FAITH AND SCIENCE

Because of the moral, ethical and religious issues raised by
1) recent advances in the biological sciences (in-vitro fertilization
and other forms of assisted reproduction, stem-cell research, cloning);
2) widening advocacy of euthanasia;
3) renewed debate over the theory of evolution; and
4) continuing debate over artificial contraception and abortion -
Catholics more than ever need informed guidance on where
the Church stands in these matters and why the Church takes the stand it does.

This thread is for items that update the state of knowledge in these fields,
for informative discussions and relevant comments, and for
a re-statement of Church teachings in these areas, as needed.

A good starting point is Donum Vitae, an instruction released by the CDF
and signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1987 - almost at the very
beginning of the "test-tube babies" age - which establishes a framework
for understanding the Church teaching on respect for human life.

It is a 22-page document (17 pages of text, and 5 pages of references) but as an
official Church document, it is always available on the Vatican website at
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life...

The Foreword is instructive:

INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN
AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION
REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY

FOREWORD

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been approached by various
Episcopal Conferences or individual Bishops, by theologians, doctors and scientists,
concerning biomedical techniques which make it possible to intervene in
the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very processes of procreation
and their conformity with the principles of Catholic morality.

The present Instruction, which is the result of wide consultation and in particular
of a careful evaluation of the declarations made by Episcopates, does not intend
to repeat all the Church's teaching on the dignity of human life as it originates
and on procreation, but to offer, in the light of the previous teaching of the Magisterium,
some specific replies to the main questions being asked in this regard.

The exposition is arranged as follows:

an introduction will recall the fundamental principles, of an anthropological and
moral character, which are necessary for a proper evaluation of the problems and
for working out replies to those questions;

the first part will have as its subject respect for the human being from the first moment
of his or her existence;

the second part will deal with the moral questions raised by technical interventions
on human procreation;

the third part will offer some orientations on the relationships between
moral law and civil law in terms of the respect due to human embryos and foetuses
and as regards the legitimacy of techniques of artificial procreation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The document is a fascinating read, and gives us an insight into the way the Church
must keep up with scientific and technological advances in order to formulate
an informed position that is compatible with the faith.

For this reason, Cardinal Ratzinger's position at the head of the CDF, as well as his own
personal standing as a theologian, required him to be abreast of scientific developments,
and to be conversant about them.

For those who understand Italian, Ratzigirl provided a link last October to a site
that has an almost 2-hour video of a colloquium held by Italian Senate President Marcello Pera
andCardinal Joseph Ratzinger on December 12, 2004, on the occasion of presenting the book
"Senza radici: Europa, relativismo, cristianesimo, islam", composed of complementary lectures
each had given earlier on the crisis of Europe.

In the December colloqium, both answered journalists' questions afterwards, and the Cardinal
held forth for 10 minutes on the subject of assisted reproduction, and another
7:30 minutes on the subject of the embryo and bioethics. Quite a performance!
The link is
www-5.radioradicale.it/servlet/VideoPublisher?cmd=viewSchedaNew&livello=s7.2.2&re...
[Click on "La presentazione" to view the whole thing,
or on the TV-cam icon in front of Ratzi's name
if you just want to see his participation.]

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 04/01/2006 4.13]

Cloning Research Plagued by Bald Ethical Lapses

SEOUL, South Korea, DEC. 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Controversy over research methods in South Korea has shed light on some dubious practices in the race to promote human cloning and research with embryonic stem cells. Last spring a team of researchers, led by Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul National University, triumphantly announced the cloning of human embryos, from which they extracted stem cells, the New York Times reported May 20.

The results of the research were published in the journal Science. The method they used is often referred to as therapeutic cloning, as the scientists have no intention of producing babies. But the creation of humans to be used as a source for cells immediately drew strong moral objections.

"Is this how we want the human race to be treated -- as mere fodder for scientific experimentation?" asked David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical Association in a May 19 press release from the group's Washington, D.C., offices.

Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Council for Life, also condemned the experiments. "Abominable," was how he described the research, the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported May 20. He also said that the term of "therapeutic" cloning is misleading, since it is the same cloning technique as that used for reproductive purposes.

On May 23, Archbishop Peter Smith, chairman of the English and Welsh bishops' Department for Christian Responsibility and Citizenship, noted that in the midst of celebrations over the Korean experiments "we seem to forget that what is involved is the creation and destruction of new human lives."

"It cannot be right to treat young human lives as disposable," he said. The archbishop added that this tragedy is also avoidable, as many advances have been made using stem cells taken from adults or from umbilical cords.

Accusation of lies

After little news for a few months, the South Korean experiments returned to the headlines. On Nov. 12 the Washington Post reported that a University of Pittsburgh researcher, Gerald Schatten, said he would withdraw from the team of Korean scientists because of ethical breaches and lies about the procedures.

Hwang used ova from a junior researcher in his laboratory, contrary to ethical norms. Schatten said Hwang had denied this repeatedly, until the truth finally came out. Further problems were revealed in a Nov. 22 report by the Washington Post. One of the chief researchers on the project, Sung Il Roh, admitted he had paid women for the ova used in the experiments. In the research results submitted to the journal Science, Hwang claimed the ova had been obtained without any payment.

Hwang subsequently made a public apology, and quit all his official posts, even though he will continue his research activities, the BBC reported Nov. 24. During a press conference he admitted he had not told the truth.

In spite of the controversy Hwang continued to be highly regarded in South Korea, where his research had given him a sort of hero status, the New York Times reported Nov. 29. And, in spite of the ethics breaches, the government promised to continue financing Hwang's research.

Data errors

But fresh doubts over his work arose this month. Initial reports suggest that there could be problems with the data about the embryonic stem cells obtained from the cloning process, the New York Times reported Dec. 10. It is not clear if it is a simple error made in the experiments, or if it is due to a deliberate falsification.

According to the Times, Monica Bradford, the deputy editor of Science, said that the journal had asked Hwang for an explanation. The data will now have to be re-examined by experts.

University of Pittsburgh researcher Gerald Schatten, meanwhile, continued his criticisms of Hwang, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. He asked Science to remove him as the senior author of the report it published in June detailing the creation of stem cell colonies through cloning.

"My careful re-evaluations of published figures and tables, along with new problematic information, now casts substantial doubts about the paper's accuracy," Schatten wrote in a letter to Science.

His accusations were confirmed Thursday when Sung Il Roh, a co-author of the Science report, admitted that most of the stem cells mentioned in the May article were faked. The Associated Press said Roh told television reporters that Hwang had pressured a former scientist at his lab to falsify data to make it look as if there were 11 stem cell colonies. Roh said nine of those embryonic stem cell lines claimed by Hwang were actually faked, and the authenticity of the other two was unknown.

The controversy over the Korean experiments prompted a commentary from Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities at the U.S. bishops' conference. In an article published Tuesday on the Web site National Review Online, Doerflinger affirmed that "this scandal is only the tip of the iceberg."

Cloning experiments in general, not just those in South Korea, have long ignored legitimate ethical concerns and have long publicized their results "by ignoring or subverting the facts." Truth standards in stem cell research are especially lax, Doerflinger contended.

The laxness reaches even to leading medical journals, Doerflinger stated. He cited examples of how the New England Journal of Medicine had fudged the facts in reporting research on stem cells. In fact, in July 2003 the NEJM announced it would seek out manuscripts on embryonic stem cell research, and subsequently the journal repeatedly called for the reversal of federal government restrictions on public funding for such work.

But, Doerflinger commented, there is, as yet, no published evidence of "therapeutic" benefit from stem cells derived from cloned embryos. The Korean scandal has drawn widespread attention, yet "the entire propaganda campaign for research cloning has been filled with misrepresentations, hype, and outright lies," Doerflinger said.

Similar accusations were also made by Wesley Smith, in an article published Dec. 5 on the Web site of the Weekly Standard magazine. He cited numerous reports on research where terms are changed so as to conceal the fact that embryos are cloned, and then destroyed, to obtain stem cells. In some cases, for example, reporters refer to them as "early stem cells," instead of embryonic stem cells.

Exaggerations

Prior to the revelations about problems with the South Korean research, some medical journals had raised doubts over the hype accompanying the announcements of stem cell experiments. A May 21 editorial in the British Medical Journal explained that "large hurdles still need to be overcome to ensure safety and efficacy," in the use of embryonic stem cells. "The premature use of cell therapy could put many patients at risk of viral or prion diseases," the editorial warned.

A June 4 editorial in another British journal, the Lancet, reported that according to a conference held in London the week before, "no safe and effective stem cell therapy will be widely available for at least a decade, and possibly longer." The editorial contrasted this somber outlook with the "sensationalist headlines" greeting the May announcements of research by Korean researcher Hwang.

Further criticism came from a prominent scientist in the field of fertility research in Britain, Lord Robert Winston. According to a Sept. 5 article in the newspaper Independent, Winston criticized the "hype" over stem cells.

He added that scientists risk a public backlash against their work if their claims were shown to be extravagantly misleading. "Of course, the study of stem cells is one of the most exciting areas in biology," he stated, "but I think that it is unlikely that embryonic stem cells are likely to be useful in health care for a long time."

Moral objections to the manipulation of human life in its earliest stages also continue, most recently from the Pope. In a Dec. 3 speech to participants in a conference of presidents of Latin American bishops' commissions for the family and for life, Benedict XVI warned that embryos are being arbitrarily used without respect for moral principles that safeguard human dignity.

Such a situation leads to a threat for human life, which is reduced to the status of a mere object or instrument. When we arrive to this point, the Pontiff said, the foundations of society itself are at danger. A timely warning indeed.

Rising Stakes Over RU-486

SYDNEY, Australia, DEC. 3, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The abortion pill RU-486 is causing divisions once more. Advocates of the drug, also referred to by its more technical names of Mifeprex or Mifepristone, are trying to obtain permission to use the pill in both Italy and Australia.

In Australia the abortion pill has been effectively banned by federal authorities. Since 1996, imports of the pill required specific approval from the health minister, which was routinely denied.

After recent pressure to allow a vote on lifting the restrictions, Prime Minister John Howard announced Tuesday that members of Parliament would have a free conscience vote on the matter, the Age newspaper reported Wednesday. The vote will likely occur next February.

Arguments in favor of RU-486 grew after the Australian Medical Association changed its policy and came out in support of its use, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Nov. 8.

The leader of the Australian Democrats Party, Lyn Allison, then announced her intention to introduce amendments to legislation which would remove current restrictions. The initiative on the part of the Australian Democrats, a small political party, received support from members within the two major parties, Liberal and Labor.

Opponents of the pill have pointed to health concerns over its use. In an opinion article published Nov. 12 in the Australian newspaper, Christopher Pearson noted that a number of women have died after using the drug.

"Adverse event"

The first reported fatality was in France in 1991, according to Pearson. He then noted that two deaths in Canada led the nation's officials in September 2001 to temporarily halt trials involving the drug. That same year, a 38-year-old woman from Tennessee died five days after taking the drug. In Sweden a 6-year-old girl died after being administered RU-486 in a hospital. And in January last year the British government announced two deaths attributed to RU-486.

In the United States a number of fatalities have been reported. There have been seven near-fatal cases of severe bacterial infection. Another 72 cases were recorded where blood transfusions were needed. In all, authorities have noted 676 "adverse event reports," according to Pearson.

He also noted that, according to preliminary advice provided to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, up to 10% of women who use RU-486 end up in a hospital having a dilation and curettage procedure.

Pro-woman

Opposition to the pill has also come from the Church. "RU-486 is a chemical response to the complex problems facing a woman who is pregnant in difficult circumstances. But it's not the solution," said Dr. Brigid Vout, executive officer for Sydney's archdiocesan Life Office to the Catholic Weekly, in the Nov. 20 issue of the weekly diocesan newspaper.

Dr. Catherine Lennon, president of Doctors for Life in the state of New South Wales, described RU-486 as a highly toxic "human pesticide." She noted that it causes severe physical deformities in babies who survive it and that serious physical and psychological damage can be done to women who are faced with delivering a baby of 6 to 12 weeks' development alone at home.

