The scenario of the mother with a dead daughter is a common one brought up in the cloning debates. However, even if her daughter is cloned, there is no guarantee that the product will be identical to her daughter in every way because the clone will have its own spirit.
I saw a story once of a woman who cloned her cat who had died. To her surprise, the cloned cat was of different fur colour and of different temperament and personality to the original, even though it was genetically identical. So why can’t the same be said about the cloned daughter?
Genetically identical or not, she would not be ‘bringing her back to life’, neither will she necessarily look and act the same or have the same talents because she would have a different distinct spirit. The spirit of the daughter will not re-enter the clone!

When you think about it, Eve must have been a genetic clone of Adam since she was formed out of Adam’s rib. Although she was not only a separate person who was reprimanded separately for her actions in the garden, she was a female while her original source from which she was formed was a male. So even though a clone may be genetically identical to its original source, it will not be the same person, neither will it necessarily look or act the same.

At the end of the day, God is the sole life giver, if he has no intentions for cloning to be explored then it wouldn’t matter how far this Dr Zavos went in his research, it wouldn’t matter how many years he spent and how much money he put into it, all his time will be spent in vain. If God does not decide to give the clone in the petri dish the breath of life and give it a spirit then the science will always and forever be unsuccessful. That’s the bottom line.

And do we have so litte faith in human nature to think these fantasiful scenarios would ever be explored if cloning ever became possible?

I guess what we have to do is put ourselves in the shoes of people that this science would benefit.

If you had an ill child who has had numerous failed organ transplants would you not want to do all you could to help him? If the possibility of cloning him in order to take the clones organs is possible (as long as doing so does not kill the clone and is to take an organ like a kidney or lung or liver portion after which the clone could survive) wouldn’t you want to explore that?

If you are a childless couple who could also benefit would you not want to try cloning if other attempts through IVF had been unsuccessful? The clone should be given the legal status of a child, it will have its own spirit not attached to its genes. What is the issue with being formed from the genetic material of one person? Genetically, Jesus would have been identical to his Virgin mother, and yet we call him her son, not her brother.

One other thing I want to mention that was written in the previous blog regarding a couple using sperm or ova from an outside individual being regarded as adultery, I know this is the position of the Church and I can understand why; since the child is from outside the marriage. But isn’t adultery in the act not the product? If a child is born outside of wedlock we do not condemn the child as a bastard child and he is still accepted into the Church. It is the act that is condemned and must be repented of.

But what if the act does not actually occur and the child who may genetically be of different mother or father from outside the marriage is born inside the marriage from the wedded mother through IVF? Why is that considered adultery?

Abraham conceived Ismael through Hagar with his wife Sarah’s permission. When God reprimanded him there was no talk of adultery, only that he had not trusted in God that he would provide him with an heir in good time.
Is that not the same thing? If a couple wants a child but one is sterile or barren as was Abraham’s wife Sarah, is it then adultery if they both agree and give each other permission to use somebody else from outside their marriage so they could both have a child, as Sarah gave her husband permission to conceive an heir through Hagar? Food for thought I guess…and I am sure if any of us wanted children but couldn’t have them we would want to explore using an outside sperm or egg donor…

anyway….

I’ll start with the cloning issue because that’s an easy one. Let’s just say that a human being is cloned and has the same genetic make-up as another. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the cloned human being will have his own distinct soul separate from his source, so they are not the same person. Identical twins are genetically the same and yet they are two separate people with two separate souls. So that is not a dilemma in itself, we are not creating the same human being who will be subject to the same judgements as his source, because he is a distinct human who will be accountable for his own actions.
So it just comes down to the ‘playing God’ issue. But are we really ‘playing God’, or are we exercising the gift of knowledge and the gift of technology that God has freely given? Human life begins from two separate cells which are not alive in themselves, so what is the difference if through God-given technology we are able to re-create this using different cells that are neither sperm nor ova? I understand that through natural reproduction an individual’s genetic make-up is from two sources, but what is the issue if an individual’s genetic make-up is taken from only one individual? It is not parenthood which determines final judgement, your genetic make-up has no bearing, so technically it shouldn’t matter.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning human cloning, I think it’s a path that should not be taken if for nothing more than the moral and ethical dilemma it causes. That being said however, cloning is technically not wrong (I think?), but to what end are we pursuing it? Give me a valid reason that has potential to better human life and I may change my mind.

