Vatican Takes Official Anti-Transhumanist Stance
From Reuters:
"VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Thou shall not pollute the Earth. Thou shall beware genetic manipulation. Modern times bring with them modern sins. So the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of "new" sins such as causing environmental blight.
The guidance came at the weekend when Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican's number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils.
Asked what he believed were today's "new sins," he told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.
"(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control," he said.
The Vatican opposes stem cell research that involves destruction of embryos and has warned against the prospect of human cloning."
Why? :(
See some benefits of gene therapy so far.
March 11th, 2008 - 22:32
because they’re afraid. i was talking to some friends and we reached the conclusion that the instant anti ageing technology is available for all and it extends life into thousands of years then, well, bye bye religion. people will want to live forever here, as opposed to maybe livining forever in some sort of afterlife. it’s human nature. so they’re afraid they’ll lose the money & power. they’re a greedy little bunch :)
March 11th, 2008 - 23:30
To be fair, it isn’t really the official word of the Vatican until Pope B16 says it is. A high-ranking archbishop’s word carries weight, but not that much.
March 11th, 2008 - 23:57
Well, if I assumed it was the official word of the Vatican (calling it a sin outright, by the #2 of sin-declaring, is pretty blatant) then I think that many millions of others will too. I’ve seen different versions of the story by different news agencies and they all make a big deal about it.
March 12th, 2008 - 03:55
Yes, but I believe that is some sort of mistake in many news stories.
I don’t know if urls work here, but look at the Catholic World News piece on it: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=57130
March 12th, 2008 - 03:55
It’s too bad, really.
In Christian circles, it seems that the word ‘transhumanism’ has become inextricably linked with ‘humanism’, only with an even worse connotation. Same devil, though.
This attitude appears to have been fronted by the Christian conspiracy types. According to them, you guys are agents of the Illuminati and the globalist conspiracy.
Transhumanism is a hot button target now.
One can only hope that a minimum of time is wasted on pointless argument.
March 12th, 2008 - 04:03
In ‘certain’ Christian circles, that is.
March 12th, 2008 - 06:42
This sounds like a trial balloon to gauge the publics reaction. Once they know which way the wind is blowing the Pope will comment. He is infallible you know.
March 12th, 2008 - 06:45
The link Joshua provided is very revealing. While it DOES reveal, however is not only a potential failing on the side of the media but an incredible self-righteousness on the part of the Catholic establishment.
The article claims that the fault lies with the media for misunderstanding the Catholic concept of sin. I would suggest that it is also quite easy to find fault with the Catolic church for having such a ridiciulous conception of sin in the first place.
This article in Catholic World News is prime example for the inconsistencies inherent in their “logic”:
The writer is incensed that the media would dare to assume “sin” to be “nothing more than a violation of rules set down by a group of men in Rome.”
As every good catholic must know “that notion of sin is ludicrous” because “Sin is an objective wrong: a violation of God’s law. What is sinful today will be sinful tomorrow, and a deadly sin will remain deadly, whether or not Telegraph editors recognize the moral danger. “.
There you have it, you godless heathens.
But wait, how do we know this? Well, we know this to be true because
“Sin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us, ‘is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience…’ The precepts of ‘reason, truth, and right conscience’ do not shift in response to political trends, nor do they change at the whim of Vatican officials.”
See, because the Catechism of the Catholic Church has never EVER changed at the whim of Vatican officials nor has such a woolly and ambiguous term as “right conscience” ever changed it’s meaning…….
IRONY OVERLOAD
March 12th, 2008 - 06:48
Also, please do keep in mind that the Pope only speaks for Catholics, not us protestants.
March 12th, 2008 - 07:44
It’s only a matter of time until Protestant leaders also start railing against transhumanists.
March 12th, 2008 - 07:55
I suppose, but keep in mind that the whole idea of Protestantism was that we didn’t have a leader that spoke for us. Solo Scriptura, and all that. Plus, our “leaders” don’t claim to be God’s mouthpice on Earth. We can reject what they say.
March 12th, 2008 - 08:06
The Pope is only infallible speaking Ex Cathedra. Otherwise the sun would orbit the Earth.
March 12th, 2008 - 08:20
Turning bread into Jesus is an affront to human dignity and morally repugnant.
March 12th, 2008 - 09:10
Steven wrote:
That has got to be the most amusing thing I’ve read all week. Thank you.
March 12th, 2008 - 10:36
I can understand why Catholics would be against using embryos for research but they do not seem to make clear an objection to genetic manipulation or radical life extension. Wasn’t Mendel a Catholic?
March 12th, 2008 - 11:14
The Catholic Church likes to pretend it’s still relevant, but aside from appealing to a number of people in Third World countries, the Church’s influence is virtually nil in the progressive world.