During a plenary meeting of the Australian Catholic bishops, held in Sydney, they issued a statement Nov. 25 regarding RU-486. "This chemical solution to a major social and personal problem is no solution at all," they stated.

Citing Pope John Paul II, the bishops argued that it is time for the community to become "radically pro-woman." "Multiplying the methods of abortion will only multiply the grief," they concluded.

Bacterial infections

More reports of problems with the pill have come out in recent months. On July 18 Reuters reported that the manufacturer of the drug, Danco Laboratories, admitted that five women who took the pill have died from bacterial infections since its U.S. introduction nearly five years ago. One of the deaths occurred in Canada.

Danco said it was sending a letter to alert physicians about the cases and updating warning information on the drug's label. The label already carries a warning about the possibility that women who take the drug could experience serious and sometimes fatal infections, according to Reuters.

The New York Times reported Nov. 23 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has discovered that all four women who died in the United States after taking the abortion pill suffered from a rare and highly lethal bacterial infection.

All four deaths occurred in California, and the FDA undertook tests to see if abortion pills distributed there were contaminated. They were not, reported the New York Times. The FDA and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have now decided to convene a scientific meeting early next year to discuss the deaths.

According to the newspaper, the abortion pill has been used in more than 500,000 medical abortions in the United States since its approval in September 2000.

Following the latest reports U.S. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina said that the FDA told him it would restrict sales of RU-486 if the deaths turned out to be linked to the drug, the Baltimore Sun reported Nov. 27. "Increasingly, they are aware that it is a dangerous drug," DeMint said in an interview.

Pressure in Italy

In Italy, the government restricts the importation of RU-486. But some regional authorities are pressuring to be allowed to use the drug. Hospitals in the Piedmont and Tuscany regions, and some in Rome, have come out in favor of using an administrative measure that would permit the importation of the pill in some circumstances, La Repubblica reported Nov. 15.

The newspaper also reported the opposition to this pressure. Italian Health Minister Francesco Storace complained about a sort of competition in some regional authorities, inspired by negative values, that is promoting abortion.

The Italian press has widely reported the resulting tug-of-war between the health minister and regional authorities. Since July contradictory reports have been published over plans by some hospitals to use the abortion pill, and the question remains unresolved.

A Sept. 22 article in the national newspaper La Stampa reported that Storace had signed an order prohibiting the use of the abortion pill, introduced for local use shortly beforehand by St. Ann's Hospital in Turin. But another report, in La Repubblica on Nov. 14, said that some government experts think the importation of the drug is still legally possible if authorized by hospital authorities.

The controversy over the abortion pill is further mixed with concern over the consulting centers in Italy that refer women for abortions. Pro-life groups and the Church are pressuring for the presence of pro-life representatives in the centers, to give women an alternative to abortion when they seek advice.

In a declaration dated Nov. 21, the Italian bishops noted the effort afoot to abolish rules that care for life from the moment of conception. They contended that the effort, purportedly done in the name of liberty and happiness, is a "tragic deception" that will only lead to slavery and unhappiness for those who build their future on the basis of subjective desires and technical means divorced from any ethical basis. A warning worth reflecting upon.

VIENNA, Austria (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a lecture Cardinal Christoph Schönborn delivered in October in Vienna on creation and evolution. The lecture was meant, in part, to clear up misunderstandings that arose from an article he wrote that appeared July 7 in the New York Times.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Creation and Evolution: the Debate as It Stands

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn's first catechetical lecture for 2005/2006:
Sunday, Oct. 2, 2005, St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna

It is with a measure of heartfelt trepidation that I begin the catechetical lectures for this working year, for the topic with which I have resolved to grapple is creation and evolution. I do not intend to delve into the scientific details; in that domain I would doubtlessly not be qualified. Instead, I shall examine the relationship between belief in creation and scientific access to the world, to reality.

Thus, I begin with the first words of the Bible: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1). These should be the first words of instruction as well. Belief in God the Creator, belief that he created the heavens and the earth, is the beginning of faith. It launches the credo as its first article. That already implies that here is the basis of all, the foundation on which every other Christian belief rests.

To believe in God and, at the same time, not to believe that he is the Creator would mean, as Thomas Aquinas puts it, "to deny utterly that God is." God and Creator are inseparable. Every other Christian conviction depends on this: that Jesus Christ is the Savior, that there is the Holy Spirit, that there is a Church, that there is eternal life: They all presuppose belief in the Creator.

For that reason, the catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes the fundamental significance of belief in creation. In Article 282, it tells us that here we are dealing with questions that any human being leading a human life must sooner or later pose: "Where do I come from? Where am I going? What is the goal, what is the origin, what is the meaning of my life?" The belief in creation is also crucially related to the basis of ethics, for implicit in that faith is the assumption that this Creator has something to say to us -- through his creation, through his work -- about the proper use of that work and about the true meaning of our lives. Thus, from the earliest days of the Church, creation catechesis has been the basis of all doctrinal teaching. If you examine the patristic instruction given to the first catechumens, you will see that this teaching stood at the very beginning. During this year, we shall therefore endeavor to ponder the matter.

If it is true that the question of the origin (whence do we come?) is inseparable from that of life's goal (where do we go?), then the question of creation also concerns that of its purpose or end. Likewise related is the "design" of the plan. God not only is the Maker of all; he is also the maintainer of his creation, directing it to its goal. That too will be a subject of these lessons, for the question is quite an essential part of basic Christian convictions.

God is not only a creator who at the beginning set the work in motion, like a watchmaker who has fashioned a timepiece that will tick on forever. Rather, he preserves and guides it towards its goal. The Christian faith further teaches that the creation is not yet complete, that it is in "statu viae," in transit. God as Creator of the world is also its guide. We call this "providence" ("Vorsehung"). We are convinced that all of this -- that there is a Creator and a guide -- can also be perceived and recognized by us. Christian belief decidedly and tenaciously clings to the human capacity to discern both these divine aspects, though certainly neither "in toto" nor in every detail.

How do we know about it? A blind faith, one that would simply demand a leap into the utter void of uncertainty, would be no human faith. If belief in the Creator were totally without insight, without any understanding of what such entails, then it would likewise be inhuman. Quite rightly, the Church has always rejected "fideism" -- that very sort of blind faith.

Belief without insight, without any possibility of perceiving the Creator, of being able to grasp by means of reason anything of what he has wrought, would be no Christian belief. The biblical Judeo-Christian faith was always convinced that we not only should and may believe in the Creator: There is also much about him that we are capable of understanding through the exercise of human reason.

Allow me to cite a somewhat lengthy passage from Chapter 13 of the Book of Wisdom, an Old Testament text from sometime at the end of the second or the beginning of the first century B.C.:

1 "For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;

2 "But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods.

3 "Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them.

4 "Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them.

5 "For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen.

6 "But yet, for these the blame is less; For they indeed have gone astray perhaps, though they seek God and wish to find him.

7 "For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair.

8 "But again, not even these are pardonable.

9 "For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its Lord?" (Book of Wisdom, 13:1-9)

This classic text is one of the bases for the conviction, subsequently made dogma, i.e., affirmed as an explicit principle of faith as taught by the Church, in the First Vatican Council of 1870: that the light of human reason enables us to know that there is a Creator and that this Creator guides the world. ("Dei Filius," Chapter 2; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 36)

From the text I might first bring to the fore the following: The Bible reproaches the Gentiles, who do not worship the true God, for deifying the world and nature, for seeking mythical, magical power behind nature and natural phenomena. Of stars, from fire, from light and air, they make gods. They allow themselves to be deceived. Their fascination with creation has led them to the apotheosis of creature. In this sense, the Bible is the first messenger of enlightenment. In its own way, it disenchants the world, strips it of its magical, mythical power, "de-mythologizing" and "dis-deifying" it.

Are we aware that without this dis-deification, modern science would be impossible? That the world has been created and is not divine, that it is finite, that it is, to put in philosophical language, "contingent" and not necessary, that it could also not exist, only this belief has made it possible for that same world to be studied -- what it consists of and who inhabits it -- as an end in itself.

There we encounter finite, created realities and not gods or divine beings. In this disenchantment of nature there is, of course, something painful. Behind the tree, behind the well, there are no longer any nymphs or deities, mythical, magical powers, but rather that which the Creator has endowed in them and which human reason can explore. Thus, already in the Old Testament, the Book of Wisdom, in an astoundingly dry and sober manner, that God has created everything according to measure, number and weight. That is the basis of all natural scientific endeavor to understand reality.

Behind everything in world stands the transcendent reason of the Creator. All things are made by him and not of themselves. They are willed by him, and that is the great mystery of the creation doctrine. They are, so to speak, set free into their own existence. They are themselves, not of themselves but rather because the Creator in a sovereign exercise of his volition has willed them. In this sense, as we shall see in the next lesson, they have their autonomy, their own laws, their independence, their own being. It is the belief in the doctrine of creation that makes it possible to grasp this.

Whereas pagan antiquity for the most part "divinized" the world, made it a god, a philosophical movement reacting against this idea, at the time that Christianity arose, was the so-called Gnosis, which denigrated the world. The world, above all matter, was the product of an "accident" ("Unfall") a "downfall" ("Abfall"). It is, in fact, nothing at all good. It is not something that is willed, that ought to be; it is pure negativity. Christianity just as decisively rejected the Gnostic vision as it did the deification of the world.

It is precisely because the world has been created that early Christendom emphasizes without any hint of ambiguity that matter too has been created, that it is good, that is meaningful and is not simply, as the result of an "accident" within the godhead, "debris" from what was originally a single, monistic divine being, something driven through, so to speak, an "excretion" ("Ausscheidung") into the void. Matter is not something purely meaningless, which should be overcome, put aside. Matter was created. "God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:10).

Man in this material world has not fallen into a region of darkness, as the Gnosis teaches, a divine spark that has fallen into filth from which he must extricate himself by returning to his divine origin. Rather, he partakes of creation. He is willed by God, as a material but also spiritual-physical being, as a microcosm, as an image of the macrocosm, as a being on the border between two realms, combining the spiritual and the material. The account of creation in Genesis tells us: "And God saw that it was very good" (Genesis 1:31). Man belongs to creation and yet transcends it. We shall make this a subject of discussion when we come to the question: Is man the crown of creation?

Both Gnostic and divinizing visions are incompatible with the biblical doctrine of creation. The greatest stumbling block for antiquity was certainly the belief that God creates out of nothing, without prerequisite: "ex nihilo." I think that this question is still today the key question in the entire debate about creation and evolution. What does it mean to say that God creates? The great difficulty that we have, the point -- I am convinced and will also demonstrate -- at which Darwin faltered and failed, is that we have no concept, no vision, no idea of what it means is to say that God is the Creator.

That is because everything that we know is strictly a matter of changes, alterations. The makers of this cathedral did not construct out of nothing. They shaped stone and wood in marvelous fashion. All extra-biblical creation myths and epics take it for granted that a divine being made the world within a pre-existing framework. "Creatio ex nihilo," the absolutely sovereign act of creation, as the Bible attests, is -- and I believe one can also say this in terms of the history of religion -- something unique. We shall see how fundamentally important this is for the understanding of creation as something that God wills to be independent. That will be our next topic of discussion.

Today I wish to point out that I am not the only one who is convinced of this. The belief in creation stood like a godfather beside the cradle of modern science. I shall not demonstrate this in detail, but I am convinced of it and for good reasons. Copernicus, Galileo and Newton were certain that the work of science means reading in the book of creation. God has written that book, and he has given men the power of understanding, in order than they may decipher it. God has written it in legible form, as a comprehensible text. It is admittedly not easy to understand, and the writing is not easy to decode, but it is possible. The entire scientific enterprise is the discovery of order, laws, connections and relationships. Let us say, using this book metaphor: It is the discovery of the letters, the grammar, the syntax and ultimately of the text itself that God has put into this book of creation.

The proposition that the relationship between the Church and science is a bad one, that faith and science, since time immemorial, have been in a state of interminable conflict, belongs to the enduring myths of our time, indeed, I would say, to the acquired prejudices of our time. And, of course, the notion that generally goes along with it, like a musical accompaniment, is the notion that the Church has acted as an enormous inhibitor, with science the courageous liberator.

