As formidable an institution as the Catholic Church with its pope
may be, I
would exhort anyone to exercise caution before adopting any of its
points of
view. To say that genetic modification of plants and animals is
theologically
acceptable raises one important question for Christians: are we to say
that when
God commented that His creation was good, He did not have the foresight
to know
that life on earth would be rough to the point where man would have to
step in
and apply the proper design corrections where required? God made man
steward
of His creation, not co-creator. In genetic modification of plants and
animals
for food one is fiddling with the Creator's design in order to find a
quick fix
to a well entrenched problem that we really do not wish to face:
mismanagement
of the environment. Care for the environment has always been considered
as a
financial burden. Genetic engineering on the other hand promises big
bucks for
those in the business.
Sure we are intelligent and able to engineer wonderful things. But in
cases
such as genetic engineering, rarely do we know the full extent of our
actions.
The papal "prudent yes" is ludicrous. It is like saying to someone who
wants to
climb a volcano in the process of re-ignition: "All right but be
prudent". What
does prudence really mean in a case when one is not in full control?
Speaking as someone who was part of the catholic church for 45 years and
also as
one who has been watching it closely for the past 8 years since leaving
that
church in order to join a Bible-beliving church, I offer the following
caveat.
When trying to assess Vatican statements, especially those having
scientific
implications, 20/20 hindsight is required. A few hundred years ago the
Vatican
tried to impose its authority in the domain of Natural Sciences with a
litteral
application of biblical verses. The Vatican was proven wrong and was
forced to
step back. But the Vatican has a very long memory...and the memory is
still
painful. The best solution it has come up with to clean up its image is
to suck
up to the scientific community. It has its reasons for doing that. But
unfortunately those reasons have nothing to do with the advancement of
the
Kingdom of God. My only reason for airing this opinion on this
web-site, is
that ASA is supposed to be largely comprised of Christians involved in
the
physical sciences.
Tom Pearson wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I received this news story this morning, and thought I would pass it along
> to the list for your information and edification. I find all of this
> interest in genetically modified (GM) foods fascinating, not only because
> it is related to my own research, but because it reflects the awkwardness
> that ensues when the churches try to sort out issues in social ethics,
> particularly when those issues involve rapidly advancing technologies. For
> what it's worth, I think the Vatican's statement is prudent, wise and
> ethically appropriate. I think the Anglicans are typically lost, and
> subject to ideological manipulation. I think the Christian Ecology Link
> is, frankly, nuts, and ethically vacuous. I am left with the assumption
> (and that's all it is) that the Roman Catholic Church, with its traditional
> reliance on Natural Law theory, is able to understand the dynamics of
> nature, and what constitutes a genuine violation of nature, better than the
> rest of us.
>
> 12/03/1999 07:04:05
> The Observer/ Vatican theologians say 'prudent yes' to GM foods
> Europe Intelligence Wire via NewsEdge Corporation : The Pope has given his
> blessing to genetically modified food in a move which will reignite the
> controversy over the ethics of genetic engineering.
> After more than two years of discussion, the Vatican's Pontifical Academy
> for Life has decided that, while it is wrong to modify the human genetic
> code, modifying the genes of plants and animals is theologically acceptable.
>
> Bishop Elio Sgreccia, vice- president of the pontifical academy, said: 'We
> are increasingly encouraged that the advantages of genetic engineering of
> plants and animals are greater than the risks. The risks should be carefully
> followed through openness, analysis and controls, but without a sense of
> alarm.'
> Referring to genetically modified products such as corn and soya, Sgreccia
> added: 'We give it a prudent 'yes' We cannot agree with the position of some
> groups that say it is against the will of God to meddle with the genetic
> make-up of plants and animals.'
> But he warned that consumers must be informed on genetically modified
> products by proper labelling. He added that potential environmental risks
> from genetically modified plants must 'be carefully studied and monitored on
> a case-by-case basis'.
> Last month's Vatican decision comes as a battle has erupted within the
> Church of England over its attitude towards GM food.
> On Wednesday, the Church of England's ethical investment working group will
> meet to decide whether to allow the Government to use church land for GM
> crop trials. There is concern that undue pressure is being put on the Church
> Commissioners to allow the Ministry of Agriculture to proceed with the
> trials.
> A decision on the issue will have far-reaching implications for the
> Government's policy on GM food. The Prime Minister, a practising Christian,
> would be highly embarrassed if the Church of England declared GM trials
> 'unethical'.
> This Wednesday's meeting of the Church's ethical group will also have a
> significant impact on the Church's financial investment, as the
> commissioners hold thousands of shares in companies involved in genetic
> science.
> Tim Cooper, chairman of the Christian Ecology Link, said: 'The Church
> Commissioners should disinvest from companies such as Astra-Zeneca and
> Novartis forthwith. Widespread public opposition to GM food means that
> investing heavily in their shares involves undue risk. The commissioners
> should instead be exploring opportunities for increased investment in
> companies associated with organic food, which benefits the environment and
> is increasingly in demand.'
> He warned that, if the Church Commissioners allowed the trials to proceed,
> 'ordinary churchgoers will find it hard to understand why the Church
> disregards the known environmental threats and dismisses widespread public
> concern.'
> The Christian Ecology Link, Christian Aid and Friends of the Earth are also
> concerned at the role played by Stuart Bell MP, the Government's
> representative on the board of the Church Commissioners.
> Bell earns thousands of pounds a year from Bell Pottinger the public
> relations firm which advises Monsanto. They are also worried about the
> influential role played by Professor Derek Burke, a key member of the
> Church's scientific and medicines advisory committee. Burke is a passionate
> supporter of GM food and recently published a 10-point rebuttal of the
> Prince of Wales's criticism of GM food.
> Although the Vatican did restate church objections to human cloning and
> test-tube fertilisation, it gave its cautious approval to other forms of
> biotechnology that it believes seek to improve the human condition.
> Sgreccia said: 'Bioengineering is a good if it seeks to cure, but an evil if
> it violates the personality of man to the point of eugenicism and the
> construction of human beings to use them as an organ factory.'
> <<Europe Intelligence Wire -- 11-28-99, p. Page 13>>
>
> Tom Pearson
> ________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> Thomas D. Pearson
> Department of History & Philosophy
> The University of Texas-Pan American
> Edinburg, Texas
> e-mail: pearson@panam1.panam.edu