Group assesment.
RELIGIONS, SPIRITUALITIES, AND ETHIC IN EUROPE TODAY.
inseparability principle.
The first is based on the “inseparability principle.” This claims that it is immoral and unlawful to separate procreation and conjugal intercourse. The Humanae Vitae states that there is an inseparable connection, established by God, between “the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” John Paul II argued that these two significances of the marriage act are truly inseparable; that they are the truth behind the mystery of sex (Smith, 1993: 240). Creating a completely new being by separating these two acts is challenging God in His creative power and authority. Simply because we may have the technology to being a child prodigy back from the dead, does in no way mean we should use it.
language of the body.
The second line of reasoning is the rooted in the “language of the body” (May, 2008: 80). Pope John Paul II stressed the fundamental dignity of man, that we are never simply objects to be used or created as products by men, but that we are persons with an inherent dignity that requires that our personhood always be respected. We can never use another for our own selfish desires. He also told us of Adam’s delight at seeing another who had been created “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.” He describes how we respond to the attraction of the opposite sex, and especially to this shared attraction as a gift which helps us complete our own personhood, therefore making our desire for a complete and full union with another extremely powerful (Smith, 1993: 237). It is in that union in which many Catholics believe children are to be born as a result of the upmost expression of love, given to us by God. And that to refuse this gift is to reject God ideals of love and procreation.
procreation or reproduction.
The third is that non-marital ways of creating human life change its generation from an act of procreation to one of reproduction, treating the person as if he or she were a product. When children are created through the marital act, May suggest that “they have been ‘begotten, not made’ and that husband and wife in doing so have not ‘made’ anything, neither love nor babies, but are rather ‘doing’ something: giving themselves to each other” (May, 2008: 80). This teaching can be quite a difficult one to accept; why must human life be given only in and through the martial act? May would argue that it is simple; because generating children outside the marital act, even by procedures making use of both cells of husband and wife, changes the generation of human life from an act of “procreation” to one of “reproduction,” treating the child as if he or she is a product (May, 2008: 81). It would be very difficult to presume, most people may argue, that just because, for example, a family may want to clone a lost child, that they want the person back due to their inherent human dignity alone and not to fulfill a longing within their own life – to meet their needs rather than the needs of the ‘child.’ It is always gravely immoral to treat a human being as a product and not a person.
The Catholic Arguement.
The mainstream Catholic view however, can be taken from the ‘Vatican Instruction of Respect for Human Life and on the Dignity of Procreation (Donum Vitae)’, which clearly sets forth three lines of reasoning to support the conclusion that it is always immoral to generate human life outside the martial act (May, 2008: 79).
There are very clear teachings within Catholicism which outline the medical ethics of cloning. Catholicism takes a clear cut stance on any medical issue which may involve the creation of an embryo outside the marital act, clear cut because it is not based on any additional information about the intentions of the cloners, the unknown effects of being cloned on the clone itself, possible effects on social institutions, and the like. Rather, the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to therapeutic cloning because of its beliefs about the moral status of embryos (Evans, 2002: 748). The Catholic philosophy of cloning rests on the same instruction given on the subject of In vitro fertilization or ‘IVF’ treatments, as both of which place man in the powerful position of having the capability to choose how and when life will begin, outside of the consensual marital act, and therefore “playing God.” There are, however, a range of positions held by Roman Catholic theologians who may take a more ‘liberal’ stance on these issues than the hierarchy. Some even change the position or offer alternative approaches to the opposition of cloning, such as the argument that it could lead to greater injustice in the world (Evans, 2002: 749).
Images from
http://www.santabanta.com/photos/pope-john-paul-ii/9113005.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20127765
http://elliottmorgan.com/tag/marriage/
http://faithc21.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/humanae-vitae-sspx-and-that-wretched.html
Humanae Vitae
There are many theological arguments for the inherent immoral nature of cloning set forth by the Catholic community, however the basic Theological Reason why human life ought to be generated only in and through the Marital Act is such may be best explained as such. That human life ought to be ‘begotten, not made.’ And that human life is made in the image and likeness of the all-holy God. A human person, who comes to be when new human life comes into existence show us how deeply God loves us and how we are able to be His children and members of the divine family. We are all one in nature with our parents, people just like our mothers and fathers; we can never be products inferior to our producers (May, 2008: 90).
References
Evans, J. H. 2002. 'Religion and Human Cloning: An Exploratory Analysis of the First Available Opinion Data'. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 41 (3), 747-758
May, W. E. 2008. Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division pp. 80-88
Messer, N. 2002. Theological Issues in Bioethics, London: Longman and Todd Ltd.
Smith, J. 1993. Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader, San Francisco: Ignatius Press pp. 237-244.
Waters, B, Cole-Turner, R, 2003. God and the Embryo, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press
begotten not made