Above all, the Galileo incident is usually portrayed in the popular version in such a way that he is seen as a victim of the sinister Inquisition. Such belongs to the chapter of "legenda negra," the "black legend," which developed primarily during the Enlightenment but which does not correspond entirely to the historical record. The reality appears somewhat differently. Many historical examples demonstrate how the creation faith served as the rational foundation for scientific research. Of these, Gregor Mendel, the scientist of Bruenn, is but one of a multitude whose endeavors remain indelibly with us today.

It is not true that belief in God the Creator in any way hinders the progress of science! Quite the contrary! How could the belief that the universe has a maker stand in the way of science? Why should it be an impediment to science if it understands its research, its discoveries, its construction of theories, its understanding of connections and relationships as a "study of the book of creation"? Indeed, among natural scientists there are numerous witnesses who make no secret of their faith and openly profess it, but who also expressly see no conflict between faith and science. Again, quite the contrary. The fact that conflicts nonetheless have existed and continue to exist is an issue that would require separate treatment.

Allow me to quote two short texts that express this fundamental conviction of the Church. First, there is again the First Vatican Council of 1870, where we read:

"Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth" ("Dei Filius," Chapter 4; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159).

The conclusion to be drawn is that neither the Church nor science should fear the truth, for, as Jesus says, the truth sets us free (cf. John 8:32). The second excerpt comes from the Second Vatican Council. In the conciliar constitution "Gaudium et Spes," there is more particular emphasis on the question of "Natural Science and Faith":

"Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" ("Gaudium et Spes," 36:2; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159).

Why then do we continually find ourselves caught up in conflicts -- or at least, as a consequence of my short article in the New York Times on July 7, 2005, for example, though such can be quite productive and further the discussion -- to vehement polemics?

Conflicts can arise from misunderstandings. Perhaps we do not express ourselves with sufficient clarity; perhaps our thoughts and ideas are not clear enough. Such misunderstandings can be resolved. I have just mentioned one of the most frequent, that which concerns the Creator himself. I shall soon touch upon this with reference to Darwin. Today there seems to me no real danger of an attempt on the part of the Church to take a dictatorial or patronizing attitude toward science. Yet again and again the difficulty arises on both sides that borders are neither recognized nor respected. Thus, they must constantly be assessed and enunciated.

In this regard, the grand achievements of the natural sciences have again and again encouraged the temptation to cross borders. The impression arises that in the face of science's powerful advance, religion is constantly retreating, being forced by the ever greater explanatory capacity of science to yield ever more of its territory. Questions that previously were elucidated in supposedly "primitive supernatural" terms can now be treated in "naturalistic" terms, and that generally means resorting to purely material causes.

When Napoleon asked LaPlace where in his theory there was still a place for God, he is said to have replied: "Sire, je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse" ("Sire, I have had no need of that hypothesis"). Such is the notion that God is a superfluous hypothesis, a crutch for the infirm, incapable of standing on their own feet. Increasingly, human beings win their freedom from ancient dependencies. They emancipate themselves, no longer needing God as an explanation or perhaps in any way at all.

When in 1859 Darwin's famous book "The Origin of Species" appeared, the basic message was indeed that he had found a mechanism that portrays a self-acting ("selbsttätig") development, without the need of a creator. As he said himself, his concern was to find a theory which, for the development of the species from lower to higher, did not require increasingly perfective creative acts but rather relied exclusively on coincidental variations and the survival of the fittest. Here was thus the notion that we have found a means for dispensing individual acts of creation.

With this, his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history's most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the "evolution" paradigm has become, so to speak, a "master key," extending itself within many fields of knowledge.

His success should not be attributed entirely to scientific causes. Darwin himself (but above all his zealous promoters, those who promulgated what is called "Darwinism") imbued his theory with the air of a distinct worldview. Let us leave aside the question of whether such is inevitable. What is certain is that many saw Darwin's "The Origin of Species" as an alternative to what Darwin himself called "the theory of independent acts of creation." To explain the origin of species, one no longer needed such one-by-one creative activity.

The famous concluding sentence added to the end of the second edition of the work certainly provides a place for the Creator, but it is substantially reduced. It reads:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved" (Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species").

I believe that Darwin sincerely intended this in a spirit of reverence, but it is a conception of creation that in the realm of theology we call "Deism." In the very beginning there is an act of creation: God breathed into a seed, a single form, the germ of all life. It developed from this primeval beginning, according to the laws that he, Darwin, had endeavored to discover, describe, and formulate. No more divine interventions are required.

I think that we shall have to concern ourselves with this question in particular from the aspect of faith. Does creation mean that God does intervene here and there? What do we mean, after all, by the idea of creation? One thing is certain: The conflict of worldviews about Darwin's theory, about Darwinism, has kept the world intensively busy over the years, now nearly a century and a half. Here I shall offer only three examples of an interpretation that is indisputably imbued with ideology.

1) In 1959, Sir Julian Huxley gave a speech at the centennial celebration of the publication of the famous work: "In the Evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure." I am convinced that this is not a claim within the realm of the natural sciences but rather the expression of a worldview. It is essentially a "confession of faith" -- that faith being materialism.

2) Thirty years later, in 1988, the American writer Will Provine wrote in an essay about evolution and ethics: "Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable." This too is not a conclusion derived from natural science; it is a philosophical claim.

3) Four years later, the Oxford chemistry professor Peter Atkins wrote: "Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose, and that any survival of purpose is inspired solely by sentiment." Again, this is a "confession of faith"; it is not a strictly scientific claim. These and similar statements could be heard this summer and are one reason that I said in my short article in the New York Times concerning this sort of "border-crossings," that they constitute ideology rather than science, a worldview.

But let us return to the Book of Wisdom, which elsewhere puts the following words into the mouths of those who would deny God: "For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart" (Book of Wisdom 2:2). One could almost say that this is a materialistic confession of faith that even at the time was not unknown. Even my spirit is only a material product.

What prevents man from recognizing the Creator? What prevents us from deducing the Creator from the greatness and beauty of his creatures? Today, 2,000 years later, it ought to be much easier, to do so, for we know incomparably more than we did two millennia ago. Who could have had any inkling of the immeasurability of the cosmos?

Of course, it says in the Bible: "as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand upon the sea shore" (Genesis 22:17), but could men have known then that the number of stars does in fact correspond to the grains of sands on the shore? There are so many suns in this universe! Could anyone then have known how unbelievably complex, wonderful, incomprehensible the atom is? Could anyone have conceived just how incredibly fascinating can be a single cell and all its functions? Has this wealth of knowledge nonetheless in some way forced us to abandon our belief in the Creator? Has this knowledge driven him out, or has it, on the contrary, rendered it all the more meaningful and reasonable to believe in him -- with much better supporting evidence, through deeper insights into the marvelous world of nature, so that faith in a Creator has really become easier?

But perhaps it is simply this notion, one rightly rejected, that some creator intrudes upon this marvelous natural work. Perhaps it is also a matter of our knowledge about the faith not having kept pace with our knowledge about the natural sciences. Perhaps some of us still have, alongside an astoundingly developed scientific knowledge, only a "childish faith." To that extent, I am glad that my short article has sparked such a debate. Perhaps it will also lead to a deeper discussion of the question of "creation and evolution," "faith and natural science."

I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above, it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one's territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews.

In 1985, a symposium took place in Rome under the title "Christian Faith and the Theory of Evolution." I had the privilege of taking part in it and contributed a paper. Then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, presided, and, at its conclusion, Pope John Paul II received us in an audience. There he said: "Rightly comprehended, faith in creation or a correctly understood teaching of evolution does not create obstacles: Evolution in fact presupposes creation; creation situates itself in the light of evolution as an event which extends itself through time -- as a continual creation -- in which God becomes visible to the eyes of the believer as 'creator of heaven and earth.'"

But Pope John Paul then added the thought that for the creation faith and the theory of evolution to be correctly understood, the mediation of reason is necessary, along with, he insisted, philosophy and reflection. Thus, I should like to remind you once more what I have said in various interviews. For me the question that has emerged from this debate is not primarily one of faith vs. knowledge but rather one of reason. The acceptance of purposefulness, of "design" [English in the original], is entirely based on reason, even if the method of the modern natural sciences may require the bracketing of the question of design. Yet my common sense cannot be shut out by the scientific method. Reason tells me that plan and order, meaning and goal exist, that a timepiece does not come into being by accident, even less so the living organism that is a plant, an animal, or, above all, man.

I am thankful for the immense work of the natural sciences. Their furthering of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do not restrict faith in the creation; they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and in how wisely and wonderfully He has made all things.

It is in the next catecheses, however, that we may be able to see this story in greater detail. There I shall attempt to address what the act of creation means in light of the Christian faith.

ROME, DEC. 14, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Evolution and creation can be compatible, says a philosopher who goes so far as to speak of "evolutionary creation."

Legionary Father Rafael Pascual, director of the master's program in Science and Faith at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, puts his comments in context by clarifying that the "Bible has no scientific end."

The debate on evolution and faith heated up last summer after Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna published an article July 7 in the New York Times in which he affirmed: "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity' are not scientific at all."

To understand the issue better, ZENIT interviewed Father Pascual, author of "L'Evoluzione: crocevia di scienza, filosofia e teologia" (Evolution: Crossroads of Science, Philosophy and Theology), recently published in Italy by Studium.


Q: Yes to evolution and no to evolutionism?
Father Pascual: Evolution, understood as a scientific theory, based on empirical data, seems to be quite well affirmed, although it is not altogether true that there is no longer anything to add or complete, above all in regard to the mechanisms that regulate it.

Instead, I don't think evolutionism is admissible as an ideology that denies purpose and holds that everything is due to chance and to necessity, as Jacques Monod affirms in his book "Chance and Necessity," proposing atheist materialism.

This evolutionism cannot be upheld, either as a scientific truth or as a necessary consequence of the scientific theory of evolution, as some hold.

Q: Yes to creation, no to creationism?
Father Pascual: Creation is a comprehensible truth for reason, especially for philosophy, but it is also a revealed truth.

On the other hand, so-called creationism is also, as evolutionism, an ideology based, on many occasions, on an erroneous theology, that is, on a literal interpretation of the passages of the Bible, which, according to their authors, would maintain, in regard to the origin of species, the immediate creation of each species by God, and the immutability of each species with the passing of time.

Q: Are evolution and creation compatible?
Father Pascual: Evolution and creation may be compatible in themselves; one can speak -- without falling into a contradiction in terms -- of an "evolutionary creation," while evolutionism and creationism are necessarily incompatible.

On the other hand, undoubtedly there was an intelligent design but, in my opinion, it is not a question of an alternative scientific theory to the theory of evolution. At the same time, one must point out that evolutionism, understood as a materialist and atheist ideology, is not scientific.

Q: What does the Church's magisterium say on the matter?
Father Pascual: In itself, the magisterium of the Church is not opposed to evolution as a scientific theory.

On one hand, it allows and asks scientists to do research in what is its specific ambit. But, on the other hand, given the ideologies that lie behind some versions of evolutionism, it makes some fundamental points clear which must be respected:

-- Divine causality cannot be excluded a priori. Science can neither affirm nor deny it.

-- The human being has been created in the image and likeness of God. From this fact derives his dignity and eternal destiny.

-- There is a discontinuity between the human being and other living beings, in virtue of his spiritual soul, which cannot be generated by simple natural reproduction, but is created immediately by God.

Q: What are the fundamental truths on the origin of the world and the human being which the Church indicates as basic points?
Father Pascual: Clearly, the magisterium does not enter into scientific questions as such, which she leaves to the research of specialists. But she feels the duty to intervene to explain the consequences of an ethical and religious nature that such questions entail.

The first principle underlined is that truth cannot contradict truth; there cannot be a real contrast or conflict between a truth of faith -- or revealed truth -- and a truth of reason -- that is, natural -- because both have God as origin.

Second, it is emphasized that the Bible does not have a scientific end but rather a religious end. Therefore, it would not be correct to draw consequences that might implicate science, or respect for the doctrine of the origin of the universe, or about the biological origin of man.

A correct exegesis, therefore, must be done of the biblical texts, as the Pontifical Biblical Commission clearly indicates in "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church."

