Well, it’s not every day Korea gets a mention by the Pope… even if it’s a warning:
Pope Benedict XVI appealed Thursday to South Koreans’ “inherent moral sensibility” to reject embryonic stem cell research and human cloning after the country decided to let embryonic stem cell research resume.
Benedict also praised South Korea’s efforts to halt North Korea’s nuclear ambitions in comments to Seoul’s new ambassador to the Vatican, Ji-Young Francesco Kim, who presented his credentials to the pontiff.
(HT to reader)
25 Comments
The burden of proof is on the innovator. Scientifically prove an embryo is not a human being, and proceed.
I’d stake my life on these two assertions: Catholics don’t know what science really is; the Pope doesn’t know what morality really is.
In my irreligious, modern view, The Pope pontificating on moral issues is about as threatening and cogent as Andre Kim making fun of my fashion.
Andre Kim doesn’t have organized groups wielding significant political influence and legions of followers who bring their religious beliefs with them into the voting booth, nor does Andre Kim threaten with excommunication public officials whose votes do not conform to Catholic teachings.
Well, duh. I don’t question the political clout of the Pope.
Where would K-pop, if not the Korean Wave itself, be without cloning?
Everybody borrows and copies culture. The melody of the Star Spangled Banner is a British bar song…
I’m talking (facetiously) about cookie-cutter plastic surgery for singers and actresses…
Oh… that.
Well I have not witty come back for that one. Damn…
#2 abcdefg
“…I’d stake my life on these two assertions: Catholics don’t know what science really is; the Pope doesn’t know what morality really is.
In my irreligious, modern view, The Pope pontificating on moral issues is [not] cogent…”
If you really want to impress me (a lapsed but still believing Catholic) with your seriousness, you should say “I’d stake my immortal soul…”
Oh, and consider changing your “handle” to something like “Alpha&Omega”, as a tribute to “modernity”.
Actually, those of you who are adamant secular humanists (but nevertheless deeply concerned with Korean affairs) would (I should think) welcome at least a tactical alliance of convenience with the Church.
The last pontiff prior to this one was concerned with “The culture of death”, just as were his predecessors in the early days of the Church; the mass spectacles of “modern” North Korea (and the mass death that accompanies them) seem to me to have much in common with the Roman empire of the early Church period.
abcdefg, I suggest you visit the Catholic University of Korea, which has one of the top life science graduate schools in the country. You might also read the history of science to discover who its greatest patroness was.
And don’t mention Galileo; his theory was never on trial, it was his insistence that the Church had to reinterpret Scripture based in his theory that was questioned. You might like to learn how Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) (a.k.a. “Darwin’s Bulldog”) entered the “Vatican Library with the avowed purpose of finding sufficient evidence re. the Galileo case to convict the Church of being an enemy of ’science’” only to conclude the Church was correct.
(In the end, it was the Catholic priest Copernicus who had the correct heliocentric model.)
You might also glance at the 200 pages of the Part III of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is devoted to morality. I’m sure the Pope has.
TWC,
I have specificially stated that there is no Catholic who understands what science really is, and that the Pope doesn’t understand what morality really is (which are two truths that I find particularly salient in the contexts of i) the “inherent moral sensibilities” (of non Catholics) and ii) the “burdens” of research scientists, as pronounced by a Catholic who fancies himself an expert on science metascientifically.)
I have NOT stated that the Pope doesn’t read outmoded Christian literature on morals. Likewise, I haven’t stated there’s no such thing as a scientist who is Catholic.
Okay, abc, I’ll play with you. What evidence could prove your statement wrong? If it can’t be proven wrong, then your thinking isn’t scientific.
Andre Kim doesn’t have organized groups wielding significant political influence and legions of followers who bring their religious beliefs with them into the voting booth, nor does Andre Kim threaten with excommunication public officials whose votes do not conform to Catholic teachings.
As far as you know.
And to add to #10 (although, you seem to forget that thousands of women were burned at the stakes during the Inquisition because they practiced medicine and the fact that DaVinci could have been excommunicated for having dissected human corpses)…
The current pope is a conservative. He was John Paul 2’s right-hand man, also a conservative. Their dogma does not reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of Catholics. If it were the case, they’d all have two dozen kids.
In spite of being a conservatives, John Paul 2 and Benedict XVI made the following statements…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....hn_Paul_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....nedict_XVI
“Their dogma does not reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of Catholics.”
This sounds like the old argument that the church’s beliefs should change with the times or circumstances. Unlike the Protestant church and Islam where anybody can interpret scripture as they see fit (I’m a Protestant, but I admire the Catholic church for its extensive contributions to the development of Western civilization), Catholics have the Vatican as the sole interpreter (though in practice, there is alot of variation in the practice of Catholocism). Having a single authority interpreting has its advantages and disadvantages, of course. The church risks not being relevant to a wide range of people with its centralized approach (though it has certainly worked with over a billion Catholics the world over), but then it can’t be hijacked by others for their own ends (the dogma can be controlled by the Vatican for its own ends).
Being a Catholic, a Canadian or even a canoe enthusiast is an indulgence that doesn’t hurt the environment. It only means you’ll be half-awake when you go to that weird place the Tibetans wrote so much about.
Appealing to South Korean scientists to reject cloning is like asking Hwang Woo Sok to stop using photoshop.
#2:
Gotta love these True Believers.
And you’d stake your life? Courageous stand there, made as it was in a country where freedom of speech and religious pluralism is enshrined in law—not to mention behind a veil of online anonymity.
I might have a little more respect for such “I’d stake my life” rhetoric if it were, say, “I’d stake my life on these two assertions: Muslims don’t know what science really is; Ayatollah Khamenei doesn’t know what morality really is.” In person. In downtown Teheran.
#12:
Excellent point, Sonagi. But for those who believe, no proof is necessary.
“Catholics have the Vatican as the sole interpreter ”
Not quite: Catholics tend to take whatever the Vatican says with a grain of salt.
1) “Benedict also praised South Korea’s efforts to halt North Korea’s nuclear ambitions in comments to Seoul’s new ambassador to the Vatican…”
2) #20 Someguy: “…Catholics tend to take whatever the Vatican says with a grain of salt.”
Should Catholics take Benedict’s praise for ROK’s “efforts” to stop DPRK nuclear weapons “with a grain of salt” as well? What say ye, someguy?
Catholics tend to take whatever the Vatican says with a grain of salt.
Um, no… at least not the sincere ones.
Having been raised in Catholic family, I can tell you that statement is wrong. Even Catholics who disagree with the Church’s stance on abortion, birth control, and divorce do not “take whatever the Vatican says with a grain of salt.” Catholics, like believers of other faiths, grapple with the teachings of their religion.
yesterday i was in a korean bookstore and saw a comic book titled, “Dr. Hwang Jang Yop presents, “Defend the Stem Cell.” There was a bunch of kids in the cover doing a cool pose in a very yu-gi-ohish fashion and the back cover had evil villains in a very power rangerish fashion. it was all very amusing.
For the experts on the Catholic stance on stem-cell research, what is the Church’s stance on stem-cell research done via human parthenogenesis? (which ironically was “created” by Hwang)
Btw, the whole Hwang-human parthenogenesis thing is one of the favorite running gag in my History of Science/Medicine class. The irony is just… wow.