Another thing to consider: I was raised Catholic, in southwestern Pennsylvania, US, and not one Catholic I’ve ever met (locally or anywhere else in the country) has followed the Church’s dictums of condoms/birth-control, sainthood, or anything of the sort. In fact, they find the pope more of a quaint figurehead than an honest-to-(ahem)-god authority figure. American Catholics give lip-service to the Church hierarchy but follow their own consciences and rules. In fact, a “silent schism” of sorts has occurred between US Catholics and the Vatican: the Vatican keeps pushing for more conservative measures, but American Catholics continue to grow more liberal every year.
March 12th, 2008 - 11:29
William Rennick wrote:
William — I’m pretty sure there’s some misinterpretation of what the vatican official was saying here. The implication was not that genetic therapy is a sin; but rather than there are sins which are possible to commit using gene therapy, such as those which “violate basic human rights.”
Insofar as //that// goes, I don’t think it’s all that disagreeable a statement. Now they might attempt to use it for some underlying context — we may honestly never really know, unless they ‘confess’ to it. (I had to pun. Sorry.)
But remember, all the statement itself says, aside from embryonic stem-cell research (which can be conducted without the destruction of embryos nowadays anyhow) and cloning (which I remain free to tell them to their faces they’re idiots on); aside from these two things what they’re saying is, “don’t violate human rights with this stuff.”
Yawn.
March 12th, 2008 - 11:36
Isn’t JC the archetypal transhuman? He climbed up a mountain and ‘transfigured’ into a radiant-faced being of light, for gawd’s sake!
March 12th, 2008 - 13:46
Regan, I agree, that’s why I wrote about JC for Easter 2006.
JC is an interesting cultural archetype, but I think he was too successful in spreading his religion. He did this by carefully linking it to historical material as well as likely being extremely gifted intellectually and morally. (Albeit megalomaniacal.)
March 12th, 2008 - 14:22
Does anyone really care what the pope (or his bishops) have to say anymore? Half of the time the catholic authority is ranting about one form of scientific or liberal evil, and the other half of the time they’re capitulating to reason and retracting centuries old ‘infallible’ dogma (apologizing to Galileo, accepting evolution bit by bit, etc.)
March 12th, 2008 - 15:24
He did this by carefully linking it to historical material as well as likely being extremely gifted intellectually and morally. (Albeit megalomaniacal.)
Assuming he existed, and actually said what the Bible claims….
Does anyone really care what the pope (or his bishops) have to say anymore?
At least 1,130,000,000 Catholics.
March 12th, 2008 - 16:38
Michael, the wording is so vague that I cannot tell whether I would disagree with the Vatican on this matter. I certainly think there are immoral things we could do with genetic manipulation. Do you understand them to be saying that genetic manipulation is always bad in every way? That’s not what I’m getting from this.
March 12th, 2008 - 16:44
I believe I’ve seen other statements from Vatican officials where genetic manipulation of humans is condemned entirely, and assumed this was mainly reinforcing that agenda. The Vatican is not like a US presidential campaign — when higher-ups say something, it’s already been carefully talked about behind the scenes.
Anyway, I’ll look around to see if I can see any other statements from Vatican officials on genetic manipulation. Remember here that we’re talking about a religion that won’t even accept condoms. Why would they accept transhumans?
March 12th, 2008 - 17:08
Christianity is an outmoded Metaphysical Operating System and as such is automatically threated by The Future in any and all of its forms. But, as they like to say, “this too shall pass.”
March 12th, 2008 - 19:46
“Thou shall beware genetic manipulation.”
I just shamelessly violated this, by adding some bioluminescence DNA to a lab-grown strain of E. coli. I can send you the pictures if you like.
March 12th, 2008 - 19:56
I would suggest a starting point would be Pope John Paul II’s 1983 address ‘Dangers of Genetic Manipulation‘.
A strictly therapeutic intervention whose explicit objective is the healing of various maladies such as those stemming from deficiencies of chromosomes will, in principle, be considered desirable, provided it is directed to the true promotion of the personal well-being of man and does not infringe on his integrity or worsen his conditions of life. Such an intervention, indeed, would fall within the logic of the Christian moral tradition, as I said when speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Oct. 23, 1982.
But here the question returns. Indeed, it is of great interest to know if an intervention on genetic inheritance that goes beyond the limits of the therapeutic in the strict sense should be regarded likewise as morally acceptable. For this to be verified, several conditions must be respected and certain premises accepted. Allow me to recall some of these.
The biological nature of each person is untouchable in the sense that it is constitutive of the personal identity of the individual throughout the whole course of his history. Each human person, in his absolutely unique singularity, is constituted not only by his spirit, but by his body as well. Thus, in the body and through the body, one touches the person himself in his concrete reality. To respect the dignity of man, consequently, amounts to safeguarding this identity of the man “corpore et anima unus,” as Vatican Council II says.[3]
It is on the basis of this anthropological vision that one should find the fundamental criteria for decision-making in the case of not strictly therapeutic interventions, for example, those aimed at the amelioration of the human biological condition.