Third, for the Church, in principle, there is no incompatibility between the truth of creation and the scientific theory of evolution. God could have created a world in evolution, which in itself does not take anything away from divine causality; on the contrary, it can focus on it better as regards its wealth and potentiality.

Fourth, on the question of the origin of the human being, an evolutionary process could be admitted in regard to his corporeal nature, but in the case of the soul, because it is spiritual, a direct creative action is required on the part of God, given that what is spiritual cannot be initiated by something that is not spiritual.

There is discontinuity between matter and spirit. The spirit cannot flow or emerge from matter, as some thinkers have affirmed. Therefore, in man, there is discontinuity in relation to other living beings, an "ontological leap."

Finally, and here we are before the central point: The fact of being created and loved immediately by God is the only thing that can justify, in the last instance, the dignity of the human being.

Indeed, man is not the result of simple chance or blind fate, but rather the fruit of a divine plan. The human being has been created in the image and likeness of God; more than that, he is called to a relationship of communion with God. His destiny is eternal, and because of this he is not simply subject to the laws of this passing world.

The human being is the only creature that God wanted for its own sake; he [the human] is an end in himself, and cannot be treated as a means to reach any other end, no matter how noble it is or seems to be.

Q: An appropriate anthropology is needed therefore that takes all this into consideration and that can give an account of the human being in his entirety.
Father Pascual: On the kind of relationship that the Church promotes with the world of science, John Paul II said the collaboration between religion and science becomes a gain for one another, without violating in any way the respective autonomies.

Q: What is Benedict XVI's thought on creation and evolution?
Father Pascual: Obviously we are not faced with an alternative such as "creation or evolution," bur rather with an articulation.

In a series of homilies, on the first chapters of Genesis, the then archbishop of Munich, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, wrote in 1981: "The exact formula is creation and evolution, because both respond to two different questions. The account of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, does not in fact tell us how man originated. It tells us that it is man. It speaks to us of his most profound origin, illustrates the plan that is behind him. Vice versa, the theory of evolution tries to define and describe biological processes. However, it does not succeed in explaining the origin of the 'project' man, to explain his interior provenance and his essence. We are faced therefore with two questions that complement, not exclude each other."

Ratzinger speaks of the reasonable character of faith in creation, which continues to be, still today, the best and most plausible of the theories.

In fact, Ratzinger's text continues saying, "through the reason of creation, God himself looks at us. Physics, biology, the natural sciences in general, have given us a new, unheard-of account of creation, with grandiose and new images, which enable us to recognize the face of the Creator and make us know again: Yes, in the beginning and deep down in every being is the Creator Spirit. The world is not the product of darkness and the absurd. It comes from an intelligence, from a freedom, from a beauty that is love. To acknowledge this, infuses in us the courage that enables us to live, that makes us capable of confidently facing life's venture."

It is significant that, in his homily at the start of his Petrine ministry, Pope Benedict XVI said: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 15, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Benedict XVI gave Nov. 19 to the participants at the international conference organized by the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers on the theme of the human genome.

* * *
"Human Dignity Can't Be Identified With Genes"

I address my cordial greeting to you all, with a special thought of gratitude to Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán for the kind greeting he has expressed on behalf of those present.

I offer a special greeting to the bishops and priests who are taking part in this conference as well as the speakers, who have certainly made a highly qualified contribution to the problems addressed in these days: Their reflections and suggestions will be the subject of an attentive evaluation by the competent ecclesial bodies.

Placing myself in the pastoral perspective proper to the pontifical council that has sponsored this conference, I would like to point out that today, especially in the area of breakthroughs in medical science, the Church is being given a further possibility of carrying out the precious task of enlightening consciences, in order to ensure that every new scientific discovery will serve the integral good of the person, with constant respect for his or her dignity.

In underlining the importance of this pastoral task, I would like first of all to say a word of encouragement to those in charge of promoting it.

The contemporary world is marked by the process of secularization. Through complex cultural and social events, it has not only claimed a just autonomy for science and the organization of society, but has all too often also obliterated the link between temporal realities and their Creator, even to the point of neglecting to safeguard the transcendent dignity of human beings and respect for human life itself.

Today, however, secularization in the form of radical secularism no longer satisfies the more aware and alert minds. This means that possible and perhaps new spaces are opening up for a profitable dialogue with society and not only with the faithful, especially on important themes such as those relating to life.

This is possible because, in peoples with a long Christian tradition, there are still seeds of humanism which the disputes of nihilistic philosophy have not yet reached. Indeed, these seeds tend to germinate more vigorously, the more serious the challenges become.

Believers, moreover, know well that the Gospel is in an intrinsic harmony with the values engraved in human nature. Thus, God's image is deeply impressed in the soul of the human being, the voice of whose conscience it is far from easy to silence.

With the Parable of the Sower, Jesus in the Gospel reminds us that there is always good ground on which the seed may fall, spring up and bear fruit. Even people who no longer claim to be members of the Church or even those who have lost the light of faith, nonetheless remain attentive to the human values and positive contributions that the Gospel can make to the good of the individual and of society.

It is particularly easy to become aware of this by reflecting on the topic of your conference: The people of our time, whose sensitivity, moreover, has been heightened by the terrible events that have clouded the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, easily understand that human dignity cannot be identified with the genes of the human being's DNA and is not diminished by the possible presence of physical differences or genetic defects.

The principle of "non-discrimination" on the basis of physical or genetic factors has deeply penetrated consciences and is formally spelled out in the charters of human rights. The truest foundation of this principle lies in the dignity inherent in every human person because he or she is created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Genesis 1:26).

What is more, a serene analysis of scientific data leads to a recognition of the presence of this dignity in every phase of human life, starting from the very moment of conception. The Church proclaims and proposes this truth not only with the authority of the Gospel, but also with the power that derives from reason. This is precisely why she feels duty bound to appeal to every person of good will in the certainty that the acceptance of these truths cannot but benefit individuals and society.

Indeed, it is necessary to preserve ourselves from the risks of a science and technology that claim total autonomy from the moral norms inscribed in the nature of the human being.

There are many professional bodies and academies in the Church that are qualified to evaluate innovations in the scientific environment, particularly in the world of biomedicine; then there are doctrinal bodies specifically designated to define the moral values to be safeguarded and to formulate norms required for their effective protection; lastly, there are pastoral dicasteries, such as the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, whose task is to ensure that the Church's pastoral presence is effective.

This third task is not only invaluable with regard to an ever more adequate humanization of medicine, but also in order to guarantee a prompt response to the expectations by each individual of effective spiritual assistance.

Consequently, it is necessary to give pastoral health care a new impetus. This implies renewal and the deepening of the pastoral proposal itself. It should take into account the growing mass of knowledge spread by the media and the higher standard of education of those they target.

We cannot ignore the fact that more and more frequently, not only legislators but citizens too are called to express their thoughts on problems that can be described as scientific and difficult. If they lack an adequate education, indeed, if their consciences are inadequately formed, false values or deviant information can easily prevail in the guidance of public opinion.

Updating the training of pastors and educators to enable them to take on their own responsibilities in conformity with their faith, and at the same time in a respectful and loyal dialogue with nonbelievers, is the indispensable task of any up-to-date pastoral health care. Today, especially in the field of the applications of genetics, families can lack adequate information and have difficulty in preserving the moral autonomy they need to stay faithful to their own life choices.

In this sector, therefore, a deeper and more enlightened formation of consciences is necessary. Today's scientific discoveries affect family life, involving families in unexpected and sensitive decisions that require responsible treatment. Pastoral work in the field of health care thus needs properly trained and competent advisers.

This gives some idea of the complex and demanding management needed in this area today.

In the face of these growing needs in pastoral care, as the Church continues to trust in the light of the Gospel and the power of grace, she urges those responsible to study a proper methodology in order to help individuals, families and society, combining faithfulness and dialogue, theological study and the ability for mediation.

In this, she sets great store especially by the contribution of all, such as you who are gathered here to take part in this international conference and who have at heart the fundamental values that support human coexistence. I gladly take this opportunity to express to you all my grateful appreciation for your contribution in a sector so important for the future of humanity.

With these sentiments, I invoke from the Lord an abundance of enlightenment on your work, and as a testimony of my esteem and affection, I impart a special blessing to you all.

[Translation distributed by the Holy See]

VIENNA, Austria (Zenit.org).- Here is a provisional translation of the second catechetical lecture given by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, In November 2005 on creation and evolution.

* * *

"In the Beginning God Created ..."
November 13
St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna

I hear that "March of the Penguins" is a wonderful film. Unfortunately I haven't yet seen it. In just a few weeks it has become a worldwide hit. In a fascinating way it portrays how these waddling animals live, care for their young, and survive in extreme climates.

And yet we have once again a dispute over evolution. Some Christian commentators in the United States are impressed by the virtues of the penguins; they think that the ability of these animals to withstand extreme temperatures, the ocean, and their natural enemies among the animals, as well as to be exemplary and sacrificial monogamous parents, is evidence against the theory of Darwin and in favor of "intelligent design." It is evidence for a creator and against Darwin, as some have recently said. The director of this film, a French director, emphatically resisted being co-opted like this; he says that he was "raised on the milk of Darwin" and simply wanted to make an animal movie, nothing more.

It seems to me that this controversy is typical for the state of affairs today. People get worked up over the issue, they are ready to quarrel about it, to call each other names. The controversy reminds us of something like a "culture-war." Thus Salman Rushdie, writing in the New York Times as well as in Die Zeit, sharply attacks those religions with which no peace can be achieved and no compromise can be reached. He says, "Moslem voices all over the world declare that the theory of evolution is incompatible with Islam." For him the theory of "intelligent design" is "the theory that wants to project into the beauty of creation the antiquated idea of a creator." He even thinks that this theory deserves to be treated with scorn.

Just recently in Die Zeit one could read much polemic and aggressiveness against "those who say that they have been created by God." Those who think this way are stamped as fanatics. Maybe some of them really are, or at least act fanatically, but just because people think that they are created by God does not yet justify such a fanatical rejection of their belief. In this article in Die Zeit we read that in Darwin's time "most people accepted crude religious creation myths," whereas this is no longer the case today. Leaving aside all polemics one might respond by asking whether the people who take delight in Haydn's wonderful oratory, "The Creation," accept "crude myths."

It seems to me that the rude tone and the aggressive attitude in this debate, especially on the part of those who hold out against any criticism of Darwinism, is not a good sign. But let me add right away that religious fanaticism is also not a good sign.

Are all who believe that they were created by God blind fanatics? Or is delight in Haydn's "Creation" just a romantic swelling of feeling? Can rational people still believe in a creator and see the world as created? That is the theme of today's catechesis. I promise to listen without any polemical spirit to all that faith and reason have to say on this subject and to listen to all that is said about it.

A scientist wrote me in response to my article in the New York Times that he would like to believe in a creator but just cannot believe in an "old man with a long white beard." I answered him saying that no one expects him to believe this. On the contrary, such a childish conception of a creator has nothing to do with what the Bible says about the creator and with the article of the creed that says, "I believe in God, the father almighty, the creator of heaven and earth."

In my response I wrote him that it would be a good thing if his religious knowledge would not lag so far behind his scientific knowledge and if his vast knowledge as a scientist did not go hand in hand with what is after all childish religious conceptions. For an old man with a long white beard is certainly not what is meant by the creator. I recommended that he simply read what, for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on this subject.

Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called "creationism." Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with "creationism." But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6,000 years old.

These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements -- I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it -- is called "fundamentalism." Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way.

It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools. But it is an entirely different matter when certain people would like to see the schools deal with the critical questions that have been raised with regard to Darwinism; they have a reasonable and legitimate concern.

The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that "one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous." It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6,000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the "irrisio infidelium," the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of "creationism" and "fundamentalism" for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.

And now to our main subject: What does the Christian faith say about "God the creator" and about creation? The classical Catholic teaching, as we find it explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or more compactly presented in the Compendium of the Catechism, contains four basic elements.

1. The doctrine of creation says that there is an absolute beginning -- "in the beginning God created heaven and earth" -- and that this absolute beginning is the free and sovereign act of establishing being out of nothing. This is the main theme of today's catechesis: the absolute beginning.

