all of the) Religion was a mean of researching, studying, & passing on the results of the "understanding" made from this whole, forever new & exciting LIFE ; (your instigator can man say, no?) UNTIL IT CAME TO SEX.
Then everybody got knocked of their tracks; all are still there, lost in the very normal juvi attitude, taunting & daring each other... but then, playing mature, wanting to see what a handle this is, how to use it, & how to take advantage of it, all got lost ... ever since... instead of enjoying it thankfully.
& growing on from there...
_ Is there any society or religion ready to acknowledge that there is no difference between the sexes beside them being no more then an inny & an outy? causing only differences of moods?
That means that, if you want to get it on, you better give it a little bit more attention, yes, both together, especially if all learn from the beginning that each is responsible as well for their action as well for the consequences, & that they WILL shoulder them.
One way or another, no?
We might start to be going somewhere...
I don't wish to impugn the motives of people who seek or give assistance with reporoduction through in vitro fertilization. However, the discussion of ethics seems fixed mostly on issues at the level of the individual. A woman's reproductive rights vs an embryo's right to life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the concept of 'nature' begs us to consider larger issues. What impact would assisted reproduction have on natural selection, society's gene pool and social institutions. Is there a reasonable basis to believe that universal adoption of this intervention will not reduce the bio-diversity of the species? I realize that my question have a conservative bend, but I think they are worth considering.
As a Biologist I think that Science does not have the hole panorama of truth. Then, there are other disciplines that can give us Ethic guidelines in our work. Catholic moral is one of them, and the cited document invites me to think seriously about human dignity related to biological issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not understand how Scientific American, a serious magazine in Science, releases a kind of article like this one. Josephine Johnston a lawyer and expert on reproductive ethics maybe knows a lot about law, but do not understand even the concept of conception .
J. A. Puig
El Salvador, Central America.
Backwards convoluted religious zealots from the pope on down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLefred, good point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExisting gender inequality is the reason I vote Pro choice.
Until a culture exists where the male is truly feeling the burden of child bearing and rearing there will be inequality. If the man can walk away = not fair. If the male can get a better job while female must raise children = not fair.
There are many ways we can have a society that is equal for both genders.
Using the Bible is not one of them.
Womens right to abortion is the short-term answer until a better solution is accepted. Good luck getting the wacko's who adhere to the Bible or Koran as 'the only way'. Like that'll ever allow compromise or the open dialogue needed to progress to a better future.
The crux of the discussion of what is deemed acceptable lies with the definition of when life begins. Both egg and sperm are undeniably alive before they meet up and combine into something that might eventually become someone. To become someone, it must grow the basic physical structures to house an awareness and intelligence and I do think it stretches the imagination, credibility and faith beyond reason to assume that those structures are formed immediately upon conception.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf that were the case, then the whole reproductive process would be an exceptionally cruel one, since only a very small minority of gametes even when fertilized under the most favorable circumstances survive until a viable live-birth, so where does one draw the line?
Dick-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour argument would make sense,,, ONLY if it were that simple. Nature and Evolution, or God if you'd rather, has set up a system of division of labor.
Its not like the "woman" you paint in poor example had to explore the environment, brave the hazards & take the risks, do all the hunting & gathering & tilling & harvesting, plant the fields, fight the wars, build the house & the hospital & the infrastructure, etc etc etc etc.
Sure there are women who have done/participated in each, but you paint the whole scenario like the male is nothing but a sperm donor.
We all know the shameful fact that there are those modern male troglodytes who do just that & little more. However, it is indeed as much a shame that there are modern female troglodytes that choose to encourage & mate with them, and pass on those negative traits through both nature and nurture in the species,, as well as contribute to the overall deterioration of society in doing so. Those donors are no more or less disgusting or responsible than the one passing around the cup, accepting their donations.
In general however, and in speaking for myself, my own father and many other males I know: The hard work, the pain & suffering, the dedication and commitment, EASILY equals that of the mother, when all is said and done. A healthy society and culture promotes and defends that,,, EQUALITY.