In particular, this kind of intervention must not infringe on the origin of human life, that is, procreation linked to the union, not only biological but also spiritual, of the parents, united by the bond of marriage. It must, consequently, respect the fundamental dignity of men and the common biological nature which is at the base of liberty, avoiding manipulations that tend to modify genetic inheritance and to create groups of different men at the risk of causing new cases of marginalization in society.
Moreover, the fundamental attitudes that inspire the interventions of which we are speaking should not flow from a racist and materialist mentality aimed at a human well-being that is, in reality, reductionist. The dignity of man transcends his biological condition.
Genetic manipulation becomes arbitrary and unjust when it reduces life to an object, when it forgets that it is dealing with a human subject, capable of intelligence and freedom, worthy of respect whatever may be their limitations; or when it treats this person in terms of criteria not founded on the integral reality of the human person, at the risk of infringing upon his dignity. In this case, it exposes the individual to the caprice of others, thus depriving him of his autonomy.
Scientific and technical progress, whatever it be, must then maintain the greatest respect for the moral values that constitute a safeguard for the dignity of the human person. And because, in the order of medical values, life is the supreme and the most radical good of man, there must be a fundamental principle: first oppose everything harmful, then seek out and pursue the good. To tell the truth, the expression “genetic manipulation” remains ambiguous and should constitute an object of true moral discernment, for it covers, on the one hand, adventuresome endeavors aimed at promoting I know not what kind of superman and, on the other hand, desirable and salutary interventions aimed at the correction of anomalies such as certain hereditary illnesses, not to mention the beneficent applications in the domains of animal and vegetable biology that favor food production. For these last cases, some are beginning to speak, of “genetic surgery,” so as to show more clearly that medicine intervenes not in order to modify nature but to favor its development in its own life, that of the creation, as intended by God.
Althought at first glance, this is anti-transhumanist (see bolded sections), I think there is some leeway. The statements are couched in the context of not worsening the conditions of the subject – exposing them to marginalization, racism, deprivation of autonomy, or treating them as an object.
March 13th, 2008 - 01:09
Also look at this.
March 13th, 2008 - 14:43
Who cares what insane people think?
March 13th, 2008 - 14:58
1,130,000,000 Catholics, like Nick said.
Joshua, there’s something called the < a > tag, I suggest you use it… nice blog btw.
March 13th, 2008 - 15:46
“Numbers about religious observance are notoriously untrustworthy, but most of them seem to indicate that any drift towards secularism has been halted, and some show religion to be on the increase. The proportion of people attached to the world’s four biggest religions—Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism—rose from 67% in 1900 to 73% in 2005 and may reach 80% by 2050 (see chart 2).”
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10015255
March 13th, 2008 - 16:33
Forgive my johnny-come-lately comment but…lamentably, this sort of thing was to be expected. And Singularitarian (or even just generic transhumanist) trendings and breakthroughs continue to hyper-exponential accelerate and synergize, these sorts of pronouncements will also increase…**for a while**…until most of the world realizes how (literally) reactionary and more-or-less luddite they are. We can HOPE, however, that the Church starts merely—but, obviously, importantly—voicing proper concern for the safety and *non-malevolent* utilization(s) of various emerging technologies. If it limits itself to properly becoming a rational, conscientious voice in Chorus of Reason and (Liberal!) Ethical Protocols and Safeguards (as it were…), then it can be a positive, albeit ever-continuing-to-diminish-in-importance, voice.
Ciao…
March 14th, 2008 - 12:33
Refusniks are a good thing. Eggs and baskets, and all that. Plus they keep one honest.
April 3rd, 2009 - 03:41
There was a time when the clouds in the sky were inaccessible. Nowadays, no child will believe in the old tales if he has seen the clouds from above. Most of us know the view.
On the other hand, few of us have hands-on experience with genetic engineering.
Doing things yourself will change you.
Moral for would-be believers:
Do not even touch the telescope!
October 1st, 2010 - 18:39
Completely unsurprising. I also assume that within the Islamic and Hindu zones transhumanist thought is effectively out of mind and out of the question.
April 25th, 2011 - 18:00
My guess is that the RCC will not find transhumanism palatable, to put it lightly.
Expect them to take a formal stance in the not-too-distant future which should go something like this: “Any radical alteration of the human body, such as the circumvention of death via nanotech, mind-uploading, etc. is a grevious offense to God; a mortal sin.” They’ll probably cite a few Bible verses which state that man is destined to die (Hebrews 9:27 for example) and that we must not interfere with God’s plan.
Here’s the funny thing though, the vast majority of Catholics will ignore any RCC teachings forbidding radical life-extension, just like they do with birth control. And by the time this technology exists some decades from now, the RCC will have probably hemorrhaged so many followers that its influence in the developed world will be practically nonexistent anyway.
Personally, I absolutely cannot wait to escape from the confines of my suboptimal biological form.