2. The doctrine of creation also says that there are various creatures. This is the distinction of creatures, "each according to its kind," of which we read in the first chapter of Genesis. This is the work of the first six days as related on the first page of the Bible. I will speak on this subject in the next catechesis, in which I will ask what it means to say that according to our faith in creation God has willed a multiplicity of creatures.

3. We come now to a point of fundamental importance for the Christian belief about creation. It is also a point about which we will be speaking later today. We believe not only in an absolute beginning of creation but in the preservation of creation; God holds in being all that he has created. We refer here to his continuing work of creation, which in theology is called the "creatio continua," the ongoing act of creation.

4. And finally, the doctrine of creation most definitely includes the belief that God directs his creation. He did not just set it in motion once at the beginning and then let it run its course. No, the divine guidance of creation, which we call divine providence, is a part of the doctrine of creation. God leads his work to its final end.

There you have the basics of this yearlong catechesis. I will not only be concerned with the doctrines of the faith, but will try with each aspect of my subject to enter into dialogue with the natural sciences, at least as far as my limited scientific knowledge permits. What I am of course especially concerned with is the question of how the belief in creation is related to the theory of evolution.

Let us begin today with the question of the absolute beginning. The scientific theory of the beginning of the universe that is now generally recognized is the theory of the big bang. Seventy-five years ago the American astronomer, Edwin Hubble, discovered that our universe is expanding at an unimaginable speed, the speed of light. In the meantime it has come to be assumed that the universe is expanding even faster.

It must, therefore, have once begun to expand at the big bang from a highly concentrated and compact point of beginning. It began explosively to expand. This theory is supported by observations and especially those concerning the "background radiation" in the universe, which is taken to be a kind of fallout from the big bang. Of course many questions remain wrapped in mystery and probably cannot be answered at all by the theory itself, but they surely remain as questions that invite the rational inquiry of scientists.

There is first of all the quite simple question: Where did the universe expand to? Did it expand into space? But there is no space "outside" of the universe, beyond the gigantic dimensions of the cosmos, which is 14 billion light-years in extent, as is generally assumed (light travels 186,000 miles per second). …

Our galaxy alone, the Milky Way, is 100,000 light-years across. Who can imagine such a thing? Well, beyond these gigantic dimensions of the cosmos there is no space. I recently read in Spectrum der Wissenschaft that the space in which we live "emerged with the big bang and has been expanding ever since." There is no space outside of the universe.

The question of time is no less puzzling. For the big bang means that the universe had one beginning and moves towards an end. We are strongly tempted to ask what there was before the beginning. The answer can only be: just as there is space only because of the expansion of the universe -- there is space wherever it expands -- so it is with time. There is no time before time; it comes about with the big bang, just like space does. There is time only with the cosmos and within the cosmos.

In recent decades the natural sciences have tried to approach this origin of the universe. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize laureate in physics, wrote in 1977 a famous book called "The First Three Minutes," which dealt with the first three minutes of the universe. It is fascinating to learn what the science of today says about the decisive first moments after the big bang. Everything that developed later, the galaxies, stars, planets, life on our earth, all of it was decided in the very first moments.

Our well-known physicist, Walter Thirring, wrote in a book of his that came out last year and was called "Cosmic Impressions: Traces of God in the Laws of Nature": "Had the big bang been too weak and had everything collapsed, we would not exist. Had it been too powerful, everything would have dissipated too quickly," and again we would not exist. He compares the origin of the world with starting a rocket that is supposed to put a satellite in orbit around the earth.

He says, "If the rocket has too little push, it falls back to the earth, but if it has too much, it escapes into space." He then adds that with the big bang the precision needed for bringing about our world was incomparably greater than for launching a satellite into orbit. The precision of this event is "so far beyond man's power to conceive" that Professor Thirring exclaims, "What an absurd idea that this should have happened by chance!"

Do we have here the point at which we should insert our belief in a creator? Do we introduce him as it were at the limit reached by science? Does the creator begin to act beyond this threshold? Let us be careful! We must not be too quick to assume that God produced the big bang, as if in the smallest fraction of the very first second we come up against the wall behind which we find the creator, or reach the point where only the creator can explain what happened. This idea flits around in many scientific and even in some theological discussions. It is defended vigorously by some and attacked by others. Is God at work at the beginning in the sense that he gave the signal for the great game of the universe to begin?

I now invite you -- and I promise you that it will not be entirely easy -- to take a look at what the faith really teaches about these things. We will see that the Church's teaching on creation is at once quite simple but also very deep and demanding, and that we have to get beyond many of our ideas and images if we are going to enter into the mystery of creation and to approach it by faith and also by reason. Let us begin again with the first sentence of the Bible: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" (Genesis 1:1). "Bereschit bara," says the Hebrew text. "Bara" is a word used in the Bible only for God. Only God creates. The Hebrew word is used exclusively for the creative activity of God. The Catechism (290) says that in these first words of Scripture three things are being affirmed:

1) The eternal God has called into existence all that exists outside of him. He has created everything, heaven and earth. The first sentence of the Bible does not say that God gave a signal or a push in the beginning, but that he called into being everything that in any way exists.

2) He alone is the creator. "Bara" always has God as its subject. He alone can call into being.

3) All that exists, heaven and earth, depends on God who gives it being.

In order to understand these three affirmations we have to clear away three misunderstandings.

1) The first and most usual misunderstanding is that God is seen as the first cause. He is indeed the first cause of all causes but he is not as it were at the beginning of a long chain of causes, like a pool player who hits a ball which rolls and hits another ball which in turn hits yet another -- as if God were just the first cause in a long series of causes.

Here is another analogy that has been eagerly used since the Enlightenment: the analogy of a watchmaker, who produces a watch which then runs on its own until it has to be wound up again or occasionally repaired; the little thing runs as soon as it is made. The fact that Richard Dawkins sees no use for such a watchmaker in explaining our world, is not the point that makes him an atheist. Steven Weinberg, whom I cited above, formulates as follows the usual assumption about scientific method: "The only possible scientific procedure consists in assuming that no divine intervention takes place and then in seeing how far science gets on this assumption" (Dreams of a Final Theory). The scientific method, as understood by Weinberg and many others, is thus a conscious rejection of any "divine intervention." They want to see how far we can get with this method without having to posit a watchmaker or a pool player or a starter at the beginning of the game.

Sometimes the way in which the scientific method excludes any divine intervention is called "methodological atheism." I do not see it that way; this excluding is simply authentic scientific method and has nothing to do with atheism. The scientific method should not assume a watchmaker who intervenes; it searches for the explanation of mechanisms, connections, causal relations, and events.

We believe in a creator, not in one cause among others, one which occasionally intervenes when the limits of all other causes have been reached. God does not intervene like a mother who intervenes when her children fight but who otherwise lets them play with each other. Of course there are wonderful interventions of God, as we will see later. God is sovereign in relation to his creation and he can heal a cancer with his sovereign creative power. This is what we call a miracle.

But at present we are talking about the act of creating the world, and this is not just the first push in a long chain of causes but is rather the more fundamental thing of sovereignly conferring being. "God spoke and it came to be." All that exists owes its being to this call, to this word, to this creative act of God. He created everything, heaven and earth, and there is nothing that was not created by him. He created everything in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible (for we believe that there are also invisible creatures, namely the angels).

Everything is created reality. This is the first and most important affirmation to be made; later on we will inquire more exactly into how it is to be understood. But before going further, let us raise the following question: Is this affirmation a pure article of faith, or can each human being understand it with his reason? The Catechism answers (286): "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth."

With our reason we can in principle know that the things of the world are created, even though it is only revelation that fully illumines our mind about creation. What can reason know? It can know that the world and all of reality does not exist through itself. All is dependent. Nothing made itself. I set aside for the moment the much-discussed question about the self-organization of matter. At least this much can be said: Matter does not exist through itself. We have made neither the world nor ourselves.

Our very limited powers suffice only to change what already exists, sometimes for the better, but unfortunately sometimes for the worse. But we always work with something that is already given. Given is first of all the fact that this world exists at all and we exist in it. It may pain us to be so dependent and it may offend our pride, but the teaching about creation tells us that there is no humiliation in acknowledging our dependency. It is no humiliation to be dependent on the creator; this rather opens for us undreamed-of possibilities. The other side of this dependency is the very positive fact that the creator holds everything, bears everything, encompasses everything, sheltering us in his hand.

2. And so I come to the second affirmation about the creator and his act of creating. For a start let me say it like this, surprising and perhaps provocative as it may sound: From the side of God the act of creating involves "no movement." Why? All making and producing and acting that we observe in the world is a moving or changing of something that already exists. A carpenter makes a table out of wood, he changes the wood, he forms it, giving a new shape to some pre-given material. Someone at home takes a bunch of ingredients and makes a wonderful meal out of them, shaping pre-given elements into something new. But it is not something absolutely new, it is not a real creating, it is only a shaping. Things are changed so that they become edible.

It is the same way with the artist, with the technician, even with intellectually creative people. Even my best ideas are not absolute novelties. They always presuppose that others have already done some thinking and that I have already done some thinking. My ideas come from the exchange of ideas with others, and when I get some special insight, it is only the forming of what is already at hand and already exists. Perhaps something really new sometimes comes about. This raises a question that we will treat later on in this catechetical cycle: What about the emergence of novelty in the world, especially when new kinds of being emerge in the course of evolution?

Now we see what is decisively different about the creative act of God: It is without movement. It does not change that which already exists. It does not form some pre-given material. In most of the creation myths that we find in the world religions the gods create by transforming something that already exists. They are demiurges, they form the chaos or some primal matter that is already there, they fashion worlds; but only the God who encounters us in the Bible is really a creator.

The early Christian writers oppose the many ancient creation myths, or rather the many ancient myths about the emergence of the world. Thus St. Theophilus of Antioch, writing around the year 180, says: "If God had drawn the world out of some pre-existing stuff, what would have been so special about that? If you give to a human worker some material, he makes out of it whatever he wants. But the power of God shows itself in the fact that he starts from nothing to make anything he wants." This does not mean that "nothing" is something out of which he produces things, but that God's creative act is a sovereign act of bringing into being. We can also say: It is a pure act of "calling into being." God spoke and it came to be. That is what is so wonderful and so unique about the biblical belief in creation.

3. We have now to mention a third difficulty. The doctrine of creation says that God did not create in time, at some point on a time line. His creative act is not a temporal act. I know that this is hard to understand. All that we experience is experienced on the time line of yesterday, today, tomorrow (there is the beginning of this catechesis and the end of it). The creative act of God is not the first act in a long stretch of time, it is not once done and then over with, as if God has, as it were, done his job and can now put his hands in his pockets.

No, "in the beginning God created ..." This beginning is always in God's eternity. For us creatures it is a temporal beginning. Once I began to be 60 years ago. For God there is no temporal beginning. Once the universe began to be 14 billion years ago, but God's creative act is not in time, he rather creates time. He is eternal. And his act of creating is not accomplished in this or that moment, but he calls the world into being and holds it in being. Creation takes place now, in the now of God.

In the Letter to the Hebrews we read: "He upholds all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3). This is why we have to say that if God would let go of us and of creation even for a second, we would fall back into the nothingness from which we came and from which he called us. I grant you that this is not easy to grasp. It requires us to try to transcend our temporal and spatial ways of thinking. Then we enter into a wonderfully coherent view of the world.

In conclusion I want at least to touch on two important points, and this for the sake of completing what has been said, or providing further background for it.

1. God creates in absolute freedom -- nothing forces him to it, nothing requires it of him. He does not act out of need, as we do. We are always in need of something that we lack, like food or sleep, because want to realize something, to realize ourselves. God does not have to realize himself. By creating he does not complete his being. Creation is not a part of him nor are we a part of him, but we are freely set in being by him, freely created. This means that we are willed by him.

2. This has immense consequences for our understanding of our world and our ourselves. Since God has created in sovereign freedom, he has given his creatures real independence of being. Creatures are themselves, they really have their own being, their own power of acting, the gift of their autonomy. This reaches all the way to the freedom of human beings, to the fact that God has created freedom, which is the greatest marvel of all in creation.

