In this day and age, do we all really have to listen to a bunch of male chauvanist pigs masquerading in costume ordering the whole world about (do they follow their own doctrine regarding being absurdidly rich - isn't the catholic church in that field?). Religion (most of them) has and is the root of all evil and wars - I'm just sorry that the world press has given this tripe the airing that it has

I am always bemused and rather scared when that transnational corporation with its head office in The Vatican City (the Catholic Church) attempts to regain its former hegemony. This week we see a mutlifaceted approach. On the one hand attempting to nullify the Protestant experience and blood shed while fighting for freedom from Catholicism by suggesting it forgive Luther. On the other hand, these vague statements designed, presumably, to draw attention away from that organisation's extreme wealth and its continuing attempts to regain control of areas in education, medicine, welfare and alms provision which have in recent times been provided in many humane countries by appropriate state organisations.

Also, I am totally confused when spokepeople for any relgious organisation claim to be speaking "ethically" when they are just espousing the views of the organisation for which they work. So no, I am not surprised that the Catholic Church would use the introduction of a proposal to update the nature of the deadly personal sins to promote its own organisations agenda which is historically opposed to change and exploration where it does not directly increase its organisation's wealth and control. Congratualtions to those not prepared to be blinded by yet more religious hype.

Two points. The reproductive wastage of embryos seen in humans probably represents the abnormal fertilizations which are non-viable for organismic life. These can and do grow in-vitro but there is a huge question about how they will behave in-vivo.
The second is a question of ethics. If I chose to donate one of my kidneys or serve as a blood or bone marrow donor it is my choice and a gift freely given. A completely viable embryo which is taken and split into cultures for therapies has no choice in the matter. For me to insist that someone else make a mandatory sacrifice for my well being is unethical.
Pluripotent stem cells taken from adult donors have had incredibly more success thus far in medicine while totipotent embryonic stem cells have not even gotten out of the starting gate. It makes one wonder why.

This whole concept of scientists "working for the common good" may be a modern myth.
If that were so, we would see much less research results being rapidly patented and further progress curtailed by legal proceedings.
I don't want to smear all of science with this statement. But science must admit that far too often it submits to corporate interest in the form of University patent mills and merely becomes one more cog in the "money machine" thus undeserving of the altruistic hard working for humanity label.

It is strange to see that actions such as these can now be considered "deadly sins", i.e. mortal sins. Surely this pronouncement highlights to any rational thinker the fact that this church is not a "church of god" but an institution of men; whom believe that what they decide must now be adhered to as the "word of god".

These men act in the name of a deity because they believe they are divinly inspired - this simply shows the fact that what they are pronouncing is nothing more than their own delusions in an attempt to gain some form of political power - as it was in the dark ages. Church based control.

They need to get with the times. Morals come from within, and by consensus of the whole (society), not from the magesterium of the church.

I have to admit first of all that I was pleasantly surprised by the sins involving pollution, social injustice and especially wealth. The ones relating to the sciences are another matter, however.

I see the entire issue of the ethics of stem cell research as ultimately a product of differing beliefs about the REAL existence of the (literal) soul. Its easy to see the world as made up of absolutes. The soul is a perfect example. It's either there or it isn't. There's no in between:

"I exist or I don't. There was a singular, absolute moment of my creation, entirely synonymous with God's gift of a soul. There will be one, certain moment of death, when my soul deserts my body....."

According this this kind of reasoning (plus the belief that the creation moment God chooses is at conception) it becomes quite obvious that stem cell research is unadulterated murder. Alas, the world is not nearly that simplistic and straightforward (not to mention the fact that the basis of these kinds of traditional philosophies are relics of a time when humans had hardly more than their direct senses).

In my humble opinion, all the world is an assemblage of GRADIENTS, of stark differences separated by gradual permutation. Did you begin when that sperm first formed inside your father? How about the egg? The first moment when both were in existence? Or even when you father ate the hot dog that would be broken down and eventually molded into the sperm cell? But then what about the hog?.....

......(on the other side)....

.....When the sperm first entered you mother? When it first touched the egg? When it had burrowed through the wall into its center? When the two chromosomes had begun their dance of reproduction? When you first "looked" human-like? When you developed a brain? When you could survive outside the womb (a similar standard applies to the abortion debate)? When you were born? But what if the umbilical cord is yet to be cut? Or how about even when you have had your first memories and conscious experiences, when "YOU", the self, seemed to appear?

