The Popes who could have supported human-animal hybrid embryos

Joanna writes: Whether you think the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is akin to sanctioning Frankenstein's monster or the only way for science to find cures for diseases like Parkinson's and Motor Neurone Disease it's worth looking at how the embryo has been perceived by the church throughout the centuries.

Early Christians distinguished between the formed and unformed foetus. The Septuagint translation of Exodus 21vs22 (used by the early Christian Fathers and in Latin version of the Bible) put it that if anyone hit a pregnant woman causing her to lose the baby they would be put to death if the foetus was formed, but given a fine if it was me exeikonismenon or not yet formed in the likeness of a human being.
However in the Epistle to Barnabas 19v5 abortion is condemned and no such distinction is made. And
Basil's letter to Amphilochus, eventually incorporated in Church law in the legislations of Trullo, said it was wrong to abort a foetus formed or unformed.

Saint Augustine of Hippo, a Doctor of the Church, denied the unformed foetus had a soul
If what is brought forth is unformed (informe) but at this stage some sort of living, shapeless thing (informiter), then the law of homicide would not apply, for it could not be said that there was a living soul in that body, for it lacks all sense, if it be such as not yet formed (nondum formata) and therefore not yet endowed with its senses.  (Quaestionum in Hept I II n 80).

St Thomas Aquinas said the soul did not enter the male foetus until it was 40 days old and the female foetus was 90 days old before it gained a soul.

The Anglo-Saxon church from the 7th century, and the Latin church after the 11th century taught that there was a difference between a formed and an unformed foetus and this was paralleled in English law, only Pope Sixtus V in 1588 dissented.

It was not until 1869 that Pope Pius IX did away with laws marking a distinction between treatment of the formed and unformed foetus. Before then, had the medical technology allowed, it could be argued that human-animal hybrid embryo research would have been sanctioned by the church.

Comments

[Tony Francis]

Your argument is misleading in several respects. While Aquinas may have speculated about when the "rational" soul entered the fetus, there was no question that a vegetative soul was present from the beginning. This was based on Aristotle. In Aquinas' time, there was a poor understanding of human fertilization. The female was regarded as a repository for the "semen", containing the complete human being, to be placed. It was viewed as similar to planting a seed in a garden. In Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas stated that "the inordinate emission of semen was a sin of similar gravity to a homicide". This view was softened, and somewhat refined in Summa Theologia:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3153.htm
The Catholic Church is the only institution which has attempted to stop the ancient and perennial practices of abortion and infanticide.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08001b.htm
It is likely that Aquinas would view any manipulation of the reproductive process, outside the natural methods, to be a violation of natural moral law. Certain Jewish interpretations also indicate the soul enters the embryo at conception:
http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Soul.asp
Your headline is misleading since neither Aquinas nor Augustine were popes. Anyway, it is difficult to say that the fetus has a "rational soul" at 40 days or 80 days. Aquinas also taught that the soul, as the body, could be considered to be "in potentiality". This, too was based on Aristotle. But all this is strangely irrelevant to the atheist. If there is no such thing as a soul, why mess around with embryonic stem cells? Why not just grow babies in utero and harvest them for their organs before 24 weeks? There should be no rational Utilitarian objection to such a practice.

[Joe Curran]

It's 2008 and we actually have elected MPs - and Ministers no less - seeking and taking guidance from a totally discredited, patriarchal organisation that can't even apply basic moral practices in its internal affairs. Remember the paedophile cover-ups and the Cardinals and Pope(s) complicity in them? Mind boggling!

[Alessandro Canelli]

So I may assume from what you say that the current Catholic Church position on the matter is indeed linked to accepting the finding of scientific progress as a way to better understand Gospel teachings, rather than the opposite.
Is it so?

[Oliver Nicholson]

Long ago, for money, I had to read all the ancient and early Christian texts on abortion (handily collected with helpful Italian translation in a book by E. Nardi called Procurato Aborto nel Mondo Grec-Romano). One of many striking facts to emerge was that many early Christian writers did not distinguish between abortion and contraception; it was all just phtheira - destruction. This, I speculated might be because the bulk of the (non-Christian) medical evidence was (perhaps surprisingly) pharmaceutical rather than surgical (eye of toad and newt of frog, wild cucumbers and the skin of a fabled Libyan serpent called the amphisbaina because it could wriggle backwards as well as forwards, though strangely no sign of ergot). Many of the specifics, so a doctor informed me, were likely to be pretty lethal to mother as well as child (there is actually a poem by Ovid which makes this quite explicit - "my dear, the potion could have killed you..."). Which I guess is to underline your point that though ancient medicine and the more scientific early Christians deemed that the foetus quickened at 40 or 60 days, depending on its sex, Basil's letter to Amphilochius on the Canons reflected the general early Christian view on interfering with pregnancy. But then I guess we have have more evidence from the Early Church of people without babies praying to have them (starting with John the Baptist - 'this is the 6th month with her that was called barren'), than we do of people trying not to have them.

[Julia]

"It was not until 1869 that Pope Pius IX did away with laws marking a distinction between treatment of the formed and unformed foetus. Before then, had the medical technology allowed, it could be argued that human-animal hybrid embryo research would have been sanctioned by the church."

The proposed bill is not so much about doing things to an unformed human foetus as it is about CREATING one from human and animal parts. That's even more abominable.

[Rick Beekman]

I Don't Believe any Person no matter good the intention; Has a right to take any life..Nor try to find a way to do away with diseases with "cloning" or any other means.

God is the creator of Life and only He has the right to terminate it.
Jeremiah 1 V 5; "Before I formed thee on the belly I KNEW THEE.."

Genesis 1 V 26 "Let us Make man in Our Image."

If Someone Has A Medical Problem And cannot find Help from The Medical community..I suggest they start praying and seeking God. After all he created every molecule in your Body..who else is most Qualified to turn to? Can I Have an Amen?! God holds life and Death in his hands..turn unto him only when All else fails..or start now before you continue to seek help down here!