Before we look at the consequences of this, let us distinguish the Christian position from three other interrelated accounts of the relation between God and the world. a) There is the emanationist account according to which the world is an emanation of God, a "piece" of him that is of lesser value, an inferior form of God. b) The pantheistic account sees everything in God and as God. God is in everything but in such a way that everything is God, even the trees and the animals. c) The monistic account says that there is only one substance or being and that is God; all else either does not exist or is God.

All three of these accounts, which even today have many defenders in the esoteric literature, commit this one fundamental mistake: They keep God from being God and they keep creatures, which are only "parts" of God, from having any being of their own. These three accounts seem to be very "devout" and so they are always deceiving people. They seem to exalt the creature, raising it to a divine level, but the truth is the very opposite, as we will now try to see.

I said that creation has a real being of its own as a result of the fact that God creates in sovereign freedom without having any compulsion or urge to create, that he gives creatures their being and power of acting as a gift. If creatures were an "emanation" of the divine being, then they would not be independent in being, they would not have their own being and reality. It is just because we are created by God in complete freedom that we can really "be ourselves."

In the next catechesis I want to explain the far-reaching consequences that this has. We will see that in evolutionism (remember that I distinguish the scientific theory of evolution from the inflation of evolution into the metaphysics of "evolutionism") one has a hard time acknowledging the "being of their own" that creatures have.

Everything is blurred in the stream of evolution, nothing has a basis, nothing stands in itself, nothing has its own reality. Everything is just a transitory image in the flow of time. How different is the belief in creation, according to which all creatures have their own being, their own form, their own power of acting, and, in the case of human beings, their own freedom. More about this in the next catechesis.

We have to draw the very important and essential conclusion that creatures have their own being because God is utterly free in creating them. They stand in themselves and exist on their own, for they are willed by God. St. Thomas puts it like this: God gives things not only being but also their own power of acting efficaciously. This principle finds its supreme realization in man: We are creatures who have not only received being but have also received spirit, will and freedom.

I know of no other teaching that combines in such an intelligible and convincing way the dependency of all creatures on their creator with the independence of these creatures. And the reason is simple: Since God creates in sovereign freedom, he gives his creatures the sovereign freedom to be themselves. Since he has no other reason for creating than his own goodness, he gives his creatures a share in his goodness: "And God saw that it was good."

I hope that I have been able to show a little that the Christian belief in a creator is something entirely different from the belief in a deistic watchmaker who only sets things in motion at the beginning with a push from without. To be created means to have received being and existence. It means to be supported by the giver of all being, of all motion, of all life. It means to have received everything from his goodness and to remain encompassed and held fast by his goodness.

This faith in a creator takes nothing away from creatures, as many fear. It is a faith that unites both dependency and freedom, paradoxical as that may sound. For to be dependent on God is not to be degraded or to be treated like a child. God is not an arbitrary dictator nor is his action as creator the whim of a tyrant.

It is the very dignity of the creature to have received everything from him. Belief in the creator is thus the best way of guaranteeing and protecting the dignity of his creatures. If everything is just a product of accident and necessity, then we have to wonder why creatures should merit any special respect or dignity.

But is there a dignity proper to creatures at all, "each according to its kind"? This will be the question we ask in the next catechesis: Are there different kinds of creatures, as implied in "each according to its kind," and are they willed by the creator?

Some time last month, elena66 posted the following quotations in the Forum thread
of the main forum under the discussion thread - "Does God exist?"

Except for the last quotation from an Italian scientist, the other quotations
were originally in English, Russian and German. My translations are obviously
from the Italian versions cited by Elena.
--------------------------------------------------------------

John Carew Eccles (1903-1997), Australian, 1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine:
”Let us assume there is an immense depot of airplane parts, all in boxes and on shelves.
This is a huge edifice, say 1 thousand kilometers each side. Then a cyclone arrives which,
for 100000 years, tosses about all these parts. And when finally it dies down,
there, where the depot used to be, is a series of airplanes all ready to go.
Sticking strictly to science, that scenario has the same probability as that
life was created at random. With the additional vexing question of – where did
all those parts come from, to begin with?”

Alfred Kastler (1902-1984), physicist, 1966 Nobel Prize, atheist:
When asked, as a scientist, about the possiblity that chance was at the origin
of whatever science had taught him, he answered this way:
”Let us assume that in one of the next manned voyages to the moon,
the astronauts will reach the unknown face of the moon, that side that we never see.
Up to now, moon landings have been on the visible face of the moon to maintain
the possiblity of radio contact… Let us assume that these astronauts find
to their surprise an automatic factory that produces aluminum such as some
that we now have here on earth. One one side they see spades digging the ground
to mine the aluminum. and on the other side, they see aluminum bars coming out.
They would also find manufacturing equipment necessary for the electrolytic production
of aluminum bars. In other words, after examining this factory, they would find
everything normal according to physical laws and perfectly explainable by the rules
of causality. Should they then conclude that the factory came into being just by chance,
or that other intelligent beings had come to the moon before them and constructed this factory?
What would the reader say? Common sense,without even going into elementary notions
of philosophy, would tell us that the factory could not have been created by chance.
No one, except someone unhinged, would attribute its creation to chance!…

Well, in a living being we find a system that is infinitely more complex than
an automatic factory. To say that chance created such a being seems absurd to me.
If a program exists, you cannot say it exists without anyone who programmed it.
However, I for one do not wish to construct an image of such a programmer.”

Fred Hoyle, astronomer and mathematician:
“All it takes is a small series of calculations on a computer to realize that
the probability that life arose at random [that is, that it could have arisen
at random from the primeval broth] is akin to the probability of tossing dice
50,000 times in succession and getting 12 each time. More or less the same
probability as that famed hypothesis of a an ape producing the Divine Comedy
by hammering at a typewriter keyboard at random!”

Grichka Bogdanov, physicist, took the time to calculate how much time
would have been necessary in order to produce “at random” a single molecule of RNA.
The result was astonishing: the number of years would be 1 followed by 15 zeros,
that is, a million billion years – or 100000 times more than the current
scientifically accepted age of the universe.

Prof. Bucci, of Rome’s Campus Biomedico:
"Let us suppose that I enter a prehistoric cave in which I find engraved on the rock
a verse such as:
‘Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
mi ritrovai per una selva oscura
che la dritta via era smarrita",[The first 3 lines of Dante's "Divine Comedy"]
and I told my colleagues – In this cave, thanks to erosion by water, the soldification
of carbonates and the action of the wind, we find the opening lines of the Divine Comedy.
They would think I was mad. But would they say the same thing if I told them that
the first living cell was created at random, a cell which contains 5000 times
the information contained in the whole of the Divine Comedy?”

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 06/01/2006 1.42]

In the Jan. 13, 2006 issue of National Catholic Reporter, John Allen gives an overview of the top 3 bioethical issues that he thinks Benedict XVI must confront. The excerpts are taken from "Benedict XVI and Moral Theology," a lecture he gave to the Society for Christian Ethics in Phoenix, Arizona, on Jan. 5 .
From www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/
----------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the hot-button moral issues in Western culture are not live topics in official circles of the Catholic church, because they're regarded as largely resolved: abortion, homosexuality, and so on. But other issues are generating lively debate, with constituencies in the church pressing for an official statement of position. Stepping through four such issues may serve as an "early warning system" for eventual ethical interventions of Benedict's pontificate.

(1) Embryo Adoption

Official Catholic teaching holds that the creation of embryos in a laboratory is intrinsically immoral, since an embryo is a human being, and every human being has the right to be conceived and born within marriage and from marriage. Despite this teaching, however, embryos are artificially generated and conceived in large numbers. In 2003, The Washington Post found there are roughly 400,000 human embryos preserved in American fertility clinics alone. The question is, what should be done with them?

A growing number of Catholic ethicists believe that since these embryos are human beings, it is a moral imperative to give them the opportunity to be born and to develop. These ethicists would not only permit, but would positively encourage, the implantation of these embryos in women willing to bring them to term. Indeed, some would permit the implantation of these embryos in single mothers, or even in surrogate mothers for adoption by homosexual couples, on the grounds that the right to life trumps any other consideration. Critics, on the other hand, believe that such use of embryos amounts to cooperation in an evil act. Further, they warn that providing moral "cover" for implanting embryos will simply encourage the production of even more embryos, aggravating an already immoral situation. Finally, they argue that Catholic teaching regards procreation as a matter of collaboration among husband, wife and God, and any technique that introduces a "fissure" in this process cannot be approved.

To date, Church authority has not pronounced on the question, leaving many Catholic ethicists, physicians, and counselors in doubt as to how to explain the Church's official position. Given the growing number of preserved embryos, and the urgency that advocates of "embryo adoption" feel about the issue, pressure is likely to grow for Pope Benedict to issue clarification.

(2) Condoms and AIDS

Official Catholic teaching on artificial birth control is clear -- contraception violates the inherent inseparability between the procreative and unitive dimensions of marriage, and hence is forbidden. A question that remains open, however, is whether use of a condom in the context of HIV/AIDS necessarily involves the intent to contracept. In a situation in which one spouse is infected and the other is not, could a condom be morally permissible because the intent is to preserve life -- with contraception, in the language of traditional Catholic analysis, regarded as a "foreseen but unintended" consequence?

It is often a surprise for many people to learn that the church has never officially pronounced on this issue. In fact, there is a lively discussion at the highest levels. (As a footnote to my colleagues in the press, it is therefore inaccurate to characterize the Catholic position as an outright "condom ban"). For example, the President of the Pontifical Council for the Health Care, Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, said in 2004, "If an infected husband wants to have sex with his wife who isn't infected, then she must defend herself by whatever means necessary." Similar arguments have been made by others, including Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, England.

Yet there are opposing voices. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has argued that even in the context of HIV/AIDS the use of condoms is forbidden, not only because artificial birth control is intrinsically evil, but also because condoms have a small but significant failure rate.

I should also note that virtually every Catholic ethicist I know believes that in a situation in which an HIV-positive person is determined to have sex, regardless of Church teaching, it's preferable for that person to use a condom, so as not to add a potential homicide to an already sinful situation. The problem is not so much the clarity of the teaching, but the pastoral judgment about how to communicate it in a way that doesn't end up promoting promiscuity and reckless behavior.

Given the pressing nature of the AIDS crisis, and the divergence in views at the highest levels, Benedict will face growing pleas to say something definitive.

(3) Altered Nuclear Transfer

In light of the volatility of debates over stem cell research, the quest today is for a "third way" that would allow scientists to conduct research on stem cells without, as many see it, destroying embryonic life. The most-discussed such proposal comes from Dr. William Hurlbut of Stanford University, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, and a Protestant scientist who has gone to great lengths to solicit Catholic approval for his work. He proposes a method called "altered nuclear transfer," which means creating cellular systems that resemble embryos but without the characteristics of human life.

In essence, the idea is to generate entities more like tumors than human beings, which produce embryonic stem cells that could be harvested for research and therapy. Altered nuclear transfer mimics cellular systems such as ovarian tumors that generate pluripotent, but not totipotent, stem cells. Hurlbut believes the resulting cellular structure is not an embryo, and therefore is legitimate matter for research. The proposal has powerful backing from what are usually seen as conservative Catholic circles; signatories to a recent statement endorsing it include William May, Germain Grisez, and Archbishop John Myers of Newark.

Yet there are also strong Catholic critics, such as David Schindler, editor of the American version of Communio and professor at the John Paul II Institute in Washington. Schindler argues that altered nuclear transfer shares the same philosophical premises as embryonic stem cell research, specifically a mechanistic metaphysics that treats organisms as machines. To get a sense of Schindler's point, imagine that scientists could engineer an embryo so that it would grow into an entire body, minus the cerebral cortex. Could we then kill it and use its organs? Other critics reject the claim that Hurlbut's cellular mass is not an embryo. One has said the technique simply creates "an embryo programmed to die." For such critics, Hurlbut risks becoming another John Rock, the Catholic scientist who pioneered the birth control pill as a purported resolution to ethical debates over contraception, only to see the Catholic church reject his solution.

Aside from ethical critiques, some scientists believe the genetic manipulation involved in Hurlbut's proposal would be extraordinarily complex, thus questioning its feasibility on purely technical grounds.