Sorry I could go on all day. Obviously the point I’m making is that the idea of a single moment of creation, and therefore a DISCRETE concept of existence, i.e. a soul, really has no foundation in reality. Therefore we must look for another yardsticks by which to measure our existence. Personally, I prefer is the utilitarian concept of pleasure verses suffering. I know without a doubt I can experience significant suffering, for example. I have a pretty good idea an animal like a chimpanzee can experience at least some level of real, familiar suffering as well. I'd guess a dog can too, and its not totally unthinkable for rats. But fish, lizards, insects, worms, bacteria, viruses? Probably not much. The only way we can hope to quantify these levels of consciousness is through far future advances in neuropsychology, etc, so, although it makes me uncomfortable, behavioral observations and ultimately analogy to ourselves will have to do.

Regardless of whether or not you think a fish can suffer, I think we can all agree, without doubt, that single-celled (bacteria-like) protists DO NOT SUFFER (or experience pleasure, for that matter). Anyone who wants to argue to the contrary can shed a tear next time he or she uses some mouthwash, or an oven. Through this argument, I suggest that embryos are certainly "alive" in some small respect, but then again so were the carbon atoms of pre-life earth, for example. Not only that, but returning to utilitarianism a bit, stem cell research could actually help put a stop to untold amounts of ACTUAL suffering that goes on all the time. Therefore it should not only not be banned, but should be a scientific imperative!

Actually I believe the Catholics concede something to my point about the continuity of the spectrum of life and existence: All over the world people's frozen embryos are being discarded, to die, for lack of rent payments by their progenitors. If life, with the soul, really begins at conception, then should Catholics all over the world be screaming blood-murder about this? If this really is as bad as killing, say, you or I, should the Vatican be footing the bill for keeping these cells alive? Sure, its probably not cheap, but we're talking the cost of a "human life," here. (And don’t tell me about "potential to be life..." or whatever because there are plenty of nuns out there who could put them to their natural use. And if you don’t accept that for respect for the owner's feelings and wishes, then you can't justify the sin of abortions because, on the absolute-soul scale, they should be equivalent.)

By not actually treating these embryo destructions like murders, they implicitly attest to my graduated spectrum of life-existence. In some way they know its much more wrong to slaughter an able-bodied adult in comparison with a single cell. This repudiates the philosophical and moral coherency of such religious systems of belief characterized by discreteness and absolutes like the "soul."

These simplistic conceptions of existence certainly make me want to rip my hair out on fairly regular basis, but believe it or not, I have hope. I'd love to see how future generations, born well after the start of this biotech revolution, would react to the controversy of today. Even more so, I imagine the result would be like of whole populations of people nursed with immediate, and significant, exposure to all the sciences, from cosmology to relativity theory and quantum mechanics to, of course, biology. (And probably pray for any possible future children of mine while you're at it.)

Peace.
Eloheim

P.S.: And this was supposed to be just a quick post when I started...

Science can be seen as sin itself to the learned Catholic: the distancing of oneself from God. Science allows us to take control of our destiny, stop leaving things to God's unknowable will. Improve upon ourselves without the need of His Grace. It gives rise to Pride, the origin of sin, that which caused Lucifer himself and a third of all the angels in Heaven to fall from grace and become Satan and his Demons in Hell. It gives us reason to doubt God: doubt His might, His wisdom, even His existence (not His Love though - living makes us doubt that). Science can even allow us to be Gods ourselves: Immortal Masters of over the Universe, and Creators of life anew, and perhaps even other universes. This is the ultimate sin: to replace God with His creation, Man - to kill God...again. But most terrible for the Holy See, it tells the common man to distance himself from their control.

This is why the Church (but not religion...) does these things: to act as the Shepard's Crook of we God's flock. That is why they have persecuted, oppressed, tortured and massacred countless millions in His Holy Name: to see us, the Great Unwashed, subserviant to what they tell us is what He wants. But Humanity is not a herd animal. And whether the Holy See tries to ply us with guilt via original sins, deadly sins or new sins, Humanity will defy them and plough on 'till the the Absolute Truth is revealed, or the stars burn out, when their great cathedrals will have become less than dust.

From EVLWNS: He who has Seen Eternity, and Thought It not enough...