I find the entire premise of the 'sperm donor' argument insulting.
Extremist one & all
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo not take my words to mean anything else than what they mean
RESPECT FOR ONE ANOTHER
COMUNICATION
OPEN MIND
SELFRESPECT
Taking my words & pushing their meaning to extremes is the oldest trick in the book for drowning the fish, or the subject & its meaning.
As usual when trying to do well or clarify there will always be some supposedly good intentioned well meaning con artist to push everything to extremes where clarity can get lost or just kept in remote understanding, because thats what extremes are.
YES WE ARE ALL ABLE TO SURVIVE WITHOUT BEING SELFISH PRIGGS&
& religion _any & each of them, even though its NOT the only way, contain very good & decent guidelines for a better life
If we so choose; not just extremism, witch is nothing but a lazy choice&
So choose healthily or get lost in extremes&
Our Life becomes what we choose to focus on
Dont get swayed to futility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtremist one & all
Do not take my words to mean anything else than what they mean
RESPECT FOR ONE ANOTHER
COMMUNICATION
OPEN MIND
SELF RESPECT
Taking my words & pushing their meaning to extremes is the oldest trick in the book for drowning the fish, or the subject & it's meaning.
As usual when trying to do well or clarify there will always be some supposedly good intentioned well meaning con artist to push everything to extremes where clarity can get lost or just kept in remote understanding, because that's what extremes are.
YES WE ARE ALL ABLE TO SURVIVE WITHOUT BEING SELFISH PRIGS…
& religion _any & each of them, even though it's NOT the only way, contain very good & decent guidelines for a better life
If we so choose; not just extremism, witch is nothing but a lazy choice…
So choose healthily or get lost in extremes…
Our Life becomes what we choose to focus on
Don’t get swayed to futility.
And this apply to women as well as men, because in lands where women rule, obviously or in a discreet way, women act no differently then men; as female chauvinist castrator, unfortunately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing YET new under the sun...
That is why if we want to go ahead in LIFE, it's time to grow up.
WAKE UP, TIME'S A WASTING...
proadventurer: "think off all that stuff the bishops added when they got together in the 3rd century that had nothing to do with what Jesus taught and everything to do with controlling people.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, yes, that would the Council of Nicaea, when all the bishops reached a concensus about the form of Christian doctrine. Mind you, they had plenty of incentive to do so: *Emperor Constantine threatened to exile any bishop who didn't agree with his take on things. Three stalwarts held out against him, and he was as good as his word. And that, folks, is how Christian doctrine took its present form. Ain't democracy grand?
*As in 'Constantine, the first Christian emperor who executed his own son and murdered his own wife'.
HgMartins: "I don't believe the vatican is moraly ersponsable by the conduct of it's priests."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was about to log off when I spotted this astonishing remark. If the Vatican does not lead by example and take moral responsibility for those priests who abuse the trust shown in them in its name, then what moral credibility does the Vatican itself have? We're not talking about errant politicians here, but about those whose values ought to be spiritually driven.
"Until recent times everyone believed that live began at conception. How hard is that!!!!" -jeannieben1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil recently, noone knew what conception was or that it existed. It took science to determine that.
I also question the "unbroken line" you speak of, and yes I believe most people in the world would reject the presumption that the pope speaks for anyone other than the church and himself.
I'm in New Zealand, watching "The Borgias" programs on TV.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Is it being shown anywhere else?)
Now there's a fine Pope for you!
Today Popes may be more respectable in their private lives, but are they any less devious?
But "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England" and that goes for New Zealand too.
Since I sent my last post, we have another Pope, who perhaps may be able to improve his church. Let us hope so. He seems to have made a good start.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe humans are mammals. At conception, one sperm wins the race, while millions of others die. Who knows what kind of being any of them might have started?
As for IVF or a surrogate, why shouldn't a couple use those, with their own egg and sperm?
Having a third party involved in providing either might be considered adultery. But how would God, if he exists, view it?