Given the strong pressure for expanded stem cell research, the possibility of a "Catholic alternative," promising the same results but without the ethical qualms, is alluring. For that reason, altered nuclear transfer will receive close scrutiny in the Vatican. Archbishop William Levada, Ratzinger's successor at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is positively inclined; while still in San Francisco, he wrote President Bush on Hurlbut's behalf, saying, "This proposal offers hope that there may be a solution to an area of great challenge and controversy." Ethicists wonder if that will become official teaching under Benedict XVI.

Very interesting and informative article. Thanks. I understand so little of these things. This helped me somewhat!

JPL scientist Moustafa Chahine was one of 15 international participants invited to speak at last month's meeting at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences' Working Group on Water and the Environment.

Chahine is the team leader for Atmospheric Infrared Sounder. AIRS is a spacecraft that is able to look through cloud cover to reveal 3-D data of a storms water vapor content.

"Of all the gases water vapor is more dominant in global warming," Chahine said.

He spent five days within the Vatican City as part of the conference.

"It was a unique experience," Chahine said. "We stayed in the building [Domus Sanctae Marthae] built by Pope John for visiting cardinals."

He added that the room was sparse but nice.


Chahine was invited to explain how spacecrafts can help in predicting the weather and weather patterns. His speech was titled "NASA's Measurements of Water from Space." It focused on results NASA has obtained through the use of spacecrafts such as AIRS.

"The goal of the meeting was to find how well we can predict the amounts of fresh water we are going to have for the people of the world and what are the techniques we are using to get this information," Chahine said.

Chahine saw the Vatican's interested in scientific development of weather prediction as a way for Catholic Church officials to be involved with the world. No one can predict rainfall weeks or months in advance, but JPL and its partners are developing new ways not only to predict storms but droughts and rainfall in all regions of the world. JPL is also looking at ground water supplies as well.

"We are extracting more underground water than nature can replenish," Chahine warns.

He thinks that the Vatican is not unlike many who want to know what the future holds for our planet and what methods are being used in the study of our fresh water supply.

Here is some background information about the potential of stem cells from adult tissues by Richard Doerflinger, Deputy Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Although the article is dated June 2005, the scientific information is still current.
From http://www.usccb.org/prolife/publicat/lifeissues/063005.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stem Cells Without Embryos?
by Richard M. Doerflinger

The battle lines of the stem cell debate have become familiar.

In one corner we have embryonic stem cells, obtained by destroying one-week-old human embryos. The cells are “pluripotent,” capable of producing all the 210 cell types in the human body. In the other corner are stem cells obtained harmlessly from adult tissues, umbilical cord blood and placentas. These pose no ethical problem, but supposedly are more limited.

Herein lies the alleged tension between science and ethics:. We can cure devastating diseases, or respect embryonic human life, but not both.

That dichotomy has always been misleading. Embryonic stem cells are far from curing any disease, while adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells have helped many thousands of patients. Yet scientists still claim that cells obtained by destroying early human life have special advantages that cannot be duplicated.

This claim is about to be tested.

Just before Congress’s July 4 recess, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) introduced the “Respect for Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act.” It instructs the National Institutes of Health to fund research in obtaining “pluripotent” stem cells without creating or harming human embryos.

Mr. Bartlett knows whereof he speaks. He holds a Ph.D. in physiology, and bases his proposal on a report by the President’s Council on Bioethics and the latest research findings.

His bill outlines two ways to get pluripotent stem cells without harming embryos. One is to remove the cells from embryos without harming or destroying them. The bill would fund such efforts in animal embryos, to see if this can be safe enough to consider doing in humans.

The other approach would produce embryo-like stem cells without creating embryos at all. A dozen studies now indicate that umbilical cord blood and adult tissues contain stem cells that may be as versatile as embryonic stem cells. In addition, cutting-edge research suggests that adult cells can be “reprogrammed” in several ways into pluripotent stem cells.

One avenue is dubbed “ANT-OAR” – altered nuclear transfer by oocyte assisted reprogramming.

“Nuclear transfer” is the cloning method that made Dolly the sheep. The nucleus of a body cell is combined with an egg deprived of its own nucleus. Signals in the egg activate a much wider range of genes in that nucleus, so it no longer directs one specialized type of cell but begins the development of a whole new organism. What if the egg and the body cell were altered in advance so that, from the beginning, the result is not a one-celled embryo, but a pluripotent stem cell like those now obtained by destroying embryos?

There are good scientific reasons to believe this can be done. And many Catholic scientists and ethicists have declared that it can and should be explored (see www.eppc.org/news/newsid.2375/news_detail.asp).

It would be good news indeed if modern science ends up resolving some moral dilemmas that an irresponsible use of science has created. Rep. Bartlett and his colleagues are helping to demonstrate what has always been true: science and ethics were meant to be allies, not enemies.

In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome
By IAN FISHER and CORNELIA DEAN

ROME, Jan. 18 - The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

The article was not presented as an official church position. But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI.

Advocates for teaching evolution hailed the article. "He is emphasizing that there is no need to see a contradiction between Catholic teachings and evolution," said Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest. "Good for him."

But Robert L. Crowther, spokesman for the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle organization where researchers study and advocate intelligent design, dismissed the article and other recent statements from leading Catholics defending evolution. Drawing attention to them was little more than trying "to put words in the Vatican's mouth," he said.

L'Osservatore is the official newspaper of the Vatican and basically represents the Vatican's views. Not all its articles represent official church policy. At the same time, it would not be expected to present an article that dissented deeply from that policy.

In July, Christoph Schönborn, an Austrian cardinal close to Benedict, seemed to call into question what has been official church teaching for years: that Catholicism and evolution are not necessarily at odds.

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times, he played down a 1996 letter in which Pope John Paul II called evolution "more than a hypothesis." He wrote, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, but advocates for intelligent design posit that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source.

At least twice, Pope Benedict has signaled concern about the issue, prompting questions about his views. In April, when he was formally installed as pope, he said human beings "are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution." In November, he called the creation of the universe an "intelligent project," wording welcomed by supporters of intelligent design.

Many Roman Catholic scientists have criticized intelligent design, among them the Rev. George Coyne, a Jesuit who is director of the Vatican Observatory. "Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be," he said in November, as quoted by the Italian news service ANSA. "Intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

In October, Cardinal Schönborn sought to clarify his own remarks, saying he meant to question not the science of evolution but what he called evolutionism, an attempt to use the theory to refute the hand of God in creation.

"I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained," he said in a speech.

To Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and a Catholic, "That is my own view as well."

"As long as science does not pretend it can answer spiritual questions, it's O.K.," he said.

Dr. Miller, who testified for the plaintiffs in the recent suit in Dover, Pa., challenging the teaching of intelligent design, said Dr. Facchini, Father Coyne and Cardinal Schönborn (in his later statements) were confirming "traditional Catholic thinking." On Dec. 20, a federal district judge ruled that public schools could not present intelligent design as an alternative to evolutionary theory.

In the Osservatore article, Dr. Facchini wrote that scientists could not rule out a divine "superior design" to creation and the history of mankind. But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a design fashioned through an evolutionary process.

"God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," he wrote.

Neither Dr. Facchini nor the editors of L'Osservatore could be reached for comment.

Lawrence M. Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, said Dr. Facchini's article was important because it made the case that people did not have to abandon religious faith in order to accept the theory of evolution.

"Science does not make that requirement," he said.

Ian Fisher reported from Rome for this article, and Cornelia Dean from New York.

ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN

From a small Florida online paper, the Lakeland Ledger.

This is a rather nice commentary on some of the latest views expressed by leaders of the church on the intelligent design issue and the media reaction to that, particularly the reaction from the New York Times as mentioned in the post above.


Let the Catholics Lead The Way

By Cary McMullen
Saturday, January 28, 2006


It was my intention to refrain from writing about the Intelligent Design controversy for awhile. This is something like the fourth or fifth time that topic has appeared in this space in the past 18 months, so I had figured to give myself -- and you, good readers -- a rest.

But, this is a controversy that will not die, and last week the Vatican weighed in through a proxy, creating more ripples in the not-so-calm pond of public opinion. The Catholic Church is one of the few religious groups making sense in this whole hullabaloo. The church's leaders have been remarkably consistent and nuanced, and unfortunately the media has not understood all of their pronouncements.

On Jan. 16, in an article in the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, Professor Fiorenzo Facchini of the University of Bologna wrote that the recent decision by a federal judge in Pennsylvania was correct -- Intelligent Design is not science.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another. But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science. It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious," wrote Facchini, who teaches biology.

In reporting this, New York Times reporters Ian Fisher and Cornelia Dean nevertheless implied that some Catholic leaders -- including Pope Benedict himself -- may sympathize with Intelligent Design. Their article mentioned an opinion piece published in the Times in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who is close to Benedict, stating that the cardinal "seemed to call into question what has been official church teaching for years: that Catholicism and evolution are not necessarily at odds."

Schoenborn, they wrote, "played down" John Paul II's view that evolution is "more than a hypothesis." And Benedict himself, they wrote, has "signaled concerns about the issue."

Nonsense. Here's Schoenborn (quoted by Fisher and Dean): "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection -- is not." And Benedict: Human beings "are not some casual and meaningless product of creation."

Those are hardly the views of people who are rejecting Darwin. Rather, they are simply a restatement of the traditional doctrine that God, in the words of the Apostles' Creed, is "maker of heaven and earth." In the Catholic universe, that does not conflict with science.

Fortunately, Fisher and Dean do get the story right in the end. They quote a number of Catholic scientists, including Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University who testified in the Dover, Pa., case against Intelligent Design. All agree that Facchini (and Schoenborn) stated the Catholic position that there is no conflict between the science of evolution and the belief that divine design may work through the events and processes of the natural world.

If "intelligent design" (note the lower case) means that a divine intent lies at the heart of existence, then I, too, believe in it. So do most people, according to polls. That doesn't mean it qualifies as a scientific theory. It's not necessary to turn this common conviction into an upper-case political ideology or insist it is provable or somehow contains its own proof.

Just recently, on the moderately conservative online forum "to the source" (www.tothesource.org), there was an essay by Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder that gave a synopsis of the creation of the universe I had never seen described in quite this way. Schroeder noted it is the property of light to sometimes act like an energy wave and sometimes like a particle. At the moment of the Big Bang, Schroeder wrote, there was no matter at all, just energy. But because, as Einstein told us in his famous equation, mass and energy are related, soon energy was converted to particles. The particles coalesced, forming atoms. The atoms gravitated together, forming gas, then stars. When the stars exploded, they expelled heavier elements, including carbon, the basis of life.

So, writes Schroeder, "This is a cause for wonder. . . . Light beams became alive, and not only became alive, but learned to feel joy, love, and self awareness."

There's enough science and faith in that statement to keep us all busy for several lifetimes. Let the Catholics lead the way.

Cary McMullen is religion editor for The Ledger.

[Modificato da benefan 28/01/2006 17.12]

---

Just recently, on the moderately conservative online forum "to the source" (www.tothesource.org), there was an essay by Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder that gave a synopsis of the creation of the universe I had never seen described in quite this way....

---

Thaks to Cary McMullen for the piece on intelligent design, and to Benefan for finding it. I would just like to comment on the above line from the article. The dual nature of light acting as a wave or as a particle has long underpinned 20th century physics, and Schroeder's description of the Big Bang is not the first time someone has done so in this manner.

As this article shows, this declaration, written by committee as most bureaucratic declarations are, also sticks to political correctness and is, as such, virtually meaningless, at least insofar as the basic principles of respect for human life. It is supposed to be a "Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights" but it does not acknowledge the right to life itself as a basic human right! I do not envy Father Miranda who must be diplomatic in what he has to say. .
---------------------------------------------------------------

On the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
Interview With Bioethicist Father Gonzalo Miranda

ROME, FEB. 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Last autumn UNESCO's General Conference approved the "Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights," a document that took its International Bioethics Committee and Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee two years to write.

The Holy See's delegate to the conference, Legionary Father Gonzalo Miranda, dean of the School of Bioethics at Rome's Regina Apostolorum university, took part in some phases of the declaration's elaboration.