The same can be said about embryonic stem-cell research. Which of us can truly say that we would condemn the science if it had the potential to treat or cure one of our children or loved ones who had some disease which can be treated by it? Ask yourselves that question honestly.

Which brings me to the issue of the killing of embryos. We know, or believe that life begins at conception, so any embryo created in a petri dish for IVF already has human life. The practice of IVF is such that many embryos are created and frozen for potential future use. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you can only freeze your embryos for a period of 12 years, so what to do after that if a woman does not wish them implanted? If they are going to be destroyed anyway, if they are going to die anyway, then isn’t it a good thing to use them for stem-cell research rather than have them discarded and die in vain? I am all against creating embryos for the sole purpose of this science, but unwanted embryos should be able to be used. At least the embryos will not have died in vain and have the potential to help another human being. If we cannot accept this, then we should also be condemning the IVF science, at least until such time that it is developed so that no excess embyros are created and frozen.

Interestingly, the Jewish faith holds the belief that an embryo or foetus is not a human being until it takes its first breath outside the womb. So they do not condemn abortion. The Christian faith moved away from this due to the belief in the Incarnation, that the foetus in the Virgin was already the God-Man even before his birth and from the instant he was conceived. So it also follows that any embyro has life from the moment of conception.

Surrocacy is a touchy subject. But let’s move away from the psychological issues it may cause, after all, the Church seems to focus on the technicalities of these issues when deciding upon them, rather than the psycological. A surrogate is not genetically attached to the foetus in her womb, so she is not its mother. She is merely providing it with nutrients until it is born. If the practice of cross-breast feeding is allowed then I do not see why surrogacy should be an issue of contention, because it is essentially the same thing.

Anyway, that’s enough from me I think….

And Abouna, that old Egyptian tradition- I thought that was an Arab teaching. Apparently, and forgive me for any offence, but in Islamic tradition (haddith) there is a teaching that if you are breast-fed by a woman, even an adult, they become family (Book 008, Number 3425), and the woman does not have to dress the hajib (don’t have a reference for this).

One thing that comes to my mind about this point is when Jesus on the cross said to John the beloved to take St Mary as his Mother. This stands out to me that St Mary had only one Son that died on the cross.

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. John 19:25-27

I have a question similar to this issue, but very trivial compared to the perpetual virginity of St Mary. In the bible does the “Red Sea” really mean the Sea was Red? Cause I heard it was actually a “mistake” and it should be the “Reed Sea” or “Sea of Reeds”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Sea

God Bless =)

What exactly is the problem with the pensions? I mean, in terms of the budget they are insignificant, right?

In countries without these pensions, politicians who retire tend to engage in influence peddling, which pays quite handsomely. They use their knowledge, experience, and personal contacts to advance issues for the highest bidder. The results are very bad for public policy; the bad policy decisions that result from this lobbying cost the government far far more than paying for a few politicians’ payouts.

The point is, what exactly do you expect a retired mayor to do for a living? There don’t seem to be many jobs that are open to them. I think the public interest is best served if we allow politicians to gracefully exit public life without having to use their knowledge and contacts to pervert public policy. Just by nature of their jobs, these politicians will have substantial power when they leave office. It seems better to just pay them to not use that power.

A question completely off the topic of your blog…

Can I ask what you make of Julia? I know priests don’t typically talk politics, and no doubt you see it all as a very trivial compared with spiritual matters – but what a fascinating and bizarre day last Thursday was!

Even though I may not be as critical in my analysis, I think I share to an extent in having tough questions… Sometimes I am really afraid of voicing them- I don’t want to cause others to stumble, nor do I want others to think that I don’t have faith. It makes me a bit wary and stops me speaking things in full conviction. But I think my inquisitiveness has made me realise a few things- that faith and love are really more important and stabilising than concepts and ideas. And if you can’t pray theology, its not Theology. And Church history may not be completely accurate, but I think we can even learn from legends. we have enough contemporary witness of the gospel to know that the work of the Holy Spirit is simply awesome.