Responses, some poignant, to NIH stem-cell draft

The real problem is the pseudo science that the Vatican uses in its argument against stem cell research. The Vatican also takes a lot of license with past history of Church thinking on ensoulment.

The first problem begins with how the Vatican selects "scientists" to the Vatican Academy of Sciences. These people are first chosen for their loyalty to what the curia wants to hear and not necessarily for their faithful adherence to the scientific method. The Bishops had the same problem when they chose special psychologists out side of their individual dioceses' to treat pedophiles. Had they in the 1960's, consulted their own Catholic Social Services composed of men and women that attended Catholic Universities, as I did in Medical School, they would have been given the advise that Pedophilia was not curable as was taught me by the text books and the Professors of that day in Psychiatry classes. No, the Bishops wished a different standard for clergy and sent them to "scientists” that were willing to tell the Bishops what they wanted to hear that "these men could be treated and even cured!" Had they sent offending clergy to the Social Workers in their own Catholic Social Services, besides dealing with professionals with the most up to date training, they would have dealt with men and women who had children and grandchildren at risk from allowing the passing on of these criminals from parish to parish, diocese to diocese and country to country.

Currently no scientist that work in embryonic stem cell research are on allowed on the Vatican Academy of Science, as Galileo was not given even a fair hearing in his time. The Bishops by their very statements of ensouled embryos seem to be contradicting themselves, as somewhere around 70% of all blastocysts produced by women under no hormonal influence are simply discarded by their own bodies. This would make nature the biggest abortionist of record. Would a Great God allow natural “abortion” of 70% of His ensouled creation? The current Roman Catholic authorities will tell you that the Church has always taught life and ensoulment begin with fertilization, yet both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did not see it this way. There were even some Popes who stated that abortion was OK until the time of quickening (first movement of the fetus at about 12 weeks.) So both history and science contradict what so many of the powerful leaders of our Church are saying. Furthermore, we know that a very complicated mammal, Dolly the sheep, was cloned without the participation of 2 gametes. This would seem to indicate that in the years ahead humans could and probably will be cloned. When will these people be ensouled? It could not be at fertilization (which does not take place), or will it be the Church's stand that these humans will never develop a soul even though they have all the Human DNA and function fully as any other human?

There is a false argument used that a fertilized zygote contains all the DNA that is human, therefore it is a human; so does a simple liver or skin cell contain all the human DNA! Yes these cells live too, but they are not in themselves ensouled! A blastocyst, which is a multi-celled structure forming, after the Zygote phase is akin to a seed. Like a seed some implant in the fertile soil of the Uterus but most don’t implant or survive. Any child can distinguish that a seed dose not have the magnificence of a tree! Yet without the careful observations of the embryologist’ examination of natural phenomena, it is impossible to gain the understanding of these structures, and pronouncements about them would have the weight of telling an astrophysicist that the Earth is the center of the Universe.

Embryology is a wonderful science that produces an awe in the men and women who study it and observe phenomena as it happens. The Holy Spirit told us that He would be with us until the end of time. No where does it say or mean that He will magically only be with bishops or members of the Roman Curia. In fact when these Church leaders fail to listen to the scientists of the day, like they did in the times of Copernicus, they seem to fail to listen to this great Spirit for purposes of trying to control men rather than serve humanity. It is worse now than in the time of Copernicus because our leadership is interfering - either irrationally or from Blind Faith or from reason of control or a combination of all - in the understanding and the cure of disease that is given to those listening to the Spirit with the gifts of scientific minds. This is either megalomania or irrationality or sin, or a combination of some or all of the above, on the part of our own Roman Catholic leadership.

May we have more Peace and Understanding from the Holy Spirit,

R. Dennis Porch, MD

Anonymous, Of course I agree with you that the Church has not officially taught when enrollment takes place, but its insistence that the use of the Birth Control pill is an abortive agent is pretty close. No one knows when a soul develops, I would suppose since mind is a subset of soul that it could not be at least until some sensuous parts of the brain begin to develop. We know that the earliest development would be the sense of taste at about 12 weeks gestation. Of course this does not mean that in any sense a mind has yet developed, but it is the earliest time that there is any sense of true brain development. The mind is something quite different as it develops in that never stops in its ability to improve itself as long as the person involved is inquisitive. It seems that the there are those in the Church that look upon this inquisitiveness as something that is akin to disobedience when actually it the epistemophilic instinct that allows humanity to grow and develop. However when the church teaches that one reason that the BC pill is so wrong is that it sometimes acts to decrease the ability of the blastocyst to emplant in the uterus, it seems to me to be not genuine for the reason I gave above in that way over 50 % of all blastocysts do not naturally emplant. We also know that depression, increased exercise, decreased nutrition, and many types of medications also decrease the uterus' ability to emplant a blastocystic structure. The medical definition of abortion is the separation of fetus from the uterus. Many of us feel that we would not want to participate in the separation of fetus from the uterus, but we are termed as accepting abortion even if we believe in the BC pill or medications that cause the Uterine lining to slough preventing pregnancy (the morning after pill.) I think that the Church has not paid any attention to the scientific mindful observations of so many men and women that in truth are as capable of accepting the Holy Spirit as any Bishop.

The Church does accept their own form of "natural" birth control that is in fact much less natural and much less predictable than other forms. Since it is the observations of nature that truly are able to define what is happening in the natural world, I submit that the Bishops are in grave error when they refuse to take into consideration the scientists that are working in the field, but rather use their own pseudo scientists that must accept the religious definitions of the Bishops to describe scientific phenomena. These men are rejecting the scientific method of attempting to define truth. Truth IS one and I maintain that the Holy Spirit reveals His truth to Scientists even as He does to Bishops and for either side to say we know THE Truth is preposterous.

We should understand that it is the theories of science that has allowed the wonderful technological development during the past 100 years. The Bishops are not being faithful to truth when they fail to even listen to what is being observed for fear of having to CHANGE their own understanding of what the Spirit is telling us all. This is pure and simple is megalomania on the part of these men. This is why a totalitarian mind set can not lead to truth in Church teaching. This totalitarian mind set is part of a Man made not a God made structure.

My we try to understand each other?

R. Dennis Porch, MD