In this interview with ZENIT, Father Miranda analyzes some of the document's most important aspects.

Q: What was the significance of the approval of this declaration?
Father Miranda: Above all, it confirms the universal importance of bioethics and the topics and problems studied by this discipline, born 35 years ago. Universal in the sense that they affect all of us -- doctors and biologists, but also politicians and lawmakers, journalists, priests, etc., and society in general.

Universal also insofar as these problems now are perceived and studied in all geographic and cultural areas of the world. Galloping globalization has undoubtedly contributed to this phenomenon.

By its very nature, the declaration is not a binding document for states. But it tries to exercise an important influence in the legislations of countries and in the decisions and behavior of all people involved in the problems of bioethics.

UNESCO seeks to be a world leader in this field, and it says so explicitly and clearly.

I was able to see how the representatives of many governments, especially developing countries, appeal to UNESCO to give them some direction on bioethical topics and to disseminate this discipline in their nations, collaborating, for example, in the creation of their national bioethics committees.

There is no lack of those who see in all this the danger that a sort of worldwide ethical government might be established.

Q: How has the Holy See participated in this work?
Father Miranda: As you know, the Holy See has a permanent observer to UNESCO in Paris. At present, it is Monsignor Francesco Follo who covers this post, in a very worthy and effective way.

I was invited to take part in the work of the declaration's elaboration; first, to give the Catholic view of bioethics, in August [2004]; and this [past] year, in June, at the meeting of experts representing governments, and now at the General Conference.

As an observer, I could speak but not take part in the decisions. It was also interesting to be able to speak informally with governments' delegates, exchanging impressions, listening and proposing.

I was able to see in many delegates and representatives a profound appreciation for the Holy See and great interest in the thought of the Church.

Q: What global judgment can be made on the approved declaration?
Father Miranda: I believe it is important that the declaration be studied carefully and freely by those dedicated to bioethics, so that they begin to understand its demands, the meaning of the principles it proposes, the possible consequences of its influence in the world, etc.

I do not think that a considered judgment can be made without going through this analysis and debate.

Anyway, I think that in general the declaration is acceptable, and even good on some points. Of course, it represents the fruit of a negotiation and effort of consensus among contrasting views and interests.

Precisely because of this, topics such as the protection of unborn human beings or the status of the human embryo do not appear in the text, and are not even hinted at. Much less is there an attempt to come to an agreement on what is understood by person, human dignity, etc.

As you no doubt know, in the beginning the title "Declaration of Universal Norms of Bioethics" was bandied about, and there was a long list of specific problems of bioethics that the declaration should address.

Then it was thought to be more convenient to keep to general principles, and remove the term "norms" from the declaration's title. At the end it was also decided to introduce the expression "human rights," which emphasizes the platform on which the principles proposed by the declaration are based.

Q: What were the most controversial points in the elaboration of the text?
Father Miranda: There were several, very interesting ones. At the June meeting, in which experts representing governments had to review the text prepared by UNESCO's bioethics committees, it was possible to talk and cede, for the sake of consensus, on some of the most conflictive points, undoubtedly improving the text.

For example, some countries requested that the principle of the right to human life be introduced. Others said that their governments could not accept it -- one delegate told me it was not possible because in his country "therapeutic cloning" had been legalized.

After many attempts and after some delegates consulted with their governments, it was accepted that the section on the objective of the declaration concerning human rights state: "ensuring respect for the life of human beings."

As I said at the meeting, it was somewhat amusing that a declaration of bioethics, elaborated by human beings, should fail to propose the principle of human beings' right to life. But at least it remained consigned among the objectives of the declaration.

On the other hand, speaking of the distribution of the benefits of medicine, the draft introduced the topic of "reproductive health" that, as is known, includes problematic practices from the ethical point of view, such as contraception, sterilization and even abortion.

A few suggested that the "health of women and children" be stated generically. The truth is that, as I said to the delegates -- and quite a few agreed -- it was a question of the introduction of a very concrete and specific problem, after it had been agreed that the declaration should be kept at the level of general principles.

Moreover, in quite a few countries some of these practices, actually included in the expression discussed, are not legal.

The conclusion was to adopt the most generic formula, although some delegates requested that their preference to include the topic of "reproductive health" be stated in the minutes of the meeting.

Q: If we look at the future …
Father Miranda: If we look at the future, I believe this declaration will have a certain influence in the world, perhaps greater in areas where bioethics is not yet deeply rooted.

It was above all the representatives of those countries who reflected on the importance of UNESCO in this field.

Instead, several delegates of developed countries pointed out that in their nations the declaration will be applied according to their national laws. A significant observation if one takes into account, as I said earlier, that it is already known that the declaration, by its very nature, is not legally binding.

Moreover, some expressed the wish that UNESCO address some of the topics that could not be included in the declaration. In the coming years we might see the publication of UNESCO documents on very complex, delicate and controversial bioethical topics.

Rumors are beginning, moreover, on the possible elaboration of a UNESCO Bioethics Convention. A Convention on Cultural Diversity was approved, in the recently ended General Conference, on the basis of a preceding declaration. Conventions are legally binding.

The whole of this process will have to be followed very carefully and there will have to be collaboration and further study and dissemination of the topics of bioethics worldwide. The Catholic Church has much to say and says much in this area.

Thanks to the Spanish service of ZENIT for this item, published yesterday, 2/10/06. Herewith is a translation -
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madrid, Friday, Febr. 10, 2006 (ZENIT.ORG) - We publish the full text of the note issued by the Executive Committee of the Spanish Episcoal Conference on the proposed “Law on Assisted Techniques of Human Reproduction” which will be voted soon by the Spanish Parliament.

The members of the committee are Archbishop Ricardo Blázquez Pérez of Bilbao, president of the Conference; Archbishop Antonio Cañizares Llovera of Toledo, vice-president; Cardinal Antonio María Rouco Varela, Archbishop of Madrid; Cardinal Carlos Amigo Vallejo, Archbishop of Seville; Archbishop Lluís Martínez Sistach of Barcelona; Archbishop Carlos Osoro Sierra of Oviedo; and Fr. Juan Antonio Martínez Camino, secretary-general of the conference.

Against the legal license to clone human beings and
the denial of protection for incipient human life

Madrid, February 9, 2006

Congress will vote soon on a law governing assisted human reproductive techniques, which merits deep concern.

The Gospel is a divine force in defense of human life, most especially, of the lives of the weak and those who cannot themselves defend the fundamental right to life. The Gospel of life - which proclaims that every human being, regardless of age, health or any other temporal circumstance, is endowed with an inviolable dignity - obliges us to call attention to a law which would deny the juridical protection that a just order must give to incipient human life.

The techniques which replace personal relations between parents for procreation do not conform to human dignity and bring with them serious wrongs, including the taking of incipient human lives, namely, a crime against children. aS The Executive Committee of the Episcopal Confrence expressed it in its Note of May 25, 2004, entitled “For science in the service of human life”, the Church is for science which actually serves to cure human beings without damaging or destroying the life of any other.

We list here the most problematic aspects of the proposed law:

1. If it is not further modified in the Cortes [Spanish bicameral Congress], this law will go down in history as one of the first in the world to allow human cloning, authorizing so-called “therapeutic cloning.” Benevolent-sounding adjectives should not deCeive people. This would allow producing human clones who will not be allowed to be born, but who will be deprived of life in order to be used as scientific specimens in the research of possible future therapies. Once the law allows these grave injustices, it will also open the door – whether it is intended or not - to the future production of cloned children, that is to say, to “reproductive cloning.”

2. It would allow production of human embryos no longer for reproduction but merely as material for research. This would then raise the possibility of commercialization, traffic and industrial use of human embryos called “supernumerary” left over unused [ not transferred into a woman’s uterus ] from assisted reproductive techniques, since no restriction has been legislated to restrict such research nor is there a legal limit set as to how many human embryos may be generated by such techniques.

3. It would allow eugenic selection in new areas, such as, for instance, the production of “therapeutic babies,” babies that are pre-selected [by pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, PGD, of the embryo before it is placed into the mother’s uterus] to be born for specific therapeutic reasons. This implies destruction of its sibling embryos which do not pass the PGD screening.

4. The law would also legalize fertilization of animal eggs with human sperm, a practice with unforeseeable consequences which are frowned on by various international conventions.

The political and economic interests involved do not allow a peaceful debate on matters of such transcendent significance as these. We are aware that our firm denunciation of this proposed law and the practices which it would allow could be falsely presented as a religious prejudice by a social group that opposes the advance of science. Nevertheless, we are cure that by raising our voices against the legalization of such grave offenses against the human being, we are complying with our duty to preach the gospel of life and are rendering true service to society.

We encourage all Catholics to render the same service in their respective fields, whether political, scientific, educational or civic, as responsible citizens. It is not possible for Catholic legislators to support this law. We must say “No” because we cannot omit its consequent “Yes” to human dignity and justice.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 11/02/2006 19.13]

Sisters, do you PERSONALLY know ONE SINGLE PERSON who doesn't think cloning is totally and absolutely morally wrong? Even the most liberal, atheist people I know cannot stand the idea. I don't understand the fact that cloning gets support from any living human being. I've read two novels based on /around this subject (unfortunately I can't remember the titles!!) and the possible horrific results and consequences of human cloning. Anyone who has read these books will never in their life consider it again.

Dear Mg6nideum - That is why I am appalled, frightened and gravely concerned all at once about Spain, once the most Catholic of countries, spiritual motherland of the Philippines (her Catholic missionaries evangelized us from the 16th century onwards, and a Catholic culture overlaid on our Asian society through 350 years of colonization produced a very unusual hybrid culture) - because it is bending over backwards to adopt the most extreme of liberal positions (the more anti-Catholic, the more it is to be espoused) under its present totally misguided socialist government! Zapatero and company have already been responsible for legalizing gay marriages in that country, and now this?

It can't be a carryover of reaction to decades of "repression" and "conservatism" under Franco, because 1) the country had a sensible government under Aznar's Partido Popular before Zapatero and gang were voted in by the terrorist bombs that exploded in Madrid; and 2) before Aznar, there was socialist government in place for over a decade too, but it did not indulge in this thumbing-noses-at-tradition-and-religion that the present-day socialists are doing.

I have long since added Spain to that list of countries for which one must offer special prayers, right up there with the Muslim countries.

To anyone who bothered to follow the infamous Prospect-Foreign Policy readers poll of top 'public intellectuals' last year, you will remember that scientist Richard Dawkins (who first made his name as the author of "The Selfish Gene") placed among the top 5, I believe - mag6nideum can check this out. And will also remember that the overwhelming choice by the readers of the two magazine sponsors, one British and one American, which draw their readership from the ranks of those who consider themselves intellectual, i.e., "able to think for ourselves" and therefore, mostly liberal and counter-establishment - which explains their choice of Noah Chomsky as the #1 public intellectual by an astounding 25% of all votes cast in a list that contained 100 names. (Pope Benedict came in #17, after 16 names that included at least 3 journalists - 1 British, one Canadian and one American - if you want another absurdity indicator.)

Well, great is my surprise to find that the TV critic of the Times of London, a liberal bastion itself, had these words to say about Dawkins in a 1/15/06 review of stuff on British TV. From
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1980741,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------

Scientists all over the nation must hold their heads and groan whenever Richard Dawkins appears on television, as he did in The Root of All Evil? (Monday, C4). He is such a terrible advertisement, such an awful embarrassment, the Billy Graham of the senior common room. His splenetic, small-minded, viciously vindictive falsetto rant at all belief that isn’t completely rooted in the natural sciences is laughable. Dawkins is a born-again Darwinist, an atheist, so why is he devoting so much blood pressure and time to arguing with something he knows doesn’t exist? If it’s not there, Richard, why do you keep shouting at it? He looks like a scientific bag lady screaming at the traffic, and watching him argue with a fundamentalist Christian, you realise they were cut from identical cloth, separated at birth. Dawkins is, of course, the archetype of a man who protests too much, and I’d say he’s well on his way to, if not a Pauline, then at least a Muggeridgian conversion. Any day now, he’ll be back on telly quoting CS Lewis.
---------------------------------------------------------------

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 15/02/2006 5.23]